Key Biodiversity Area Special Series - Journal of Threatened Taxa

Key Biodiversity Area Special SeriesAugust 2012 | Vol. 4 | No. 8 | Pages 2733–2844Date of Publication 06 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)EditorsMatthew N. Foster, Thomas M. Brooks, AnnabelleCuttelod, Naamal De Silva, Lincoln D.C. Fishpool,Elizabeth A. Radford & Stephen WoodleySpecialIssueCountries and regions with KBA processes described in this special issueCreative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of articles in any mediumfor non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and thesource of publication.

Jo u r n a l o f Th r e a t e n e d Ta x aPublished byWildlife Information Liaison Development SocietyTypeset and printed atZoo Outreach Organisation96, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore 641035, Tamil Nadu, IndiaPh: +91422 2665298, 2665101, 2665450; Fax: +91422 2665472Email: threatenedtaxa@gmail.com, articlesubmission@threatenedtaxa.orgWebsite: www.threatenedtaxa.orgEDITORSFo u n d e r & Ch i e f Ed i t o rDr. Sanjay Molur, Coimbatore, IndiaMa n a g in g Ed i t o rMr. B. Ravichandran, Coimbatore, IndiaAs s o c ia t e Ed i t o r sDr. B.A. Daniel, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Manju Siliwal, Dehra Dun, IndiaDr. Meena Venkataraman, Mumbai, IndiaMs. Priyanka Iyer, Coimbatore, IndiaEd i t o r ia l Ad v i s o r sMs. Sally Walker, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Robert C. Lacy, Minnesota, USADr. Russel Mittermeier, Virginia, USADr. Thomas Husband, Rhode Island, USADr. Jacob V. Cheeran, Thrissur, IndiaProf. Dr. Mewa Singh, Mysuru, IndiaDr. Ulrich Streicher, Oudomsouk, LaosMr. Stephen D. Nash, Stony Brook, USADr. Fred Pluthero, Toronto, CanadaDr. Martin Fisher, Cambridge, UKDr. Ulf Gärdenfors, Uppsala, SwedenDr. John Fellowes, Hong KongDr. Philip S. Miller, Minnesota, USAProf. Dr. Mirco Solé, BrazilEd i t o r ia l Bo a r d / Su b j e c t Ed i t o r sDr. M. Zornitza Aguilar, EcuadorProf. Wasim Ahmad, Aligarh, IndiaDr. Sanit Aksornkoae, Bangkok, Thailand.Dr. Giovanni Amori, Rome, ItalyDr. István Andrássy, Budapest, HungaryDr. Deepak Apte, Mumbai, IndiaDr. M. Arunachalam, Alwarkurichi, IndiaDr. Aziz Aslan, Antalya, TurkeyDr. A.K. Asthana, Lucknow, IndiaProf. R.K. Avasthi, Rohtak, IndiaDr. N.P. Balakrishnan, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Hari Balasubramanian, Arlington, USADr. Maan Barua, Oxford OX , UKDr. Aaron M. Bauer, Villanova, USADr. Gopalakrishna K. Bhat, Udupi, IndiaDr. S. Bhupathy, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Anwar L. Bilgrami, New Jersey, USADr. Renee M. Borges, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Gill Braulik, Fife, UKDr. Prem B. Budha, Kathmandu, NepalMr. Ashok Captain, Pune, IndiaDr. Cleofas R. Cervancia, Laguna , PhilippinesDr. Apurba Chakraborty, Guwahati, IndiaDr. Kailash Chandra, Jabalpur, IndiaDr. Anwaruddin Choudhury, Guwahati, IndiaDr. Richard Thomas Corlett, SingaporeDr. Gabor Csorba, Budapest, HungaryDr. Paula E. Cushing, Denver, USADr. Neelesh Naresh Dahanukar, Pune, IndiaDr. R.J. Ranjit Daniels, Chennai, IndiaDr. A.K. Das, Kolkata, IndiaDr. Indraneil Das, Sarawak, MalaysiaDr. Rema Devi, Chennai, IndiaDr. Nishith Dharaiya, Patan, IndiaDr. Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman, Queenswood, SouthAfricaDr. William Dundon, Legnaro, ItalyDr. Gregory D. Edgecombe, London, UKDr. J.L. Ellis, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Susie Ellis, Florida, USADr. Zdenek Faltynek Fric, Czech RepublicDr. Carl Ferraris, NE Couch St., PortlandDr. R. Ganesan, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Hemant Ghate, Pune, IndiaDr. Dipankar Ghose, New Delhi, IndiaDr. Gary A.P. Gibson, Ontario, USADr. M. Gobi, Madurai, IndiaDr. Stephan Gollasch, Hamburg, GermanyDr. Michael J.B. Green, Norwich, UKDr. K. Gunathilagaraj, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. K.V. Gururaja, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Mark S. Harvey,Welshpool, AustraliaDr. Magdi S. A. El Hawagry, Giza, EgyptDr. Mohammad Hayat, Aligarh, IndiaProf. Harold F. Heatwole, Raleigh, USADr. V.B. Hosagoudar, Thiruvananthapuram, IndiaDr. B.B.Hosetti, Shimoga, IndiaProf. Fritz Huchermeyer, Onderstepoort, South AfricaDr. V. Irudayaraj, Tirunelveli, IndiaDr. Rajah Jayapal, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Weihong Ji, Auckland, New ZealandProf. R. Jindal, Chandigarh, IndiaDr. Pierre Jolivet, Bd Soult, FranceDr. Rajiv S. Kalsi, Haryana, IndiaDr. Rahul Kaul, Noida,IndiaDr. Werner Kaumanns, Eschenweg, GermanyDr. Barbara Knoflach-Thaler, Innsbruck, AustriaDr. Paul Pearce-Kelly, Regent’s Park, UKDr. P.B. Khare, Lucknow, IndiaDr. Vinod Khanna, Dehra Dun, Indiacontinued on the back inside cover

JoTT Pa p e r 4(8): 2733–2744Key Biodiversity Area Special SeriesThe identification of sites of biodiversity conservationsignificance: progress with the application of a globalstandardMatthew N. Foster 1 , Thomas M. Brooks 2 , Annabelle Cuttelod 3 , Naamal De Silva 4 ,Lincoln D.C. Fishpool 5 , Elizabeth A. Radford 6 & Stephen Woodley 71National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 1133 15th Street, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 200052NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington, VA 22203 USAWorld Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna 4031, PhilippinesSchool of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart TAS 7001, AustraliaSchool of Life Science, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China3IUCN Species Programme, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK4Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington VA 22202, USA5BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge, CB3 0NA, UK.6Plantlife International, 14 Rollestone Street, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP1 1DX, UK.7Parks Canada Agency, 25 Eddy Street, 4th Floor, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0M5, CanadaGlobal Protected Areas Programme, IUCN, 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, SwitzerlandEmail: 1 matthew.foster@nfwf.org (corresponding author), 2 tbrooks@NatureServe.org, 3 annabelle.cuttelod@iucn.org,4n.desilva@conservation.org, 5 lincoln.fishpool@birdlife.org, 6 liz.radford@plantlife.org.uk, 7 stephen.woodley@pc.gc.caAbstract/Summary: As a global community, we have a responsibility to ensure the long-term future of our natural heritage. As partof this, it is incumbent upon us to do all that we can to reverse the current trend of biodiversity loss, using all available tools at ourdisposal. One effective mean is safeguarding of those sites that are highest global priority for the conservation of biodiversity, whetherthrough formal protected areas, community managed reserves, multiple-use areas, or other means. This special issue of the Journalof Threatened Taxa examines the application of the Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) approach to identifying such sites. Given the globalmandate expressed through policy instruments such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the KBA approach can helpcountries meet obligations in an efficient and transparent manner. KBA methodology follows the well-established general principlesof vulnerability and irreplaceability, and while it aims to be a globally standardized approach, it recognizes the fundamental need forthe process to be led at local and national levels. In this series of papers the application of the KBA approach is explored in sevencountries or regions: the Caribbean, Indo-Burma, Japan, Macedonia, Mediterranean Algeria, the Philippines and the Upper Guinearegion of West Africa. This introductory article synthesizes some of the common main findings and provides a comparison of keysummary statistics.Keywords: Endemic, Key Biodiversity Areas, KBA, priority setting, protected area, threatened species.Date of publication (online): 06 August 2012Date of publication (print): 06 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Manuscript details:Ms # o3079Received 21 January 2012Final revised received 27 March 2012Finally accepted 26 June 2012Citation: Foster, M.N., T.M. Brooks, A. Cuttelod,N. de Silva, L.D.C. Fishpool, E.A. Radford & S.Woodley (2012). The identification of sites ofbiodiversity conservation significance: progresswith the application of a global standard. Journalof Threatened Taxa 4(8): 2733–2744.For Copyright, Author Details, AuthorContribution and Acknowledgements seeend of this article.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADIntroductionHuman beings today are confronted with a difficult dilemma regardingglobal biodiversity conservation. We face a serious crisis as we continueto lose biodiversity at an alarming rate as well as to the environmentalbenefits it provides. At the same time, societies seem unwilling to makeinvestments in conservation that are commensurate with the enormousscale of the problem. For conservation professionals this means that thereThe Key Biodiversity Area series documents the application of the concept andshowcases the results from various parts of the world. The series is edited underthe auspices of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas/Species SurvivalCommission Joint Task Force on ‘Biodiversity and Protected Areas’, with the editorssupported by BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN, National Fish& Wildlife Foundation, NatureServe, Parks Canada, and Plantlife International.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2733–27442733

Sites of biodiversity conservation significanceare insufficient resources for biodiversity conservationand the task of conserving our natural heritage appearsincreasingly daunting. While the papers presented inthis special issue of the Journal of Threatened Taxado not pretend to have the solution for how to solvethe biological crisis, or increase societal concern (asexpressed by investment), they do provide examplesof how sound, data-driven, transparent processescan be used to draw attention to those areas onground (or water) that are most significant targets forsafeguarding biodiversity. Several ways of identifyingsites of biodiversity conservation importance havebeen developed and applied over the past fewdecades. This special issue focuses on the overarchingconcept of areas of global biodiversity conservationsignificance or “Key Biodiversity Areas” (KBAs) and,in particular, on issues associated with the applicationof the criteria used to identify them in seven countriesor regions around the world. Fundamental to theKBA process is the generation of maximum supportfor conserving the sites identified, and the use ofthe best possible information. This is achieved bymaking the process of identifying KBAs as one thatis led by local organizations, but which applies andmaintains a globally standardized methodology. TheKey Biodiversity Area approach is an effective tool foridentifying a priority set of globally significant sitesfor conservation. Once identified, there is often a needto prioritize where scarce resources should be firstdirected in order to target the most urgent conservationaction.While KBAs are identified based specificallyon biodiversity values, it is recognized that thisbiodiversity does not exist in isolation and that peopleoften can and should play an important role in themaintenance and management of these areas. For thisreason, the issue of manageability is brought directlyinto decisions regarding the delineation of KBAs.Ultimately, it is hoped that KBAs have the potentialto be managed for conservation as single coherentunits (e.g. single local government, community group,basin catchment, landowner, etc.). The processexplicitly acknowledges that there are several waysin which a KBA can be conserved, either as a formalprotected area (e.g. IUCN Class I-VI protected areas;Dudley(2008)) or through other effective means suchas community-conserved area, community reserve,indigenous reserve, conservation easement, catchmentM.N. Foster et al.management, etc. Additionally, it is important to notethat while social and cultural aspects of the landscapedo not play a role in the identification of KBAs (asidefrom aspects of boundary delineation), they aresignificant when planning conservation action.The development of KBA methodology began withthe identification of important sites for birds. This isattributable, at least in part, to the large amounts ofdata that are available for birds, as a result of theirpopularity for study by both experts and amateurs.For nearly three decades, the BirdLife InternationalPartnership has been working to identify ImportantBird Areas (IBAs) around the world (Fishpool et al. inprep.). IBAs have been identified by local conservationorganizations using the same global methodologyin all countries, making the resulting prioritiescomparable. This concept of identifying importantareas for a taxonomic group began to be used by otherorganizations for other groups, such as Important PlantAreas (led by Plantlife International; Anderson (2002),Plantlife (2004)), Important Freshwater BiodiversityAreas (led through the IUCN Freshwater Programme;Darwall & Vié (2005)) and Prime Butterfly Areas(as identified in Europe by Butterfly ConservationEurope; van Swaay & Warren (2003)). In order tobring all of these processes and knowledge under asingle umbrella methodology and process, an expertworkshop was held in 2004 in Washington, DC, USAto develop draft cross-taxon criteria for identifyingKBAs. These criteria were laid out in a paper by Ekenet al. (2004) and expanded upon by Langhammer etal. (2007), and then were refined for the marine realmby Edgar et al. (2008) and for the freshwater biome byHolland et al. (2012).Key Biodiversity Area criteriaThe two core underlying principles for identificationof Key Biodiversity Areas are vulnerability andirreplaceability, both of which are common elementsin conservation planning (Margules & Pressey 2000).While vulnerability is a measure of the scarcity ofoptions in time for conserving biodiversity (oftendescribed in terms of the threat level of a given speciesor ecosystem), irreplaceability is a measure of thespatial options that exist for conserving biodiversityassociated with a particular site (e.g. is it the only2734Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2733–2744

Sites of biodiversity conservation significancesite where the species occurs, or is that species foundat 20 other sites?). The greatest significance forimmediate conservation action are at those sites whereboth vulnerability and irreplaceability are high, andconversely, lower at sites which hold less threatenedand more widely distributed species and ecosystems.Within the two higher-level criteria of vulnerabilityand irreplaceability, multiple sub-criteria have beendeveloped (see Table 1).While very similar, there are differences betweenthe KBA criteria shown in Table 1 and those fromwhich they were derived, for birds, through theImportant Bird Area process, and for plants, by theImportant Plant Area program—see Appendix 1. Aprocess is ongoing through an IUCN task force (theSpecies Survival Commission / World Commissionon Protected Areas Joint Task Force on Biodiversityand Protected Areas) to explore the applicability ofthese criteria to other taxa and biomes, and, whereappropriate, refine further and standardize these, andother, criteria for identifying sites of biodiversityconservation significance.The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species serves asthe primary basis for incorporating vulnerability intoKBA assessments. Nearly 60,000 species have nowbeen assessed by IUCN using standardized criteria,and the associated information is available at www.iucnredlist.org. Sites that hold significant populationsof one or more Critically Endangered, Endangeredor Vulnerable species may be selected as KBAs. Forexample, Hellshire Hills in Jamaica qualifies as a KBAbecause of the presence of three threatened species:one mammal and two birds (Anadón-Irizarry et al.2012).M.N. Foster et al.One of the irreplaceability sub-criteria concernsrestricted-range species. Here, a site may qualify ifit holds ≥5% of the population of one or more speciesof restricted range, currently defined as 50,000km 2 ,which has proved suitable for terrestrial vertebrates.For plants a restricted-range threshold of 5,000km 2 ismore appropriate (e.g Yahi et al. 2012). An exampleof such a site is Djurdjura in Mediterranean Algeria,which holds significant proportions of 27 suchrestricted-range plant species. In cases where thereare no detailed population data available for species, itis often possible to use surrogates, such as range size,especially when it is simply common sense that a siteholds at least 5% of the population (e.g. when half ofthe entire range of a species is limited to a single site,or when a fish is known from only one lake).The second irreplaceability sub-criterion dealswith congregations of a species. Here, a species maytrigger the sub-criterion if it is known to congregatein numbers exceeding 1% of the global population atthe site. Again, it is often necessary to use surrogatesor estimates, given the general lack of detailed dataon species populations. Buguey Wetlands, in Luzon,Philippines, holds more than threshold numbers offive congregatory bird species and thus qualifies as aKBA (Ambal et al. 2012). While this criterion has sofar been largely applied for birds, it will become morewidely used as KBAs are identified for bat roost caves,spawning congregations of fish etc.The third sub-criterion addresses bioregionallyrestricted assemblages. To qualify as a KBA under thissub-criterion, a site must hold a significant componentof the species restricted to a particular bioregion. Thethreshold for this criterion has still to be developedTable 1. Criteria for triggering Key Biodiversity Areas (adapted from Edgar et al. 2008)Criterion Description Sub-criterion ThresholdVulnerabilityRegular occurrence of a globallythreatened species (according tothe IUCN Red List) at the siteRegular presence of a single individual for CriticallyEndangered (CR) and Endangered (EN) species;Regular presence of 30 individuals or 10 pairs forVulnerable species (VU)IrreplaceabilitySite holds X% of a species’ globalpopulation at any stage of thespecies lifecycleRestricted-range species(Species with a global range lessthan 50,000km 2 )Species with large but clumpeddistributionsGlobally significant congregations5% of global population at site5% of global population at site1% of global population seasonally present at siteGlobally significant sourcepopulationsSite is responsible for maintaining 1% of globalpopulationJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2733–27442735

Sites of biodiversity conservation significancefully, but sites have been identified for birds, usingthe definition shown in Appendix 1, one specificIndo-Burman example is Tam Dao in Vietnam, whichqualified based on the presence of 39 bird speciesrestricted to the Sino-Himalayan Subtropical ForestsBioregion, and nine restricted to the IndochineseTropical Moist Forest Bioregion (Tordoff 2002).As mentioned previously, those sites that areextremely vulnerable and completely irreplaceableare potentially in most urgent need of conservationaction. The identification and conservation of this setof sites is the aim of the Alliance for Zero Extinction(www.zeroextinction.org). These are KBAs that holdthe last remaining population of one or more CriticallyEndangered or Endangered species and each istherefore both completely irreplaceable and extremelyvulnerable - if we lose one of these sites, then we standto lose at least one species to extinction.Links to global policy instrumentsand other initiativesThe identification of sites of global biodiversityconservation significance has a long history ofapplication to policy instruments. The 1971 RamsarConvention on Wetlands establishes nine standardcriteria for the identification of “wetlands ofinternational importance”, which have been appliedin 160 countries to identify 1,960 sites in total tilldate (www.ramsar.org). The 1972 World HeritageConvention similarly draws from ten standard criteria,of which four have so far been used to identify 211natural and natural/cultural World Heritage Sites(whc.unesco.org). All of these criteria can be broadlyclassified as being based on either irreplaceability orvulnerability.The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity(www.cbd.int) added great momentum to thedocumentation of sites of global biodiversityconservation significance following standardcriteria. Its Conference of the Parties Decision VI/9established a Global Strategy for Plant Conservation,within which Target five requires “Protection of 50percent of the most important areas for plant diversityassured”, with Decision X/17 increasing this to75%. Under the Thematic Programme on Marineand Coastal Biodiversity, Decision IX/20 establishedM.N. Foster et al.seven “scientific criteria for identifying ecologicallyor biologically significant marine areas in need ofprotection”; the Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative(www.gobi.org) has been established to support suchidentification. Meanwhile, the Thematic Programmeon Mountain Biodiversity aims to “Establisheffectively and appropriately managed protected areasin line with the program of work on protected areas tosafeguard the highest priority Key Biodiversity Areasin mountain ecosystems” (Decision X/30).Decision VII/28 of the CBD established theProgramme of Work on Protected Areas, to “to support theestablishment and maintenance, by 2010 for terrestrialand by 2012 for marine areas, of comprehensive,effectively managed, and ecologically representativenational and regional systems of protected areas”. In2010, further guidance was provided in Decision X/31to “Consider standard criteria for the identification ofsites of global biodiversity conservation significance,when developing protected area systems drawing onthe IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, establishedcriteria in other relevant processes including those ofthe UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme, theWorld Heritage Convention, the Ramsar Conventionon Wetlands, threatened ecosystem assessments, gapanalysis, Key Biodiversity Areas and Important BirdAreas”.Most important of all, the 2010–2020 StrategicPlan for the Convention on Biological Diversityestablishes a shared vision, mission, strategic goalsand 20 Aichi Targets (http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/),of which the eleventh requires the establishment ofprotected areas covering “by 2020, at least 17 percentof terrestrial and inland water areas, and 10 percent ofcoastal and marine areas, especially areas of particularimportance for biodiversity”. Decision X/20 alsocalls for the scientific bodies and the Liaison Groupof the Biodiversity-related Conventions to enhancecooperation regarding “scientific criteria for theidentification of ecologically or biologically significantareas in need of protection”.Numerous other sub-global policy instrumentsdraw on standard criteria for identification of sites ofbiodiversity conservation significance. For example,the European Union’s 1979 Birds Directive and 1992Habitats Directive require, respectively, the designationof Special Protection Areas and Special Areas ofConservation, which together comprise the Natura2736Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2733–2744

Sites of biodiversity conservation significance2000 network (www.natura.org). Many nationalgovernments draw upon such criteria in undertakinggap analysis and protected-area system planning,towards meeting their commitments to Ramsar, WorldHeritage, the Convention on Biological Diversity, andother instruments.Of course, the identification of Key BiodiversityAreas as sites of global biodiversity conservationsignificance has great importance for many othersectors of society, in addition to its policy applications.In the private sector, the International FinanceCorporation’s Performance Standard six draws for itssafeguard policies on the fact that “Critical habitatsare areas with high biodiversity value, including(i) habitat of significant importance to CriticallyEndangered and/or Endangered species; (ii) habitat ofsignificant importance to endemic and/or restrictedrangespecies; (iii) habitat supporting globallysignificant concentrations of migratory species and/or congregatory species; (iv) highly threatened and/orunique ecosystems; and/or (v) areas associated withkey evolutionary processes” (IFC 2012). Similarsafeguard policies are in place in other internationalfinancial institutions, while the High ConservationValue Resource Network (www.hcvnetwork.org)similarly uses six criteria as safeguards within thecertification of high conservation forests and otherhabitats and ecosystems.The identification of Key Biodiversity Areashas enormous significance to local and indigenouscommunities. While difficult to documentcomprehensively, cases abound whereby local“site support groups” have emerged to implementconservation subsequent to global recognition ofsuch significance. These harness such recognition togenerate conservation-related employment and income,stabilization of land tenure, maintenance of ecosystemservices, resilience and ecosystem-based adaptationto climate change, educational opportunities, andcommunity pride in local nature. Ultimately, the longtermpersistence of the biodiversity for which KeyBiodiversity Areas are important will depend as a firstline of defense on the people living in and around suchsites.M.N. Foster et al.Progress in identification of KeyBiodiversity AreasImportant Bird Areas (IBAs), as the avian subsetof KBAs, have been identified in nearly all countries,with only a few remaining where inventories have yetto be completed. While the IBA program has beenunderway for nearly thirty years, the identificationof sites of significance for other taxonomic groups isalso advancing rapidly. Important Plant Areas (IPAs)inventories have been completed for 36 countries andare partially complete or in progress in further 30.Much of the focus of the IPA program till date has beenin Europe, the Mediterranean parts of North Africaand the Middle East and parts of Asia. The expansionof KBA processes around the world will undoubtedlyresult in the identification of KBAs triggered byplants, and the network of IPAs will likewise expand.Similarly, the identification of globally importantfreshwater sites is in progress in more than 90 countries,including continental Africa (Darwall et al. 2011),continental Europe and the Indo-Burma BiodiversityHotspot. Eighty countries have KBAs identified formultiple taxonomic groups with another 73 partiallycomplete or in progress (see Image 1). Additionally,marine KBA identification is complete or in progress inseveral marine regions including: Philippines (Ambalet al. 2012), Melanesia, Polynesia-Micronesia, and theEastern Tropical Pacific.This special issue examines in detail the results ofseven Key Biodiversity Area analyses in the followingregions/countries: the Upper Guinea (Kouame et al.2012) region of West Africa (Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana,Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone), the Philippines, theCaribbean Islands, Macedonia (FYR) (Melovski et al.2012), Algeria (Mediterranean portion), Indo-Burma(Tordoff et al. 2012) and Japan (Natori et al. 2012)(Image 2).Key Findings - Methodological IssuesBy gathering together the experiences of KeyBiodiversity Area identification in seven regions, wecan present a picture of the range of challenges facedwhen applying the criteria. These methodologicalchallenges can be divided into four broad topics:1. Challenges in using the IUCN Red List as theJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2733–27442737

Sites of biodiversity conservation significanceM.N. Foster et al.KBA Statuscomplete - multi-taxoncomplete - birds, in progress- other taxacomplete - birdsin progressmarine KBAsImage 1. Global Progress in Identifying Key Biodiversity AreasSpecialIssueImage 2. Countries and regions with KBA processes described in this special issue2738Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2733–2744

Sites of biodiversity conservation significancebasis for the vulnerability criterion2. Discrepancies in application of the criteria inidentifying important sites for different taxonomicgroups and in different region3. Application of provisional thresholds forrestricted range, and lack of related data for somegroups4. Delineation challengesOn the first of these, a consistent challenge is thatwhile more than 60,000 species around the worldhave now been assessed on the IUCN Red List, thereremain significant gaps in coverage among taxonomicgroups and regions, and some assessments are out-ofdate.While all regions mentioned the importance ofincreasing the taxonomic coverage of the IUCN RedList, the taxonomic group felt to be most in need ofsuch effort differed somewhat between regions. Forexample, while almost all papers suggested there isinsufficient assessment of plants, this was not the casefor the Caribbean Islands. Also, while recognizingthat the IUCN Global Freshwater Species Assessmentwork is continuing, there currently remains inadequatecoverage of such species outside of their recentpublication for Africa (Darwall et al. 2011) andwhat is available on the IUCN website (http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/freshwater).To compensate, authors often applied other meansto capture some of the species that would otherwisehave been missed had they relied solely on specieson the IUCN Red List. Thus, in Japan, for speciesother than mammals, birds and amphibians, nationalendemics that appear on the national red list wereused to trigger KBA identification; for these, whichhave been identified using the IUCN criteria appliedM.N. Foster et al.at the national scale, the national threat status shouldprove equivalent to the global Red List status. Inthe Philippines, the authors ensured that taxonomicgroups not well represented under the vulnerabilitycriterion were included through the application of theirreplaceability criteria (specifically, the restrictedrangesub-criterion). Table 2 summarizes the criteriaused and taxa covered for each of the countries/regions.With regard to discrepancies in criteria applicationin site identification for different taxonomic groups andregions, two issues were exposed by the Macedonia(FYR) analysis, which combined existing IBA andIPA datasets. Due to small but significant differencesbetween the KBA criteria (Table 1) and the globalIBA criteria (Appendix 1), nine Macedonian IBAsdid not qualify as KBAs. Thus, for example, speciesclassified as Near Threatened on the IUCN Red Listmay be used as IBAs triggers but not for KBAs underthe vulnerability criterion. However, in four cases theterritory of excluded IBAs was retained within theKBA network because it overlapped with a qualifyingIPA (e.g. KBA Jakupica). On the other hand, KBAcriteria currently incorporate biodiversity data abovethe species level differently between plants (for whichIPAs consider threatened habitats and contextualspecies richness) and birds (for which IBAs considerbiome-restricted assemblages). Thus, five MacedonianIPAs selected using threatened habitat and speciesrichness data are not directly comparable with theMacedonian IBAs, and do not qualify as KBAs in thisanalysis, although the territory of one of these IPAsdoes also qualify as an IBA in its own right.The thresholds for defining restricted-range specieswas also seen as problematic in several instances. TheTable 2. Taxonomic coverage and criteria application per country/ regionCountry/Region Vulnerability IrreplaceabilityAlgeria Plants PlantsCaribbean Mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, plants BirdsIndo-Burma Mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, plants BirdsJapan Mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, odonates Mammals, birds, amphibiansMacedonia Birds, plants Birds, plantsPhilippinesUpper GuineaMammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes (including reeffishes), elasmobranchs, molluscs, corals, seagrassesMammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, crustaceans,butterflies, plantsMammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes(including reef fishes), corals, seagrassesMammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish,butterflies, plantsJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2733–27442739

Sites of biodiversity conservation significanceauthors of both the Macedonia (FYR) and Algeriapapers used a threshold of 5,000km 2 to define restrictedrange for plant species, since using the proposed50,000km 2 threshold would have resulted in far toomany species qualifying as potential KBA triggers(even so, over 150 plant species in MediterraneanAlgeria qualify under the revised threshold). In theCaribbean and Indo-Burma, the KBA processes limitedthe application of the restricted range sub-criterion tobirds, given the paucity of population data for otherspecies.As for delineation, the biggest concern seemsto have been the incorporation of political ormanagement units in demarcation decisions. InIndo-Burma and Macedonia, the authors leaned moretoward delineation based on habitat patches and thebiological needs of the trigger species, while others,such as Japan, incorporated management layers, suchas municipal boundaries, into delineation of KBAs. Inseveral regions, including the Philippines, consultationworkshops were viewed as a critical step in achievingthe best possible delineation to build consensusaround the final set of KBAs. When existing datasetsfrom established analyses are combined, the issue ofoverlapping sites needs to be addressed. In Macedoniathe KBAs that resulted from overlapping IPAs andIBAs were delineated on the basis of the union of theirsurfaces and, in more complex cases (when two or threeKBAs had to be delineated from several overlappingM.N. Foster et al.IPAs and/or IBAs), the boundaries of either IPAs orIBAs were used to delineate KBAs.A summary of some of the issues encountered inthe various regions is given in Table 3.Key Findings - comparison of resultsThis synthesis of seven papers which have appliedan essentially uniform methodology for identifyingsites of global biodiversity conservation significancegives us a unique opportunity to review and comparethe results between countries and regions. Given thedifferent circumstances, including in size of the regionor country, species endemism and richness, threats tonatural habitats, intactness of these habitats, relativelevels of development etc., it is not surprising there isa considerable range in the number of KBAs identifiedand in their relative sizes.Thus, the average size of KBAs ranges from lessthan 200km 2 (that is, equivalent to squares 14km onthe side) in the Caribbean to over 800km 2 (equivalentto squares 28km on the side) in Upper Guinea (seeTable 4). While the small average size of KBAs inthe Caribbean is doubtless attributable, in part, to thegeography presented by these island systems, thereis also considerable fragmentation of natural habitatwithin the islands, whereas the larger average sizein Upper Guinea is surely due in part to the relativeTable 3. Methodological issues in Key Biodiversity Area IdentificationNote that this table reflects only those issues reported; blanks do not necessarily mean that an issue or problem of application wasnot encountered by the authorsIssue/ Method ApplicationJapanCaribbeanPhilippinesUpper GuineaMacedonia(FYR)Algeria(Mediterranean)Indo-BurmaIUCN Red List not up-to-date X X XIUCN Red List requires greater taxonomic coverage X X X X X XThreshold used for restricted range 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,0005,000 and 500for plants;50,000 forbirds5,000 and1,000 forplants50,000 1Lack of population data for thresholds X X X X X XUsed protected areas as a starting point for delineation X X X X XIncorporated manageability in delineation decisions X XUsed biological units to delineate X X X1Applied only for birds through the Important Bird Area process2740Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2733–2744

Sites of biodiversity conservation significanceM.N. Foster et al.Table 4. Summary KBA Statistics per Country/RegionRegion/CountryTotal area ofcountry/regionCombined areaof KBAs (km 2 )Number ofKBAsPercentage ofcountry/regioncovered by KBAsAverage size ofKBAs (km 2 )Number ofthreatenedtrigger speciesUpper Guinea 989,963 133,107 155 13 859 202Philippines 51,249 70,849.96 17820 (terrestrial), 2(marine EEZ)398 396Macedonia (FYR) 25,713 9,670 42 38 230 3Algeria (Mediterraneanregion)475,000 10,656 22 3 484 23 (61?)Caribbean 228,595 50,868 284 22 179 409Indo-Burma 1,938,745 258,085 438 12 589 393Japan 374,773 68,265 228 18 299 133intactness of the habitat (especially in the westof the region). There also appears to be a gradientfrom smaller sizes in more developed countries,such as Japan and Macedonia, to larger sizes in lessdeveloped ones, which could be due to both greaterhabitat fragmentation and a finer grain of biodiversityknowledge in developed countries.As expected, the number and combined area ofKBAs in each country/region increases with - andis presumably largely driven by - the number ofthreatened species in the country/region. However, thesize of the country or region itself, the percentage ofits territory covered by KBAs, and the average size ofKBAs appear to be largely independent of the numberof threatened species. Thus, as additional taxonomicgroups are assessed by the IUCN Red List, the talliesof threatened species occurring in most countries andregions are likely to increase, and we can anticipatethat additional KBAs will need to be identified,yielding a larger combined total area of KBAs but notnecessarily larger individual KBAs.Call to ActionThere is hope in the fight to stop the current globallosses of biodiversity. Worldwide, 187 countries aresignatures to the Convention on Biological Diversityand as mentioned previously, the new StrategicPlan for Biodiversity gives these countries a sharedvision, mission, strategic goals, and 20 ambitious yetachievable targets to halt the loss of biodiversity. Thefact that the global community is giving biodiversityprominence through a uniform approach is encouragingnews.The conservation community must work with thecommunity of nations to conserve the fellow inhabitantsof this planet from the excesses of humanity. We needto bring the science, the politics and policy together forurgent action to ensure that biodiversity data, such asKBAs, are incorporated in local, national and regionalplanning and management. Specifically, we recognizefour key recommendations emerging from the KBAprocess so far, as reflected in the seven contributionsto this special issue:1. Conserve already-recognized sitesSites of global biodiversity conservationsignificance have already been identified in everycountry in the world, whether as IBAs, IPAs, AZEsites, or other KBAs. The single greatest contributionwhich the world’s nations can make towards theircommitment to Aichi Target 11 is to ensure that:a) Those sites that are already being conserved byprotected areas or other effective mechanisms continueto be effectively managed in ways consistent with themaintenance of the biodiversity for which they areimportant; and,b) Those sites not yet being conserved are urgenttargets to safeguard through the establishment of newprotected areas or other effective mechanisms;2. Fully utilize the IUCN Red List in siteidentificationThe last decade has seen enormous advances in thetaxonomic coverage of the IUCN Red List (Rodrigueset al. 2006), making available large quantities of dataon the distribution and extinction risk of, for example,amphibians, fishes, odonates, and plants. Where thesedata have not yet been incorporated into nationalJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2733–27442741

Sites of biodiversity conservation significanceprocesses for identifying sites of global biodiversityconservation significance, doing so is an urgentpriority.3. Continue to expand the taxonomic coverage ofthe Red List, to increase the quality and quantityof up-to-date data, as well as their availability, onspecies, taxonomy and habitatsDespite recent advances in coverage, substantialbiases remain. IUCN has mobilized a “Barometer ofLife” campaign, targeting more comprehensive RedListing of plants, fungi, reptiles, and freshwater andmarine taxa.4. Strengthen the application of global standards innational site identificationThe increasing globalization of our world placesincreasing demands for standardization of theprocesses for identifying significant sites, to fulfill theneeds of international conventions, the internationalfinancial institutions and development banks, and theprivate sector. As the work of the IUCN WCPA/SSCJoint Task Force delivers more uniform standards forthe identification of important sites, we anticipate thatnational application of these standards will provideever greater conservation benefit.Finally, KBAs’ identification is an iterativeprocess and we can only encourage people to continueidentifying sites of global biodiversity conservationsignificance in countries, biomes or taxonomic groupsthat have still not been taken into consideration.For further information (hyperlinks)IUCN WCPA-SSC Joint Task Force - http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/wcpa/wcpa_what/wcpa_science/biodiversity_and_protected_areas/BirdLife Important Bird Areas - http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/siteIPA website - http://www.plantlifeipa.org/reports.aspPrime Butterfly Areas - http://www.bc-europe.org/category.asp?catid=10Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool - https://www.ibat-alliance.org/ibat-conservation/Alliance for Zero Extinction - http://www.zeroextinction.org/ReferencesM.N. Foster et al.Anadón-Irizarry, V., D.C. Wege, A. Upgren, R. Young, B.Boom, Y.M. León, Y. Arias, K. Koenig, A.L. Morales, W.Burke, A. Perez-Leroux, C. Levy, S. Koenig, L. Gape &P. Moore (2012). Sites for priority biodiversity conservationin the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot. Journal ofThreatened Taxa 4(8): 2806–2844.Ambal, R.G.R., M.V. Duya, M.A. Cruz, O.G. Coroza, S.G.Vergara, N. de Silva, N. Molinyawe & B.B. Tabaranza(2012). Key Biodiversity Areas in the Philippines: Prioritiesfor Conservation. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(8): 2788–2796.Anderson, S. (2002). Identifying Important Plant Areas. PlantlifeInternational, London, UK, 52pp.Darwall, W.R.T. & J.C. Vié, (2005). Identifying Important SitesFor Conservation of Freshwater Biodiversity: ExtendingThe Species-Based Approach. Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, IUCN, UK, 287–293pp.Darwall, W.R.T., K.G. Smith, D.J. Allen, R.A. Holland, I.J.Harrison & E.G.E. Brooks (eds) (2011). The Diversity ofLife In African Freshwaters: Under Water, Under Threat.An Analysis Of The Status And Distribution Of FreshwaterSpecies Throughout Mainland Africa. Cambridge, UK andIUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 348pp.Dudley, N. (Ed.) (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected AreaManagement Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 86pp.Edgar G.J., P.F. Langhammer, G. Allen, T.M. Brooks, J.Brodie, W. Crosse, N. Da Silva, L.D.C. Fishpool, M.N.Foster, D.H. Knox, J.E. McCosker, R. McManus, A.J.K.Miller & R. Mugo (2008). Key Biodiversity Areas asglobally significant target sites for marine conservation.Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems18: 969–983.Eken, G., L. Bennun, T.M. Brooks, W. Darwall, L.D.C.Fishpool, M. Foster, D. Knox, P. Langhammer, P. Matiku,E. Radford, P. Salaman, W. Sechrest, M.L. Smith, S.Spector & A. Tordoff (2004). Key biodiversity areas as siteconservation targets. BioScience 54: 1110–1118.Fishpool, L.D.C., L. Bennun, J. Arinaitwe, I. Burfield, R. Clay,M.I. Evans, M.F. Heath, A.B. Gammell & R.F. Grimmett(in prep.). Important Bird Areas: BirdLife International’sapproach to site-based conservation.Holland, R.A., W.R.T. Darwall & K.G. Smith (2012).Conservation priorities for freshwater biodiversity: The KeyBiodiversity Area approach refined and tested for continentalAfrica. Biological Conservation 148(1): 167–179.IFC (2012). Performance Standard 6. Biodiversity Conservationand Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources.International Finance Corporation, Washington DC, USA.See http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/policyreview.nsf/Content/PerformanceStandard6.Kouame, O.M.L., N. Jengre, M. Kobele, D. Knox, D.B.Ahon, J. Gbondo, J. Gamys, W. Egnankou, D. Siaffa,A. Okoni-Williams & M. Saliou (2012). Key BiodiversityAreas identification in the Upper Guinea forest biodiversity2742Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2733–2744

Sites of biodiversity conservation significanceM.N. Foster et al.Appendix 1. Criteria and Thresholds for Important Bird Areas and Important Plant AreasImportant Bird Area criteria (adapted from http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/ibacritglob)A1A2A3A4CriterionSpecies of global conservationconcernAssemblage of restricted-rangespeciesBiome-restricted assemblagesCongregationsDefinitionSite regularly holds significant numbers of a globally threatened or near-threatened speciesSite is known or thought to hold a significant component of the restricted-range bird species whosebreeding distributions define an Endemic Bird Area (EBA) or Secondary Area (SA).The site is known or thought to hold a significant component of the group of bird species whosedistributions are largely or wholly confined to one biome.(i) The site is known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, 1% of a biogeographic population of acongregatory waterbird species.(ii) The site is known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, 1% of the global population of acongregatory seabird or terrestrial species.(iii) The site is known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, 20,000 waterbirds or 10,000 pairs ofseabirds of one or more species.(iv) The site is known or thought to exceed thresholds set for migratory species at bottleneck sites.Important Plant Area criteria (adapted from Anderson 2002)Criterion Description ThresholdA(i) -threatened speciesA(ii) - threatened speciesA(iii) - threatened speciesA(iv) - (threatenedspecies)B - botanical richnessC - threatened habitat orvegetation typeSite contains globally threatened speciesSite contains regionally threatened speciesSite contains national endemic species withdemonstrable threat not covered by A(i) or A(ii)Site contains near endemic/restricted range species withdemonstrable threat not covered by A(i) or A(ii)Site contains high number of species within a range ofdefined habitat or vegetation typeSite contains threatened habitat or vegetation typeAll sites known, though or inferred to contain 5% or moreof the national population can be selected, or the 51‘best’ sites, whichever is the most appropriate.Up to 10% of the national resource (area) of each habitator vegetation type, or 52 best sites; whichever is themost appropriate.All sites known, thought or inferred to contain 5%or more of the national resource (area) of prioritythreatened habitats can be selected, or a total of 20-60% of the national resource, whichever is the mostappropriate.hotspot. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(8): 2745–2752.Langhammer, P.F., M.I. Bakarr, L.A. Bennun, T.M. Brooks,R.P. Clay, W. Darwall, , N. De Silva, G.J. Edgar, G.Eken, L.D.C.Fishpool, Fonseca, G.A.B. da, M.N. Foster,D.H. Knox, P. Matiku, E.A. Radford, A.S.L. Rodrigues,P. Salaman, W. Sechrest & A.W. Tordoff (2007).Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas:Targets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems.IUCN,Gland, Switzerland, 134pp.Margules, C.R. & R.L. Pressey (2000). Systematic ConservationPlanning. Nature 405: 243–253.Melovski, Lj., M. Velevski, V. Matevski, V. Avukatov & A.Sarov (2012). Using important plant areas and important birdareas to identify Key Biodiversity Areas in the Republic ofMacedonia. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(8): 2766–2778.Natori Y., M. Kohri, S. Hayama & N. De Silva (2012). KeyBiodiversity Areas identification in Japan Hotspot. Journalof Threatened Taxa 4(8): 2797–2805.Plantlife (2004). Identifying and Protecting the World’s mostimportant Plant Areas: A Guide to Implementing Target 5of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. PlantlifeInternational, Salisbury, United Kingdom, 8pp.Rodrigues, A.S.L., J.D. Pilgrim, J.F. Lamoreux, M. Hoffman& T.M. Brooks (2006). The value of the IUCN Red List forconservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 71–76.Tordoff, A.W. (ed.) (2002). Directory of Important Bird Areas inVietnam: Key Sites for Conservation. BirdLife Internationalin Indochina and Institute of Ecology and BiologicalResources, Hanoi, 233pp.Tordoff, A.W., M.C. Baltzer, J.R. Fellowes, J.D. Pilgrim & P.F.Langhammer (2012). Key Biodiversity Areas in the Indo-Burma Hotspot: Process, Progress and Future Directions.Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(8): 2779–2787van Swaay, C.A.M. & M.S. Warren (2003). Prime ButterflyAreas in Europe: Priority Sites for Conservation.Wageningen, Netherlands: National Reference Center forAgriculture, Nature and Fisheries: Ministry of Agriculture,Nature Management and Fisheries, 690pp.Yahi, N., E. Vela, S. Benhouhou, G. De Belair & R. Gharzouli(2012). Identifying Important Plants Areas (Key BiodiversityAreas for Plants) in northern Algeria. Journal of ThreatenedTaxa 4(8): 2753–2765.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2733–27442743

Sites of biodiversity conservation significanceCopyright: © Matthew N. Foster, Thomas M.Brooks, Annabelle Cuttelod, Naamal De Silva,Lincoln D.C. Fishpool, Elizabeth A. Radford &Stephen Woodley 2012. Creative CommonsAttribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allowsunrestricted use of this article in any mediumfor non-profit purposes, reproduction anddistribution by providing adequate credit to theauthors and the source of publication.Author Details:Ma t t h e w N. Fo s t e r is the Monitoring andBiodiversity Officer at the National Fish andWildlife Foundation, where he provides mappingand analysis skills to institutional strategydevelopment and monitoring implementation.Matt graduated with a Bachelor’s degree inLatin American Studies from the Universityof Illinois in 1995 and earned his Master’s atBoston University in Energy and EnvironmentalAnalysis (1999). Before joining the NationalFish and Wildlife Foundation, Matt workedfor ten years with Conservation Internationalfocusing on the identification of priorities forbiodiversity conservation around the world.Th o m a s M. Br o o k s, from Brighton, U.K., holds aB.A. (Hons) in Geography from the Universityof Cambridge (1993) and a Ph.D. in Ecologyand Evolutionary Biology from the University ofTennessee (1998). He is the Vice President forScience and Chief Scientist at NatureServe. He isan ornithologist by training, with field experiencein tropical forests of Asia, South America andAfrica. His interests lie in threatened speciesconservation and in biodiversity hotspots. Hehas served on the IUCN Red List Committeesince 2001, the Steering Committee of itsSpecies Survival Commission since 2004, andas co-chair of its joint taskforce on ‘Biodiversityand Protected Areas’ since 2009.An n a b e l l e Cu t t e l o d is currently a ConservationPlanning Programme Officer at IUCN GlobalSpecies Programme, working towards theconsolidation of a global standard to identifysites of importance for biodiversity conservation.This is one of the objectives of the IUCN JointTask Force, between the Species SurvivalCommission (SSC) and the World Commissionon Protected Areas (WCPA).Annabelle graduated in biology at LausanneUniversity and earned a Masters degree inOceanography at Aix-en- Provence University.Her species conservation experience includesserving as Regional Red Lists Coordinatorand as Mediterranean Species Coordinator,involvement with the Swiss Cetacean Society,and as a consultant working with the privatesector.Na a m a l De Si l v a is Director, ConservationPriorities and Outreach at ConservationInternational. She joined CI in 2004, initiallyto work with the Marine Rapid AssessmentProgram. Her current role includes developingCI’s institutional framework for identifyinggeographic priorities, providing technicalsupport to field programs on priority-setting, andhelping to link science staff in CI headquarterswith technical staff in the field. Naamal’sbackground includes work on identifyingglobally significant sites for biodiversityconservation, and she maintains links withIUCN, BirdLife International, and the Alliancefor Zero Extinction in pursuing this work. Shehas a B.A. in Biology and EnvironmentalStudies from Swarthmore College, a Master’sin Environmental Management from YaleUniversity, and recently began a doctoralprogram in Education at George WashingtonUniversity. Her research interests includeconservation biology, environmental education,and the cultural aspects of conservation; shehas carried out fieldwork related to these topicsin Sri Lanka, Ghana, Costa Rica, and NewCaledonia.Lin c o l n D.C. Fi s h p o o l is Global Important BirdArea Coordinator for BirdLife International,based in Cambridge, UK. His role includesoversight of technical aspects of the IBAprogramme, including application of the criteriaand thresholds by which sites are identified.Lincoln has a Ph.D. from the University ofLondon (1982) on the ecology and biogeographyof West African grasshoppers and worked for17 years as an entomologist with the BritishGovernment’s overseas aid programme inseveral countries in Africa. He joined BirdLifein 1993 where he initially coordinated the IBAprogramme for Africa.El i z a b e t h A. Ra d f o r d has worked for PlantlifeInternational for 14 years - a non governmentorganisation that works to protect wild plantsand their habitats and to build an understandingof the vital role they play in everyone’s lives.She is currently International ProgrammeManager which includes managing theImportant Plant Areas (IPAs) programme whichaims to conserve the best places in the worldfor wild plants. Elizabeth has a BSc in Botany(Wales, 1993) and a MSc in the Biodiversity andTaxonomy and of Plants (Edinburgh, 1998).Stephen Woodley is the Senior Advisor onBiodiversity and Climate Change for theM.N. Foster et al.International Union for the Conservation ofNature. He is on secondment to the IUCN fromParks Canada where he was Chief EcosystemScientist. He is Co-Chair of the Joint TaskForce on Biodiversity and Protected Areas, jointbetween the World Commission on ProtectedAreas and the Species Survival Commission.This Task Force is looking at developingcriteria for areas of global significance to thepersistence of biodiversity. Stephen got hisPhD from the University of Waterloo.Author Contribution:MNF was the lead author of the study andpaper, as well as map design. TMB, AC, NDS,LDCF, EAR, and SW contributed knowledgeand expertise in synthesizing the specialissue papers and analyzing results. Each alsocontributed further in providing text and editing.Acknowledgements:The KBAs process in West Africa was madepossible with the support of a number ofenvironmental NGOs, government Institutionsand agencies as well as individual experts. InGhana, they include the Ghana EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Ghana Ministry ofEnvironment Science and Technology, GhanaForestry Commission, Forestry ResearchInstitute of Ghana, Ghana Wildlife Division, andthe Resource Management Support Centre ofthe Ghana Forestry Commission. Others are theGhana Wildlife Society, BirdLife International-Ghana, Friends of the Earth - Ghana, WestAfrican Primate Conservation Action – Ghana,Centre for African Wetlands - Ghana, ButterflyConservation of Ghana, University of Ghana,University for Development Studies – Ghanaand University of Cape Coast – Ghana.Beyond Ghana, key institutions include theConservation Society of Sierra Leone, SOS-FORETS of Côte d’Ivoire, Guinee - Ecologie,University of Conakry, University of Cocody- Abidjan, Centre National de Floristique -Abidjan, Société de Développement des Forêts- Côte d’Ivoire, Office Ivoirien des Parcs etRéserves - Côte d’Ivoire, Direction des ParcsNationaux - Côte d’Ivoire, Centre Suisse deRecherches Scientifiques - Côte d’Ivoire, WildChimpanzee Foundation - Côte d’Ivoire, Centred’Etude et de Recherche en Environnement(Guinea), Ministry of Environment of Guinea,Centre National de Recherche Halieutique ofBoussoura - Guinea, Ministry of Agricultureof Sierra Leone, Forestry and Food Security,Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources ofSierra Leone, Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project,Institute of Marine Biology and Oceanography,University of Sierra Leone (Department ofBiological Sciences, Fourah Bay College) andDepartment of Biological Sciences - Njala,Forestry Development Authority of Liberia,Society for Conservation of Nature of Liberia,Fauna and Flora International - Liberia.2744Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2733–2744

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(8): 2745–2752Key Biodiversity Area Special SeriesKey Biodiversity Areas identification in the Upper Guineaforest biodiversity hotspotO.M.L. Kouame 1 , N. Jengre 2 , M. Kobele 3 , D. Knox 4 , D.B. Ahon 5 , J. Gbondo 6 , J. Gamys 7 ,W. Egnankou 8 , D. Siaffa 9 , A. Okoni-Williams 10 & M. Saliou 1114744 Kenmore ave # 202, Alexandria, VA, 22304, USA2Hse No. 36 Abotsi Street, East Legon P. O. Box KA 9714, Airport Accra3,11Guinee Ecologie, 210 DI 501 Dixinn, PoB:3266 Conakry, Guinea4The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 3730 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA522 BP 918 Abidjan 22 Côte d’Ivoire6150 Princeton Arms South II, East Windsor, N.J 08512, USA7Conservation International-Liberia, Back Road, Congo Town, Monrovia, Liberia8SOS-FORETS, 22 BP 918 Abidjan 22 Côte d’Ivoire911B Becklyn Drive, Off Main Motor Road, Congo Cross, Freetown, Sierra Leone10Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone PMB Freetown, Sierra LeoneEmail: 1 marie_ode@hotmail.com (corresponding author), 2 nbreslyn@yahoo.com, 3 kobele@gmail.com, 4 davidhknox@gmail.com,5bahon2002@yahoo.fr, 6 gbondojohnb@yahoo.co.uk, 7 j.gamys@conservation.org, 8 wadjaegnankou@hotmail.com,9ddsiaffa@yahoo.co.uk, 10 aokoni2001@yahoo.com, 11 madousalioupop@yahoo.comDate of publication (online): 06 August 2012Date of publication (print): 06 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Manuscript details:Ms # o2717Received 23 February 2011Final revised received 23 May 2012Finally accepted 05 June 2012Citation: Kouame, O.M.L., N. Jengre, M.Kobele, D. Knox, D.B. Ahon, J. Gbondo, J.Gamys, W. Egnankou, D. Siaffa, A. Okoni-Williams & M. Saliou (2012). Key BiodiversityAreas identification in the Upper Guinea forestbiodiversity hotspot. Journal of ThreatenedTaxa 4(8): 2745–2752.Copyright: © O.M.L. Kouame, N. Jengre,M. Kobele, D. Knox, D.B. Ahon, J. Gbondo,J. Gamys, W. Egnankou, D. Siaffa, A. Okoni-Williams & M. Saliou 2012. Creative CommonsAttribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allowsunrestricted use of this article in any mediumfor non-profit purposes, reproduction anddistribution by providing adequate credit to theauthors and the source of publication.Abstract: Priority-setting approaches and tools are commons ways to support therapid extinction of species and their habitats and the effective allocation of resourcesfor their conservation. The Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) approach is a method for theidentification of fine-scale priority areas for conservation. This process led bottom-uphas been used in the Upper Guinea Forest Ecosystem of West Africa where humaninducedchanges have increased the extinction risk of several endemic and threatenedspecies. The irreplaceability and vulnerability criteria commonly used in conservationplanning have been used to identify key biodiversity areas in Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire,Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. Point locality data were compiled from scientificreports, papers published in scientific journals and museum records. The delineationwas conducted following a series of decision rules. In most cases existing IBA polygonsand protected areas boundaries were used. For the new sites, temporary boundarieshave been drawn and will be confirmed with land-use data. Preliminary KBA data werereviewed by specialists during formal workshops. One hundred and fifty four KBA havebeen identified in the five countries with 202 globally threatened species. Currently63% of the KBA are protected. Two AZE sites still exist in the region. This assessmentis a first step and is driven from the best available data at the time. There is a needto refine it with recent biodiversity surveys to assist decision-makers in achieving theirconservation management goals.Keywords: AZE, biodiversity, conservation planning, IUCN, Key Biodiversity Area,Upper Guinea Forest, West Africa.For Author Details, Author Contribution andAcknowledgements see end of this article.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADThe Key Biodiversity Area series documents the application of the concept andshowcases the results from various parts of the world. The series is edited underthe auspices of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas/Species SurvivalCommission Joint Task Force on ‘Biodiversity and Protected Areas’, with the editorssupported by BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN, National Fish& Wildlife Foundation, NatureServe, Parks Canada, and Plantlife International.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2745–2752 2745

KBAs—Upper GuineaIntroductionThe Upper Guinea Forest Ecosystem of West Africaextends from Guinea into eastern Sierra Leone, andeastward through Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire and Ghanainto western Togo. The overall forest ecosystem of theregion historically covered approximately 420,000km 2but estimates of existing forest suggest a loss of nearly80% (CEPF 2000). It contains exceptionally diverseecological communities of forest habitat, providingrefuge to numerous endemic species.The region has been the subject of severalconservation assessments and priority-settinginitiatives. At the global level, the Upper Guineaforest ecosystem region is considered one of theworld’s top priority regions for conservation becauseof its high endemism of flora and fauna (Bakarr et al.2004). Another global analysis conducted on centersof plant diversity and endemism has identified 14centers of plant endemism within the Guinean ForestHotspot. Those coarse-scale conservation prioritiesdo not give information on the precise locations whereconservation resources should be focused. In thisbiologically rich and highly fragmented landscape,conservation planning and implementation stand tobenefit greatly from high resolution biodiversity data(Brooks et al. 2004).The key biodiversity areas (KBAs) approach isa method for the identification of fine-scale priorityareas for conservation. KBAs are sites of globalsignificance for biodiversity conservation that arelarge enough or sufficiently interconnected to supportpopulations of the globally threatened species for whichthey are important (Eken et al. 2004). ConservationInternational and several partners in the UpperGuinea region have undertaken the identification anddelineation of KBAs in five countries (Guinea, Ghana,Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire and Sierra Leone). This paperO.M.L. Kouame et al.summarizes the results of applying the KBA processin the region.MethodsKBAs identification in Upper Guinea forest buildsupon the Important Bird Areas (IBAs) identified forthose five countries by the BirdLife Internationalpartnership (Fishpool & Evans 2001). In thisassessment, we have documented the presence ofspecies of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish,crustaceans, butterflies and plants that trigger KBAcriteria in the existing IBAs, and identify new sitestriggered by species in these taxa.KBAs are generally identified based on theconfirmed presence of: (i) globally threatened species,classified as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered(EN), or Vulnerable (VU) according to IUCN Red List(IUCN 2007); and (ii) restricted-range species, using athreshold population of 5% or more of the populationof species with range-sizes of 50,000km 2 or less (Ekenet al. 2004). In addition, for IBAs, criteria had beenused to identify sites based on; (iii) congregationsof species that concentrate at particular sites duringsome stage in their life cycle; and (iv) biomerestrictedspecies assemblages (Eken et al. 2004).The first of these four criteria addresses vulnerability,while the latter three cover different components ofirreplaceability (Margules & Pressey 2000). Althougha threshold of 10 pairs or 30 individuals is suggestedwhen applying the vulnerability criteria for vertebratespecies classified as VU (Langhammer et al. 2007), dueto the lack of information on species abundance, weconsidered the confirmed occurrence of a threatenedspecies as sufficient to trigger KBA identification.Species occurrence data were compiled fromscientific reports, papers published in scientificTable 1. Summary data for KBA networks for each country included within the analysis.Country Area (km 2 ) # KBAsArea of KBAs(km 2 )% of land surfaceincluded in KBAs# KBAsprotected% KBAsprotectedCôte d’Ivoire 322,462 34 30,460 9% 30 88%Ghana 238,535 54 18,344 8% 51 94%Guinea 245,857 27 13,014 5% 6 22%Liberia 111,369 25 59,654 54% 2 8%Sierra Leone 71,740 15 11635 16% 9 60%2746Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2745–2752

KBAs—Upper GuineaO.M.L. Kouame et al.Figure 1. Map of protected and unprotected KBAs in Upper Guinea Forest region.Table 2. Numbers of species triggering each of the KBAcriteria for each higher taxonomic group.VulnerabilityIrreplaceabilityHigher taxonCR EN VU Restricted-rangeMammals 2 9 190 27Birds 1 2 9 15Reptiles 2 3 3 4Amphibians 5 9 6 26Actinopterygii 0 1 1 5Chondrichthyes 4 3 3 0Crustaceans 0 1 0 0Butterflies 0 0 0 88Plants 4 24 91 498journals and museum records. Mammal data wereobtained from primary surveys and Rapid AssessmentProgram (RAP) reports. The majority of amphibiandata were provided by Rödel et al. (2005) and by theIUCN Global Amphibian Assessment (Stuart et al.2008). Most of the plant data came from the OxfordUniversity Herbaria online database (OUH 2011).Butterfly data came from Larsen (2006). For thereptiles, occurrence data were extracted mainly fromOkoni-Williams et al. (2005). Fish data were compiledfrom Dankwa et al. (1999), Ofori-Danson et al. (2003)and Ofori-Danson & Kumi (2006). Additional sourcesare listed in Appendix I.Spatial data used to delineate the KBAs boundariesincluded available point localities and distributioninformation for species, IBA polygons, and protectedareas (PA) boundaries. In some cases, existing IBA orPA boundaries were modified as needed to incorporatenearby habitat for target species. For the new sites,temporary boundaries have been drawn and willbe confirmed with land-use data. The KBAs wereJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2745–27522747

KBAs—Upper GuineaDiscussionThe KBAs identified in the five countries of theUpper Guinea forest appear to provide a valuable updatemore than a decade after the Elmina ConservationPriority-Setting Workshop held in 1999 in Ghana(Conservation International 2001). They give a betteridea of the current remaining priorities for species andsite-scale conservation in the region.The absence of recent biodiversity surveys and theshortfall in collaboration between conservationistsand scientists in the universities and research centersrequire that the analysis draws from historical records,available in open access online databases. As a result,we have identified several “provisional” KBAs, sitesthat are suspected to be important, but for which onlyhistorical data have been collected (we excludedthese candidate sites from the analysis above). Wealso need to delineate new KBAs to ensure that allthreatened species are represented in the network ofimportant sites because some species still fall outsidethe delineated sites.Another limitation is that marine and freshwaterspecies are poorly documented. In this initialapplication of the KBA approach, the criteria forbiomes restricted and congregatory species have beenassessed only for birds, for which Birdlife Internationalhas conducted and tested their applicability in IBAidentification.Changes in knowledge have driven some changesto AZE site identification over the last five years. BobiriForest Reserve, in Ghana, is no longer consideredan AZE site because the frog Hyperolius bobirensis(EN), previously considered endemic, has now beenrecorded in Ankasa and Atewa forest reserves in Ghana(Rödel et al. 2005; McCullough et al. 2007). SimilarlyAdiopodoumé, in Côte d’Ivoire, is now no longerconsidered an AZE site because Crocidura wimmeriis now tagged as a ‘Possibly Extinct’ CriticallyEndangered species (IUCN 2010).The majority of KBAs are legally protected asnational parks, forest reserves and classified forest.It is important to emphasize that most of them arenot managed effectively and they are under severethreats such as forest loss and fragmentation due toagricultural expansion, exploitative logging, rapidpopulation growth, and bushmeat hunting. Miningis having a growing impact particularly in the NimbaO.M.L. Kouame et al.Mountains KBAs. According to Bongers et al. (2004),all Upper Guinea sites except for National Parks areconsidered to have shortage of effective protection.Chatelain et al. (2004) show that in the large majorityof classified forest in Côte d’Ivoire, 40–50% of theseforests have been replaced by planted crops and trees.By contrast, in Ghana, some KBAs are labeled as“Globally Significant Biodiversity Areas” to focuseffort to protect the remaining priority sites. In Liberia,Cape Mount, Lofa-Gola-Mano Complex and Wonegizimountains are in the process of being protected. Thegovernments of Liberia and Sierra Leone have alsostarted the formal processes of designating the GolaRainforest as a shared National Park and ProtectedArea.Considerable conservation opportunities still existin the region due to the presence of internationallyrecognised sites such as Ramsar sites, UNESCOWorld Heritage sites and Biosphere Reserve sites.The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund investmentin the Upper Guinea Forest, initiated in 2000, hasbeen crucial in mobilizing local and internationalconservation organizations. This investment hasalso catalyzed further resources from bilateral donorsand the private sector (CEPF 2006). For example,Conservation International and local partners are nowimplementing conservation activities in the GreaterNimba Highlands in Guinea with support from theU.S. Agency for International Development and RioTinto.The current challenge is to secure sustainablefinancing for the known priority areas of the region.The growing market for climate mitigation and otherpayment for environmental services mechanismsappear to be opportunities to leverage conservationfor human benefit. Several countries in the hotspot– Ghana and Liberia in particular – are emerging asleaders in the development of green economic pilots andpolicies for Reducing Emissions from Deforestationand Degradation (REDD). Conservation International,through CEPF consolidation investments, is playinga leading role in promoting and supporting learningbetween emerging REDD and payments for ecosystemservices pilots in each of the countries which aredemonstrating innovative approaches to biodiversityconservation and human well-being in the knownpriority areas.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2745–27522749

KBAs—Upper GuineaReferencesAZE (2010). 2010 AZE Data available at http://www.zeroextinction.org. Accessed on 22 December 2010.Bakarr, M., J.F. Oates, J. Fahr, M.P.F. Parren, M.-O. Rödel& R. Demey (2004). Guinean forests of West Africa, pp.123-130. In: Mittermeier, R.A., P.R. Gil, M. Hoffman, J.Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C.G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux & G.A.B.Da Fonseca (eds.). Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s BiologicallyRichest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions.CEMEX & Conservation International, Mexico City &Washington, D.C., 392pp.Bongers, F., L. Poorter, V. Beligné, W.D. Hawthorne F.N.Kouame, M.P.E. Parren & D. Traoré (2004). Implicationsfor conservation and management, pp. 87–98. In: Bongers,L.F., F.N.G. Kouamé & W.D. Hawthorne (eds.). Biodiversityof West African Forest: An Ecological Atlas of Woody PlantsSpecies. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, 521pp.Brooks, T., G.A.B. Fonseca & A.S.L. Rodrigues (2004).Species, data, and conservation planning. ConservationBiology 18: 1682–1688.Chatelain, C., H. Dao, L. Gautier & R. Spichiger (2004).Forest cover changes in Cote d’Ivoire and Upper Guinea, pp15–32. In: Poorter, L., F. Bongers, F.N.G. Kouamé & W.D.Hawthorne (eds.). Biodiversity of West African Forest: AnEcological Atlas of Woody Plant Species. CABI Publishing,Wallingford, 521pp.Conservation International (2001). From the Forest to theSea: Biodiversity Connections from Guinea to Togo.Conservation Priority-Setting Workshop, December 1999.Washington D.C.CEPF (2006). Assessing Five Years of CEPF Investment:Guinean Forests of West Africa Biodiversity Hotspot UpperGuinean Forest Ecosystem; A Special Report, 71pp.CEPF (2000). Ecosystem Profile: Upper Guinean Forest,Guinean Forests of West Africa.Dankwa, H.R., E.K. Abban & G.G. Teugels (1999). FreshwaterFishes of Ghana: Identification, distribution, ecological andeconomic status. Annales Science Zoologiques 283: 53ppEken, G., L. Bennun, T.M. Brooks, W. Darwall, L.D.C.Fishpool, M. Foster, D. Knox, P. Langhammer, P. Matiku,E. Radford, P. Salaman, W. Sechrest, M.L. Smith, S.Spector & A. Tordoff (2004). Key biodiversity areas assite conservation targets. BioScience 54: 1110–1118.Fishpool, L.D.C. & M.I. Evans (2001). Important BirdAreas in Africa and Associated Islands: Priority Sites forConservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.IUCN (2007). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2007. Accessed on 19 December 2007.IUCN (2010). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2010ab. Accessed on 28 November 2010.Langhammer, P.F., M.I. Bakarr, L.A. Bennun, T.M. Brooks,R.P. Clay, W. Darwall, N. De Silva, G.J. Edgar, G. Eken,L.D.C. Fishpool, G.A.B. Fonseca, M.N. Foster da, D.H.Knox, P. Matiku, E.A. Radford, A.S.L. Rodrigues,P. Salaman, W. Sechrest & A.W. Tordoff (2007).O.M.L. Kouame et al.Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas:Targets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems. Gland,Switzerland: IUCN, 116pp.Larsen, T.B. (2006). The Ghana Butterfly Fauna and itsContribution to the Objectives of the Protected AreasSystem. WDSP Report no. 63. Wildlife Division (ForestryCommision) and IUCN (World Conservation Union)207pp.Margules, C.R. & R.L. Pressey (2000). Systematicconservation planning. Nature 405: 243–253McCullough, J., L.E. Alonso, P. Naskrecki, H.E. Wright & Y.Osei-Owusu (eds.). (2007). A Rapid Biological Assessmentof the Atewa Range Forest Reserve, Eastern Ghana. RAPBulletin of Biological Assessment Vol. 47. ConservationInternational, Arlington, VA.Ofori-Danson, P.K. & G.N. Kumi (2006). Food and feedinghabits of Sarotherodon melanotheron, Rüppell, 1852(Pisces: Cichlidae) in Sakumo Lagoon, Ghana. West AfricanJournal of Applied Ecology 10: 21–32.Ofori-Danson, P.K., K.V. Waerebeek & S. Debrah (2003). Asurvey for the conservation of dolphins in Ghanaian coastalwaters. Journal of the Ghana Science Association 5(2):45–54.Okoni-Williams, A., H.S. Thompson, A.P. Koroma & P.Wood (2005). Important Bird Areas in Sierra Leone:priorities for biodiversity conservation. ConservationSociety of Sierra Leone and Forestry Division, GOSL.OUH (2011) Oxford University Herbaria. Available online at:http://dps.plants.ox.ac.uk/bol/oxford.Ricketts, T.H., E. Dinerstein, T. Boucher, T.M. Brooks,S.H.M. Butchart, M. Hoffmann, J.F. Lamoreux, J.Morrison, M. Parr, J.D. Pilgrim, A.S.L. Rodrigues,W. Sechrest, G.E. Wallace, K. Berlin, J. Bielby, N.D.Burgess, D.R. Church, N. Cox, D. Knox, C. Loucks,G.W. Luck, L.L. Master, R. Moore, R. Naidoo, R.Ridgely, G.E. Schatz, G. Shire, H. Strand, W. Wettengel& E. Wikramanayake (2005). Pinpointing and preventingimminent extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences of the U.S.A. 102: 18497–18501.Rödel, M.-O, M. Gil, A.C. Agyei, A.D. Leaché, R.E. Diaz,M.K. Fujita & R. Ernst (2005). The amphibians of theforested parts of south-western Ghana. Salamandra 41(3):107–127Stuart, S., M. Hoffmann, J. Chanson, N. Cox, R. Berridge, P.Ramani & B. Young (eds.) (2008). Threatened Amphibiansof the World. Lynx Edicions, IUCN, and ConservationInternational, Barcelona, Spain; Gland, Switzerland; andArlington, Virginia, USA, xv+758pp.Appendix I. Additional data sourcesAdou, Y.C.Y., E.C. Blom, K.T.S. Dengueadhé, R.S.A.R. VanRompaey, E.K. N’ Guessan, G. Wittebolle & F. Bongers(2005). Diversité floristique et végétation dans le ParcNational de Taï, Côte d’Ivoire.- Tropenbos-Côte d’Ivoire,série 5, 92pp.Ahon, D.B. & B. Kadjo (2008). Inventaire préliminaire de la2750Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2745–2752

KBAs—Upper Guineafaune avifaunique et mammalienne de la Forêt Classée deBesso. Rapport d’étude, Abidjan, 32pp.Ahon, D.B. (2008). Inventaire préliminaire de la faune aviairede la Forêt des marais Tanoé. Rapport d’étude, Abidjan, 16p.Ahon, D.B., Assé, A.F. & K.P. Kouadio (2005). Listepréliminaire des oiseaux de la Forêt Classée de Dassioko.Rapport d’étude, Abidjan, 10pp.Alonso, L.E., F. Lauginie & G. Rondeau (eds.) (2005). Uneévaluation biologique de deux forêts classées du sud-ouestde la Côte d’Ivoire. Bulletin RAP d’Evaluation Rapide Vol.34, Conservation International. Washington, D.C., 168pp.Bangoura, F. (1977). Etude systématique de la flore de Kaback,99pp.Barnett, A.A. & M.L. Prangley (1997). Mammalogy in theRepublic of Guinea: an overview of research from 1946 to1996, a preliminary check-list and a summary of researchrecommendations for the future. Mammal Review 27(3):115–164.BirdLife International (2004). Threatened Birds of the World2004. CD-ROM. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.Cole, N.H.A. (1993). Floristic association in the Gola rainforests: a proposed biosphere reserve. Journal of Pure andApplied Science 2: 35–50.Dankwa, H.R., E.K. Abban & G.G. Teugels (1999).Freshwater Fishes of Ghana: Identification, Distribution,Ecological and Economic Status. Annales ScienceZoologiques, Vol. 283, 53pp.Dantily, D. (2002). Plan d’aménagement : Forêt classée deBalayan Souroumba. Winrock International, 91pp.Dantily, D. (2002). Plan d’aménagement forêt classée deSincery-Oursa. Winrock International 2002, 89pp.Demey, R. & L.D.C. Fishpool (1991). Additions andannotations to the avifauna of Côte d’Ivoire. Malimbus 12:61–86.Demey, R. (2003). Rapport de mission: formation enornithologie de terrain. BirdLife International.Egnankou, W.M., Kadjo, B. & D.B. Ahon (2005). Inventairede la faune et de la flore de Dahlia fleur. Rapport, Abidjan,Côte d’Ivoire, 38pp.Fishpool, L.D.C & M.I. Evans (eds.) (2001). Important BirdAreas in Africa and Associated Islands: Priority Sites forConservation. Newbury: Pisces Publications & Cambridge,UK: BirdLife International.Gartshore, M.E., P.D. Taylor & I.S. Francis (1995). ForestBirds in Côte d’Ivoire. A survey of Taï National Park andother forests and forestry plantations, 1989-1991. BirdlifeInternational, Cambridge, UK, 55pp.Hoke, P., R. Demey & A. Peal (eds.) (2007). A rapid biologicalassessment of North Lorma, Gola and Grebo NationalForests, Liberia. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment44. Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA.Kéita, K. (2000). Projet Biodiversité Kankan II «Promotiondes organismes de mise en œuvre en vue de la sauvegardede la biodiversité de la réserve de Kankan», V2, 79pp.Klop, E., Lindsell, J. & A. Siaka (2008). Biodiversity of GolaO.M.L. Kouame et al.Forest, Sierra Leone. Internal report to RSPB, CSSL andthe Government of Sierra Leone.Koné, I., Béné, K., N’guessan, A.K., Bitty, A.E., Koffi, D.A.,Akpatou, K.B. & S. Gonedele (2008). Conservation desprimates en Afrique de l’Ouest: la Forêt des Marais Tanoé(Sud-est de la Côte d’Ivoire) identifiée comme étant unsite à Haute Valeur de Conservation en péril.- Abidjan;argumentaire, 17pp.Kormos, R., C. Boesch, M.I. Bakarr & T. Butynski (eds.)(2003). West African Chimpanzees. Status Survey andConservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Primate SpecialistGroup. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK,219pp.Lachenaud, O. (2006). Les oiseaux du Parc National du Bancoet de la Forêt Classée de l’Anguédédou. Malimbus 28:107–132.Lamotte, M. (eds.) (1998). Le Mont Nimba. Réserve Biosphèreet Site du Patrimoine Mondial (Guinée et Côte d’Ivoire).UNESCO, Paris, 153pp.Larsen, T.B. (2005). Butterflies of West Africa. 2 volumes.Apollo Books, 596pp+125pls.Lauginie, F. (2007). Conservation de la nature et aires protégéesen Côte d’Ivoire. NEI/Hachette et Afrique Nature, Abidjan,Côte d’Ivoire, 668pp.Mabinty, D. (2003). Impacts socio économiques du classementde la forêt de Kakiyiré dans la CRD de Kanfarandé.McCullough, J. (2004). A Rapid Biological Assessment ofForêt Classée du Pic de Fon, Simandou Range, SoutheasternRepublic of Guinea. RAP Bulletin of BiologicalAssessment, Vol. 35. Conservation International,Washington, D.C., 248pp.McCullough, J., J. Decher & D.G. Kpelle (eds.) (2005). Abiological assessment of the terrestrial ecosystems of theDraw River, Boi-Tano, Tano Nimiri and Krokosua Hillsforest reserves, southwestern Ghana. RAP Bulletin ofBiological Assessment, Vol. 36. Conservation International,Washington, D.C.McCullough, J., J.P. Hoke & P. Naskrecki (eds.) (2006).Rapid Biological Assessment of the Ajenjua Bepo andMamang River Forest Reserves, Eastern Region, Ghana,Vol 50. Rap Bulletin of Biological Assessment.Rödel, M.-O. & R. Ernst (2000). Bufo taiensis n.sp., eineneue Kröte aus dem Taï-Nationalpark, Elfenbeinküste.Herpetofauna 22(125): 9–16.Rödel, M.-O. & R. Ernst (2003). The amphibians of Marahouéand Mont Péko National Parks, Ivory Coast. Herpetozoa16: 23–39.Rödel, M.-O. & W.R. Branch (2002). Herpetological surveyof the Haute Dodo and Cavally forests, western Ivory Coast,Part I: Amphibians. Salamandra 38: 245–268.SOS-Forêts, (2004). Inventaire de l’avifaune du Parc Nationaldes Iles Ehotilés. Rapport non publié; Abidjan, Côted’Ivoire, 15pp.Thiollay, J.M. (1985). The birds of Ivory Coast: status anddistribution. Malimbus 7: 1–59.Wright, H.E., J. McCullough & M.S.A. Diallo (eds.) (2006).Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2745–27522751

KBAs—Upper GuineaRapid biological assessment ofBoke prefecture, NorthwesternGuinea. RAP Bulletin of BiologicalAssessment, ConservationInternational, Washington, D.C.,192pp.Wright, H.E., J. McCullough, L.E.Alonso & M.S.A. Diallo (eds.)(2003). Rapid Biological Assessmentof Three Classified Forests inSoutheastern Guinea. RAP Bulletinof Biological Assessment, Vol.40. Conservation International,Washington, D.C., 248pp.Acknowledgements: The KBAs processin West Africa was made possible with thesupport of a number of environmental NGOs,government institutions and agencies as well asindividual experts. In Ghana, they include theGhana Environmental Protection Agency, GhanaMinistry of Environment Science and Technology,Ghana Forestry Commission, Forestry ResearchInstitute of Ghana, Ghana Wildlife Division, andthe Resource Management Support Centre ofthe Ghana Forestry Commission. Others are theGhana Wildlife Society, BirdLife International-Ghana, Friends of the Earth - Ghana, WestAfrican Primate Conservation Action - Ghana,Centre for African Wetlands - Ghana, ButterflyConservation of Ghana, University of Ghana,University for Development Studies - Ghanaand University of Cape Coast – Ghana. BeyondGhana, key institutions include the ConservationSociety of Sierra Leone, SOS-FORETS of Côted’Ivoire, Guinee-Ecologie, University of Conakry,University of Cocody - Abidjan, Centre National deFloristique -Abidjan, Société de Développementdes Forêts - Côte d’Ivoire, Office Ivoirien desParcs et Réserves - Côte d’Ivoire, Direction desParcs Nationaux - Côte d’Ivoire, Centre Suissede Recherches Scientifiques - Côte d’Ivoire, WildChimpanzee Foundation - Côte d’Ivoire, Centred’Etude et de Recherche en Environnement(Guinea), Ministry of Environment of Guinea,Centre National de Recherche Halieutique ofBoussoura - Guinea, Ministry of Agriculture ofSierra Leone, Forestry and Food Security, Ministryof Fisheries and Marine Resources of SierraLeone, Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project, Institute ofMarine Biology and Oceanography, University ofSierra Leone (Department of Biological Sciences,Fourah Bay College) and Department of BiologicalSciences- Njala, Forestry Development Authorityof Liberia, Society for Conservation of Nature ofLiberia, Fauna and Flora International-Liberia.Author Details: Od e Ma r i e-Lo u i s e Ko u a m e iscurrently working as an independent consultant.She was previously the West Africa Coordinatorwith Conservation International to coordinate theidentification of KBA in the upper guinea forest. Sheworked on several CEPF and BirdLife Internationalprojects on the inventory of IBA in Cote d’Ivoire.She finalized her PhD on wetland Ecology and it’sexpected to be defended in September.Ni c ho l a s Je n g r e holds an MPhil degree inenvironmental science, with strong backgroundin forestry, natural resources management andbiodiversity conservation. He is currently theRegional Research and Evaluation Coordinatorfor Rainforest Alliance West African Office inGhana. Nicholas has deep experience in carbonstocks sampling in both terrestrial and aquaticlandscapes.O.M.L. Kouame et al.Mamady Ko b e l e specializes in environmentalmanagement and climate change. He was aChevening Scholar at the World ConservationMonitoring Centre. In Guinea he served as a teamleader at the environmental NGO Guinee Ecologiewhere he is currently the Executive Director.David Kn o x is currently a management consultantwith the Boston Consulting Group. Prior to BCG,he spent 7 years with Conservation Internationalin South Africa. David holds a MBA from TheWharton School, a MSc in Conservation Biologyfrom the University of Cape Town and a BS fromthe University of North Carolina.Dr. Dibié Be r n a r d Ah o n is Ornithologist and AnimalBiological Lecturer at the University of Daloa, Côted’Ivoire_West Africa. He also collaborate with theNGO SOS Forêts (BirdLife International’s affiliateof Côte d’Ivoire) as the IBA’s Officer .Jo h n Gb o n d o has recently relocated in the USA.He served as Botanist at the Department ofBiological Sciences FBC- USL (Fourah BayCollege, University of Sierra Leone). He was alsoan Executive Secretary at Conservation Society ofSierra Leone (CSSL) and collaborated on IBA andKBA projects. John hold a B.Sc Hons in Botany.Jo e l Gam y s is Conservation Manager forConservation International Liberia. In addition tohis role to contribute to local partners’ capacitystrengthening in conservation project planning andimplementation, he is involved in biodiversity fieldresearch activities in Liberia. He is also leadingland use planning activities in Northern NimbaConservation Area.Dr. Eg n a n k o u Wa d j a Mathieu is a botanist, wetlandexpert and lecturer at the University of Cocody,Cote d’Ivoire. He is also the founder and presidentof the NGO SOS-FORETS. He is a GoldmanEnvironmental prize winner.Daniel Si a ff a was the former executive director ofthe Conservation Society of Sierra Leone (CSSL)Ar n o l d Ok o n i-Williams is currently a conservationecologist and a lecturer of the Biological SciencesDepartment of the University of Sierra Leone.For several years, he worked as a biodiversityconservation officer for the ConservationSociety of Sierra Leone (CSSL). He is currentlyundertaking a PhD study on vegetation, carbonand nutrient cycling in the bush fallow systems andthe potential benefits to farming communities andthe environment in Sierra Leone.Mamad ou Sa l io u is the President of the NGOGuinee-Ecologie. He coordinated a number ofrapid assessment program with ConservationInternational as well as conservation activities onIBA in Guinea with BirdLife International.Author Contribuion: All the authors havecontributed to both the study and the currentpaper.2752Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2745–2752

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(8): 2753–2765Key Biodiversity Area Special SeriesIdentifying Important Plants Areas (Key BiodiversityAreas for Plants) in northern AlgeriaN. Yahi 1 , E. Vela 2 , S. Benhouhou 3 , G. De Belair 4 & R. Gharzouli 51Université des Sciences et de la Technologie Houari Boumediene, USTHB, Faculté des Sciences Biologiques. BP 32 El Alia,16111, Bab Ezzouar, Algérie2Université Montpellier-2, UMR AMAP (botAnique et bioinforMatique de l’Architecture des Plantes), TA A-51/PS2, Bd de la Lironde,Montferrier-le-Lez, 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France3Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique, Hassen Badi, 16200, El Harrach, Algeria4Université “Badji Mokhtar ”, B.P. 533, 23000 Annaba, Algérie5Université Ferhat ABBAS, Faculté des Sciences de la Nature et de la Vie Campus EL BEZ 19000 Sétif, AlgérieEmail: 1 nyahi@hotmail.fr (corresponding author), 2 errol.vela@cirad.fr, 3 sbenhouhou@yahoo.fr, 4 debelairg@yahoo.com,5gharzoulir2002@yahoo.frDate of publication (online): 06 August 2012Date of publication (print): 06 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Manuscript details:Ms # o2998Received 08 November 2011Final revised received 20 January 2012Finally accepted 01 June 2012Citation: Yahi, N., E. Vela, S. Benhouhou, G.De Belair & R. Gharzouli (2012). IdentifyingImportant Plants Areas (Key BiodiversityAreas for Plants) in northern Algeria. Journal ofThreatened Taxa 4(8): 2753–2765.Copyright: © N. Yahi, E. Vela, S. Benhouhou,G. De Belair & R. Gharzouli 2012. CreativeCommons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in anymedium for non-profit purposes, reproductionand distribution by providing adequate credit tothe authors and the source of publication.For Author Details and Author Contributionsee end of this article.Acknowledgements: The authors wish toexpress their gratitude to Elizabeth Radford andBertrand Montmollin for their encouragementand guidance in writing this paper.Abstract: A study was undertaken in 2010 to identify Important Plant Areas (KeyBiodiversity Areas for Plants) in the south and east Mediterranean region, in orderto prioritise the best sites for plant conservation action. It follows a first work ofidentification of Important Plant Areas (IPAs) initiated for Algeria and relates exclusivelyto the flora of northern Algeria. These IPAs were delineated in northern Algeria forthose sites harbouring a number of “IPA selection species” (threatened species andlocally endemic or restricted range). Recent taxonomic revisions estimate the numberof national endemics for the north of Algeria (excluding the Sahara) to be over 300taxa. In the present study, data were extracted from the global list of 22 IPAs identifiedfor the north of Algeria. The species considered are i) threatened species as definedby the 1997 IUCN global red list of plants, ii) locally endemic species, iii) nationallythreatened species. Trigger species, identified by combining the criteria of endemismand rarity, are mainly Algerian national endemics but also include some Algerian-Moroccan and Algerian-Tunisian endemics. One hundred and fifty two (152) triggerspecies were identified and these species, which have high ecological value, can beused to characterize the particular floristic interest of a site and can therefore be a usefultool for conservation purposes. Important gaps in knowledge have been highlighted, inparticular those relating to taxonomy and the lack of up-to-date field data. It is thereforeessential to undertake in situ research in order to better understand the distribution andstatus of these species. A flexible approach to identifying and recognising priority sitesfor plants using surrogate criteria, supplemented by expert opinion, alongside existingglobally standardised criteria, is therefore essential if the most important sites for plantdiversity are to receive the conservation attention they deserve.Keywords: Endemic species, IPA, North Algeria, trigger species.French Abstract and Keywords: See end of textOPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADThe Key Biodiversity Area series documents the application of the concept andshowcases the results from various parts of the world. The series is edited underthe auspices of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas/Species SurvivalCommission Joint Task Force on ‘Biodiversity and Protected Areas’, with the editorssupported by BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN, National Fish& Wildlife Foundation, NatureServe, Parks Canada, and Plantlife International.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2753–27652753

KBAs—AlgeriaIntroductionIn 2010 a study was undertaken to identifyimportant plant areas (IPA -- key biodiversity areas forplants) in the south and east Mediterranean region, inorder to prioritise the best sites for plant conservationaction (Radford et al. 2011). This paper explains indetail how identification of these sites was undertakenin Algeria. It is a country with typical south andeast Mediterranean biodiversity, with a huge numberof local endemics. Knowledge on these species ispartially documented and there is little data on the threatstatus of plant species. This study follows the work ofidentification of important plant areas (IPAs) initiatedfor Algeria by Yahi et al. (2011). It relates exclusivelyto the flora of northern Algeria (Mediterranean part), aregion of 475,000km 2 .The Mediterranean basin has long been recognisedas a global Biodiversity Hotspot (Médail & Quézel1997) due to the size and diversity of its flora; 10% ofthe world’s vascular plants occur on 1.6% of the landsurface. Ten smaller hotspots of floristic biodiversitywithin the basin have also been identified (Médail& Quézel 1997; Véla & Benhouhou 2007), two ofwhich overlap with Algerian territory: the Betico-Rifian complex in Algeria, Morocco and Spain andthe Kabylies-Numidia-Kroumiria complex in Algeriaand Tunisia. The latter has recently been identifiedas a centre of endemism and refuge area for speciesat the geographical limit of their distribution (Véla &Benhouhou 2007; Médail & Diadéma 2009). Theseregions are of immense importance for conservation butare too large scale for focused site-based conservationactions.The north of Algeria (excluding the Sahara) holds224 known nationally endemic taxa and approximately1,630 rare taxa (Quézel & Santa 1962–1963; Véla& Benhouhou 2007). However, following recenttaxonomic revisions the estimate of the number ofnational endemics is now placed at over 300 taxa andthe total number of taxa of elementary rank (speciesor subspecies) is 4,000 (Dobignard & Chatelain 2010–2011), up from the previous count of 3,700 (Quézel& Santa 1962–1963). This high biogeographicalendemism is shared with bordering countries; thusMorocco to the west has 124 Algerian-Moroccanendemic taxa and Tunisia in the east has 58 Algerian-Tunisian endemic taxa (Véla & Benhouhou 2007).N. Yahi et al.This local endemism, associated with high habitatdiversity, is a result of the Mediterranean climate, inturn influenced by altitude, large thermal amplitudesand a west-east rainfall gradient, combined withconsiderable topographic, geomorphological andgeological diversity (Seltzer 1946; Emberger 1955).The IPA (Anderson 2002; Plantlife International2004) attempted to identify site-scale priority areasfor conservation, using standard criteria that inpart, corresponded to those used for identifying keybiodiversity areas (Langhammer et al. 2007).MethodsImportant plant areas in northern Algeria wereidentified using a combination of IPA criteria(Anderson 2002; Plantlife International 2004) andImportant Forest Area criteria (Regato 2001), whichwere modified to reflect the data available for plantspecies in North African countries (Yahi et al. 2011;IUCN, Plantlife, WWF 2010 unpublished workshopreport). IPAs in northern Algeria were delineatedfor those sites harbouring a number of “IPA selectionspecies” (threatened species and locally endemic orrestricted range). In terms of IPA criteria (PlantlifeInternational 2004), these IPA selection speciesallowed application of criterion A (presence of globally,regionally and/or nationally endemic threatenedspecies) and partial application of criterion B (speciesrichness), by selecting the richest sites for locallyendemic (restricted range) species. Sites selected usingrichness were not selected by habitat type (as requiredby full application of criterion B), as such data is notavailable in Algeria. There are no threatened habitatclassifications for northern Algeria so IPA criterion C,for such habitats, could not be applied effectively. Itis beyond the scope of the current project to delineateIPAs everywhere that restricted-range species occurin Algeria because there are so many such species innorthern Algeria alone.These criteria broadly relate to the KBA criteria forvulnerability and irreplaceability, although for one ofthe latter subcriteria, the threshold of 50,000km² usedto define restricted range for animal taxa (Langhammeret al. 2007) is too large to apply to plant species,particularly in hotspot regions, because it would resultin much of the northern part of the country being2754Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2753–2765

KBAs—Algeriadelineated as KBAs.In the present study, data were extracted from theglobal list of the 21 IPAs identified for the north ofAlgeria (Yahi et al. 2011) and a new site added (theCollo Peninsula) using data collated subsequently.The taxa listed for each site are derived from literaturesources (Battandier 1888–1890, Battandier & Trabut1895, Quézel & Santa 1962–1963) and/or from personaldata obtained during field observation. Taxonomicsources are the flora of Quézel & Santa (1962–1963)and the synonymic index of Dobignard & Chatelain(2010–2011). The species considered are:(i) threatened species, as defined by the1997 IUCN global red list of plants (Walter & Gillett1998) and the 2010 IUCN Mediterranean Red Listof Freshwater Plants (Garcia et al. 2010); we do notinclude species listed “Rare”, “Near Threatened”, orN. Yahi et al.“Data Deficient”;(ii) locally endemic (restricted-range) species,defined as those with distributions of greater than100km 2 but less than or equal to 5,000km², calledrestricted range endemic species, and those with adistribution less than or equal to 100km², called siterestrictedendemic species - these two categories aremutually exclusive (IUCN et al. 2010);(iii) nationally threatened species defined asrare, according to the criteria of rarity given in theAlgerian flora (Quézel & Santa 1962–1963).In this study, we combine the criteria of endemismand rarity to identify what we call “trigger species”.Trigger species for Key Biodiversity Areas are all thosespecies that ‘trigger’ either the vulnerability and or theirreplaceablility criteria and thus ‘trigger’ sites as aKBA (Langhammer 2007). These were selected fromImage 1. Localisation of the 22 IPAs identified for the North of Algeria.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2753–27652755

KBAs—Algeriathe global IPA lists and are mainly Algerian nationalendemics but also include some Algerian-Moroccanand Algerian-Tunisian endemics, for those presentin IPAs near the respective national borders. Theirhigh ecological value can be used to characterize theparticular floristic interest of a site and can thereforebe a useful tool for conservation purposes.ResultsTwenty two IPAs are identified in northern Algeria.These were identified within the phytogeographicalsectors of the Oran region, the Algiers region, theKabylies and Numidia, the Constantine mounts,the High Plains and the Saharan Atlas (Quézel &Santa 1962–1963). The sites selected represent arange of habitats from the coasts to the mountains,encompassing wetlands, hills and plains. They extendfrom the wetland complex in El Kala in easternAlgeria to the montane forest of Ghar-Rouban in thewesternmost area of the country (Image 1). Theycover a total of 10,656km 2 , comprising approximately2.5% of Algeria’s Mediterranean region. Of the 22sites, 7 (31%) are already benefitting from protectedareastatus as national parks. A number of additionalsites have been proposed as IPAs but further fieldinvestigations in these areas must be undertaken beforethese can be confirmed. These sites include DjebelsKsours and Krouz, Djebel Aïssa (recently classifiedas national park) and Djebel Amour, located in theSaharan Atlas.Using the species lists established for the 22 IPAs,it is possible to make a first analysis linking these IPAswith KBA criteria (Table 1).Regarding the vulnerability KBA criterion, resultsshow that Critically Endangered species are presentin two IPAs: El Kala 1 and El Kala 2. EndangeredN. Yahi et al.species occur in seven IPAs: El Kala 1, El Kala 2,Djebel Chelia, Babor, Taza, Gouraya and Oran’s hills.Vulnerable species are present in 12 IPAs: El Kala 1,El Kala 2, Edough peninsula, Djebel Chelia, Babor,Taza, Akfadou, Gouraya, Djurdjura, Orans’ hills, GharRouban and Habiba’s Islands. All the 22 IPAs containnationally threatened species, restricted-range speciesand site-restricted species and so correspond to theKBA irreplaceability criteria.The 587 species correspond to the total numberof nationally threatened species extracted from the22 IPAs list. It includes 153 trigger species and 434nationally rare species. Among this total, there aretwo Critically Endangered, 11 Endangered and 10Vulnerable species, a total of 23 species from the IUCN1997 and 2010 red lists (Appendix 3). With regardsto the irreplaceability criterion, 74 restricted-rangespecies and 78 site-restricted species were identified(Appendices 1 and 2), including, respectively, 70 and62 species not currently listed as threatened. Twenty ofthe species that qualify under the vulnerability criteriontherefore, also qualify under the irreplaceabilitycriterion; 16 are site-restricted and four are restrictedrange. For further details see Appendix 3.In Table 2, for each of the 22 IPAs, we list thenumbers of nationally rare species (Quézel & Santa1962–1963), of species listed as threatened (CriticallyEndangered, Endangered and Vulnerable) on IUCNRed Lists (Walter & Gillett 1998; Garcia et al. 2010),and of restricted-range endemic and site-restrictedendemic species. We also note whether each IPA hasalso been identified as a key biodiversity area for thepresence of animal trigger species, in addition to plants(CEPF 2010).Of the 152 KBA trigger species, 94 occur at onlyone IPA, while 34 trigger species occur in two IPAs,12 in three IPAs, three in four IPAs, and one in fiveIPAs (Appendix 4).Table 1. Numbers of IPAs triggered by KBA criteria and number of species triggering KBA criteriaVulnerability (KBA criterion)CR EN VUTotal IUCN 1997 &2010 Plant Red listIrreplaceability (KBA criterion)Restricted-rangespecies (

KBAs—AlgeriaN. Yahi et al.Table 2. Nationally rare species, IUCN Red List species, restricted-range species and restricted site species per IPA, andpresence of animal as well as plant trigger species.IPAsNationally rarespeciesIUCN Red List 1997& 2010(CR/EN/VU only)Restricted-rangeendemics< 5000 km²Site-restrictedendemics< 100 km²Also a KeyBiodiversity Areafor animal taxaEl Kala 1 96 7 9 11 √El Kala 2 31 4 6 8 √ partialEdough peninsula 36 1 6 3 √Guerbes 44 2 3 4 √Collo peninsula 14 1 4 1 √Belezma 43 3 4 3 √Djebel Chelia 42 2 6 7Djebel Ouahch 23 1 4 5 √ partialBabor 49 5 13 5 √Taza 42 4 7 6 √Gouraya 16 2 2 7 √Akfadou 39 1 13 2 √Djurdjura 89 1 20 6 √Chréa 65 0 9 - √Mont Chenoua 17 0 1 1Cap Ténès 10 0 - 4Theniet El Had 30 0 6 1 √Zaccar 24 0 4 2Oran Hills 37 3 2 5Habibas Islands 10 1 - 4 √Traras Mountains 22 0 5 5Ghar Rouban 42 1 7 4From a total of 152 endemic species (74 restrictedrangeendemics and 78 site-restricted endemics), 20are considered threatened and a further 41 considered“Rare”, “Near Threatened”, or “Data Deficient”according to the 1997 IUCN Red List or Garciaet al. (2010). Of these, 20 show a high threat level(Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable).The remaining restricted-range and site-restrictedendemic species are either legally protected atthe national level (Décret exécutif n° 93-285 du 9Joumada Ethania 1414 correspondant au 23 novembre1993 fixant la liste des espèces végétales non cultivéesprotégées. JORA N° 78 du 28-11-1993. Page 7) buthave not had their threat status formally assessed orthey have no protection status despite their very limiteddistribution. Examples include Erica numidica, Genistaaspalathoides, Odontites reboudii, O. ciliata (El Kala1 et 2), Ophrys pectus (Edough peninsula, DjebelOuahch), Matthiola “ numidica” (Edough peninsula),Hieracium peyrimhoffii, Chrysanthemum reboudianum(Djebel Chelia), Adenocarpus “barbarus”, Hieraciumernestii (Babor), Saxifraga baborensis, (Taza),Genista salditana, Pancratium “saldense” (Gouraya),Genista filiramea, G. vepres, Isoetes perralderiana,Silene choulettii (El Kala 2, Akfadou), Deckeraracemosa (Taza, Djurdjura), Saxifraga “ integrifolia”(Cap Ténès), Cephalaria mauretanica, Genistasarotes, Orchis “teschneriana”, (Zaccar), Teucriummaghrebianum (Oran Hills), Hammatolobiumkremerianum, Limonium asparagoides, Orobancheleptantha (Monts Traras), Eruca setulosa, Filagopomelii, Galium bourganeaum and Linaria burceziana(Ghar Rouban).In Algeria the large number of species associatedwith the irreplaceably (restricted range) makes thepossibility of an extremely long list of trigger species(and corresponding long list of sites). Conversely, thelack of IUCN threat status information, mean specieshitting the vulnerability criteria are probably underrepresented.Overcoming this data deficiency, a listJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2753–27652757

KBAs—Algeriaof ‘selected’ trigger species that highlight the mostthreatened and restricted species are chosen to designateas Important Plant Areas - or Key Biodiversity Areasfor Plants. Selected trigger species present in only oneIPA are shown in bold.These selected trigger species are mainly “SRE”species with a few “RRE” species. The complete listbeing given in Appendix 4. The total of 86 selectedtrigger species includes 13 common to two or moreIPAs. Twenty IPAs contain trigger species that onlyexist at one site. Many of these species are consideredhighly threatened and may be Alliance of ZeroExtinction sites (sites containing the only remainingpopulation of Critically Endangered species as definedusing IUCN criteria) (Ricketts et al. 2005). However,lack of precise data for IUCN species assessmentsprevents us being able to confirm this.DiscussionOver 50% of the (total) IPAs identified fornorthern Algeria are located within the two regions inthe Maghreb described as plant diversity hotpots byVéla & Benhouhou (2007): 11 are in the Kabylies-Numidia-Kroumiria hotspot and three in the Betico-Rifean hotspot. However, eight IPAs have beenidentified outside of those areas. Of the 22 IPAs innorthern Algeria, 17 IPAs are found within the prioritycorridor “Mountains, Plateaus, and Wetlands of theAlgerian Tell and Tunisia” while the remaining fivefall within the “Oranie and Moulouya” corridor (CEPF2010). Fifteen Algerian IPAs (68%) overlap withKey Biodiversity Areas identified using animal taxa,of which there are a total of thirty eight in the region– this overlap is greater than what was identified forother south and east Mediterranean countries withinthe CEPF analysis (Radford et al. 2011).The identification of priority sites for plantconservation in Algeria, which has brought togethersignificant amounts of existing data in a site-basedformat, will serve to increase the profile of northernAlgeria’s priority sites for plants, and to targetinvestment in their conservation. However, thedesire to ensure these sites meet global selectioncriteria does present a number of challenges, whichindeed are common to all countries in the south andeast Mediterranean. These challenges begin withN. Yahi et al.the sheer number of plant species that are importantto conservation and extend to the often difficult andincomplete taxonomies, a chronic lack of current dataon species (and habitat) distributions and the extremelylimited number of formal species status assessments(and associated Red Lists).Only 79 taxa from the approximately 4,000 presentin Algeria have been assessed using the latest IUCNcriteria—under 2% of the flora. Twenty three of thesespecies are classified as threatened (and thereforeavailable for use under the KBA vulnerability criterion).This total is undoubtedly a fraction of the true numberfor a country which hosts 407 endemic or nearendemicspecies (Véla & Benhouhou 2007), of whichat least 78 have distributions of less than 100km² anda further 74 have distributions of less than 5,000km².Species assessed as threatened on the IUCN Red Listare mainly endemic. Some non-endemic taxa, such asSenecio linifolius, which we suspect to be Endangeredand is found at only one site in Algeria (Oran Hills),does not have any kind of formal conservation status.It is thus essential to undertake in situ research inorder to understand the distributions of both endemicand non-endemic plant species and their conservationstatus. It is important also to recognise that the 1997Red List data are old and incomplete. A more recentRed List is available but only for freshwater plants(Garcia et al. 2010).In Algeria, the flora of Quézel & Santa (1962–63),is the only valid national taxonomic reference, and isinsufficient to (i) solve the many questions related totaxonomy, and (ii) give precise distributions of thespecies. It should be noted that the distributions ofsome restricted-range species were taken from thosedescribed by Quézel & Santa 1962–63, and may beout of date now due to potential changes in the rangeof species therein and data collected subsequently. Itshould also be noted that several species not mentionedby these authors had already been described by Maire(1952–1987) adding to the potential complexity of thenational taxonomic picture for plants. Recent fieldinvestigations by the authors of this paper (De Belair& Boussouak 2002; De Belair et al. 2005; De Belair&Véla 2011; Véla et al. 2012, and unpubl. pers. obs.and collaborators (Ouarmim & Dubset 2008; Medjahdiet al. 2009) resulted in several new or rediscoveredspecies records for Algeria: Brassica “numidica”(Edough peninsula), Erysimum sp. nov. (Gouraya),2758Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2753–2765

KBAs—AlgeriaN. Yahi et al.Table 3. Selected trigger species present at Algerian IPAsSelected trigger speciesIPAErica numidica, Genista aspalathoides, Odontites fradini, Odontites triboutii, Rumex algeriensis, Vulpia obtusa El Kala 1Odontites triboutii, Odontites ciliata, Scrofularia tenuipes, Scutellaria columnae, Silene chouletii El Kala 2Brassica “numidica”, Matthiola “numidica”, Satureja hispidula, Scrofularia tenuipes, Silene rosulataCarduus numidicus, Dactylorhiza elataCarduus numidicus, Genista vepres, Limonium spathulatum, Moehringia stellarioides, Pinus renoui, Quercus afaresHieracium faurelianum, Hedysarum perralderianum, Linaria decipiensCampanula aurasiaca, Chrysanthemum reboudianum, Galium numidicum, Hieracium peyrimhoffii, Romulea vaillantii,Eruca loncholoma, Linaria decipiensCampanula numidica, Crepis clausonis, Erodium choulettianum, Euphorbia hieroglyphica, Ophrys pallida, Silenecirtensis, Sinapis aristidisAbies numidica, Arabis doumetii, Adenocarpus “barbarus”, Epimedium perralderianum, Hieracium ernestii, Moehringiastellaroides, Saxifraga numidica, Silene reverchoniiDigitalis atlantica, Epimedium perralderianum, Erodium battandieranum, Moehringia stellaroides, Pedicularis numidica,Quercus afares, Satureja pomelii, Saxifraga baborensisBupleurum plantagineum, Erysimum sp. nov., Genista salditana, Genista vepres, Hypochoeris saldensis, Pancratium“saldense”, Silene sessionisCephalaria mauretanica, Genista filiramea, Genista vepres, Isoetes perralderiana, Quercus afares, Silene chouletiiArabis doumetii, Bunium chaberti, Cephalaria mauretanica, Genista filiramea, Pinus “mauretanica”, Rindera gymnandra,Romulea battandieri, Romulea penzigii, Scrofularia tenuipesPolygala munbyanaLimonium letourneuxii, Saxifraga “integrifolia”, Scabiosa cartennianaCephalaria mauretanica, Orchis “teschneriana”, Genista sarotesAdenocarpus umbellatus, Bellevalia pomelii, Brassica spinescens, Silene auriculifolia, Teucrium mauritanicumAsteriscus “sericeus”, Brassica spinescens, Sonchus “amicus”, Spergularia pycnorrhizaHammatolobium kremerianum, Limonium asparagoides, Orobanche leptantha, Teucrium mauritanicumCarlina atlantica, Eruca setulosa, Filago pomelii, Galium bourgaeanum, Linaria burcezianaPeninsula of EdoughGuerbesCollo peninsulaBelezmaDjebel CheliaDjebel OuahchBaborTazaGourayaAkfadouDjurdjuraMont ChenouaCap TénèsZaccarOran’s hillsHabibas IslandsTraras MountainsGhar RoubanNymphoides peltata (Guerbès), Sixalix farinosa (ElKala 1), Seseli praecox (Edough peninsula), Serapiasstenopetala (El Kala 1) and Teucrium maghrebinum(Traras mountains, Oran Hills). It is also important toconfirm the real distribution of poorly known speciessuch as Erodium battandieranum (Taza), Isoetesperralderiana, Silene chouletii (Akfadou) and Linariaburceziana (Ghar Rouban).The identification of trigger species was facilitatedby the IPA methodology which has been validated formany Mediterranean countries (IUCN et al. 2010).The majority of these are found at high altitude, on thesummits of the northern Algerian mountains. Here,the rate of speciation is high due to the isolation ofpopulations, resulting in a large number of endemicspecies (Table 3). Trigger species were alsoidentified for sites characterised by their geologicaland geomorphological distinctiveness, such as thelimestone and dolomitic cliffs in the Gouraya IPA andthe close proximity of dunes, rocks and small islandsin the Oran Hills IPA.Detailed analyses of these lists highlight severalspecies at the edges of their distributions in northernAfrica and which may be threatened on a regional ornational level, due a combination of small populations,local pressures (deforestation, habitat fragmentation,drought etc), but not across their whole range. Thisis the case for Buxus sempervirens, Galium odoratum,Neotia nidus-avis, Populus tremula, Stellariaholostea, Viburnum lantana (Babor), Corydalissolida, Hieracium juranum, Monotropa hypopitys,Ononis aragonensis (Babor, Djurdjura), Juniperussabina (Djurdjura), Paeonia atlantica (cf. Moroccoand Algeria), Laurenbergia tetrandra, Oldenlandiacapensis, Polygonum amphibium (El Kala 1), Brassicainsularis (Edough peninsula), Sedum stellatum (Collopeninsula). These ‘edge of range’ populations arepotentially important sources of genetic variability,which may, particularly in the case of forest species,provide potential for adaptation to the threat of climateJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2753–27652759

KBAs—Algeriachange (Regato 2008 and references therein).The present work has resulted in the identificationof potentially threatened species whose conservationstatus requires formal assessment. Such speciesreinforce arguments in favour of protection and theurgent conservation of the IPAs in which they occur.Important gaps in knowledge have been highlighted,in particular those relating to taxonomy and the lackof up-to-date field data. It is therefore essential toundertake in situ research in order to better understandthe distribution and status of these species. Withoutthis effort, it will be impossible to apply criteria thatare compatible with those of KBAs and be confidentthat the results are comprehensive. Up-to-date datawill require considerable time and resources; neitherN. Yahi et al.are available in abundance.A flexible approach to identifying and recognisingpriority sites for plants using surrogate criteria,supplemented by expert opinion, alongside existingglobally standardised criteria, is therefore essentialif the most important sites for plant diversity are toreceive the conservation attention they deserve. Using‘globally standardised criteria’ that can only be appliedeffectively to taxa from better documented taxonomicgroups will introduce taxonomic bias to the lists ofKBAs, which is better avoided. This applies both inAlgeria and other countries and regions which possessexceptionally diverse floras with considerable localendemism. This is particularly important in floristichotspots such as the Mediterranean, where plantAppendix 1. Restricted range endemic species from the 22 IPAs of North Algeria (range limited to less than 5000 km²)1. Adenocarpus barbarus (Maire) “comb. nud.”* [= A. complicatus (L.)J. Gay var. barbarus Maire]2. Arabis doumetii Coss.3. Borago longifolia Poiret4. Bunium elatum Batt.5. Campanula alata Desf.6. Campanula numidica Dur.7. Carthamus strictus (Pomel) Batt.8. Cephalaria mauritanica Pomel [sensu stricto = subsp. eumauritanica]9. Cerastium gracile L. Dufour [= C. hirtellum ssp. echinulatum(Cosson & Dur.) Maire]10. Cirsium kirbense Pomel11. Convolvulus durandoi Pomel12. Coronopus violaceus (Munby) O. Kuntze13. Crepis clausonis (Pomel) Batt.14. Crepis patula Poiret15. Crepis salzmanii Babcock16. Cynosurus peltieri Maire17. Daphne oleoides Maire18. Daucus reboudii Coss19. Digitalis atlantica Pomel20. Elatine brochonii Clavaud21. Epimedium perralderianum Coss.22. Erodium pachyrhizum Coss.23. Eruca loncholoma (Pomel) O. E. Schulz24. Eruca setulosa Boiss. & Reuter25. Festuca algeriensis Trab.26. Fumaria mairei Pugsley27. Gagea algeriensis Chab. [sensu stricto = var. algeriensis]28. Galium bourgaeanum Coss.29. Genista aspalathoides Lam. [sensu stricto = subsp. euaspalathoides]30. Genista filiramea Pomel [= G. numidica ssp. filiramea (Pomel) Batt.]31. Genista vepres Pomel32. Hammatolobium kremerianum (Coss.) C. Muell [= Tripodionkremerianum (Cosson) Lassen]33. Helianthemum cinereum (Cav.) Pers. [sensu stricto = subsp. eucinereum]34. Hypericum afrum Desf.35. Jasonia rupestris Pomel36. Juniperus africana (Maire) H. del Villar [= J. thurifera L. var.africana Maire ]37. Limonium asparagoides (Coss. & Dur.) Maire38. Limonium spathulatum (Desf.) Kuntze subsp. spathulatum Q. & S.39. Linaria decipiens Batt.40. Lonicera kabylica (Batt.) Rehder41. Lotus drepanocarpus Dur.42. Moehringia stellarioides Coss.43. Odontites fradini Pomel44. Odontites violacea Pomel45. Ononis cephalantha Pomel [sensu stricto = var. munbyana Maire]46. Ononis serotina Pomel [sensu stricto = subsp. eu-serotina]47. Orchis laeta Steinh. [= O. provincialis Balbis var. laeta (Steinheil)Maire & Weiller, O. pauciflora Ten. subsp. Laeta (Steinh.) Kreutz]48. Oreobliton thesioides Dur. & Moq.49. Origanum floribundum Munby50. Orobanche leptantha Pomel51. Paeonia atlantica (Coss.) Trabut [= P. corallina Retz subsp. atlantica(Coss.) Maire, = P. corallina Retz subsp. atlantica (Coss.) Greuter &Burdet]52. Phlomis bovei de Noé53. Pimpinella battandieri Chabert54. Pinus renoui (H. del Villar) Gaussen [= P. pinaster Aiton subsp.renoui (H. del Villar) Maire, P. pinaster Aiton subsp. hamiltonii auct. Alg.,non (Ten.)]55. Ptilostemon rhiphaeus (Pau & Font Quer) Greuter [= Cirsiumcasabonae (L.) DC. subsp. trispinosum (Moench) M.]56. Quercus afares Pomel57. Satureja hispidula (Boiss. & Reuter) M. [= Calamintha hispidulaBoiss. & Reuter]58. Satureja pomelii Briq. [= Calamintha nervosa Pomel]59. Scabiosa farinosa Cosson [= Sixalix farinosa (Cosson) Greuter &Burdet]60. Scrofularia tenuipes Coss. & Dur.61. Scutellaria columnae All.62. Sedum multiceps Coss. & Dur.63. Senecio gallerandianus Coss. & Dur.64. Silene oropediorum Coss.65. Silene reticulata Desf.66. Silene rosulata Soyer-Willemet & Godr.67. Silene velutinoides Pomel68. Spergularia tenuifolia Pomel69. Stachys mialhesi De Noé70. Teucrium maghrebianum Greuter & Burdet [= T. mauritanicum DeNoé non L.]71. Thymus dreatensis Batt.72. Thymus lanceolatus Desf.73. Tragopogon macrocephalus Pomel [= T. porrifolius subsp.macrocephalus (Pomel) Batt.]74. Urginea anthericoides (Poiret) Steinh. [= U. maritima var.anthericoides (Poiret) Maire & Weill.]* Some taxa are treated here as full species even though they are not yet formally recognized as such, reflecting the relative lack of taxonomic work onthe flora of the Maghreb.2760Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2753–2765

KBAs—AlgeriaN. Yahi et al.Appendix 2. Site restricted endemic species from the 22 IPAs of North Algeria (range limited to less than 100km²)1. Abies numidica De Lannoy ex Carrière2. Adenocarpus umbellatus Coss.3. Aethionema thomasianum J. Gay [= A. saxatile (L.) R. Br. subsp.ovalifolium DC.]4. Allium trichocnemis Gay.5. Ammiopsis aristidis Coss.6. Asteriscus sericeus (Maire & Wilczek) “comb. nud.”* [= A. maritimusvar. sericeus Maire & Wilczek]7. Astragalus nemorosus Batt. [= A. reinii subsp. nemorosus (Batt.)Maire]8. Bellevalia pomelii Maire9. Bellis prostrata Pomel10. Brassica numidica (Coss.) “comb. nud.”* [= B. fruticulosa Cyrillosubsp. numidica Coss.) Maire]11. Brassica spinescens Pomel12. Bunium chabertii Batt.13. Bupleurum plantagineum Desf.14. Campanula aurasiaca Batt & Trab. [= Anyseuma rigidum (Willd.)Grossh. subsp. aurasiacum (Batt. & Trabut) Damboldt]15. Carduus numidicus Coss. & Dur. [= C. nutans L. subsp. numidicus(Coss. & Dur.) Arènes]16. Carlina atlantica Pomel17. Centaurea papposa (Coss.) Greuter [= Centaurea cineraria L. var.gymnocarpa (Moris) Fiori subvar. papposa (Coss.) Q. & S.]18. Centaurea tougourensis Boiss. & Reut. [sensu stricto = subsptougourensis]19. Chrysanthemum reboudianum (Pomel) Quézel & Santa20. Cyclamen atlanticum Maire [=Cyclamen repandum subsp.atlanticum Maire]21. Dactylorhiza elata (Poiret) Soó [sensu stricto = subsp. elata]22. Deckera rubiginosa Pomel [= Picris comosa var. rubiginosa (Pomel)Maire]23. Delphinium emarginatum Presl.24. Epilobium numidicum Batt.25. Erica numidica Maire [=Erica cinerea (Maire) Romo & Boratynski =E. cinerea L. var. numidica Maire]26. Erodium battandierianum Rouy27. Erodium choulettianum Coss.28. Erysimum “sp. nova” [= Cheiranthus cheiri auct. Alg., non L.]29. Euphorbia hieroglyphica Coss. & Dur.30. Filago pomelii Batt. & Trab.31. Galium numidicum Pomel32. Genista salditana Pomel [= G. ferox var salditana (Pomel) Batt.]33. Genista sarotes Pomel [= G. numidica subsp. sarotes (Pomel) Batt.]34. Hedysarum perralderianum Coss.35. Heracleum algeriense Coss. [= H. spondylium L. var aurasiacumMaire, = H. spondylium L. subsp. algeriense (Coss.) Dobignard]36. Hieracium ernestii Maire37. Hieracium faurelianum Maire38. Hieracium peyrimhoffii Maire39. Hypochaeris saldensis Batt.40. Isoetes perralderiana Milde [= I. perralderiana Dur. & Let., = I. velataA. Br. subsp. perralderiana (Dur. & Let.) Trab.]41. Limonium battandieri Greuter & Burdet42. Limonium cyrtostachyum (Girard) Brullo [= L. minutiflorum auct.alg., non Guss.]43. Limonium letourneuxii (Batt.) Greuter & Burdet [= Staticeletourneuxii Batt.]44. Linaria burceziana Maire45. Maresia malcolmioides (Coss. Et Dur.) Pomel46. Matthiola numidica (Coss.) “comb. nud.”* [= M. sinuata (L.) R. Br.var. numidica Coss.]47. Nasturtium munbyanum Boiss. & Reut. [= Sisymbrella asperasubsp. munbyana (Boiss. & Reuter) Greuter & Burdet]48. Odontites ciliatus Pomel [= O. purpurea (Desf.) G. Don fil. subp.ciliata (Pomel) Quézel & Santa]49. Odontites discolor Pomel50. Odontites reboudii Pomel [= O. lutea Clairv. subp. reboudii (Pomel)Quézel & Santa]51. Odontites triboutii Gren. & Paill. = O. luteus Clairv. subsp. triboutii(Gren & Paill.) Quézel & Santa]52. Ophrys pectus Mutel [= O. pallida Raf.]53. Orchis teschneriana B. & H. Baumann “comb. nud.”* [= O. spitzeliissp. teschneriana B. & H. Baumann, = O. patens var atlantica Desf.]54. Pancratium saldense (Batt.) * [= P. foetidum var. saldense Batt. ]55. Pedicularis numidica Pomel56. Pinus mauretanica (Maire & Peyerimh.) “comb. nud.”* [= P. clusianaClemente subsp. mauretanica (Maire & Peyerimh.) Schv. = P. nigraArnold subsp mauretanica (Maire & Peyerimh.) Farjon]57. Polygala munbyana Boiss.58. Rindera gymnandra (Coss.) Gurka = Mattia gymnadra Coss.59. Romulea battandieri Beguinot60. Romulea penzigii Beguinot61. Romulea vaillantii Quézel62. Rumex algeriensis Barr. & Murb.63. Saxifraga “integrifolia (Pons & Quézel)” non Hook., comb. nud. etilleg.* [= S. globulifera var. integrifolia Pons & Quézel]64. Saxifraga baborensis Batt. [= S. cymbalaria var. atlantica Batt.]65. Saxifraga numidica Maire66. Scabiosa cartenniana Pons & Quézel [= Sixalix cartenniana (Pons& Quézel) Greuter & Burdet]67. Serapias stenopetala Maire & Stephenson68. Silene auriculifolia Pomel [= S. mollissima (L.) Pers. subsp.auriculifolia (Pomel) Maire]69. Silene choulettii Coss.70. Silene cirtensis Pomel71. Silene reverchonii Batt.72. Silene sessionis Batt.73. Sinapis aristidis Pomel [= S. pubescens L. subsp. aristidis (Pomel)Maire & Weill.]74. Solenopsis bicolor (Boiss. & Reuter) Greuter & Burdet75. Sonchus amicus (Faure, Maire & Wilczek) “comb. nud.”* [= S.tenerrimus var. amicus Faure, Maire & Wilczek]76. Spergularia pycnorrhiza (Maire) P. Monnier77. Taraxacum microcephalum Pomel78. Vulpia obtusa Trab.diversity is the overwhelming reason for its status as a‘global biodiversity hotspot’.ReferencesAnderson, S. (2002). Identifying Important Plant Areas. A siteselection manual for Europe and a basis for developing guidelinesfor other regions of the world. Plantlife International.Battandier, J.A. (1888-1890). Flore d’Algérie : Ancienne flored’Alger transformée… (Dicotylédones). Adolphe Jourdanéditeurs. Alger, 825 pages + appendice I-XXIX.Battandier J.A. & L.C. Trabut (1895). Flore de l’Algérie,contenant la description de toutes les plantes signaléesjusqu’à ce jour comme spontanées en Algérie et cataloguedes plantes du Maroc: Monocotylédones. Alger, AdolpheJourdan, Libraire-éditeur, Imprimeur-Libraire del’académieCEPF (2010). Bassin Mediterraneen : profil d’écosystème.Downloaded at http://www.cepf.net/Documents/Mediterranean_Summary_Booklet_Francais.pdfDe Belair, G. & R. Boussouak (2002). Une Orchidéeendémique de Numidie oubliée: Serapias stenopetalaMaire & Stephenson. L’Orchidophile 153: 189–196.De Belair, G. & E. Vela (2011). Découverte de Nymphoidespeltata (Gmel) O. Kuntze (Menyanthaceae) en Afrique duNord (Algérie). Poiretia (in press).De Belair, G., E. Vela & R. Boussouak (2005). Inventaire desorchidées de Numidie (N-E Algérie). Journal EuropäischerJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2753–27652761

KBAs—AlgeriaN. Yahi et al.Appendix 3. List of species based on IUCN threat categories for the 22 Algerian IPAsIUCN Red ListcategoriesCriticallyEndangeredEndangeredVulnerableRare / NearthreatenedData DeficientSpecies included in the IUCN 1997 and 2010 Red listsTotalNumberof speciesEpilobium numidicum (El Kala 1, El Kala 2), Serapias stenopetala (El Kala 1) 2Abies numidica (Babor), Adenocarpus umbellatus (Oran’s hills), Allium trichocnemis (Gouraya), Digitalisatlantica (Taza), Epimedium perralderianum (Taza, Babor), Galium numidicum (Djebel Chelia), Odontitesdiscolor (El Kala 2), Pedicularis numidica (Taza), Rumex algeriensis (El Kala 1), Silene sessionis (Gouraya),Vulpia obtusa (El Kala 1)Bellevalia pomelii (Oran’s hills), Brassica spinescens (Habiba’s Islands, Oran’s hills), Bunium crassifolium (ElKala 1), Maresia malcomioides (El Kala 1), Polygonum amphibium (El Kala 1), Satureja hispidula (Edoughpeninsula, El Kala 2), Silene reverchoni (Babor), Nasturtium munbyanum (Djebel Chelia, Ghar-Rouban),Teucrium kabylicum (Akfadou, Taza, Babor, Djurdjura, El Kala 2), Thymus dreatensis (Babor)Ammiopsis aristidis (El Kala 1), Arabis doumetii (Babor, Djurdjura), Bellis prostrata (El Kala 1, Guerbes),Bunium chaberti (Djurdjura), Bupleurum plantagineum (Gouraya), Campanula alata (Akfadou, Babor,Djurdjura), Carum montanum (Akfadou, Babor, Belezma, Djurdjura), Cirsium kirbense (Chréa, Djurdjura),Elatine brochonii (El Kala 1), Erodium battandieranum (Babor, Taza), Hedysarum perralderianum (Belezma),Hypericum afrum (Akfadou, El Kala 1, Guerbes), Hypochoeris saldensis (Gouraya), Laurentia bicolor (El Kala1), Limonium letourneuxii (Cap Ténès), Linaria decipiens (Chelia, Belezma, Djurdjura), Lonicera kabylica(Babor, Djurdjura), Lotus drepanocarpus, (Edough peninsula) Moehringia stellaroides (Babor, Taza, Collopeninsula), Odontites fradini (Djurdjura, El Kala 1, El Kala 2, Taza), Oreobliton thesioides (Djebel Chelia,Djebel Ouahch, Edough peninsula), Origanum floribundum (Chréa, Djurdjura, Theniet El Had), Phlomisbovei (Akfadou, Babor), Pimpinella battandieri (Babor, Djurdjura), Rindera gymnandra (Djurdjura), Romuleabattandieri (Djurdjura), Romulea penzigii (Djurdjura), Romulea vaillantii (Djebel Chelia), Saxifraga numidica(Babor), Senecio gallerandianus (Babor, Djebel Chelia, Djurdjura, Theniet El Had), Scabiosa cartenniana(Cap Ténès), Scabiosa farinosa (El Kala 1), Scrophularia tenuipes (Edough peninsula, Djurdjura, El Kala 2),Silene reticulata (Chréa, Theniet El Had, Djurdjura), Solenopsis bicolor (El Kala 1, Guerbes), Spergulariapycnorrhiza (Habibas islands), Stachys mialhesi (Djurdjura), Teucrium atratum (Babor, El Kala 2).Campanula aurasiaca (Djebel Chelia), Limonium battandieri (Oran’s hills, Traras ) Specularia juliani (ThenietEl Had)1110383Orchideen 37(2): 291–401.Dobignard, A. & C. Chatelain (2010–12). Index synonymiqueet bibliographique de la flore d’Afrique du Nord. Vol.1Monocotyledonae (2010), Vols. 2-3 (2011), Vols. 4–5 inprep. Consultable sur http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/africa/Emberger, L. (1955). Une classification biogéographiquedes climats. Naturalia Monspeliensia: Série Botanique 7:3–42.Garcia, N., A. Cuttelod & D.A. Malak (2010). The Statusand Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in NorthernAfrica. The IUCN Red List of threatened Species regionalAssessment, 141pp.IUCN, Plantlife International & World Wildlife Fund (2010).Key Biodiversity Areas for Plants in the Mediterranean:Important Plant Areas, Important Forest Areas andthreatened species Unpublished workshop report.Langhammer, P.F., M.I. Bakarr, L.A. Bennun, T.M.Brooks, R.P. Clay, W. Darwall, N. De Silva, G.J. Edgar,G. Eken, L.D.C. Fishpool, G.A.B. Fonseca, M.N. daFoster, D.H. Knox, P. Matiku, E.A. Radford, A.S.L.Rodrigues, P. Salaman, W. Sechrest & A.W. Tordoff(2007). Identification and Gap Analysis of Key BiodiversityAreas: Targets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems.IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Best PracticeProtected Area Guidelines Series No. 15. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.Maire, R. (1952–1987). Flore de l’Afrique du Nord (Maroc,Algérie, Tunisie, Tripolitaine, Cyrénaïque, Sahara).Lechevalier, Paris,Vol I à XVI.Médail, F. & K. Diadéma (2009). Glacial refugia influenceplant diversity patterns in the Mediterranean Basin. J.Biogeogr. 36: 1333–1345.Médail, F. & P. Quézel (1997). Hot-spots analysis forconservation of plant biodiversity in the Mediterraneanbasin. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 84: 112–127.Medjahdi, B., M.I. Tattou, Dj. Barkat & Kh. Benabdeli(2009). La flore vasculaire des Monts des Trara (Nord-Ouest algérien). Acta Botanica Malacitana 34: 57–75.Ouarmim, S. & C. Dubset (2008). Etude écologique,morphologique et systématique de la giroflée (Erysimumsect. Cheiranthus) du Parc National de Gouraya (Bejaia,Algérie). Master 1ère année “Sciences de l’EnvironnementTerrestre”, U. Paul Cézanne (Aix-Marseille 3) / U.Abderrahmane Mira (Bejaia, Algérie), 26pp.Quézel, P. & S. Santa (1962–1963). Nouvelle Flore de l’Algérieet des régions désertiques méridionales. Ed. C.N.R.S.,Paris, Tomes I & II, 1170pp.Plantlife International (2004). Identifying and ProtectingThe World’s Most Important Plant Areas. A Guide toImplementing Target 5 of The Global Strategy for PlantConservation. Plantlife, Salisbury, UK, 8pp.Radford, E.A., G. Catullo & B. de Montmollin (2011).Important Plant Areas of the south and east Mediterraneanregion: priority sites for conservation. IUCN MalagaRegato, P. (2001). The Mediterranean Forests, a NewConservation Strategy. WWF-MedPO Ed, Rome.2762Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2753–2765

KBAs—AlgeriaN. Yahi et al.Appendix 4. Occurrence of trigger species in the 22 IPAsSpecies NameImportant Plant AreaSpecies NameImportant Plant Area1. Abies numidicaBabor2. Adenocarpus barbarusBabor, Akfadou3. Adenocarpus umbellatus Oran Hills4. Aethionema thomasianum Djurdjura5. Allium trichocnemisGouraya6. Ammiopsis aristidisEl Kala 17. Arabis doumetiiBabor, Djurdjura8. Asteriscus sericeusHabibas Islands9. Astragalus nemorosusTheniet El Had10. Bellevalia pomeliiOran Hills11. Bellis prostrataEl Kala 1, Guerbes12. Borago longifoliaEl Kala 1, Guerbes13. Brassica numidicaEdough peninsula14. Brassica spinescensOran Hills, Habibas Islands15. Bunium chabertiiDjurdjura16. Bunium elatumBelezma17. Bupleurum plantagineum Gouraya,18. Campanula alataEl Kala 1, Guerbes, Babor,Akfadou19. Campanula aurasiacaDjebel Chelia20. Campanula numidicaDjebel Ouahch21. Carduus numidicusGuerbes, Collo península22. Carlina atlanticaGhar Rouban23. Carthamus strictusDjurdjura24. Centaurea papposaEdough península25. Centaurea tougourensis Belezma26. Cephalaria mauritanicaZaccar, Akfadou, Djurdjura27. Cerastium gracileGhar Rouban28. Chrysanthemum reboudianum. Djebel Chelia29. Cirsium kirbenseDjurdjura, Chréa30. Convolvulus durandoiEl Kala 1, El Kala 231. Coronopus violaceusChréa32. Crepis clausonisDjebel Ouahch33. Crepis patulaTaza34. Crepis salzmaniiOran Hills, Mont Traras35. Cyclamen atlanticumTaza36. Cynosurus peltieriAkfadou37. Dactylorhiza elataGuerbes38.Daphne oleoides39. Daucus reboudiiGouraya40. Deckera rubiginosaTaza41. Delphinium emarginatum El Kala 242. Digitalis atlanticaTaza,Babor, Djurdjura, DjebelChelia43. Elatine brochoniiEl Kala 1, Guerbes44. Epilobium numidicumEl Kala 1, El Kala 245. Epimedium perralderianum Babor, Taza46. Erica numidicaEl Kala 147. Erodium battandierianum Babor, Taza48. Erodium choulettianumDjebel Ouahch49. Erodium pachyrhizumEl Kala 150. Eruca loncholomaDjebel Chelia51. Eruca setulosaGhar Rouban52. Erysimum “sp. nova” Gouraya53. Euphorbia hieroglyphica Djebel Ouahch54. Festuca algeriensisBelezma, Djurdjura55. Filago pomeliiGhar Rouban56. Fumaria mairei Akfadou57. Gagea algeriensisChréa58. Galium bourgaeanumGhar Rouban59. Galium numidicumDjebel Chelia60. Genista aspalathoidesEL Kala 161. Genista filirameaAkfadou, Djurdjura62. Genista salditanaGouraya63. Genista sarotes Zaccar, Taza64. Genista vepresEl Kala 2, Akfadou, Taza,Djurdjura,65. Hammatolobium kremerianum Traras mountains66. Hedysarum perralderianum Belezma67. Helianthemum cinereum Chelia,68. Heracleum algerienseChelia69. Hieracium ernestiiBabor70. Hieracium faurelianumBelezma71. Hieracium peyrimhoffiiDjebel Chelia72. Hypericum afrumAkfadou,73. Hypochaeris saldensisGouraya74. Isoetes perralderianaAkfadou75. Jasonia rupestrisGhar Rouban76. Juniperus africanaBelezma77. Limonium asparagoidesTraras mountains78. Limonium battandieriOran Hills, Traras mountains79. Limonium cyrtostachyum Cap Ténès80. Limonium letourneuxiiCap Ténès81. Limonium spathulatumEl Kala 1, Collo peninsula82. Linaria burcezianaGhar Rouban83. Linaria decipiensBelezma, Djebel Chelia,Djurdjura84. Lonicera kabylicaBabor, Djurdjura85. Lotus drepanocarpusEdough península86. Maresia malcolmioidesEl Kala 187. Matthiola sinuataEdough peninsula88. Moehringia stellarioidesBabor, Taza, Collo peninsulaJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2753–27652763

KBAs—AlgeriaN. Yahi et al.Species NameImportant Plant AreaSpecies NameImportant Plant Area89. Nasturtium munbyanumChelia, Ghar Rouban90. Odontites ciliatusEl Kala 1, El Kala 291. Odontites discolorEl Kala 292.Odontites fradiniEl Kala 1, El Kala 2,Djurdjura93. Odontites reboudiiEl Kala 294. Odontites triboutiiEl Kala 1 El Kala 295. Odontites violaceaDjurdjura,96. Ononis cephalanthaChréa, Theniet El Had97. Ononis serotinaZaccar98. Ophrys pectusEl Kala 2, Djebel Ouahch99. Orchis laetaAkfadou100. Orchis teschnerianaZaccar101. Oreobliton thesoides102. Origanum floribundumDjebel Chelia, DjebelOuahch, Edough peninsulaDjurdjura, Chréa, ThenietEl Had103. Orobanche leptanthaTraras mountains104. Paeonia atlanticaBabor, Akfadou, Djurdjura105. Pancratium saldenseGouraya106. Pedicularis numidica Taza107. Phlomis boveiBabor, Akfadou108. Pimpinella battandieriBabor, Djurdjura109. Pinus mauretanicaDjurdjura110. Pinus renouiCollo península111. Polygala munbyanaMont Chenoua112. Ptilostemon rhiphaeusDjebel Ouahch, Djurdjura113. Quercus afaresAkfadou, Taza, Collopenínsula114. Rindera gymnandraDjurdjura115. Romulea battandieriDjurdjura116. Romulea penzigiiDjurdjura117. Romulea vaillantiiDjebel Chelia118. Rumex algeriensisEl Kala 1119. Satureja hispidulaEdough peninsula120. Satureja pomeliiTaza121. Saxifraga “integrifolia ” Cap Ténès122. Saxifraga baborensisTaza123. Saxifraga numidicaBabor124. Scabiosa cartennianaCap Ténès125. Scabiosa farinosaEl Kala 1El Kala 2, Edough126. Scrofularia tenuipespeninsula, Djurdjura,Akfadou127. Scutellaria columnaeEl Kala 2128. Sedum multicepsBabor, Gouraya129. Senecio gallerandianus130. Serapias stenopetalaEl Kala 1131. Silene auriculifoliaOran HillsDjebel Chelia, Babor,Djurdjura, Theniet El Had132. Silene choulettiiEl Kala 2, Akfadou133. Silene cirtensisDjebel Ouahch134. Silene oropediorumChréa, Theniet El Had135. Silene reticulataDjurdjura, Chréa, ThenietEl Had136. Silene reverchoniiBabor137. Silene rosulataEdough peninsula138. Silene sessionisGouraya139. Silene velutinoidesGhar Rouban140. Sinapis aristidisDjebel Ouahch141. Solenopsis bicolorEl Kala 1, Guerbes142. Sonchus amicusHabibas Islands143. Spergularia pycnorrhizaHabibas Islands144. Spergularia tenuifoliaZaccar145. Stachys mialhesiDjurdjura, Mont Chenoua146. Taraxacum microcephalum Ghar Rouban147. Teucrium maghrebianum Oran Hills, Traras mountains148. Thymus dreatensisBabor149. Thymus lanceolatusChréa150. Tragopogon macrocephalusChréa, Zaccar, Theniet ElHad151. Urginea anthericoidesEl Kala 2, Edough peninsula152. Vulpia obtusaEl Kala 1Regato, P. (2008). Adapting to Global Climate Change.Mediterranean Forests. (Adaptación al cambio global, Losbosques mediterráneos, Adaptation au changement global,Les forêts méditerranéennes). Malaga, Spain: IUCN Centrefor Mediterranean Cooperation. ii+254pp.Ricketts, T.H., E. Dinerstein, T. Boucher, T.M. Brooks, S.H.M.Butchart, M. Hoffmann, J.F. Lamoreux, J. Morrison,M. Parr, J.D. Pilgrim, A.S.L. Rodrigues, W. Sechrest,G.E. Wallace, K. Berlin, J. Bielby, N.D. Burgess, D.R.Church, N. Cox, D. Knox, C. Loucks, G.W. Luck, L.L.Master, R. Moore, R. Naidoo, R. Ridgely, G.E. Schatz,G. Shire, H. Strand, W. Wettengel & E. Wikramanayake(2005). Pinpointing and preventing imminent extinctions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of theU.S.A. 102: 18497–18501.Seltzer, P. (1946). Le climat de l’Algérie. Imp. La Typo-Litho& J. Carbonel. Alger, 219pp.Véla, E. & S. Benhouhou (2007). Evaluation d’un nouveaupoint-chaud de biodiversité végétale dans le bassinméditerranéen (Afrique du nord). C.R. Biologies 330: 589–605.Véla, E., S. Telaïlia, L.B. Telaïlia & G. De Bélair(2012) (in press). Découverte de Sixalix farinosa(Coss.) Greuter & Burdet (Dipsacaceae) en Algérie.2764Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2753–2765

KBAs—AlgeriaLagascalia, 32pp.Walter, K.S. & H.J. Gillett (eds.) 1998. 1997 IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants.IUCN, Gland (CH) & Cambridge (UK), 862pp.Yahi, N., S. Benhouhou, E. Véla, G. De Belair & R. Gharzouli (2011). Algeria,pp. 27–30. In: Radford, E.A., G. Catullo & B. de Montmollin (eds.). ImportantPlant Areas of The South and East Mediterranean Region: Priority Sites forConservation. IUCN Malaga.French abstract: Une étude a été réalisée en 2010 pour identifier les Zones Importantespour les Plantes (zones clés pour la biodiversité des plantes) dans le sud et l’est de larégion méditerranéenne, afin de prioriser les meilleurs sites pour la conservation desplantes. Cette étude complète un premier travail ayant porté sur l’identification de ZonesImportantes pour les Plantes (ZIP) dans la partie septentrionale de l’Algérie. Ces ZIP ontété délimitées pour les sites qui hébergent un certain nombre d’espèces à haute valeurpatrimoniale (espèces menacées et/ou localement endémiques ou rares). Des révisionstaxonomiques récentes estiment le nombre d’espèces endémiques nationales pour lenord de l’Algérie (à l’exclusion du Sahara) à plus de 300 taxons. Dans la présente étude,les données ont été extraites de la liste globale de 22 ZIP identifiées pour le nord del’Algérie. Les espèces considérées sont: i) des espèces menacées telles que définiespar la liste rouge de l’UICN 1997, ii) les espèces endémiques locales, iii) espècesmenacées à l’échelle nationale. Des espèces clés (trigger species) ont été identifiées encombinant les critères d’endémisme et de rareté. Ce sont principalement des endémiquesalgériennes, mais aussi algéro-marocaines et algéro-tunisiennes. Cent cinquante deux(152) espèces clés à grande valeur écologique ont été identifiées et peuvent êtreutilisées pour caractériser l’intérêt particulier d’un site, devenant ainsi un outil utile àdes fins de conservation. Cette étude a mis en exergue d’importantes lacunes dans lesconnaissances, en particulier celles relatives à la taxonomie et l’absence de donnéesactualisées de terrain. Il apparaît donc urgent d’entreprendre des recherches in situafin de mieux comprendre la répartition et le statut de ces espèces. L’identification et lareconnaissance des sites prioritaires pour les plantes en utilisant des critères combinés,complétés par des avis d’experts et de critères existants, mondialement normalisés, estune approche flexible. Elle est recommandée pour ces sites à haute valeur patrimonialequi méritent une attention particulière pour leur conservation.N. Yahi et al.Author Details:Na s s i m a Ya h i Lecturer at the University ofSciences and Technology “Houari Boumediene”,Algiers, Algeria. Main courses phytoecology,sampling strategies in plant ecology. Researchinterest phytodynamic, phytoecology,phytosociology of forest ecosystems in theMediterranean area.Er r o l Ve l a Lecturer at the University ofMontpellier-2, France. Main courses onenvironmental expertise, impact assessment,field botany. Research interest in phytoecology,systematics, taxonomy and biogeography in theMediterranean area.Sa l i m a Be n h o u h o u Senior lecturer in the botanydepartment at the higher national school ofagriculture in Algiers, Algeria. Main coursesplant ecology and botany. Research interestplant systematic, phytosociology, phytoecology,Mediterranean and Saharan flora.Ra c h i d Gh a r z o u l i Lecturer at the University“Ferhat Abbas”, Setif, Algeria. Main courses:sampling strategies in plant ecology, urbanforestry, bioclimatology. Research interestphytosociology, biogeography, urban ecology.Gé r a r d De Be l a i r Senior lecturer currentlyretired from University “Badji Mokhtar ”,Annaba, Algeria. Main courses plant ecologyand botany. Research interest plant systematic,phytoecology and Mediterranean flora.Author Contribution:All the above mentioned authors were involvedin writing up the current paper and havecontributed with their personal data. It wasa real team effort whereby the paper wassystematically exchanged between the authorsto obtain the current paper.Keywords: Mots-clés : Espèces endémiques, ZIP, Nord de l’Algérie, espèces clés.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2753–27652765

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(8): 2766–2778Key Biodiversity Area Special SeriesUsing important plant areas and important bird areasto identify Key Biodiversity Areas in the Republic ofMacedoniaLjupcho Melovski 1 , Metodija Velevski 2 , Vlado Matevski 3 , Vasko Avukatov 4 & Aleksandar Sarov 51,3Institute of Biology, University of St. Cyril and Methodius, Blvd. Krste Petkov Misirkov bb, 1000 Skopje, Republic of Macedonia1,2,4,5Macedonian Ecological Society, Blvd “Kuzman Josifovski Pitu” 28/3-7, 1000 Skopje, Republic of MacedoniaEmail: 1 melovski@pmf.ukim.mk (corresponding author), 2 velevski@mes.org.mk, 3 vladom@pmf.ukim.mk, 4 avukatov@mes.org.mk,5sarov@mes.org.mkDate of publication (online): 06 August 2012Date of publication (print): 06 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Manuscript details:Ms # o2997Received 08 November 2011Final revised received 18 January 2012Finally accepted 01 June 2012Citation: Melovski, Lj., M. Velevski, V. Matevski,V. Avukatov & A. Sarov (2012). Using importantplant areas and important bird areas to identifyKey Biodiversity Areas in the Republic ofMacedonia. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(8):2766–2778.Copyright: © Ljupcho Melovski, MetodijaVelevski, Vlado Matevski, Vasko Avukatov &Aleksandar Sarov 2012. Creative CommonsAttribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allowsunrestricted use of this article in any mediumfor non-profit purposes, reproduction anddistribution by providing adequate credit to theauthors and the source of publication.For Author Details, Author Contribution andAcknowledgements see end of this article.Abstract: An attempt is made to identify Key Biodiversity Areas in the Republic ofMacedonia through the identification of internationally recognized important areasfor biodiversity: Important Plant Areas (IPAs) and Important Bird Areas (IBAs). Fortytwo IPAs covering 6,495km 2 and 24 IBAs covering 6,907km 2 have been identified inMacedonia. Thirty seven IPAs (6,152km 2 or 24% of the country’s territory) and 15 IBAs(4,821km 2 or 18.75% of the national territory), meet KBA criteria, between them yielding42 KBAs. The remaining five IPAs and nine IBAs do not meet KBA criteria althoughhave international significance. Together IPAs and IBAs total 10,698km 2 ; those meetingthe KBA criteria total 9,670km 2 . In total, 73% and 65% of the entire national protectedareas (PAs) surface overlaps with IPAs and IBAs respectively. This proportion is 81% forthe 42 KBAs. However, only 25% of the total size of protected areas overlaps with IPAs,only 21% overlap with IBAs, and only 19% with the combined 42 KBAs. This meansthat Macedonia’s protected areas system is not yet representative and comprehensivefor safeguarding its botanical and avian diversity.Keywords: Important Bird Areas, Important Plant Areas, Key Biodiversity Areas,Macedonia.Macedonian Abstract: Апстракт: Во трудот е направен обид да се идентификуваатКлучните подрачја за биодиверзитетот (КПБ) во Република Македонија прекуидентификација на меѓународно признатите значајни подрачја за биодиверзитет:Значајните растителни подрачја (ЗРП) и Значајните подрачја за птици (ЗПП). ВоМакедонија се идентифкувани 42 ЗРП (со површина од 6.495 km 2 ) и 24 ЗПП (соповршина од 6.907km 2 ). Критериумите за КПБ ги задоволуваат 37 ЗРП (со површинаод 6.152km 2 или 24% од територијата на земјата) и 15 ЗПП (со површина од 4.821 km 2или 18,75% од националната територија) што резултира со 42 КПБ. Останатите петЗРП и девет ЗПП не ги задоволуваат критериумите за КПБ иако имаат меѓународнозначење. Површината на ЗРП и ЗПП вкупно изнесува 10.698km 2 , додека вкупнатаповршина на оние што ги задоволуваат критериумите за КПБ изнесува 9.670 km 2 .Вкупно 73% и 65% од површината на заштитените подрачја на национално нивосе преклопува со ЗРП и со ЗПП соодветно. Овој сооднос изнесува 81% за 42-теКПБ. Наспроти тоа, само 25% од вкупната површина на заштитените подрачја сепреклопува со ЗРП и само 21% со ЗПП, односно само 19% со комбинираните 42КПБ. Ова значи дека системот на заштитени подрачја во Македонија не е доволнорепрезентативен и сеопфатен за да обезбеди зачувување на нејзиното растителнои орнитолошко богатство.Клучни зборови: Значајни подрачја за птици, Значајни растителни подрачја,Клучни подрачја за биодиверзитет, МакедонијаOPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADThe Key Biodiversity Area series documents the application of the concept andshowcases the results from various parts of the world. The series is edited underthe auspices of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas/Species SurvivalCommission Joint Task Force on ‘Biodiversity and Protected Areas’, with the editorssupported by BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN, National Fish& Wildlife Foundation, NatureServe, Parks Canada, and Plantlife International.2766Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2766–2778

KBAs—Republic of MacedoniaLj. Melovski et al.Figure 1. Republic of Macedonia and its position in the Balkan PeninsulaINTRODUCTIONKey Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are defined as sitesof global significance for biodiversity conservation, andthus are intended to capture the world’s most importantnatural heritage. They are identified and delineatedthrough a defined methodology (Langhammer et al.2007), which includes to an extent, that used to identifyImportant Birds Areas (Heath & Evans 2000) andImportant Plant Areas (Anderson 2002).The Republic of Macedonia covers an area of25,713km² characterized by mountainous terrain in thewest and east, and lowland habitats in the centre. Itoccupies a central position on Balkan Peninsula (Fig. 1)and contains alpine, continental sub-mediterranean andpontic steppe biogeographic zones. The valleys locatedin the continental biogeographic zone have a strongMediterranean influence.Despite its small size Macedonia has a comparativelyhigh level of floral endemicity, and relict species in themountains, forests and “steppes” of the lowlands. Fourpercent of the national flora is endemic—114 vascularplant species (including one fern) out of a total floraof over 3,200 species. However, the number of nearendemicspecies (e.g. those confined to one mountaintop but which occur across borders with neighbouringcountries) is much greater (Kuzmanov 1979; Micevski1985, 1993; Strid & Tan 1991, 1997; Matevski 2010),and the percentage of near-national endemic species(defined here as having a range limited to less than5,000km 2 within the Balkan Peninsula) is greater still.Although the flora is well studied (Micevski 1985,1993, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2005; Matevski 2010), speciesnew to Macedonia (even new to science) are frequentlyrecorded. Many species reach the borders of their rangein the country; the southern border for boreal and alpinespecies, the northern for Mediterranean species andthe western border for Ponto-Caspian and Asia Minorelements. The habitat diversity is also very high, asshown by the diversity of plant communities.Endemism is high among other groups of animals(especially fish and invertebrates). For example, LakeOhrid is the centre of freshwater endemism in Europe(Levkov et al. 2007; Albrecht & Wilke 2008; LevkovJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2776–27782767

KBAs—Republic of Macedonia2009).The bird fauna is insufficiently studied, with 318species recorded so far (Micevski 2002/2003; Velevskiet al. 2010). However, significant populations of somespecies, particularly Egyptian Vulture, Imperial Eagleand Dalmatian Pelican are found.Although Macedonia has ratified almost allconventions on biodiversity protection 1 the conservationstatus of plants, habitats, birds and other animal speciesis often not favourable. Wetlands of all types areespecially threatened (Ministry of Environment andPhysical Planning 2004).The main goal of this study is to identify the mostimportant sites for biodiversity in Macedonia, usinga combination of Important Plant Areas (IPAs) andImportant Bird Areas (IBAs) that have already beenidentified. The work also seeks to compare the criteriaused for designation of IPAs and IBAs with the KBAmethodology and to show the representativeness andcomprehensiveness of the national protected areassystem.METHODSThis analysis of KBAs in Macedonia integrates thefindings of two previous analyses of important sites forbiodiversity in Macedonia; IPAs (Radford & Odé 2009;Melovski et al. 2010) and IBAs (Velevski et al. 2010).IPAsIPAs were identified using European IPA criteria asdeveloped by Plantlife International in collaborationwith various international plant conservation networks(Anderson 2002). Sites containing following criteriawere categorized under (i) criteria A based on threatenedspecies; (ii) criteria B based on species-richness andendemism; and (iii) criterion C those containingthreatened habitats. The IPA criteria overlap to an extentwith those used to identify KBAs sensu Langhammeret al. (2007) and the current analysis has focused on1Convention on the protection of the World’s Cultural and NaturalHeritage, Convention on Wetlands of International Importance,Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife andNatural Habitats, Convention on Biological Diversity, Conventionon International Trade in endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora, Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species ofWild Animals, Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe,Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian MigratoryBirdsLj. Melovski et al.these areas of overlap—particularly on the speciescriterion (IPA criterion A and the Key BiodiversityArea vulnerability criterion). The IPA criteria B and Ccould be used for application of the biomes criterion forKBAs, but this criterion has not yet been widely used inthe KBA context, therefore we did not further analyzethe five IPAs which met these criteria alone.In Macedonia, the national site selection strategyfocused initially on selecting larger sites, as these, onaverage, contain a high number of qualifying speciesand a complex of habitat types. The distribution andshape of protected areas (PAs) was also considered andwhere possible, the IPA boundaries were delineatedbased on the PA boundary.The KBA vulnerability criterion is not applicable toplants in this study as the four red listed species fromMacedonia previously considered threatened at globallevel using pre-2001 IUCN criteria (Walter & Gillett1998) have not been reassessed using current criteriaand therefore do not appear on the current IUCN GlobalRed List (IUCN 2010). However, these and 73 otherspecies (of the 102 species used as trigger species in theframe of IPA criteria) match the KBA irreplaceabilitycriterion and so were used as trigger species for selectingKBAs. Of these, 57 species possess a restricted rangewhich is here defined as less than 5,000km 2 , (KBA subcriteriona), and 20 species have a clumped distribution(sub-criterion b) present only at a few localities over alarge range 2 . Out of these 57 restricted-range species,36 species, with very limited distributions (heredefined as less than 500km 2 ) were also consideredseparately as we believe that, when assessed by the redlisting process, they are likely to qualify as globallythreatened, in which case they could be used as triggerspecies under the vulnerability criterion. The other 21restricted-range species occupy larger ranges but all areless than 5,000km 2 . However, according to the KBAmethodology the definition of “restricted range” is setto 50,000km 2 (Langhammer et al. 2007). We considerthat the latter is more suitable for large animals thanfor plants, and so preferred to use a smaller thresholdof 5,000km 2 . Five of the IPA sites were excluded(comprising two sites which did not qualify under thevulnerability criterion, as they had been identified as2Langhammer et al. (2007) refer to ‘clumped distributions’, whichwe interpret as those species with a large range but only knownfrom a few localities within that range. The populations arewidely scattered within that range.2768Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2776–2778

KBAs—Republic of MacedoniaIPAs using criterion C (threatened habitats), and threesites because they were designated as IPAs on thebasis of European threat status – criterion Aii: BernConvention and Habitat Directive lists).Fungi, though not plants, are considered alongsideplants within the IPA analysis. The above situationapplies to fungal species i.e. they are threatened on aEuropean level but they have not been globally assessedusing IUCN criteria. There are no known restrictedrange fungal species in Macedonia, so fungi wereomitted from these KBA analyses .IBAsIdentification of IBAs started in 2007 and, by 201124 IBAs had been identified (Velevski et al. 2010).Twenty two of them have been confirmed by BirdLifeInternational, and two more are in the proposal stage.All IBAs were checked against KBA criteria, resultingin the selection of 15 sites that meet the thresholdsset by Langhammer et al. (2007) for identification ofKBAs. These include 11 sites holding Endangered (EN)species (the Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus),one site of importance for the Egyptian Vulture andthe Vulnerable Eastern Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca,two for the Vulnerable Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanuscrispus, and one site meeting the irreplaceabilitycriterion for Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni (>1% ofglobal population in the breeding period).Of those IBAs that do not meet the KBA criteria,three were identified under IBA criterion A1. At oneof these sites, the trigger species is Near-threatened andsuch species are not used for identification of KBAs,and in the other two the population of the trigger speciesconcerned (Eastern Imperial Eagle) does not exceed thethreshold of 10 pairs set in Langhammer et al. (2007).Three further excluded IBAs meet the IBA criterionA3 (assemblages characteristic of the Eurasian Highmontanebiome), but the population sizes of the triggerspecies have not been estimated, so we have excludedthem as KBAs. At the remaining IBA of globalimportance, Lake Ohrid, none of the species triggersIBA criterion A4i (1% of the global population), whileA4iii is not used for KBA identification. The tworemaining proposed IBAs are of European importanceonly (IBA criterion B2).Delineation of KBAsAll qualifying individual IPAs and IBAsLj. Melovski et al.automatically became KBAs with the same boundary- KBAs that result from overlapping IPAs andIBAs were delineated on the bases of the union of theirsurfaces- In more complex cases (two or three KBAs hadto be delineated from several overlapping IPAs and/orIBAs) the boundaries of either IPAs or IBAs were usedto delineate KBAs.RESULTSThe KBA identification methodology was appliedto 42 IPAs (6,496km 2 total surface area) and 24 IBAs(6,907km 2 total surface area, Fig. 2), from which 42KBAs have been identified for Macedonia – 28 forplants only, six for birds only and eight for both plantsand birds (Appendix 1). Of these eight KBAs triggeredfor both plants and birds: one (Babuna, Topolka andlower Bregalnica) combines three IPAs with one IBAinto a single KBA; a second (Tikvesh-Raec) combinesone IPA with two IBAs; and the remaining six sites eachcombine a single IPA with a single IBA. Five IPAs andnine IBAs did not meet KBAs criteria.Those IPAs and IBAs that meet KBA criteria overlapby 1,302km 2 (5% of the country territory), or 19% of allIPAs or 20% of all IBAs. The combined surface areaof the 42 KBAs delineated based on IPAs and IBAs is9,671km 2 (38% of the area of the country).The size of the identified KBAs (Appendix 1, Fig. 3)ranges from 8.72km 2 to 1131.64km 2 (KBA Monospitovoand KBA Pelagonia respectively).The numbers of species of birds and plants thattrigger the KBA criteria and sub-criteria is shown inTable 1, while the summary of the numbers of KBAstriggered by each of the criteria and sub-criteria forbirds and plants is given in Table 2.A more detailed analysis of the relationships betweentrigger species and KBAs is given in Table 3. It canbe seen that most sites contain more than one triggerspecies while one particular site holds as many as 15trigger species (Table 3 and Appendix 1).Out of the 81 species used to trigger KBAs, 36plant species are found in only one site exclusively andtwo bird species meet the criteria at only one site each,resulting with 38 sites triggered by one species only.Each of 20 other species can be found in two sites only(Table 3), clearly showing the high endemism amongJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2776–27782769

KBAs—Republic of MacedoniaLj. Melovski et al.Figure 2. Important Bird Areas and Important Plant Areas in MacedoniaTable 1. Summary of the numbers of species of birds and plants triggering each of the KBA criteria and subcriteriaHighertaxonVulnerabilitycriterionCR EN VUHighly restrictedrangespecies(distribution

KBAs—Republic of MacedoniaLj. Melovski et al.Figure 3. Key Biodiversity Areas in Macedonia, as identified from the Important Plant Areas and Important Bird Areas.Table 2. Summary of the numbers of KBAs triggered by each of the criteria/subcriteria for each higher taxonomic groupHighertaxonVulnerabilitycriterionCR EN VUHighly restricted- rangespecies (distribution

KBAs—Republic of MacedoniaTable 3. Summary of frequency distributions of the numberof trigger species (n) per KBA, and the number of KBAs pertrigger speciesNo. of KBAs holdingn trigger speciesNo. of trigger speciesoccurring in n KBAs1 11 382 12 203 2 94 2 35 1 56 3 37 5 08 2 09 1 110 0 011 3 112 1 115 1 0threatened national and sub-regional endemics andspecies richness and habitats; all of which are irrelevantfor KBA identification. The KBA methodology has notyet been applied in ways that harness such alternativemeasures so there is a potential for IPAs to be omittedfrom KBAs list (in Macedonia this applies at fivesites: Negorci Spa, Ohrid Lake, Pehchevo-JudoviLivadi, Plachkovica and Prespa Lake). PracticallyIPA methodology compensates for the incompletenessof IUCN Red List as well as the present lack of IUCNGlobal Red List data for plants. It is therefore notpossible to apply “vulnerability” criterion in case ofMacedonia. The KBA methodology by-passes thisby the introduction of the “irreplaceability” criterionwith several sub-criteria (Langhammer et al. 2007).In Macedonia the “restricted range species” subcriterion(sub-criterion a) was the most appropriatedue to limited knowledge on the exact distribution ofmany plant species. It corresponds to IPA criterion Aiii(threatened narrow endemics) and to a certain extent toIPA criterion Aiv (threatened near endemics). Most ofthe IPA qualifying species fall into this KBA criterion(Appendix 1). Very few Aiii plant species and someAiv species fall into sub-criterion (b) (species with largebut clumped distributions). More knowledge is neededto better assess many other IPA species and other plantspecies which were not included in the original IPAlist.As an example, only five IPAs in Macedonia haveLj. Melovski et al.been identified for globally threatened species usingIPA criterion Ai, which draws on the 1997 IUCN RedList (Walter & Gillett 1998). They were also identifiedas KBAs because these species were restricted-rangespecies in the same time, but they do not have the sameKBA status since the four Ai species do not appearin the current IUCN Red List (IUCN 2010). (Thesespecies are Astragalus physocalyx Fisch., Ranunculusdegenii Kummerle & Jav, Ranunculus cacuminis Strid& Papan and Thymus oehmianus Ronninger & Soška).This is important because it may lead to underestimationof priority level if KBAs are subsequently furtherprioritized using the level of threat to the triggerspecies, for example to prioritize conservation actionor investment. This has happened in some of theprioritization exercises during the development of theCEPF Mediterranean Ecosystem Profile (CEPF 2011).Many endemic and near-endemic species in Macedoniahave yet to be properly assessed and the flora may proveto be more threatened than current lists suggest (Table2 and Appendix 1).Ideally, comprehensive IUCN species assessmentsshould be undertaken but this will require considerabletime, capacity and resources, and in the meantimewe recommend the use of an additional sub-criterion(a “highly restricted-range species”) under the“irreplaceabillity” criterion, sub-criterion (a). Thisdoes not refer to any of the IUCN threat categories(Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered), butcaptures species with extremely limited distributions(such as the 36 Macedonian species with a range of lessthan 500km 2 in Table 2). This would begin to addressthe limitations in KBA identification resulting from lackof data on threat status for plants.On the other hand, the 50,000km 2 threshold ofdistribution range for “restricted-range species” asproposed in KBA methodology (Langhammer et al.2007) is too large for plants, although a well establishedthreshold among ornithologists and mammologists(e.g. Stattersfield et al. 1998). A large proportion ofMacedonian plant species (and indeed those of theBalkan Peninsula as a whole) have smaller rangesthan this and would consequently fall within with the“irreplaceabillity – restricted range species” criterion.However, most of these species are not consideredthreatened, even if properly assessed. Thus, we suggestthat 5,000km 2 is used instead, as the threshold to define“restricted-range species” for plants generally. In this2772Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2776–2778

KBAs—Republic of Macedoniaway it is possible to overcome, at least in part, the lackof national Red Lists for plants and so to include in theKBAs system the majority of species that are most likelyto be threatened due to their very limited distributions,among other reasons.“Irreplaceability sub-criterion (b) was used onlyfor species for which we have data about their rangein neighbouring countries. It can however be assumedthat some other species will meet this criterion. It isparticularly difficult to implement the KBA thresholdfor this criterion; 5% of the global population at the site.In applying the irreplaceability criterion we mostlyused the IPA threshold that is used in cases wherecomprehensive population data is unavailable i.e. thatthe site is ‘one of the five best known sites’ for thespecies.Finally, we were not able to use “irreplaceability”sub-criterion (e) (bio-regionally restricted assemblages)due to the lack of sufficiently precise data. Thus, for thetime being it is not possible to compensate for the lackof a criterion in the KBA methodology that reflects IPAcriterion B (species richness) and especially criterion C(threatened habitats).Although criteria for designation of IBAs withglobal significance and KBAs are compatible, sevenglobally important IBAs were excluded from KBAlist in Macedonia. However, three of these sites(Shar Planina, river Radika catchment and Jakupica,all qualifying under A3 criterion) were covered byMacedonian KBAs network to a significant proportiondue to their overlap with qualifying IPAs. The fourth one(Preod - Gjugjance) was covered only to a small extent.Similarly, one of the excluded IPA sites (Lake Prespa) isstill part of the proposed KBAs network since it entirelyoverlaps with respective IBA of global importance.Lake Ohrid is a unique case; although identified as IPAof global importance (based on criterion C) and IBA ofglobal importance (criteria A4i, A4iii and A4iv), thisapproach (combination of IPAs and IBAs only) failedto include this site of remarkable endemism in the KBAnetwork.In conclusion, the identification of KBAs byusing IPAs and IBAs is a good tool to identify themost important sites for biodiversity in Macedoniaand probably elsewhere. There are however, someexceptions (e.g. Lake Ohrid). In order to overcome this,one should take some freshwater taxonomic groups intoanalyses (in Macedonia fishes are the most appropriateLj. Melovski et al.since there are considerable data available for thisgroup).The analysis of the protection status of theproposed KBAs in Macedonia shows that extensiveareas harboring important and threatened biodiversitycomponents are not currently protected. Only 19% ofcurrent protected areas surface overlaps with KBAs.This means that the national protected area systemdoes not adequately cover the country’s most importantbiodiversity and neither is it comprehensive.The oldest and largest protected areas in Macedoniawere designated mainly on the basis of their forest cover,beautiful appearance and the presence of game species.Most of the recently designated protected areas are verysmall and unevenly distributed throughout the country.They do not cover the whole range of important habitatsas well. The PA system in Macedonia is currentlyunder revision, in compliance with the Law on NatureProtection of 2004, a project supported by GEF andimplemented by UNDP. If the proposed revisions to theprotected area network are implemented (Melovski etal. 2011) the situation will be much improved with 80%of the proposed network covered by KBAs, including43% of the surface of KBAs identified during thisstudy.Since KBAs (and IPAs and IBAs individually)follow strict and rigorous criteria for the identificationas internationally important sites, they should be usedto contribute to the building of a more comprehensivePA system in Macedonia, in addition to increasing thecountry’s compliance with international targets forbiodiversity approved by the Convention on BiologicalDiversity.ReferencesAlbrecht, C. & T. Wilke (2008). Ancient Lake Ohrid: biodiversityand evolution. Hydrobiologia 615:103–140.Anderson, S. (2002). Identifying Important Plant Areas. PlantlifeInternational. Salisbury, UK.CEPF (2011). Bassin Mediterraneen : profil d’écosystème.Downloadable at http://www.cepf.net/Documents/Mediterranean_Summary_Booklet_Francais.pdf. Downloadon 15 September 2011.IUCN (2010). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2010.4. . Downloaded on01 March 2011.Kuzmanov, B. (Ed.) (1979). Flora Reipublicae PopularisBulgaricae - Vol. VII. Academiae Scientarum Bulgaricae,Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2776–27782773

KBAs—Republic of MacedoniaLj. Melovski et al.Appendix 1. Data for trigger species occurring at each KBA in MacedoniaNo.KBAs(* sites holding narrowendemic species)Bird speciesthat triggerthe VulnerabilitycriterionBird speciesthat trigger theIrreplaceabillitycriterion (d -maintaining1% ofglobalpopulation)Plant speciesthat trigger theIrreplaceabillitycriterion - Highlyrestricted-rangespecies (range

KBAs—Republic of MacedoniaLj. Melovski et al.No.KBAs(* sites holding narrowendemic species)Bird speciesthat triggerthe VulnerabilitycriterionBird speciesthat trigger theIrreplaceabillitycriterion (d -maintaining1% ofglobalpopulation)Plant speciesthat trigger theIrreplaceabillitycriterion - Highlyrestricted-rangespecies (range

KBAs—Republic of MacedoniaLj. Melovski et al.No.KBAs(* sites holding narrowendemic species)Bird speciesthat triggerthe VulnerabilitycriterionBird speciesthat trigger theIrreplaceabillitycriterion (d -maintaining1% ofglobalpopulation)Plant speciesthat trigger theIrreplaceabillitycriterion - Highlyrestricted-rangespecies (range

KBAs—Republic of MacedoniaLj. Melovski et al.No.KBAs(* sites holding narrowendemic species)Bird speciesthat triggerthe VulnerabilitycriterionBird speciesthat trigger theIrreplaceabillitycriterion (d -maintaining1% ofglobalpopulation)Plant speciesthat trigger theIrreplaceabillitycriterion - Highlyrestricted-rangespecies (range

KBAs—Republic of MacedoniaSofia, 530pp (in Bulgarian).Langhammer, P.F., M.I. Bakarr, L.A. Bennun, T.M. Brooks, R.P. Clay, W. Darwall,N. De Silva, G.J. Edgar, G. Eken, L.D.C. Fishpool, G.A.B. da Fonseca, M.N.Foster, D.H. Knox, P. Matiku, E.A. Radford, A.S.L. Rodrigues, P. Salaman,W. Sechrest & A.W. Tordoff (2007). Identification and Gap Analysis of KeyBiodiversity Areas: Targets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland.Levkov, Z., S. Krstic, D. Metzeltin & T. Nakov (2007). Diatoms of Lakes Prespa andOhrid (Macedonia). Iconographia Diatomologica 16: 1–603.Levkov, Z. (2009). Amphora sensu lato, pp. 1–916. In: Lange-Bertalot, H. (ed.). Diatomsof Europe, Diatoms of the European Inland waters and comparable habitats–Vol-5.A.R.G. Gantner Verlag K.G.Matevski, V. (2010). The Flora of the Republic of Macedonia, MANU, Skopje, 2(1):1–187 (in Macedonian).Melovski, Lj., V. Matevski, M. Kostadinovski, M. Karadelev, N. Angelova & E.A.Radford (2010). Important Plant Areas in the Republic of Macedonia. Special issueof Macedonian Ecological Society, Vol. 9, Skopje, 128pp. (In Macedonian)Melovski, Lj., S. Hristovski, R. Brajanoska, M. Velevski, A. Sarov & V. Avukatov(2011). Development of the representative protected areas’ system in the Rpublicof Macedonia based on GIS methodology. Proceedings of the conference “NatureProtection in XXI century”, 20–23 September, Zhabljak, Montenegro. BookI, pp. 95–109, Nature Conservation Institute of Montenegro and the Ministry ofSustainable Development and Tourism of Montenegro.Micevski, B. (2002/2003). New species of birds for the Republic of Macedonia. GodišenZbornik Biologija 55/56: 55–73.Micevski, K. (1985). The Flora of the Republic of Macedonia, MANU, Skopje, 1(1):1–152 (in Macedonian).Micevski, K. (1993). The Flora of the Republic of Macedonia, MANU, Skopje, 1(2):153–39 (in Macedonian).Micevski, K. (1995). The Flora of the Republic of Macedonia, MANU, Skopje, 1(3):503–548 (in Macedonian).Micevski, K. (1998). The Flora of the Republic of Macedonia, MANU, Skopje, 1(4):781–1113 (in Macedonian).Micevski, K. (2001). The Flora of the Republic of Macedonia, MANU, Skopje, 1(5):1121–1430 (in Macedonian).Micevski, K. (2005). The Flora of the Republic of Macedonia, MANU, Skopje, 1(6):1437–1715 (in Macedonian).Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (2004). Biodiversity Strategy andAction Plan. MoEPP, Skopje.Plantlife International (2004). Identifying and conserving the world’s most ImportantPlant Areas. A guide to implementing target 5 of the CBD. Plantlife, Salisbury UK.Radford, E.A. & B. Odé (eds.) (2009). Important Plant Areas in South East Europe -conserving priority sites for plants. Plantlife International, UK.Stattersfield, A.J., M.J. Crosby, A.J. Long & D.C. Wege (1998). Endemic Bird Areasof the World: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLifeInternational.Strid, A. & K. Tan (eds.) (1991). Mountain Flora of Greece—Vol. II. EdinburghUniversity Press, Edinburgh, 974pp.Strid, A. & K. Tan (eds.) (1997). Flora Hellenica—Vol. I. Koeltz Scientific Books,Köenigstein, 547pp.Velevski, M., B. Hallmann, B. Grubač, E. Lisičanec, E. Stoynov, T. Lisičanec, V.Avukatov, L. Božič & B. Stumberger (2010). Important Bird Areas in Macedonia:Sites of global and European importance. Acrocephalus 147: 181–282.Walter, K.S. & H.J. Gillett (eds.) (1998). 1997 IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants.IUCN - The World Conservation Union.Lj. Melovski et al.Author Details: Lj u p c o Me l o v s k i is professorat the Institute of Biology, Faculty of NaturalSciences and Mathematics, and Presidentof the Macedonian Ecological Society. Hisfield of expertise is forest ecology and plantconservation. He was leader of the project foridentification of the Important Plant Areas inMacedonia.Me t o d i j a Ve l e v s k i is an ornithologist at theMacedonian Ecological Society, where heworks on vulture conservation and has ledthe initiative for identification of Important BirdAreas in Macedonia.Vl a d o Ma t e v s k i is professor at the Institureof Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences andMathematics and member of the MacedonianAcademy of Sciences and Arts. His field ofexpertise include plant taxonomy and plantcommunities.Va s k o Av u k a t o v and Al e k s a n d a r Sa r o v areGIS specialists in the Macedonian EcologicalSociety.Author Contribution: LjM responsible forbackground IPA identification and writingthe paper; MV responsible for backgroundIBA identification and writing the paper; VMresponsible for background IPA identification;VA mapping of species in the IPAs and IBAs anddeveloping respective background shapefilelayers; AS performing KBA GIS analyses.Acknowledgements: The authors are deeplygrateful to the financial support provided byboth the MAVA foundation, for the identificationand delineation of IPAs in Macedonia, and theFrankfurt Zoological Society, Black VultureConservation Foundation and the VultureConservation Foundation, for the long-termstudy and monitoring of Macedonia’s raptors’populations. In addition, we thank PlantlifeInternational and BirdLife International for theirsupport in the identification and delineationof IPAs and IBAs respectively, and for proofreading the English manuscript. We are alsograteful to Macedonian Ecological Society forproviding all necessary shape-file layers tocompile this paper.2778Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2776–2778

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(8): 2779–2787Key Biodiversity Area Special SeriesKey Biodiversity Areas in the Indo-Burma Hotspot:Process, Progress and Future DirectionsA.W. Tordoff 1 , M.C. Baltzer 2 , J.R. Fellowes 3 , J.D. Pilgrim 4 & P.F. Langhammer 51Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, USA2c/o WWF Malaysia, 49, Jalan SS23/15, Taman SEA, 47400 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia3c/o Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, Lam Kam Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong4132 Thoday Street, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB13AX, United Kingdom5c/o Arizona State University, School of Life Sciences, PO Box 874601, Tempe, AZ 85287, USAEmail: 1 j.tordoff@conservation.org (corresponding author), 2 mbaltzer@wwf.org.my, 3 jrfellowes@yahoo.com,4astrapia@gmail.com, 5 penny.langhammer@asu.eduDate of publication (online): 06 August 2012Date of publication (print): 06 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Manuscript details:Ms # o3000Received 08 November 2011Final revised received 08 February 2012Finally accepted 02 June 2012Citation: Tordoff, A.W., M.C. Baltzer, J.R.Fellowes, J.D. Pilgrim & P.F. Langhammer(2012). Key Biodiversity Areas in the Indo-Burma Hotspot: Process, Progress and FutureDirections. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(8):2779–2787.Copyright: © A.W. Tordoff, M.C. Baltzer, J.R.Fellowes, J.D. Pilgrim & P.F. Langhammer2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricteduse of this article in any medium for non-profitpurposes, reproduction and distribution byproviding adequate credit to the authors andthe source of publication.For Author Details, Author Contribution andAcknowledgements: See end of this article.Abstract: Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) provide geographic targets for the expansion ofprotected area coverage, and identify sites for urgent conservation action. Identificationof KBAs in the Indo-Burma Hotspot was undertaken during 2003, for a region ofanalysis comprising Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand and Vietnam,plus parts of southern China. The starting point was information on 282 ImportantBird Areas identified by BirdLife International and collaborators. These data were thenoverlaid with point locality data on globally threatened mammals, reptiles, amphibians,freshwater fish and plants, with additional KBAs identified as required. Through thisprocess, a total of 438 KBAs were identified, covering 258,085km 2 or 11.5 percentof the region of analysis. Only 58 percent of the KBAs are wholly or partly includedwithin protected areas, suggesting that there may be a need for further expansion ofprotected area networks, particularly in Myanmar and Vietnam. The criteria for KBAidentification are triggered by 812 species, of which 23 are believed only to occur at asingle KBA globally. The KBAs have proven to be a useful conservation priority settingtool in Indo-Burma, helping to guide investments by various donors and application ofenvironmental safeguard policies by international financial institutions. There are fewerexamples of KBAs being used to guide expansion of protected area systems in Indo-Burma. In large part, this is because the period of rapid expansion of protected areas inmost hotspot countries predated the KBA identification process, and political support forfurther significant expansion is currently limited.Keywords: Hotspot, Indo-Burma, Key Biodiversity Area, priority setting, protected area.IntroductionThe Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot is centered on the IndochinesePeninsula, and comprises Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar (Burma),Thailand and Vietnam, plus parts of southern China and northeasternIndia. The topography of the hotspot is complex, and is characterized by aseries of north-south mountain ranges, which descend from the Himalayanchain and its south eastern extensions. These mountain ranges are drainedOPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADThe Key Biodiversity Area series documents the application of the concept andshowcases the results from various parts of the world. The series is edited underthe auspices of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas/Species SurvivalCommission Joint Task Force on ‘Biodiversity and Protected Areas’, with the editorssupported by BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN, National Fish& Wildlife Foundation, NatureServe, Parks Canada, and Plantlife International.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2779–2787 2779

KBAs—Indo-Burmaby several major rivers, including the Ayeyarwaddy,Salween, Chao Phraya, Mekong and Red, whosefloodplains and deltas are the main centers of humansettlement.The biota of Indo-Burma is a mixture of thefloras and faunas of India, the Himalaya, southernChina and the Sundaic Region, with a significantendemic component, particularly in the case of plants.Centers of endemism include montane isolates (suchas Myanmar’s Mount Victoria and Vietnam’s DaLat Plateau), limestone karst areas (such as thosein northern Vietnam and China’s Guangxi ZhuangAutonomous Region), and lowland evergreen forests(most notably the Annamese lowlands of Vietnam andLao PDR, which are home to flagship species such asSaola Pseudoryx nghetinhensis).A conservative estimate of total plant diversity inthe hotspot reveals about 13,500 vascular plant species,of which about 7,000 (52 percent) are endemic (vanDijk et al. 2004). Of the 1,277 bird species found inIndo-Burma, 74 are endemic (van Dijk et al. 2004).Similarly, 71 of the 430 mammal species in the hotspotare endemic (van Dijk et al. 2004). Other vertebrategroups show much higher levels of endemism, with189 of the 519 non-marine reptile species and 139of the 323 amphibian species being endemic to thehotspot (van Dijk et al. 2004). Among these species,Indo-Burma supports probably the highest diversity offreshwater turtles in the world (van Dijk et al. 2004).The hotspot also has a remarkable freshwater fish fauna,with 1,262 documented species, accounting for about10 percent of the world total, including 566 endemics(van Dijk et al. 2004). Available information on nonvascularplants, invertebrates and fungi is generallyinadequate for conservation evaluation of species orsites.With over 315 million people, Indo-Burma has thelargest human population of the world’s 34 hotspots(Mittermeier et al. 2004). This is reflected in the factthat remaining natural habitat is restricted to only fivepercent of its original extent (Mittermeier et al. 2004).The large and rapidly expanding human population,coupled with some of the fastest rates of economicgrowth in the world, is placing increasing pressureson remaining natural ecosystems. Expansion ofagriculture (such as rice, rubber and oil palm),infrastructure development (especially roads andhydropower dams), timber extraction and a rapaciousA.W. Tordoff et al.illegal trade in wildlife are the major current threatsto the hotspot’s biodiversity, with impacts of climatechange and energy shortfalls set to exacerbate thesedramatically in coming decades.As of 2004, the total area under protection was236,000km², representing roughly 10 percent of theoriginal extent of terrestrial ecosystems in the hotspot,although out of this only 132,000km² (a little under sixpercent) was in IUCN protected area categories I to IV(Mittermeier et al. 2004). Moreover, not all ecosystemtypes are adequately represented within the protectedarea systems of the hotspot, with lowland evergreenforests, lowland rivers and intertidal habitats beingnotably under-represented (van Dijk et al. 2004).Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) provide geographictargets for the expansion of protected area coverage,and identify sites for urgent conservation quickly,simply, and cheaply (Langhammer et al. 2007). Thesynthesis paper and Langhammer et al. (2007) providean overview of the KBA criteria and terminology.This paper describes how KBAs have been identifiedin the Indo-Burma Hotspot, and briefly discussesopportunities for further improvement of the analysisand application to conservation planning and prioritysetting.MethodsThe identification of KBAs in the Indo-BurmaHotspot was undertaken during 2003 as part of theprocess to develop an investment strategy (‘EcosystemProfile’) for the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund(CEPF). The region of analysis (Image 1) includedonly part of the original Indo-Burma Hotspot, which,as defined by Mittermeier et al. (1999), includedareas that were later split off to form the HimalayaHotspot (Mittermeier et al. 2004). Specifically, theregion of analysis excluded parts of the original Indo-Burma Hotspot within northeastern India and easternBangladesh, as well as the small part of peninsularMalaysia that falls within the hotspot. The AndamanIslands, which are politically part of India, were alsoexcluded from the analysis.The KBA identification process was led by BirdLifeInternational in Indochina, with technical supportfrom the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at2780Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2779–2787

KBAs—Indo-BurmaA.W. Tordoff et al.Image 1. Region of analysis within the Indo-Burma Hotspot, comprising Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnamand parts of southern China.Conservation International. The starting point was thenetwork of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the region,defined by BirdLife International and its partners. ForCambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam, publishedor draft IBA directories were available (Tordoff 2002;Ounekham & Inthapatha 2003; Seng et al. 2003;Pimathai et al. 2004). For southern China, draft IBAaccounts prepared for the IBA directory of China wereused, some of which were not, ultimately, included inthe directory (Chan et al. 2009); the rapid biodiversityassessments of Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden(2001–2004) were also a major information source.For Myanmar, a preliminary list of IBAs was preparedas part of the KBA analysis (Chan et al. 2004).KBA designation is triggered by the presenceof species meeting certain criteria. For birds, thevulnerability criterion (regular occurrence of aglobally threatened species) was applied, as well asthree of the irreplaceability criteria: (a) restrictedrangespecies; (c) globally significant congregations;and (e) bioregionally restricted assemblages. Forthe most part, the application of these criteria wasconsistent with the guidelines set out in Langhammeret al. (2007). The main departure from these guidelineswas that a small number of KBAs were defined on thebasis of either the regular occurrence of congregationsof at least 20,000 waterbirds or migratory bottlenecksfor at least 20,000 raptors and/or cranes (a criterionused in identifying IBAs), whereas the only thresholdfor globally significant congregations given in theguidelines was the regular occurrence of one percent ofthe global population of a species. One implication ofthis was that five KBAs defined solely on this criterionhad no KBA trigger species, because although theyregularly support at least 20,000 waterbirds, raptorsand/or cranes, they do not necessarily support oneJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2779–27872781

KBAs—Indo-Burmapercent of the global population of any particularspecies.Based on the IBA data, a starting list of 282KBAs was prepared. The IBA data were thenoverlaid with point locality data for other taxonomicgroups, specifically mammals, reptiles, amphibians,freshwater fish and plants, with additional KBAsidentified as required. Due to lack of data on globalrange and population sizes for most species in theseother groups, the only KBA criterion applied wasthe vulnerability criterion. The principal data sourceon the global conservation status of species was the2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, whichrepresented the best available data at the time. InMyanmar, where the KBA identification processcontinued into 2004, updates contained within the2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species were takeninto account. For amphibians, preliminary results ofthe Global Amphibian Assessment (IUCN-SSC & CI-CABS 2003) were used in lieu of the IUCN Red List,which was only updated with the final results of thiscomprehensive amphibian assessment in 2004. Animplication of this is that several amphibians used asKBA trigger species based upon the assessments inIUCN-SSC & CI-CABS (2003) were later assessed byIUCN (2004) as not globally threatened.The analysis of other taxonomic groups wasinitially conducted through review of published andunpublished literature. The preliminary results werethen peer reviewed and improved at a series of expertroundtables, held in Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Vientiane,Lao PDR; Yangon, Myanmar; Bangkok, Thailand; andHanoi, Vietnam. No expert roundtable was held insouthern China due to the outbreak of the SARS virus;instead, stakeholders were consulted individually.The expert roundtables were attended by more than150 representatives of national and internationalconservation organizations, academic institutions,donor agencies, and government institutions in theregion, and the results were published as the EcosystemProfile for the Indochina Region of the Indo-BurmaHotspot (Tordoff et al. 2007) and as a separate, standalonedocument for Myanmar (Tordoff et al. 2005).The starting point for KBA boundary delineationwas the IBA boundaries. In most cases, when theIBAs were overlaid with point locality data for othertaxonomic groups, these could be adopted as KBAboundaries without any adjustment. In a few cases, theA.W. Tordoff et al.IBA clearly did not contain sufficient area of suitablehabitat to support species from other taxonomic groups(mainly large, wide-ranging mammals, such as TigerPanthera tigris and Asian Elephant Elephas maximus).In these cases, the KBA boundary was enlarged, wherefeasible, by incorporating contiguous areas of suitablehabitat outside of the IBA.For KBAs defined for non-bird globally threatenedspecies, two approaches were adopted. Where localitydata overlapped with existing protected areas, KBAboundaries were based upon these areas. In caseswhere existing protected areas were considered toform biologically sensible units, containing sufficientsuitable habitat to support the KBA trigger species,each protected area was delineated as a separateKBA. If two or more contiguous protected areaswere not considered individually large enough to formbiologically sensible units, they were delineated asa single KBA. Eighty nine KBAs were delineatedbased on existing protected areas. The remaining 67KBAs were identified outside both IBAs and existingprotected areas. To delineate their boundaries, pointlocality data were overlaid onto land cover data andhydrological data, and biologically sensible units weredelineated based on a consideration of the ecologicalrequirements of the KBA trigger species. In mostcases, it was relatively straightforward to reconcile theecological requirements of different species becausethe KBAs identified outside both IBAs and existingprotected areas were defined for relatively few specieseach (see Langhammer et al. 2007, Box 14).ResultsA total of 438 KBAs were identified in the Indo-Burma Hotspot through the process outlined above(Table 1, Image 2). Of these, 244 sites (equivalentto 55 percent of the total) were defined for globallythreatened mammals, 284 (65 percent) were definedfor globally threatened, restricted-range, congregatoryor biome-restricted birds, 110 (25 percent) weredefined for globally threatened reptiles, 42 (10 percent)were defined for globally threatened amphibians,16 (4 percent) were defined for globally threatenedfreshwater fish, and 177 (40 percent) were defined forglobally threatened plants (Table 3).Only 58 percent of the KBAs identified to date in2782Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2779–2787

KBAs—Indo-BurmaA.W. Tordoff et al.Image 2. Key Biodiversity Areas in the Indo-Burma Hotspot. The outline of the hotspot is shown in black, with protectedKBAs in green and unprotected KBAs in red.Table 1. Area, number and coverage of KBAs in each country included within the analysis for the Indo-Burma HotspotJurisdiction Area (km 2 )*Area of KBAs(km 2 )% country inKBAs# KBAs# KBAsprotected% KBAsprotectedCambodia 176,520 42,046 23.8 40 22 55.0Lao PDR 230,800 47,698 20.7 38 22 57.9Myanmar 653,520 43,017 6.6 76 24 31.6S. China 355,485 15,392 4.3 69 54 78.3Thailand 510,890 76,741 15.0 113 95 84.1Vietnam 310,070 33,191 10.7 102 36 35.3Total 2,237,285 258,085 11.5 438 253 57.8Note: * = country land areas based on The World Bank (2011)the Indo-Burma Hotspot are wholly or partly includedwithin protected areas (Table 1). The figures for eachcountry may not be strictly comparable, due to thevarying concentration of survey effort in protectedareas; in southern China, for example, little informationwas available from unprotected forest sites, and thefigures may thus overestimate protected area inclusionoverall. In any case, the low total indicates that theremay be a need for further expansion of protected areasystems, particularly in Myanmar and Vietnam, whereJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2779–27872783

KBAs—Indo-BurmaA.W. Tordoff et al.Table 2. Number of species in each higher taxonomic group triggering each of the KBA criteria/subcriteriaHigher taxonVulnerabilityCR EN VU Restricted-rangeIrreplaceabilityCongregations/aggregationsBiome-restrictedBirds 6 16 47 44 73 350 488Mammals 6 18 31 Not defined Not defined Not defined 55Reptiles 7 14 9 Not defined Not defined Not defined 30Amphibians 1 8 34 Not defined Not defined Not defined 43Fishes 2 8 3 Not defined Not defined Not defined 13Plants 43 46 94 Not defined Not defined Not defined 183Total 65 110 218 44 73 350 812Note: * = species falling into more than one category are counted only once.Total*Table 3. Number of KBAs triggered by each of the criteria/subcriteria for each higher taxonomic groupHigher taxonVulnerabilityCR EN VU Restricted-rangeIrreplaceabilityCongregations/aggregationsBiome-restrictedBirds 41 86 220 95 100 139 284Mammals 21 224 204 Not defined Not defined Not defined 244Reptiles 34 78 59 Not defined Not defined Not defined 110Amphibians 1 16 52 Not defined Not defined Not defined 42Fishes 5 12 3 Not defined Not defined Not defined 16Plants 97 121 150 Not defined Not defined Not defined 177Totalover 60 percent of the KBAs lack formal protection.It also suggests that there may be opportunities inall countries for alternative approaches to site-basedconservation, such as community-based conservationand partnership with private landholders.Three-quarters of KBAs were triggered by 20 orfewer species, with half being triggered by seven orless. Eighty three KBAs were triggered only by a singlespecies (Table 4). At the other end of the spectrum,nine KBAs were triggered by over 100 species, withthe highest number occurring at Thailand’s Hala Bala(153 species) and Vietnam’s Fan Si Pan (140 species),owing to the very high numbers of biome-restrictedbird species at these sites. In the Indo-Burma Hotspot,where KBA identification built upon the network ofIBAs previously identified by BirdLife Internationaland partners, the bioregionally restricted assemblagescriterion was applied on the basis of the occurrence ofbird species restricted to a major regional ecologicalcommunity or ‘biome’. Specifically, this criterion wastriggered if a site supported over 25% of the speciesrestricted to a specific biome within a particularcountry, or supported individual species found at twoor less other sites in that country.A total of 812 species triggered KBA criteria forat least one site, comprising 488 globally threatened,restricted-range, congregatory and biome-restrictedbird species (60 percent), and 324 globally threatenedspecies from other taxonomic groups (40 percent;Table 2). A few trigger species have been recordedat many KBAs, with the most widespread being thethreatened mammal, Southern Serow Capricornissumatraensis, recorded at 96 KBAs. However, threequartersof trigger species have been recorded at 10or fewer KBAs, with 142 species only recorded at asingle KBA in the hotspot (Table 4). The majorityof these species were congregatory birds or globallythreatened plants at the edge of their global ranges.However, 23 trigger species are believed to only occurat a single KBA globally (Table 5). These 23 speciestrigger 19 KBAs, five of which are recognized asAlliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites (AZE 2010).The discrepancy between the two figures can beexplained by the fact that AZE sites, at least in the 2010update, have not been defined for single populationsof Vulnerable species (but only Critically Endangeredand Endangered species), and have only been definedfor certain taxonomic groups (specifically not vascular2784Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2779–2787

KBAs—Indo-BurmaTable 4. Frequency distributions of the number of triggerspecies per KBA, and the number of KBAs per triggerspeciesnplants or fish, which trigger most of the KBAs listedin Table 5).Discussion# KBAs holding ntrigger species# trigger speciesoccurring in n KBAs0* 5 01 83 1422 40 883 29 814 28 665 19 586 12 437 23 388 15 249 12 3010 9 2811–20 49 9721–30 29 5731–40 17 1941–50 12 2051–60 16 761–70 14 671–80 7 281–90 3 591–100 7 1>100 9 0Note: * - as previously mentioned, five KBAs are triggered by the regularoccurrence of congregations of more than 20,000 waterbirds, raptors orcranes but are not known to regularly support more than 1% of the globalpopulation of any individual species.To date, the KBAs of the Indo-Burma Hotspothave proven to be a useful conservation prioritysetting tool, helping to guide investments by variousdonors, including the Asian Development Bank andCEPF. They have also played an important role inguiding the application of environmental safeguardpolicies by international financial institutions, such asthe World Bank, which typically include commitmentsnot to finance activities that degrade or damage criticalnatural habitat. Because the KBA criteria correspondclosely to the safeguard policies of these institutions,there are multiple examples of KBAs being used toidentify and avoid potential negative environmentalimpacts of development projects, particularly in areasA.W. Tordoff et al.outside formal protected areas.There are fewer examples of KBAs being used toguide expansion of protected area systems in Indo-Burma, although there are a few notable exceptions,such as the recent declaration of Boeung Prek Lapouvand Kampong Trach KBAs in southern Cambodiaas Sarus Crane Reserves. This is largely becausethe period of rapid expansion of the protected areanetworks in most countries in the hotspot predatedthe KBA identification process, and political supportfor further significant expansion is currently limited.The one exception may be Myanmar, where 68% ofKBAs remain unprotected (Table 1), and there remainmajor gaps in the coverage of the national protectedarea system.With all conservation priority setting exercises,priorities change over time, as new informationbecomes available and the status of biodiversitychanges on the ground. The KBA analysis for Indo-Burma, conducted eight years ago, is not immune fromthese changes. Certainly, there is a need to update theanalysis to take into account taxonomic changes, newdistributional information, and changes to species’Red List status. In addition, a small number of sites(mainly wetlands) have been seriously degraded in theintervening period and are believed to have lost thevalues that led them to qualify as KBAs in the firstplace. For the most part, however, simply refreshingthe analysis would not be expected to lead to manychanges to the KBA list itself. KBA trigger speciesmay be added or removed from some sites but fewsites would be added or removed from the list.The key priorities for future work are to incorporatethe results of two major Red List assessments currentlyunderway in the Indo-Burma Hotspot. The first ofthese is a plant Red List assessment, led by MissouriBotanical Garden, with support from CEPF. Thisinitiative will assess the global threat status of nontreevascular plants for the first time in the hotspot,as well as update and expand the assessments ofmany tree species. The second assessment, led bythe IUCN Species Programme, with support fromCEPF and the MacArthur Foundation, focuses on fourgroups of aquatic species: fish, odonates, molluscs andplants. This initiative will, for the first time, enablecomprehensive identification of KBAs in freshwaterecosystems, which has hitherto been restricted bythe small number of trigger species. These twoJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2779–27872785

KBAs—Indo-BurmaA.W. Tordoff et al.Table 5. Trigger species occurring at only one KBA globally, and the KBAs they triggerKBA (* if global AZE site) Species Taxonomic group IUCN categoryMyanmarNatmataung (Mt Victoria)* Sitta victoriae Bird ENSouthern ChinaBabianjiang Pterospermum kingtungense Vascular plant CRBawangling* Nomascus hainanus (1) Mammal CRDaweishan Manglietia sinica Vascular plant CRFangcheng Shangyue Camellia tunghinensis Vascular plant VUGanshiling Hopea exalata Vascular plant VUPaiyangshan* Paramesotriton guanxiensis (2) Amphibian ENSanya Paranephelium hainanensis Vascular plant ENShiwandashan Reevesia rotundifolia Vascular plant CRLeptolalax ventripunctatus (3) Amphibian DDXishuangbannaNyssa yunnanensis Vascular plant CRPterospermum menglunense Vascular plant CRVatica xishuangbannaensis Vascular plant CRThailandKhao Sam Roi Yot Wrightia lanceolata Vascular plant VULum Nam Pai Schistura oedipus Fish VUSai Yok Nemacheilus troglocataractus Fish VUTham Ba Dan Schistura jarutanini Fish VUVietnamChu Yang Sin Alleizettella rubra Vascular plant VUCuc Phuong Pistacia cucphuongensis Vascular plant VUFan Si Pan*Actinodaphne ellipticbacca Vascular plant VUVibrissaphora echinata Amphibian ENKon Ka Kinh Leptobrachium xanthospilum (4) Amphibian DDTrung Khanh* Nomascus nasutus (1) Mammal CRNotes: (1) At the time of the KBA analysis, Nomascus hainanus and N. nasutus were lumped with N. concolor and assessed as EN; (2) At the time ofthe KBA analysis, Paramesotriton guanxiensis was provisionally assessed as VU; (3) At the time of the KBA analysis, Leptolalax ventripunctatus wasprovisionally assessed as CR; (4) At the time of the KBA analysis, Leptobrachium xanthospilum was assessed as VU.assessments will enable a significant expansion of theKBA analysis in the Indo-Burma Hotspot, particularlywith regard to freshwater ecosystems and limestonekarst isolates.In the long term, a more robust KBA analysiswill require a better understanding of the populationsize, ecological requirements and minimum arearequirements of KBA trigger species. For the mostpart, KBAs have been triggered based on the recordedpresence of a species and the availability of supposedsuitable habitat. This is not, by itself, sufficient evidencethat the site in question, alone or as part of a networkwith other sites, can sustain a population of the speciesindefinitely. As part of developing a more completeunderstanding of the suitability of KBAs to sustainpopulations of trigger species over the long-term,there is also a need to better understand the potentialimpacts of climate change on the ecological parametersthat determine the distribution of KBA trigger species.Such an analysis may argue for maintaining orreinforcing ecological connectivity among KBAs, toallow for changing species’ distributions in responseto climate change. It may also reinforce the need forimproved in situ conservation management, so as toensure healthier, more resilient populations of speciesand assemblages.ReferencesAZE (2010). Alliance for Zero Extinction: 2010 Update.Downloaded from http://www.zeroextinction.org.Downloaded on 05 February 2011.Chan, S., M.J. Crosby, M.Z. Islam, Rudyanto & A.W. Tordoff(eds.) (2004). Important Bird Areas in Asia: Key Sites for2786Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2779–2787

KBAs—Indo-BurmaConservation. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK, xvi+297pp.Chan, S., M. Crosby, S. So, D.Z. Wang, F. Cheung & F.Y. Hua (2009). Directory ofImportant Bird Areas in China (Mainland): Key Sites for Conservation. BirdLifeInternational, Cambridge, UK, 231pp. [In Chinese]IUCN (2002). The 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Downloaded from http://www.redlist.orgIUCN (2004). The 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Downloaded from http://www.redlist.orgIUCN-SSC & CI-CABS (2003). Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Gland; andConservation International, Washington DC. xxxpp?Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden (2001-2004). South China Forest BiodiversitySurvey Report Series: Nos. 1-40. KFBG, Hong Kong SAR, 1109pp.Langhammer, P.F., M.I. Bakarr, L.A. Bennun, T.M. Brooks, R.P. Clay, W. Darwall,N. De Silva, G.J. Edgar, G. Eken, L.D.C. Fishpool, G.A.B. de Fonseca, M.N.Foster, D.H. Knox, P. Matiku, E.A. Radford, A.S.L. Rodrigues, P. Salaman,W. Sechrest & A.W. Tordoff (2007). Identification and Gap Analysis of KeyBiodiversity Areas: Targets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems. IUCNBest Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 15. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland,xiv+117pp.Mittermeier, R.A., P. Robles-Gil, M. Hoffmann, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C.G.Mittermeier, J. Lamoreaux & G.A.B. da Fonseca (eds.) (2004). HotspotsRevisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions.CEMEX, Monterrey; Conservation International, Washington D.C.; and AgrupaciónSierra Madre, Mexico, 390pp.Mittermeier, R.A., N. Myers, P. Robles-Gil & C.G. Mittermeier (eds.) (1999).Hotspots: Earth’s Biologically Wealthiest and Most Threatened Ecosystems.CEMEX, Mexico, 430pp.Ounekham, K. & S. Inthapatha (2003). Important Bird Areas in Lao P.D.R. Departmentof Forestry, BirdLife International in Indochina and the Wildlife ConservationSociety Lao Program, Vientiane, viii+122pp.Pimathai, R., R. Jukmongkol, P.D. Round & A.W. Tordoff (2004). Directory ofImportant Bird Areas in the Kingdom of Thailand: Key Sites for Conservation. BirdConservation Society of Thailand and BirdLife International, Bangkok. 192pp.Seng, K.H., B. Pech, C.M. Poole, A.W. Tordoff, P. Davidson & E. Delattre (2003).Directory of Important Bird Areas in Cambodia: Key Sites for Conservation.Department of Forestry and Wildlife, Department of Nature Conservation andProtection, BirdLife International in Indochina and the Wildlife ConservationSociety Cambodia Programme, Phnom Penh, 116pp.The World Bank (2011). The World Bank: data. Downloaded from http://data.worldbank.org. Downloaded on 07 February 2011.Tordoff, A.W. (ed.) (2002). Directory of Important Bird Areas in Vietnam: Key Sites forConservation. BirdLife International in Indochina and the Institute of Ecology andBiological Resources, Hanoi, 233pp.Tordoff, A.W., M.C. Baltzer, P. Davidson, J. Fellowes, H.Q. Quynh & T.T. Tung(2007). Ecosystem Profile: Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot, Indochina Region.Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Washington DC, ix+153pp.Tordoff, A.W., J.C. Eames, K. Eberhardt, M.C. Baltzer, P. Davidson, P. Leimgruber,U. Uga & U.A. Than (2005). Myanmar: Investment Opportunities in BiodiversityConservation. BirdLife International, Yangon, xxii+124pp.van Dijk, P.P., Tordoff, A.W., Fellowes, J., Lau, M. & Ma J.S. (2004). Indo-Burma, pp.323–330. In: Mittermeier, R.A., P. Robles-Gil, M. Hoffmann, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks,C.G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreaux & G.A.B. da Fonseca (eds.). Hotspots Revisited:Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX,Monterrey; Conservation International, Washington D.C.; and Agrupación SierraMadre, Mexico, 390pp.A.W. Tordoff et al.Author Details:Ja c k To r d o f f is a grant director with the CriticalEcosystem Partnership Fund. Previously, Jackworked for BirdLife International, during whichtime he coordinated the Key Biodiversity Areaidentification process for the Indo-Burma Hotspot.He has two decades’ experience of biodiversityconservation, predominantly in Asia.Mi c h a e l Ba l t z e r is presently the leader of WWF’sTiger’s Alive Initiative. Previously, Michaelworked as director of WWF’s Danube-CarpathianProgramme. He also worked as conservationdirector for the WWF Mekong Programme (thenknown as WWF Indochina) and has many years’experience in biodiversity conservation in otherareas of South-East Asia and in Africa.Jo h n Fe l l o w e s is a consultant to Kadoorie Farm& Botanic Garden, whose South China rapidbiodiversity assessments he initiated in 1997,and to other organisations, including CEPF. He isbased in London and has a range of environmentrelatedroles in the UK and Asia.Jo h n Pilgrim was a grant director with the GlobalConservation Fund at Conservation Internationalbefore moving to BirdLife International inIndochina and managing the Critical EcosystemPartnership Fund Regional Implementation Teamfor the Indo-Burma Hotspot. He now consults onissues related to Net Positive Impact, biodiversityoffsetting, and conservation planning.Pe n n y La n g h a m m e r is a PhD candidate atArizona State University, where she studies theimpact of the fungal disease chytridiomycosison Caribbean frogs. She previously worked atConservation International for nearly a decade,supporting the identification and conservation ofKey Biodiversity Areas in Latin America, Africa,and the Asia-Pacific region.Author Contribution: JT, MB, JF and PL arecontributed directly to the study. JT, MB, JF, JPand PL are contributed to the current paper.Acknowledgements: The KBA list for theIndo-Burma Hotspot was based upon the IBAanalyses prepared by BirdLife International andits governmental and non-governmental partners.The authors would like to thank all those whocontributed to the identification of IBAs in thehotspot, particularly the editors of the relevantnational directories: Pech Bunnat, Simba Chan,Fion Cheung, Mike Crosby, Peter Davidson,Etienne Delattre, Wang Dezhi, Hua Fangyuan,Sipivan Inthapatha, Roongroj Jukmongkol, SengKim Hout, Khamsene Ounekham, RungratchaneePimathai, Colin Poole, Philip Round and SamsonSo. The IBA data were supplemented by data onother taxonomic groups and verified at a seriesof expert round table meetings held during 2003.The authors would like to thank all participants atthese meetings, who contributed their expertiseto the definition of the KBAs of the Indo-BurmaHotspot. The authors would also like to thankthe Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF)for supporting the KBA analysis as part of theEcosystem Profiling process for the Indo-BurmaHotspot. The Critical Ecosystem PartnershipFund is a joint initiative of l’Agence Françaisede Développement, Conservation International,the Global Environment Facility, the Governmentof Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and theWorld Bank. A fundamental goal is to ensure civilsociety is engaged in biodiversity conservation.The authors would also like to thank Naamal DeSilva for her useful comments on a draft of thispaper, as well as Kellee Koenig for her help withpreparing the maps and calculating the figuresin Table 1.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2779–27872787

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(8): 2788–2796Key Biodiversity Area Special SeriesKey Biodiversity Areas in the Philippines: Priorities forConservationR.G.R. Ambal 1 , M.V. Duya 2 , M.A. Cruz 3 , O.G. Coroza 4 , S.G. Vergara 5 , N. de Silva 6 , N. Molinyawe 7 &B. Tabaranza 8,913G Sunvar Condominiums, 2135 A. Luna St. Pasay City 1300, Philippines2Institute of Biology, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines367(9A) Dao St., Marikina Heights, Marikina City 1810, Philippines4Conservation International Philippines, 6 Maalalahanin St., Teachers Village, Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines5ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity, 3rd Floor ERDB Building, University of the Philippines , Forestry Campus, Los Banos, Laguna4031, Philippines6Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, USA7Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau-Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines8Haribon Foundation, 2/F Santos and Sons Building 973 Aurora Boulevard, Quezon City 1109 Philippines9Current address: 1/9 Patricia Avenue, Hilcrest, South Australia 5086, AustraliaEmail: 1 rgrambal@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 lizavduya@gmail.com, 3 mrabella@gmail.com, 4 ocoroza@conservation.org,5sheila_vergara@yahoo.com, 6 ndesilva@conservation.org, 7 normsmolinyawe@yahoo.com, 8 tabaranzablas@yahoo.comDate of publication (online): 06 August 2012Date of publication (print): 06 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Manuscript details:Ms # o2995Received 08 November 2011Final revised received 15 January 2012Finally accepted 24 May 2012Citation: Ambal, R.G.R., M.V. Duya, M.A.Cruz, O.G. Coroza, S.G. Vergara, N. de Silva,N. Molinyawe & B. Tabaranza (2012). KeyBiodiversity Areas in the Philippines: Prioritiesfor Conservation. Journal of Threatened Taxa4(8): 2788–2796.Copyright: © R.G.R. Ambal, M.V. Duya, M.A.Cruz, O.G. Coroza, S.G. Vergara, N. de Silva,N. Molinyawe & B. Tabaranza 2012. CreativeCommons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in anymedium for non-profit purposes, reproductionand distribution by providing adequate credit tothe authors and the source of publication.For Author Details, Author Contribution andAcknowledgements see end of this article.Abstract: A process for identifying Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) for the Philippineswas undertaken in two phases. The 128 terrestrial and freshwater KBAs were identifiedin 2006 and the 123 marine KBAs were identified in 2009. A total of 228 KBAs resultedfrom the integration of the terrestrial, freshwater and marine KBAs. These KBAsrepresent the known habitat of 855 globally important species of plants, corals, molluscs,elasmobranchs, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals in the country.Inclusion of these KBAs in the country’s protected area system will be a significant steptowards ensuring the conservation of the full scope of the country’s natural heritage.Keywords: Conservation priorities, irreplaceability, key biodiversity areas, Philippines,vulnerability.INTRODUCTIONThe Philippines is the world’s second largest archipelago with morethan 7,100 distinct islands covering an estimated 30 million hectares. Itlies in the western Pacific Ocean and is geographically part of SoutheastAsia, a region that occupies a mere three percent of the earth’s total surface,yet is home to 20 percent of all known species of plants and animals.The complex geological history of the Philippines has resulted in anextraordinary wealth of biodiversity, one of the highest concentrations ofterrestrial vertebrate life on earth (Brown & Diesmos 2009). The country’smarine ecosystems are equally diverse and unique. The archipelago isOPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADThe Key Biodiversity Area series documents the application of the concept andshowcases the results from various parts of the world. The series is edited underthe auspices of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas/Species SurvivalCommission Joint Task Force on ‘Biodiversity and Protected Areas’, with the editorssupported by BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN, National Fish& Wildlife Foundation, NatureServe, Parks Canada, and Plantlife International.2788Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2788–2796

KBAs—Philippinessurrounded by shallow, warm seas that support therichest coral reef community on the planet, labeled the“center of marine diversity” by Carpenter & Springer(2005). With more than 20,000 endemic species, thePhilippines is recognized as a megadiverse country,one of 17 nations that, together, hold two-thirds ofearth’s biological diversity (Mittermeier et al. 1999).However, continued exploitation and destructionof natural resources has led to the depletion of thecountry’s unique and valuable biodiversity. Despitethe greater understanding of Philippine biodiversitygained in the last decade, the onslaught of biodiversityloss has continued, albeit compensated by someconservation successes (Posa et al. 2008). Withouttimely intervention, further degradation of resourceswill continue and may eventually result in speciesextinction.Defining conservation priorities is essential tominimizing biodiversity loss (Brooks et al. 2006)as it ensures that conservation action focuses on thespecies at the greatest risk of extinction and on thesites that are most important for their protection.The key biodiversity area (KBAs) approach wasinitiated in the Philippines to help the governmentand stakeholders prioritize conservation action anddevise geographically specific strategies that protectthe individual species and safeguard representativehabitats (Edgar et al. 2008).This paper integrates and summarizes the resultsof the KBA identification process undertaken for thecountry.METHODSThe KBA definition process in the Philippines wasinitiated by Conservation International Philippines(CIP), Haribon Foundation and the Protected Areasand Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) of the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (DENR), withsupport from the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund(CEPF), a global program that provide grants for nongovernmentaland private sector organizations to helpprotect Earth’s most biologically rich yet threatenedareas. KBAs have become the standard conservationtarget definition for CEPF Investments, not only in thePhilippines but in other countries as well.KBA identification in the Philippines involved twoR.G.R. Ambal et al.separate initiatives to identify terrestrial, freshwaterand marine KBAs. The terrestrial and freshwaterKBA identification process was completed in 2006with KBAs identified based on the presence ofglobally threatened and/or restricted-range species offreshwater fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammalsand congregatory species of birds. This built on theprocess led by the Haribon Foundation to identifyImportant Bird Areas (IBA) (Mallari et al. 2001) andwas also informed by specialist-driven identificationof conservation priority areas (CPA) through thePhilippine Biodiversity Conservation Priority Process(Ong et al. 2002). Terrestrial plants were not includedin the analysis, because comprehensive data on theirdistributions and conservation status has not yet beencompiled. In 2008, the marine KBA identificationprocess was initiated and was completed in 2009.Marine KBAs were identified for seaweeds andseagrasses, corals, molluscs, elasmobranchs, reeffishes, marine turtles, sea- and small island-specialistbirds, and marine mammals. The results of the twoKBA definition processes were then combined andfurther refined to derive an integrated set of KBAs.Identification of KBAs for both terrestrialand marine areas followed the process outlinedin Langhammer et al. (2007). The criteria ofvulnerability and irreplaceability were both applied.Vulnerability was triggered by the confirmed presenceof one or more globally threatened species, classifiedas Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN),and Vulnerable (VU) based on the IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species (http://www.iucnredlist.org). Thesuggested threshold of 10 pairs or 30 individuals forspecies classified as VU (Langhammer et al. 2007)was not applied due to the lack of population datafor majority of the trigger species. The 2004 IUCNRed List was used in the terrestrial KBA definitionprocess, while the 2008 IUCN Red List was used in themarine KBA definition process. Irreplaceability wastriggered by the confirmed presence of geographicallyconcentrated species. Only two of the four sub-criteriaof irreplaceability were used in both processes: thepresence of species with restricted ranges and globallysignificant congregations. The restricted-range subcriterionwas used to identify sites for species ofknown conservation concern from taxonomic groupswhich had not at the time been assessed for the IUCNRed List of Threatened Species. The congregationsJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2788–27962789

KBAs—Philippinessub-criterion was only utilized for birds, based onImportant Bird Area data (Mallari et al. 2001).An initial analysis of trigger species, speciesthat satisfies the criteria of vulnerability and/orirreplaceability, was done through a review of thepertinent literature and initial talks with experts onboth processes. Species occurrence and distributiondata for the trigger species were obtained from survey/assessment reports, scientific reports, publishedliterature, museum records and expert accounts. Pointlocality data for each trigger species were then plottedon a map and overlaid with data for other triggerspecies belonging to the same taxonomic group.KBA boundaries were delineated primarily based onwhatever information was available on the habitatrequirements and affinities of the trigger species.Initial KBA maps for each taxonomic group were thenproduced and were reviewed and validated through aseries of meetings with experts. The final terrestrial,freshwater and marine KBA maps are the result of theoverlays of the KBA maps of the different taxonomicgroups.For the terrestrial KBA boundaries, in mostcases the IBA and CPA boundaries were followed(Conservation International et al. 2006). However,refinements and adjustments were made in areas wherethe IBA or CPA boundaries did not cover the habitatof other trigger species or to exclude areas that hadbeen cleared or converted for human use since theywere originally identified (e.g. farms, settlements, andmajor transportation corridors) or for managementconsiderations (e.g. municipal boundaries or adjacentprotected areas). For trigger species found withinexisting protected areas, the KBA followed theprotected area boundary.Marine KBA boundaries mostly followed naturalfeatures such as reef edges or depth contours, toinclude the largest extent possible of remaining habitatof the trigger species (Conservation International etR.G.R. Ambal et al.al. 2009). In some cases, the boundaries correspondto existing management units, e.g. marine protectedareas, designated sanctuaries, or follow municipalboundaries. The boundaries were also refined toexclude, as much as possible, areas that have beenconverted to human use, such as fish farms, port areasand major transportation corridors. Land areas wereexcluded from marine KBA boundaries. Exceptionsinclude the nesting sites of sea turtles, whereinthe beach and some inland mangrove areas wereincluded.Integration of the terrestrial KBAs and marineKBAs involved the overlay of the two map layers inArcView. Overlapping terrestrial and marine KBAswere identified and a larger boundary, encompassingall the overlapping individual KBAs, was establishedto merge them into a single KBA. In some cases, twoor more adjacent KBAs were also merged as a singleKBA to support the habitat requirements of some ofthe trigger species. Socio-political parameters werealso considered in the boundary delineation whereinformation was available or applicable. GoogleEarth was used as an additional tool for refining theboundaries of the KBAs. Using the high resolutionQuickbird imagery available for some areas in GoogleEarth, areas that have been cleared or converted toother land use were excluded, including ports and highdensity human settlements along the coast while, insome cases, existing KBA boundaries were expandedto include adjacent areas of suitable habitat.RESULTSA total of 228 key biodiversity areas were identifiedbased on the integrated results of the 128 terrestrialKBAs identified in 2006 and the 123 marine KBAsidentified in 2009. The terrestrial KBAs cover 20%of the country’s land area, which includes the majorityTable 1. Summary details of the KBAs included within the analysis.KBAs by ecosystemcoverageArea (km 2 ) # of KBAs % of KBAs# of KBAsProtected# of KBAsPartially Protected# of KBAsUnprotectedTerrestrial only 51,249 101 44% 27 25 49Marine only 19,601 77 34% 8 6 63Terrestrial and Marine 35,702 50 22% 15 10 25Total 106,552 228 100% 50 41 1372790Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2788–2796

KBAs—Philippinesof the remaining terrestrial natural habitats, while themarine KBAs covered only 1.93% of the country’smarine area or Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).Some 44% of the sites identified are terrestrial KBAs,34% are marine and 22% include both marine andterrestrial areas (Table 1). Fifty (22%) of the KBAsare existing protected areas, 41 (18%) are partiallyprotected, and the remaining 60% are unprotected(Table 1, Image 1).R.G.R. Ambal et al.The Philippine KBAs represent the known habitatof 855 species, 396 globally threatened and 398restricted-range species of plants, corals, molluscs,elasmobranchs, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birdsand mammals and 61 species of congregatory birds(Table 2). The majority of the globally threatenedspecies would also have triggered the irreplaceabilitycriteria had these been comprehensively applied, butfor threatened species, we only identified sites underImage 1. Map of Philippines showing delineated KBA boundaries showing protected, partially protected and unprotectedKBAs.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2788–27962791

KBAs—Philippinesthe vulnerability criterion, not the irreplaceabilitycriterion. Corals have the highest number of specieswhich trigger site identification under the vulnerabilitycriterion, with 176 species triggering a total of 49KBAs. The irreplaceability trigger species list isdominated by birds (partly because the congregationssub-criterion was applied for birds but not othertaxonomic groups), with 228 species triggering a totalof 93 KBAs (Table 2 & 3).A total of 243 species are found at only a singleKBA while 40 KBAs were identified based on thepresence of a single trigger species (Table 4). Twospecies of globally threatened birds triggered thegreatest number of KBAs; Spizaetus philippensis (VU)R.G.R. Ambal et al.occurs at 48 KBAs while Cacatua haematuropygia(CR) triggers 44 KBAs. The KBAs with the greatestnumber of trigger species are Balayan Bay, with 172species, followed by Tingloy with 167. Both sites aremarine KBAs. Large numbers of globally threatenedcorals, 169 and 166 species respectively, have beendocumented occurring within these two sites. A thirdof the total number of KBAs were triggered by 20 ormore species. Only two percent of the trigger speciesare found in 20 or more KBAs (Table 4).Table 2. Number of species triggering each of the KBA criteria/sub-criteria for each taxonomic group. Many species whichtrigger KBA identification under the vulnerability criterion would also trigger the irreplaceability criteria.Taxonomic GroupVulnerabilityCR EN VURestrictedrangeIrreplaceabilityCongregations/aggregationsSeaweeds/Seagrass 0 0 0 17 0 17Corals 0 9 167 1 0 177Mollusks 0 0 2 0 0 2Elasmobranchs 0 1 8 0 0 9Reef Fishes 0 1 5 2 0 8Freshwater Fishes 14 1 6 9 0 30Amphibians 1 7 40 25 0 73Reptiles 4 4 2 129 0 139Birds 13 14 44 167 61 299Mammals 7 15 31 48 0 101Total 39 52 305 398 61 855TotalTable 3. Numbers of KBAs triggered by each criteria/sub-criteria for each taxonomic group.Taxonomic GroupVulnerabilityCR EN VU Restricted-rangeIrreplaceabilityCongregations/AggregationsSeaweeds/Seagrass 0 0 0 16 0Corals 0 7 45 1 0Mollusks 0 0 15 0 0Elasmobranchs 0 1 14 0 0Reef Fishes 0 20 30 3 0Freshwater Fishes 1 1 3 3 0Amphibians 1 30 71 37 0Reptiles 40 26 16 67 0Birds 85 54 121 78 17Mammals 14 43 81 39 0Total 141 182 396 244 172792Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2788–2796

KBAs—PhilippinesR.G.R. Ambal et al.Table 4. Frequency distribution of the number of KBAs per trigger species and the number of trigger species per KBA.n# KBAs holding n triggerspecies# trigger speciesoccurring in n KBAs1 40 2432 32 1883 15 1114 9 625 9 506 5 377 4 278 8 309 3 1910 1 1411 6 812 2 1113 4 714 3 1015 3 716 6 317 3 518 2 719 4 120 4 321 2 122 1 223 5 224 3 025 3 026 2 027 3 128 0 029 3 030 2 0n# KBAs holding n triggerspecies# trigger speciesoccurring in n KBAs31 3 132 2 033 2 134 2 035 1 036 0 137 5 138 1 039 3 040 2 041 0 042 0 043 2 044 1 145 3 046 0 047 1 048 0 149 1 050 0 051 2 055 1 056 1 057 1 063 2 067 1 088 1 097 1 0167 1 0172 1 0DISCUSSIONThe identification of Philippine KBAs builds onthe previous conservation priority-setting initiativesin the country. Conservation Priority Areas (CPA)were identified and delineated in 2000 based on thecombined inputs and consensus of experts makingbest use of available data. The resulting priorityareas encompassed large areas that did not considermanagement potential, and lacked quantitative data toshow presence of target species needing conservationaction. In 2001, Haribon Foundation and BirdLifeInternational identified 117 Important Bird Areas(IBAs). The IBAs were identified by spatiallyreferencing all relevant existing information onglobally threatened, restricted range, and congregatorybird species. The KBA process built from these twopriority-setting initiatives by refining the previousresults by using the most recent, spatially referenced,and validated information on a wide range of taxarequiring conservation intervention.KBA identification has facilitated the identificationof gaps in the national protected area system, with morethan half of the KBAs unprotected. The KBAs whichdo not overlap with protected areas can be consideredas “representation gaps” whereas KBAs which onlyJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2788–27962793

KBAs—PhilippinesR.G.R. Ambal et al.Table 5. Summary of data for threatened species occurring at only one KBA globally. (Sites already recognized as AZEsites are marked *)KBASpeciesIUCN Red ListcategoryMt. HalconMts. Banahaw-San Cristobal ProtectedLandscapeAnonymomys mindorensisApomys gracilirostrisPlatymantis indeprensusPlatymantis montanaPlatymantis naominaePlatymantis banahaoVUVUVUVUVUVULake Manguao Puntius manguaoensis VUMt. MantalingahanPalawanomys furvusSundascuirus raboriSouth and North Gigante Island* Platymantis insulatus CRMt. Canlaon Natural Park* Ptilinopus arcanus CRSouthwestern Negros Platymantis spelaeus ENCentral Panay Mountains Crateromys heanyi ENENVUCuernos de Negros*Stachyris nigrorumCrocidura negrinaENENMt. Kambinliw and Mt. Redondo* Crateromys australis CRMt. Kitanglad Range Alionycteris paucidentata VULake LanaoTawi-tawi Island*Cephalakompsus pachycheilusMandibularca resinusOspatulus truncatulusPuntius amarusPuntius baoulanPuntius clemensiPuntius disaPuntius flavifuscusPuntius herreiPuntius katoloPuntius lanaoensisPuntius manalakPuntius trasSpratellicypris palataOspatulus palaemophagusPuntius lindogPuntius sirangPuntius tumbaAnthracoceros montaniGallicolumba menageiPhapitreron cinereicepsCRCRCRCRCRCRCRCRCRCRCRCRCRCRENVUVUVUCRCRENThirty five threatened species are known to occur at a single KBA globally (Table 5). These 35 species trigger 12 KBAs, five of which are alreadyrecognized as Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites (AZE 2010) as holding the entire global population of at least one species listed as CriticallyEndangered or Endangered on the IUCN Red List. A further three sites revealed in this analysis (Southwestern Negros, Central Panay Mountains, andLake Lanao) also meet the AZE criteria. Mt. Mantalingahan was previously identified as an AZE site but was dropped in the 2010 AZE list after the RedList category of the Palawanomys furvus was reclassified from Endangered to Data Deficient in 2008.have partial or incomplete overlap with protectedareas can be considered as “ecological gaps”. Theseanalyses therefore, provide a guide for investmentsby government and civil society towards a trulyrepresentative protected area system that encompassesthe full scope of the country’s natural heritage.The KBAs are currently being used by thePhilippine government as means of identifyingwhere biodiversity conservation projects are to beimplemented. A milestone in the conservation effort inthe country is the signing by the President of ExecutiveOrder 578 in 2006 declaring all KBAs to be “criticalhabitats” and directed the DENR to promulgateguidelines for their management and protection. Thegovernment has also taken the KBA initiative one stepfurther by prioritizing efforts in developing an agreedset of criteria that can be used to assess and prioritizeconservation action and investments in KBAs.Conservation investments have declined in recentyears, and knowing that the safeguarding of some2794Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2788–2796

KBAs—PhilippinesKBAs is more urgent than others, has necessitated theneed to prioritize conservation action amongst KBAsidentified till date. The actual prioritization of KBAsand planning the appropriate conservation action onthe ground requires more detailed socio-political andeconomic data that this analysis has not been able toprovide. Further studies should be initiated to gatherinformation that would help assess the levels of threatwithin each KBA and the opportunities available to beable to focus investments in areas where conservationimpacts would be greater.The network of KBAs identified by this analysisdoes not mean that all priority sites in the countryhave been identified. Many globally important andrestricted-range species have not been included in thisanalysis. Most plants have not yet been consideredand it is known that the country is home to some ofthe most threatened habitats and species of plants inthe world, with at least 694 taxa of vascular plantsand mosses included in the threatened plants list ofFernando et al. (2008).Furthermore, a number of additional candidateKBAs have been identified, although they are notincluded in this analysis. A total of 51 terrestrial andfreshwater sites were identified as candidate KBAs.These are sites that have been identified as conservationpriority areas by previous priority-setting initiativesthat need further validation as to the presence oftrigger species. The 126 marine candidate KBAs wereidentified for mangroves, seagrass and seaweeds,corals, echinoderms, molluscs, elasmobranchs,sea snakes, marine turtles, sea birds, and marinemammals. These sites are suspected to be importantfor conservation but at present do not have adequatedata. These sites are currently targeted as prioritiesfor research and it is hoped that soon new data willbecome available to validate and confirm the presenceof trigger species in these areas.KBA identification is an iterative process. As newdata become available KBA boundaries are likely tobe modified and new KBAs identified. Some speciesmay also undergo changes in their conservation statusthat can also affect the priority status of the KBAs theytrigger. For example, the subset of KBAs identified asAZE sites in the country has undergone major changes,with six sites removed from the 2010 AZE list. Theseinclude Mt. Mantalingahan, Mt. Malindang, Mt. Isarog,Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park, Siburan, and IlinR.G.R. Ambal et al.Is. This change is mainly due to new information ondistribution or conservation status of the trigger speciesthat has resulted on the species no longer satisfyingthe AZE criteria (although all six remain as KBAs).Nevertheless, the KBA list represents the best currentassessment of those sites where safeguard mechanismsare necessary in order to allow the Philippines’ uniquebut threatened biodiversity to persist into the future.REFERENCESAZE (2010). Alliance for Zero Extinction: 2010 Update.Downloaded from http://www.zeroextinction.org. Accessed15 November 2010.Brooks T.M., R.A. Mittermeier, G.A.B. Fonseca, J. Gerlach,M. Hoffmann, J.F. Lamoreux, C.G. Mittermeier, J.D.Pilgrim & A.S.L. Rodrigues (2006). Global biodiversityconservation priorities. Science 313: 58–61.Brown, R.M. & A.C. Diesmos (2009). Philippines, Biology, pp.723–732. In: Gillespie, R. & D. Clague (eds.). Encyclopediaof Islands. University of California Press, Berkeley.Carpenter, K.E. & V.G. Springer (2005). The center of thecenter of marine shore fish biodiversity: the PhilippineIslands. Environmental Biology of Fishes 72: 467–480.Conservation International Philippines, Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources-Protected Areasand Wildlife Bureau, and Haribon Foundation (2006).Priority sites for conservation in the Philippines: KeyBiodiversity Areas. Quezon City, Philippines, 24pp.Conservation International Philippines, Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources-Protected Areasand Wildlife Bureau, and Department of Agriculture -Bureau of Agriculture and Aquatic Resources (2009).Marine Key Biodiversity Areas. CD and Map.Edgar, G.J., P.F. Langhammer, G. Allen, T.M. Brooks,J. Brodie, W. Crosse, N. De Silva, L. Fishpool, M.N.Foster, D. Knox, J.E. McCosker, R. McManus, A. Miller& R. Mugo (2008). Key Biodiversity Areas as GloballySignificant Target Sites for The Conservation of MarineBiological Diversity. Aquatic Conservation: Marine andFreshwater Ecosystems, 18: 969–983.Fernando, E.S., L.L. Co, D.A. Lagunzad, W.S. Gruezo, J.F.Barcelona, D.A. Madulid, A. Baja-Lapis, G.I. Texon,A.C. Manila & P.M. Zamora (2008). Threatened plantsof the Philippines: a preliminary assessment. Asia LifeSciences, Supplement 3: 1–52.IUCN (2004).The 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Downloaded from http://www.redlist.org. Accessed 13March 2006.IUCN (2008).The 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Downloaded from http://www.redlist.org. AccessedDecember 2008.Langhammer, P.F., M.I. Bakarr, L.A. Bennun, T.M. Brooks,Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2788–27962795

KBAs—PhilippinesR.P. Clay, W. Darwall, N. DeSilva, G.J. Edgar, G. Eken, L.D.C.Fishpool, G.A.B. de Fonseca, M.N.Foster, D.H. Knox, P. Matiku,E.A. Radford, A.S.L. Rodrigues,P. Salaman, W. Sechrest & A.W.Tordoff (2007). Identification andGap Analysis of Key BiodiversityAreas: Targets for ComprehensiveProtected Area Systems. IUCN BestPractice Protected Area GuidelinesSeries No. 15. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.Mallari, N.A.D., B.R. Tabaranza,Jr. & M.J. Crosby (2001). KeyConservation Sites in the Philippines:a Haribon Foundation andBirdlife International Directory ofImportant Bird Areas. Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resourcesand Bookmark Inc. Makati City:Bookmark, 485pp.Mittermeier, R.A., N. Myers, P.Robles-Gil, & C.G. Mittermeier(eds.) (1999). Hotspots. Earth’sBiologically Richest and MostEndangered Terrestrial Ecoregions.CEMEX/Agrupación Sierra Madre,Mexico City, 432pp.Ong, P.S., L.E. Afuang & R.G. Rosell-Ambal (eds.) (2002). PhilippineBiodiversity Conservation Priorities:A Second Iteration of the NationalBiodiversity Strategy and ActionPlan. Department of Environment andNatural Resources-Protected Areasand Wildlife Bureau, ConservationInternational Philippines,Biodiversity Conservation Program-University of the Philippines Centerfor Integrative and DevelopmentStudies, and Foundation for thePhilippine Environment, QuezonCity, Philippines, 113pp.Posa, M.R.C., A.C. Diesmos, N.S.Sodhi & T.M. Brooks (2008). Hopefor threatened tropical biodiversity:Lessons from the Philippines.BioScience 58: 231–240.Author Details: Ru t h Gr a c e Am b a l is a wildlifebiologist that has been involved the past 10years in identifying conservation priorities in thePhilippines.Me l i z a r Du y a is a Senior Research Associateof the project entitled “ComprehensiveBiodiversity Conservation and MonitoringProgram of the Pantabangan-CarranglanWatershed, Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, LuzonIsland, Philippines” funded by the First GenHydro Power Corporation under the Instituteof Biology, College of Science, UP Diliman,Quezon City, Philippines.Ma r g a u x Cr u z has a degree in MS RemoteSensing from the University of the Philippines-Diliman. She has been working part-timeas a remote sensing and GIS consultant forvarious projects for the past three years. She iscurrently affiliated with the Bureau of Fisheriesand Aquatic Resources as a remote sensingconsultant.Ol i v e r Co r o z a is with Conservation InternationalPhilippines. He has 22 years of experiencein applying cartographic modeling and GISfor natural resources management, remotesensing applications, biodiversity conservation,land use and protected area planning, realestate management and facilities/utilitiesmanagement.Sh e i l a Ve r g a r a, a marine ecologist by training,mobilized the marine KBA process withcolleagues in the course of implementing theSulu Sulawesi Seascape Initiative. She isnow the Director for Biodiversity InformationManagement at the ASEAN Centre forBiodiversity.Na a m a l De Si l v a is Director of ConservationPriorities and Outreach in the Science+ Knowledge Division of ConservationInternational. She is also a doctoral studentin Curriculum and Instruction at the GeorgeWashington University Graduate School ofEducation and Human Development.No r m a Mo l i n y a w e is the Chief of the BiodiversityManagement Division of the ProtectedAreas and Wildlife Bureau of the Departmentof Environment and Natural Resources,Philippines.Bl a s Ta b a r a n z a was Haribon Foundation’sresident scientist and Chief Operating Officerbefore his retirement. He is a member of BirdlifeInternational’s Global Council 2008-2012 andpresident emeritus of the Wildlife ConservationSociety of the Philippines.Author Contribution: RGA spearheaded theprocess of identifying marine and terrestrialKBAs in the Philippines. MD, MC, and OC waspart of the team that identified the PhilippineKBAs. NDS provided advice and technical input.R.G.R. Ambal et al.SV provided support and input to the marineKBA identification. NM and BT provided supportand input in the terrestrial KBA identification.Acknowledgements: The identification ofPhilippine KBAs was made possible throughthe financial support of the Critical EcosystemPartnership Fund for the terrestrial KBAprocess, and the generous support providedby the Walton Family Foundation through theSulu-Sulawesi Seascape Project, implementedby Conservation International Philippines, forthe marine KBA process. The KBA definitionprocess would not have been completedwithout the support and input of all the experts/individuals who have been generous in sharinginformation, participated in the numerousmeetings/workshops and have unselfishlyshared their data: J.M. Acebes, M.N. Alava, A.C.Alcala, E. Alcala, P.M. Aliño, R.A.N. Altamirano,A. Alvaran, P.A. Alviola, M.T.R. Aquino, D.S.Balete, F.B. Barangan, A.B. Barcelona, C.B.Batoy, P.D. Beldia, T. Blastique, D. Bravo, J.M.A.Bringas, R.M. Brown, G.L. Bueser, D. Cabahug,J.P.B. Cabansag, W. Campos, E. Capuli, A.Cariño, L. Casten, L.L. Co, C.C. Custodio, J.D.De Alban, A. De Guzman, G. dela Rosa Jr., M.Deocadez, A.C. Diesmos, M.L. Dolar, M.M.Duya, E.G. Fortes, M. Fortes, H. Froyalde, J.Gatus, J.P. Gaudiano, J.C.T. Gonzalez, L.R.Heaney, V. Hilomen, J.C. Ibañez, N. Ingle, A.E.Jensen, S.M. Licuanan, W. Licuanan, N.A.D.Mallari, J.D. Matillano, T. Mildenstein, C. Nañola,S.P. Oliver, P.S. Ong, L.M. Paguntalan, M.J.Palomar, J. Pontillas, J. Primavera, H.R. Quiaoit,M.C. Quibilan, R.R. Quidlat, F.T. Quimpo, N.Ramoso, C. Reboton, E.L. Rico, E. Sabater,R. Sadaba, R.A. Salinas, B.R. Samaniego,M.R. Silvosa, D.G. Tabaranza, F. Torres Jr.,G.C. Trono Jr., R.B. Trono, B. Vallejo, M. vanWeerd, C.L. Villanoy, R.B. Villanueva, A. White,I. Widmann, P. Widmann, and A.A. Yaptinchay.Invaluable support was also provided by thefollowing institutions: Conservation InternationalPhilippines (CIP), Protected Areas and ProtectedAreas and Wildlife Bureau of the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (PAWB-DENR), Haribon Foundation, Foundation forthe Philippine Environment (FPE), University ofthe Philippines – Center for Integrative Studies(UP-CIDS), Department of Agriculture - Bureauof Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR),and University of the Philippines – MarineScience Institute (UP-MSI). The authors wouldlike to thank two anonymous reviewers for theirinsightful review and valuable comments. Wewould also like to extend our gratitude to Dr.Thomas Brooks for all his comments, inputsand support in the drafting and completion ofthis paper.2796Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2788–2796

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(8): 2797–2805Key Biodiversity Area Special SeriesKey Biodiversity Areas identification in Japan HotspotYoji Natori 1 , Mari Kohri 2 , Seiji Hayama 3 & Naamal De Silva 41,2Conservation International Japan, Shinjuku i-Land Tower 39F, 6-5-1 Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-1339, Japan3Wild Bird Society of Japan, 3-9-23 Nishi-gotanda, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo 141-0031, Japan4Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, USAEmail: 1 y.natori@conservation.org (corresponding author), 2 kohrim@tmu.ac.jp, 3 hayama@wbsj.org,4n.desilva@conservation.orgDate of publication (online): 06 August 2012Date of publication (print): 06 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Manuscript details:Ms # o2999Received 08 November 2011Final revised received 26 December 2011Finally accepted 04 June 2012Citation: Natori Y., M. Kohri, S. Hayama &N. De Silva (2012). Key Biodiversity Areasidentification in Japan Hotspot. Journal ofThreatened Taxa 4(8): 2797–2805.Copyright: © Yoji Natori, Mari Kohri, SeijiHayama & Naamal De Silva 2012. CreativeCommons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in anymedium for non-profit purposes, reproductionand distribution by providing adequate credit tothe authors and the source of publication.Author Details, Author Contributions &Acknowledgements: See end of this article.Abstract: Priority sites within Japan Hotspot were identified using Key Biodiversity Area(KBA) criteria, based on vulnerability and irreplaceability. The identification processconsidered 217 trigger species from mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwaterand brackish water fishes and odonates, and focused on identifying gaps in Japan’sprotected-area system. We identified 228 sites as KBAs and 50 rivers as candidateKBAs. Collectively, KBAs occupy 18% of the land, about half is not protected. Sitesselected include natural and semi-natural environments, and appropriate form ofprotection is site-dependent. Twenty percent of Japanese terrestrial area is alreadyprotected, although to varying degrees, but additional 8% should also receive protectionor proper management to strengthen the conservation of biodiversity in Japan.Keywords: conservation priority, Aichi Target, red list, GIS, IBA, Key Biodiversity Area,KBA, vulnerability, irreplaceabilityJapanese Abstract: 危 機 性 および 非 代 替 性 というKBA 基 準 に 則 り、 生 物 多 様 性 ホットスポットである 日 本 列 島 の 保 全 上 の 優 先 地 域 を 抽 出 した。 哺 乳 類 、 鳥 類 、 爬 虫 類 、 両 生 類 、 淡 水 ・汽 水 魚 類 、トンボ 類 の 計 217 種 を 対 象 とし、 日 本 で 現 在 指 定 されている 保 護 地 域 には 含 まれていない 重 要 地 域 (ギャップ)を 明 らかにすることに 重 点 をおいた。KBA として 選 ばれた228 ヶ所 の 総 面 積 は 国 土 の18%を 占 めるが、このほぼ 半 分 が 保 護 されていないことが 分 かった。さらに、50 の 河 川 をKBA 候 補 としている。KBA には 自 然 度 の 高 い 地 域 から 人 手 が 加 わった 自然 までが 含 まれているため、 適 切 な 保 護 の 形 態 はそれぞれの 地 域 の 状 況 に 合 わせて 検 討 される 必 要 がある。 現 在 、 国 土 の20%が 何 らかの 保 護 地 域 に 指 定 されているが、 本 調 査 結 果 から、 日 本 の 生 物 多 様 性 保 全 のためには、さらに8%について 適 切 な 管 理 が 担 保 される 必 要 があると 言 える。INTRODUCTIONKeidanren NatureConservation FundThe Japanese archipelago stretches 3,000km from the sub-tropics inthe south to the sub-Arctic in the north. Although the four main islands—Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku and Kyushu—account for much of Japan’sland area (approximately 375,000km 2 ), collections of smaller islandssupport relatively high levels of biodiversity. As a heavily populated,industrialized nation, there are few unmodified areas, but high biodiversityis still seen. Owing to this, the archipelago has been identified as oneOPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADThe Key Biodiversity Area series documents the application of the concept andshowcases the results from various parts of the world. The series is edited underthe auspices of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas/Species SurvivalCommission Joint Task Force on ‘Biodiversity and Protected Areas’, with the editorssupported by BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN, National Fish& Wildlife Foundation, NatureServe, Parks Canada, and Plantlife International.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2797–2805 2797

KBAs—Japanof the world’s 35 Biodiversity Hotspots (Mittermeieret al. 2004; Williams et al. 2011) with nearly 2,000endemic vascular plants (Kato & Ebihara, 2011;Mittermeier et al. 2004). Besides the more naturallandscapes, human-influenced habitats often madeup of paddy-fields and secondary forests also playan important role in supporting the biodiversityof Japan (Natori et al. 2011; Washitani, 2001).There is a wide range of protected area categoriesin the Japanese nature conservation system. Themajor ones include national parks, quasi-nationalparks, and prefectural natural areas under the NaturalParks Law; wildlife protection areas under theWildlife Protection and Hunting Law; wildernessareas and nature conservation areas under the NatureConservation Law; and forest reserves and forestecosystem conservation areas under the Forestry Law.Except for the areas designated under Natural ParksLaw and Nature Conservation Law, designations aremutually complementary and several designations cancommonly overlap. Combining all these areas, theexisting protected areas cover 20% of Japan’s landsurface. Additionally, the Endangered Species Lawprovides for the protection of designated species, andsome associated habitat areas have been designatedfor protection. The Law for Protection of CulturalProperties, which was established much earlier thanthe Endangered Species Law, also protects speciesY. Natori et al.and sites of scientific importance (called “naturalmonuments”), some of which are threatened.The selection of these existing protected areasis however not based on systematic biodiversityassessments. Therefore, important sites forbiodiversity need to be identified systematically sothat all such sites are known and preferably becomeprotected. Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) areglobally important sites for biodiversity conservation,identified based on two criteria: vulnerability andirreplaceability (Langhammer et al. 2007). It is aspecies-based site-selection methodology, but withthe aim of site conservation. The most significantsites for bird conservation have been identifiedusing these criteria, and there are 167 ImportantBird Areas (IBAs) in Japan (Wild Bird Society ofJapan, 2010). The KBA identification process addsto IBAs by bringing other taxa into consideration.The major questions we addressed were, “Whereare gaps in Japanese protected-area system thatdeserve protection or proper management? And whatparticularly significant biodiversity occurs in existingprotected areas?” Our focus was less on the assessmentof the performance of the existing protected areas,but more on identifying the parts of the land that stillneed to be protected, i.e., highlighting existing gaps.Table 1. KBA criteria and their application in JapanCriteria Sub-criteria Provisional thresholds Modification in JapanVulnerabilityRegular occurrence of aglobally threatened species(according to the IUCN RedList) at the siteN/ACritically Endangered (CR)and Endangered (EN)species – presence of a singleindividual.Vulnerable species (VU) – 30individuals or 10 pairs.· Sites with the presence record of at least oneCR or EN species· Sites with the presence records of multiple VUspecies· Sites with species endemic to Japan listed asthreatened in Japan red list that are not listedin the IUCN red list· Sites with a single VU species werenot identified as KBAs if that species isrepresented in other KBAs.a) Restricted-range speciesSpecies with a global rangeless than 50,000 km 2 and 5%of global population at siteIrreplaceabilitySite holds X% of a species’global population at any stageof the species’ lifecycleb) Species with large butclumped distributionsc) Globally significantcongregationsd) Globally significantsource populationse) Bioregionally restrictedassemblages5% of global population at site1% of global populationseasonally at the siteSite is responsible formaintaining 1% of globalpopulationTo be defined·(Mammals and amphibians only) Specieswith global range less than 50,000 km 2 andthose with known occurrence in well-definedlocalities·(Birds only) Sites meeting IBA criterion A2, A3and/or A4 11See Wild Bird Society of Japan (2010) for detailed definitions.2798Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2797–2805

KBAs—JapanY. Natori et al.Table 2. Numbers of species triggering each of the criteria/subcriteria for each higher taxonomic groupHigher taxonVulnerabilityCR EN VU Restricted-rangeIrreplaceabilityCongregations/AggregationsBiome-restrictedMammals 5 13 1 9 Not defined Not defined 28Birds 1 2 9 23 5 49 2 14 3 99Reptiles 1 4 7 Not defined Not defined Not defined 12Amphibians 2 14 3 10 Not defined Not defined 29Fish 17 11 3 Not defined Not defined Not defined 31Odonates 11 4 7 Not defined Not defined Not defined 18Total 27 62 44 24 49 14 2171Based on the information in Wild Bird Society of Japan (2011).2Species fulfilling the Criterion A4 of IBA as applied in Japan (Wild Bird Society of Japan, 2010). The number includes 48 species and one speciesgroup, Anatidae. Species included in the vulnerability criterion were not included here.3Species selected for Criterion A3 (Wild Bird Society of Japan, 2010). There are three species overlapping with congregations/aggregationssubcriterion, which are removed in counting the total.4Japanese Red List for insects has one merged category for CR and EN. The total is counted under EN.TotalMETHODSThe standard global set of criteria of vulnerabilityand irreplaceability (Langhammer et al. 2007) was usedin selecting trigger species (Table 1). The KBA selectionprocess took into account all terrestrial vertebrate taxa(mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and freshandbrackish-water fish) and odonates (Table 2). Forthe taxa of which the IUCN Red List is incompleteor outdated, the more recent and comprehensivecompilation of Japan’s Red Lists were used (seebelow for a further discussion). When finalizing thelists of trigger species (especially when adding speciesthat are not IUCN threatened species), we consultedwith a few experts regarding the appropriateness.The study built on the earlier work of IBAidentification (Wild Bird Society of Japan, 2010),and we adopted all IBAs as KBAs. Fish andodonates were included in the analysis to giveemphasis to freshwater systems, which are underrepresentedin the national protected-area network.VulnerabilityWe used the IUCN threatened species list (IUCN,2010) to define the vulnerability of trigger speciesof mammals and amphibians. We considered theinformation on threatened status of these two taxa tobe up to date, because the global assessments haveonly recently been completed. Since IBAs weretreated as KBAs automatically, bird trigger speciesused for IBA identification were also KBA triggerspecies. For other taxa, the IUCN list is incompleteand/or in need of updating. Thus, we supplementedthe IUCN list with the Japan’s national red lists(Ministry of the Environment, 2006, 2007). In doingso, we only considered those species endemic toJapan since these assessments represent the globalstatus of such species (as recommended by Ekenet al. (2004) p. 1114). Where the IUCN categorydiffered from the national one, the national categorywas given precedence since we considered thatJapan’s national lists were more up to date and carriedhigher accountability for species endemic to Japan.IrreplaceabilityThe Irreplaceability criteria were applied formammals, birds and amphibians only. We used therange sizes of mammalian and amphibian speciesfrom the Global Assessments (IUCN, 2009), andonly those with global ranges of smaller than 50,000km 2 were used (i.e., restricted-range sub-criterion).Since population information is not available forthese taxa, we applied the irreplaceability criterionto only those species with known occurrencein well-defined localities, such as islands.For birds, as was the case with vulnerability, theIBA trigger species were also KBA trigger species.IBA defined irreplaceability sub-criteria in restrictedrange, congregation/aggregation and biomerestriction.Unlike mammals and amphibians, theirreplaceability criterion alone was used to triggerKBAs identification for birds. For the purpose ofcounting trigger species in this paper, the speciesincluded in the vulnerability trigger species werenot included in irreplaceability trigger species.Although irreplaceability has not been defined forJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2797–28052799

KBAs—Japanother taxa, many species likely to trigger sites under theirreplaceability criteria are in any case likely to also triggeridentification of sites under the vulnerability criteria.This is especially the case in an insular nation like Japan.Data sourcesThe species presence information was obtainedfrom the “National Survey on the NaturalEnvironment,” conducted by the Japanese Ministryof the Environment (MOE) since 1973 (BiodiversityCenter of Japan, 2008). Detailed presence information(in approximately 1km x 1km cells, or the “thirdmesh” in Japanese standard gridding system) onthreatened species was used with permission fromthe Biodiversity Center of the MOE. PublishedY. Natori et al.journal articles supplemented this information,particularly for bats and odonates. The “ImportantWetlands 500” sites (Ministry of the Environment,2001) that had been selected for the presence of thevulnerability trigger species were also included.KBA Identification and DelineationWe built the identification and delineation processon the existing IBAs. To incorporate other taxa,protected areas that encompassed the locations oftrigger species for non-avian taxa were first adoptedas KBAs. Protected areas were not divided whendelineating KBAs. We considered the followingdesignations as protected areas for the purposes of KBAidentification: national parks, quasi-national parks,Image 1. KBAs and KBA candidates in Japan2800Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2797–2805

KBAs—JapanY. Natori et al.Table 3. Area, number, coverage and protected-area status of KBAs in the Japan Hotspot and its componentsComponentsArea 1(km 2 )# KBAsKBAs 2Area (km 2 ) ofLand in KBAs% land inKBAs 3 # KBAs protected 4 % KBAs protected 3Japan 374,773 228 68,248 65,812 17.6 156 54.7Hokkaido 77,967 26 17,660 17,092 21.9 17 36.3Honshu 228,489 118 39,684 39,345 17.2 85 65.7Shikoku 18,483 12 2,021 1,748 9.5 9 45.6Kyushu 37,543 21 2,403 1,931 5.1 11 76.7Smaller Islands 12,291 51 6,480 5,696 46.3 34 29.51- Area as calculated in GIS, which may differ from official record; 2 - The area of KBAs including marine habitat; 3 - The percentage of land in KBAsand the percentage of KBAs protected limited to terrestrial parts only; 4 - A KBA is counted as protected if any part of the area within its boundaries isprotected.Table 4. Numbers of KBAs triggered by each of the criteria/subcriteria for each higher taxonomic groupHigher taxonVulnerabilityCR EN VUIrreplaceabilityCongregations/AggregationsRestrictedrangeBiomerestrictedTotal number ofKBAs triggered 2Birds 2 20 44 17 98 42 151Mammals 5 31 3 21 - - 40Reptiles 1 2 7 0 - - 7Amphibians 5 14 18 18 - - 46Fish 29 35 12 0 - - 60Odonates 39 1 22 0 - - 49Total number of KBAs triggered 2 38 108 88 43 98 42 2281Japanese Red List for Odonates uses a merged category of CR+EN. Species in CR+EN category were counted towards the EN category;2Row totals and column totals do not equal the sums of row entries and column entries because most KBAs are triggered by more than one speciesand more than one criteria.prefectural natural parks, wilderness areas, natureconservation areas, wildlife protection areas (bothnational and prefectural), and forest ecosystem reserves.If the presence data of the trigger specieswere located outside IBA or existing protectedareaboundaries, vegetation maps (Ministry ofthe Environment; available online: http://www.biodic.go.jp/english/kiso/fnd_f.html) and municipalboundaries were used to help define KBA boundaries.RESULTSWe identified 228 KBAs, covering over 68,000km 2(Image 1). Some KBAs extended into marineenvironment to account for trigger species that aredependent on brackish environment and shorelines.The terrestrial part covers a total of 66,000km 2 ,equaling 17.6% of the land area (Table 3). The islandsstand out as particularly important conservationpriorities. Western Honshu, Kyushu and Shikokuwere low in percent of land in KBAs. Overall, about30,000km 2 of the KBA extent is not protected. Inaddition, 50 rivers were identified as candidateKBAs for the presence of trigger species of fish andodonates. The specification of their boundaries is leftto future work with more information from the sites.All previously identified IBAs were included.Some IBAs were grouped; e.g. the Izu Islands KBArepresents a group of eight IBAs. Many KBAs weredelineated by expanding IBAs to include the presencelocalities of non-bird taxa and to incorporate existingprotected-area boundaries. Seventy-seven sites wereadded in KBA triggered by other taxa (Table 4).Alliance for Zero Extinction sites (AZEs) are asubset of KBAs that are identified by the presenceof highly threatened species (CR or EN in the IUCNRed List) known to occur only in single sites globally.There are six AZEs identified in Japan (AZE, 2010).All of them were also identified as KBAs triggered byJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2797–28052801

KBAs—JapanY. Natori et al.Table 5. Species occurring at only one KBA globallyKBA (* if global AZE site) Species (* if AZE trigger species) IUCN Red List category 1Amami Islands* (include AZE site,Tokunoshima)Pentalagus furnessiOdorrana amamiensisBabina subasperaCrocidura oriiGarrulus lidthiTokudaia tokunoshimensis*ENENENENVUENBiwako Sarcocheilichthys biwaensis -- (CR)Echigo Plain* Mogera etigo* ENKumejima Opisthotropis kikuzatoi CRMiyako IslandsOgasawara IslandsAmphiesma concelarumCalamaria pfefferiTakydromus toyamaiIndolestes boninensisBoninagrion ezoinHemicordulia ogasawarensisRhinogobius sp. BIRhinocypha ogasawarensisApalopteron familiare-- (EN)DD (EN)-- (EN)CR (CR+EN)CR (VU)EN (CR+EN)LC (CR)CR (CR+EN)VUOki Island* Hynobius okiensis* CRSenkaku Islands Mogera uchidai DD (RR)Southern Alps Hynobius katoi DD (RR)Tsushima Islands*Yaeyama IslandsYambaru*Rana tsushimensisHynobius tsuensisMurina tenebrosa*Prionailurus bengalensis iriomotensisOdorrana supranarinaOdorrana utsunomiyaorumTakydromus dorsalisRhacophorus owstoniRhinogobius sp. BBTokudaia muenninki*Limnonectes namiyei*Sapheopipo noguchii* 2Odorrana narina*Gallirallus okinawae*LC (RR)LC (RR)CRCRENEN-- (VU)LC (RR)-- (EN)CRENCRENEN1- Japanese Red List Categories (or KBA subcriteria) used for KBA identification are provided in parentheses if they are different from those in IUCNRed List; 2 - Synonymous with Dendrocopos noguchii.species other than those used to identify AZEs. Table5 lists only five AZEs. The sixth AZE, Yatsugatake,has been identified for a species of conifer (Piceakoyamae), which was a taxon not considered here forKBA identification, but the site was identified as KBAbased on the presence of other trigger species. Onlysmall fractions of five AZEs, Echigo Plain, Oki Island,Tsushima Islands, Tokunoshima Island, Yambaru,are currently protected. In addition to the existingsix AZEs, three KBAs may be considered candidatesfor new AZEs: Kumejima Island (one AZE triggerspecies), Ogasawara Islands (four AZE trigger species)and Yaeyama Islands (three AZE trigger species).The highest numbers of trigger species found at2802Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2797–2805

KBAs—JapanTable 6. Frequency distributions of the number of triggerspecies per KBA, and the number of KBAs per triggerspeciesnThe number of KBAsholding n triggerspeciesThe number of triggerspecies occurring in nKBAs1 73 752 43 363 33 224 23 85 12 126 9 117 11 88 7 49 2 510 6 411 3 312 1 413 1 014 0 115 0 616 0 117 0 318 0 019 2 020 0 021 0 022 0 123 124 1Total 228 sites 204 speciessingle KBAs were 24 on Yambaru, followed by 23on the Yaeyama Islands and 19 on the Amami Islands(Table 6); all of which are in the Nansei Islands.Furenko-Nemuro in Hokkaido was the next richestwith 14 trigger species. The majority (194 KBAs,84%), however, were triggered by five species or fewer.Seven trigger species triggered 15 or moreKBAs: Dymecodon pilirostris, Heteroscelusbrevipes, Pipistrellus endoi, Myotis pruinosus, Anasplatyrhynchos, Columba janthina and Lestes japonicas.Not surprisingly, however, the majority of triggerspecies triggered only a few KBAs (Table 6), becausemany trigger species are endemic to specific islands.DISCUSSIONY. Natori et al.GapsThe most important gaps in the protected areanetwork were found to be the Nansei Islands, a stringof islands extending southwest from southern tip ofKyushu, such as Amami Islands and Yambaru. A moredetailed identification of priority sites within this islandchain has been performed (WWF Japan, 2009), whichshould facilitate more focused local conservationactions. Freshwater (and brackish water) systemswere also found to be generally under-represented inprotected areas; e.g. northern Hokkaido and westernJapan. Unprotected KBAs were identified not onlyin mountainous and other more natural habitats,but also in semi-natural and agricultural areas; e.g.Echigo Plain, Noto Peninsula and Sanuki Plain.Taking into consideration the varying threats to andnatural and social conditions of the areas identifiedas KBAs, the most appropriate form of protection,including the type of protected-area designation,should be determined on site-specific bases.Caveat and LimitationsThis analysis used existing protected-areaboundaries where they contained locality records oftrigger species and did not refine boundaries further.KBAs boundaries, if geographically overlapped withexisting protected areas, could be delineated largerthan they would be in absence of such protectedareas. This was done in consideration to managementefficiency and with the idea that there is no need toreduce the area of protection if the protection is alreadycommitted in the area covering KBAs. The delineationof KBA boundaries outside protected areas were donein ways to minimize adding to KBAs. This means thatthe priority site for new protection covers 8% of Japan’sland is a stronger message for conservation actions thantotal area covered by KBAs is 18% of Japan’s land.We are aware of several limitations of this first analysisof KBA in Japan, and we describe three of them here.First, we recognize that the list of taxa included in theanalysis is incomplete. In particular, grassland systemsare not well represented, since, for example, plantsand butterflies were not included as the trigger species.This is not to say, however, that important sitesfor these taxa have not been selected as KBAs.Indeed, KBAs identified here include the top tenJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2797–28052803

KBAs—Japansites for plant endemism in Japan (Kato & Ebihara,2011). This suggests that many key sites meeting theirreplaceability criterion for plants have likely beenincluded in the KBAs identified by this analysis.Second, the degree of actual protection providedby the existing protected areas to the KBAs identifiedhere should be viewed with caution. We expect thatthose types of protected-area designation used to defineprotected areas in this analysis provide some level ofdeterrent against harmful developments. However,it should be kept in mind that many of them do notprovide sufficient enforceable protection. There arezonings within given types of protected area providingdifferent levels of protection. However, this analysisdid not distinguish these differences in protection; i.e.,in effect, we considered all areas inside the boundariesof existing protected areas to be protected equally. Thisdiffers from the treatment of protected-area designationas applied to IBAs by Wild Bird Society of Japan, whichconsiders as protected only those parts of protectedareas with the higher protected status. In considerationof actual implementation and enforcement, thesedifferences should be more carefully considered. Suchrefined analysis is subject of future development,and will result in larger gaps than shown here.Third, river systems are important and no less than50 rivers had the presence of trigger species. Currentlythe entire river stretches are selected as candidate KBAs.Connectivity from upstream to downstream, as well asfragility of the riverine ecosystems to human alteration,poses a challenge in delineating KBAs in rivers.Although precise delineations are yet to be done, theintention is to draw attention to freshwater systems ofpotential importance to stimulate conservation actions.The selection of KBA relied on presence-onlydata. The KBA map only shows the areas known tobe important. It does not, by any means, indicate thatareas outside these KBAs were excluded becausethey were assessed and were found to be of lowconservation values. Rather, this indicates that they arenot included in KBAs because there was insufficientinformation to justify their inclusion. Most areassimply have not been surveyed. As new informationbecomes available, additional areas equallyimportant as the KBAs identified here may be found.Information on important sites, such as KBAs,must be communicated to local authorities. To bridgeeffectively sites of global conservation importanceY. Natori et al.to on-the-ground conservation actions at localscales, communicating the global importance inlocal context will become increasingly important.Future PrioritiesDeveloping capacity in GIS for conservationpurposes is important in both selecting the sites atfiner scales so that they can be proposed as part offormal protection programs and in providing updatedinformation to enable periodic review of KBAs. Forthis purpose, the next related development will be tooperationalize the Conservation GIS Consortium thatwill provide the platform for collecting and exchangingbiogeographic information in ways that are safe andreliable for both information providers and users.In 2010, the international community agreed toexpand effectively managed protected area network(at least to 17% of the terrestrial area; Aichi Target11) and to avoid extinction and improve the status ofknown threatened species (Aichi Target 12) under theConvention on Biological Diversity’s Strategic Planfor Biodiversity 2011-2020 (see http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/). Currently, protected areas in Japan collectivelycover 20% of land area, but this KBA identificationrevealed that additional 8% of the land should beprotected or properly manged. As additional taxa (e.g.,plants and butterflies) are included in the analysis, thenumber and the area of KBAs will certainly increase. Toachieve these global Aichi Targets, this KBA analysissuggests that Japan’s national target should seeksecuring appropriate management to 28% of the land.REFERENCESAZE (2010). Alliance for Zero Extinction: 2010 Update. http://www.zeroextinction.org (accessed on 31 October 2011).Biodiversity Center of Japan (2008). Catalog of Surveyson Natural Environment. Biodiversity Center of Japan,Nature Conservation Bureau, Ministry of the Environment,Yamanashi, Japan, 146pp (In Japanese). Available at:http://www.biodic.go.jp/mokuroku/pdf/mokuroku_all.pdf(accessed on 31 October 2011).Eken, G., L. Bennun, T.M. Brooks, W. Darwall, L.D.C.Fishpool, M. Foster, D. Knox, P. Langhammer, P. Matiku,E. Radford, P. Salaman, W. Sechrest, M.L. Smith, S.Spector & A. Turdoff (2004). Key Biodiversity Areas asSite Conservation Targets. BioScience 54: 1110–1118.IUCN (2009). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2009.1 Downloaded from http://www.iucnredlist.org.2804Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2797–2805

KBAs—JapanSpatial data, available at http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/spatialdata(accessed on April 18, 2010).IUCN (2010). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. .Downloaded on 14 March 2010.Kato, M. & A. Ebihara (2011). Endemic Plants of Japan. A Book Series fromthe National Museum of Nature and Science No. 11. Tokai University Press,Kanagawa, 503pp (In Japanese).Langhammer, P.F., M.I. Bakarr, L.A. Bennun, T.M. Brooks, R.P. Clay, W. Darwall,N. De Silva, G.J. Edgar, G. Eken, L.D.C. Fishpool, G.A.B. de Fonseca, M.N.Foster, D.H. Knox, P. Matiku, E.A. Radford, A.S.L. Rodrigues, P. Salaman,W. Sechrest & A.W. Tordoff (2007). Identification and Gap Analysis of KeyBiodiversity Areas: Targets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems. IUCN BestPractice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 15. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Ministry of the Environment (2001). Important Wetlands 500. Available at: http://www.sizenken.biodic.go.jp/wetland (accessed on 1 June 2009).Ministry of the Environment (2006, 2007). Red List of Threatened Species ofJapan. Available at: http://www.biodic.go.jp/rdb/rdb_top.html (accessed on 1 June2009).Mittermeier, R.A., P. Robles-Gil, M. Hoffmann, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C.G.Mittermeier, J. Lamoreaux & G.A.B. da Fonseca (eds.) (2004). HotspotsRevisited: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered TerrestrialEcoregions. CEMEX, Monterrey; Conservation International, Washington D.C.;and Agrupación Sierra Madre, Mexico.Natori, Y., J. Silbernagel & M. Adams (2011). Biodiversity conservation planningin rural Japan: integration of ecological and visual perspectives. In: Pavlinov, I.Y.(ed.). Research in Biodiversity - Models and Applications. InTech, pp. 285–306.Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/biodiversityconservation-planning-in-rural-landscapes-in-japan-integration-of-ecologicaland-visual(accessed 15 October 2011).Washitani, I. (2001). Traditional sustainable ecosystem ‘SATOYAMA’ and biodiversitycrisis in Japan: conservation ecological perspective. Global Environment Research5: 119–133.Wild Bird Society of Japan (2010). Important Bird Areas of Japan 2010. World BirdSociety of Japan. Tokyo, 256pp.Williams, K.J., A. Ford, D.F. Rosauer, N. De Silva, R. Mittermeier, C. Bruce, F.W.Larsen & C. Margules (2011). Forests of East Australia: The 35th BiodiversityHotspot, pp. 295–310. In: Zachos, F.E. & J.C. Habel (eds.). Biodiversity Hotspots.Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.WWF Japan (2009). WWF Japan Nansei Islands Biological Diversity EvaluationReport. WWF Japan, Tokyo, 178pp.Y. Natori et al.Acknowledgements: This project benefitedfrom expert information provided by Dr.Masafumi Matsui, Dr. Kazumi Hosoya, Dr.Nobuo Ishii, Dr. Takuma Hashimoto, Mr.Hiromune Mitsuhashi, Mr. Mitsuhiko Toda,Mr. Hitoshi Imai, Dr. Sachiko Yasui-Kamijo,Dr. Yuya Watari, Dr. Ken Sugimura, and Dr.Kazuto Kawakami, and Mr. Takehiko Sato. MsSatoko Shirai provided valuable assistance.Conservation International would like to givespecial thanks to the Biodiversity Center ofJapan, Ministry of the Environment for allowinguse of the data from the National Survey on theNatural Environment. The project (non-birdtaxa) was made possible by a financial supportfrom Keidanren Nature Conservation Fund toConservation International during 2009-2011.Author Details and Contributions:Yo j i Na t o r i is the Ecosystem Policy Managerat Conservation International Japan. Hiscurrent responsibilities include national andinternational biodiversity policy, management ofa forest restoration project, and mainstreamingof biodiversity into society including the outreachof KBA. He led the study and preparation of themanuscript.Ma r i Ko h r i is currently a researcher at TokyoMetropolitan University and the principalinvestigator of a Grant-in-Aid project,“Developing a mapping method for selectingbiodiversity conservation priority area andfor invasive species measures in the oceanicislands” from Japanese Ministry of Education,Culture, Sports, Science & Technology. Shesupported the process as a consultant to CI,and collected distribution information of KBAtrigger species to produce draft KBA mapping.Se i j i Ha y a m a is the Head of Nature ConservationOffice, Wild Bird Society of Japan. He is involvedin conservation, monitoring and research in IBAsites. He also conducts lobbying activities. Heprovided information on IBAs to facilitate theKBA identification process.Na a m a l De Si l v a is the Director of ConservationPriorities and Outreach at ConservationInternational. With background in identifyingglobally significant sites for biodiversityconservation, her current role includesdeveloping CI’s institutional framework foridentifying geographic priorities and helpingto link science staff in CI headquarters withtechnical staff in the field. She advised the studyby providing her experiences in the similarexercises in other countries.All the authors participated in a workshop onconservation priority sites in Tokyo in September2010.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2797–28052805

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(8): 2806–2844Key Biodiversity Area Special SeriesSites for priority biodiversity conservation in theCaribbean Islands Biodiversity HotspotVerónica Anadón-Irizarry 1 , David C. Wege 2 , Amy Upgren 3 , Richard Young 4 , Brian Boom 5 , YolandaM. León 6 ,Yvonne Arias 7 , Kellee Koenig 8 , Alcides L. Morales 9 , Wayne Burke 10 , Amiro Pérez-Leroux11, Catherine Levy 12 , Susan Koenig 13 , Lynn Gape 14 & Predensa Moore 151BirdLife International, Rio Canas 2111, calle Colorado, Ponce, Puerto Rico 00731-1824, USA2BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge, CB3 0NA, UK3,8Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, USA4Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Les Augres Manor, Trinity, Jersey, JE3 5BP Channel Islands, UK.4Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK5The New York Botanical Garden, 2900 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, New York 10458 USA6, 7Grupo Jaragua, El Vergel No.33. El Vergel Santo Domingo, D. N. República Dominicana6Instituto Tecnológico de Santo Domingo, Ave. Los Próceres Galá, Santo Domingo, República Dominicana.9Sociedad Ornitológica Puertorriqueña, Inc., 1605 Carr. 477 Quebradillas Puerto Rico 0067810Woodbourne Shorebird Refuge, Packers, St. Patricks, Christ Church, BB17016, Barbados11BirdLife International, Juan de Dios Martínez N35-76 y Av. Portugal, Quito – Ecuador, CP 17-17-717122 Starlight Avenue Kingston 6 Jamaica, West Indies13Windsor Research Centre, Sherwood Content P.O., Trelawny, Jamaica, West Indies14,15Bahamas National Trust, P.O. Box N 4105, Nassau, The BahamasEmail: 1 veronica.anadon@birdlife.org (corresponding author), 2 david.wege@birdlife.org, 3 a.upgren@conservation.org, 4 richard.young@durrell.org, 5 bboom@nybg.org, 6 ymleon@yahoo.com, ymleon@intec.edu.do, 7 yvonne.arias2@gmail.com, 8 k.koenig@conservation.org, 9 alcidesl.morales@yahoo.com, 10 docinbarbados@yahoo.com, 11 amiro.perez-leroux@birdlife.org, 12 bluequit@gmail.com, 13 windsor@cwjamaica.com, 14 lgape@bnt.bs, 15 pmoore@bnt.bsDate of publication (online): 06 August 2012Date of publication (print): 06 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Manuscript details:Ms # o2996Received 08 November 2011Final revised received 08 March 2012Finally accepted 02 June 2012Citation: Anadón-Irizarry, V., D.C. Wege, A.Upgren, R. Young, B. Boom, Y.M. León, Y. Arias,K. Koenig, A.L. Morales, W. Burke, A. Perez-Leroux, C. Levy, S. Koenig, L. Gape & P. Moore(2012) Sites for priority biodiversity conservationin the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot.Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(8): 2806–2844.Copyright: © Verónica Anadón-Irizarry, DavidC. Wege, Amy Upgren, Richard Young, BrianBoom, Yolanda M. León, Yvonne Arias, KelleeKoenig, Alcides L. Morales, Wayne Burke,Amiro Pérez-Leroux, Catherine Levy, SusanKoenig, Lynn Gape & Predensa Moore 2012Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 UnportedLicense. JoTT allows unrestricted use of thisarticle in any medium for non-profit purposes,reproduction and distribution by providingadequate credit to the authors and the sourceof publication.For Author Details, Author Contribution,Acknowledgements and funding agencies/institutions logos see end of this article.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADAbstract: The Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot is exceptionally important forglobal biodiversity conservation due to high levels of species endemism and threat. Atotal of 755 Caribbean plant and vertebrate species are considered globally threatened,making it one of the top Biodiversity Hotspots in terms of threat levels. In 2009, KeyBiodiversity Areas (KBAs) were identified for the Caribbean Islands through a regionallevelanalysis of accessible data and literature, followed by extensive national-levelstakeholder consultation. By applying the Vulnerability criterion, a total of 284 KeyBiodiversity Areas were defined and mapped as holding 409 (54%) of the region’sthreatened species. Of these, 144 (or 51%) overlapped partially or completely withprotected areas. Cockpit Country, followed by Litchfield Mountain - Matheson’s Run,Blue Mountains (all Jamaica) and Massif de la Hotte (Haiti) were found to supportexceptionally high numbers of globally threatened taxa, with more than 40 such speciesat each site. Key Biodiversity Areas, building from Important Bird Areas, provide avaluable framework against which to review the adequacy of existing national protectedareasystems and also to prioritize which species and sites require the most urgentconservation attention.Keywords: Biodiversity, BirdLife, Caribbean, hotspot, Important Bird Area, KeyBiodiversity Area.Spanish Abstract: see end of text.The Key Biodiversity Area series documents the application of the concept andshowcases the results from various parts of the world. The series is edited underthe auspices of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas/Species SurvivalCommission Joint Task Force on ‘Biodiversity and Protected Areas’, with the editorssupported by BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN, National Fish& Wildlife Foundation, NatureServe, Parks Canada, and Plantlife International.2806Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanINTRODUCTIONThe Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspotis exceptionally important for global biodiversityconservation, due to high levels of species endemismand threat. The Caribbean is home to approximately11,000 plants species, of which 72% are endemic tothe region. The vertebrates are also characterized byextremely high levels of species endemism: 100% of189 amphibian species, 95% of 520 reptile species,74% of 69 mammal species and 26% of 564 speciesbirds are unique to the Caribbean Islands. In terms ofendemism at the genus level, it ranks third among theworld’s 34 Biodiversity Hotspots with 205 plants and65 vertebrate genera endemic to the islands (Smithet al. 2004). Species restricted to the CaribbeanIslands Biodiversity Hotspot represent 2.6% of theworld’s 300,000 plants species and 3.5% of theworld’s 27,298 vertebrate species (Wege et al. 2010).The high level of biological diversity in theCaribbean is due to several factors. During the earlyCretaceous (120 to 140 million years b.p.), a chain ofvolcanic islands (called Proto-Antilles) began to emergealong the eastern edge of the Caribbean Plate in thePacific Ocean. The plate drifted eastward serving as astepping-stone route for limited exchange of terrestrialorganisms between the Nearctic and Neotropicalregions. By the Eocene (58 million years b.p.), the coreof the Greater Antilles achieved their present positions(Brown & Lomolino 1998). The Lesser Antilles arethe active remnants of an ancient volcanic chain, andare younger than the Greater Antilles. Several islandshave particularly rugged and mountainous landscapesseparated by large stretches of sea, which resulted in theisolation of populations and eventually to speciation.The Caribbean has suffered from high levelsof habitat loss since the arrival of Europeans in the1490s. This destruction has reduced the hotspot’soriginal estimated 229,549km 2 of natural vegetationto just 22,955km 2 (or just 10%). The loss of nativehabitat combined with other threat factors, such asintroduced (alien invasive) species, has resultedin severe and widespread degradation of theCaribbean’s unique biodiversity. Currently, 755plants and vertebrate species are at risk of extinction,making the region one of the biodiversity hotspotsholding the most globally threatened species.National governments and donor agencies haveV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.primarily invested in developing protected areassystems to halt biodiversity loss. However, these arerarely comprehensive in their overlap with uniquespecies and habitats, are frequently inadequatelymanaged, and often fail to protect important placesfor biodiversity. Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) inthe Caribbean can be used as a tool for reviewing theefficacy of existing national protected-area systems.KBAs provide a site-based framework against whichgaps in protected-area coverage can be identified andcandidate sites for expansion. This paper has threeobjectives. First, to explain the identification process forCaribbean KBAs that was conducted within the contextof developing the Caribbean Islands Ecosystem Profilefor the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Second,to evaluate how the identified KBAs are represented inthe region’s existing protected-area systems, thereforehighlighting key gaps in them, and to prioritize amongthe KBAs for conservation action. Finally, to evaluatethe effectiveness of the KBA approach in guidingconservation priorities in the Caribbean Islands Hotspot.METHODSThe Caribbean Islands Hotspot (Image 1) includesthe biologically and culturally diverse islands of TheBahamas (Image 2), Greater Antilles (Puerto Rico(Image 5), Jamaica (Image 3), Cuba (Image 2) andHispaniola [comprising the countries of the DominicanRepublic and Haiti] (Image 4)), Virgin Islands, CaymanIslands, Lesser Antilles (Image 5) and the NetherlandsAntilles (Image 6). It does not include Trinidad andTobago. So defined, the hotspot represents a complexgeopolitical region of 12 independent nations, andsix British and three U.S. overseas territories, twoFrench overseas départements, two French overseascollectivités, three special municipalities of theNetherlands and two constituent countries within theKingdom of the Netherlands. The hotspot encompassesmore than four million km 2 of ocean (not included in theanalysis) as well as c. 230,000km² of land area, with thefour islands of Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica and PuertoRico making up about 90% of this. The coastal areaincluded in the analysis embraces territorial waters upto 12 nautical miles. The elevational range spans fromover 3,000m above sea level to 40m below sea level andencompasses a diverse array of habitats and ecosystems.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442807

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Image 1. Partially or completely protected (in green) and unprotected (in red) Key Biodiversity Areas [2010] in theCaribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot.Image 2. Partially or completely protected (in green) and unprotected (in red) Key Biodiversity Areas [2010] in theBahamas and Cuba.The Caribbean KBAs were identified as an integral partof developing the Caribbean Islands Hotspot EcosystemProfile for the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fundduring 2009 (Wege et al. 2010). For the CaribbeanIslands Hotspot, only the Vulnerability criterion wasapplied to select KBAs, with the confirmed presenceof globally threatened species triggering the definitionof a KBA. The Irreplaceability criterion was notapplied due to lack of quantitative data for other taxain the hotspot. This criterion is currently only usedto define KBAs for birds, as this is the only group forwhich the concept of restricted-range species has beenquantitatively defined: species with global breedingranges of less than 50,000km 2 (Stattersfield et al.2808Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Image 3. Partially or completely protected (in green) and unprotected (in red) Key Biodiversity Areas [2010] in Jamaica.Image 4. Partially or completely protected (in green) and unprotected (in red) Key Biodiversity Areas [2010] in Hispaniola.1998). However, to prevent a bias toward site prioritiesfor birds, KBAs in the Caribbean Islands Hotspot areidentified only based on the Vulnerability criterion.The KBA identification process comprised a deskbased,regional-level analysis of accessible data andliterature, followed by national-level stakeholderconsultations coordinated by BirdLife International, incollaboration with the Durrell Wildlife ConservationTrust, the University of Bath and the New YorkBotanical Garden, and with technical supportfrom Conservation International. Important BirdAreas (IBAs), documented by BirdLife partnersand collaborating organizations in 2008 (BirdLifeInternational 2008), were used as a scientificallyrobust starting point for KBA identification.This foundation of IBAs was supplemented byapplying the Vulnerability criterion to non-avian taxato define terrestrial KBAs based on the occurrence ofJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442809

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Image 5. Partially or completely protected (in green) andunprotected (in red) Key Biodiversity Areas [2010] in PuertoRico and the Lesser Antilles.Image 6. Partially or completely protected (in green) andunprotected (in red) Key Biodiversity Areas [2010] in Arubaand Bonaire.globally threatened species as categorized on the 2008IUCN Red List (a global, standardized assessment ofspecies threat status). The taxonomic groups used todefine KBAs were land-based mammals, birds (throughthe IBA process previously mentioned), amphibians,reptiles and plants. Sea turtle nesting beaches wereincluded in the analysis where more than 100 crawlsannually had been recorded (Dow et al. 2007). KBAswere delineated using a geographic information system(GIS) and by taking into consideration the distributionof available habitat for the globally threatened species,and also land/ protected area management units. Thedegree of protection of the KBAs was analyzed againstthe 2010 World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA).National profile coordinators in The Bahamas(Bahamas National Trust), Dominican Republic(Grupo Jaragua), Haiti (Société Audubon Haïti),Jamaica (BirdLife), Lesser Antilles (BirdLife inBarbados) and Puerto Rico (Sociedad OrnitológicaPuertorriqueña) facilitated a review of priorities withintheir own countries. In Cuba, it was not possible toconduct the analysis for taxonomic groups other thanbirds. National workshops were held in DominicanRepublic, Haiti and Jamaica during June 2009, with aregion-wide workshop held in July 2009 on Antigua asa formal part of the 17 th Regional Meeting of the Societyfor the Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds.RESULTSA total of 284 Key Biodiversity Areas weredefined for all the countries and territories containedwithin the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot(Table 1). The 284 KBAs in the Caribbean IslandsHotspot cover just over 50,000km 2 , or roughly 22%of the terrestrial and coastal portion of the hotspot.Half of the KBAs are either fully or partiallyprotected according to the 2010 WDPA (Images 1–6).In total, 409 globally threatened plants andvertebrate species triggered the Vulnerability criterionto define KBAs (hereafter referred as trigger species).No data were available for the other 346 globallythreatened species, most of which were plants, at thetime of this analysis. Plants had the highest numberof globally threatened species, while for vertebratespecies groups, amphibians and then birds were themost abundant groups (Table 2). However, globallythreatened birds were responsible for defining thelargest number of KBAs, followed by amphibians andplants (Table 3). The majority of KBAs were definedby the presence of multiple globally threatened triggerspecies, with almost half of all KBAs (141 or 49.64%)supporting two to 10 trigger species and 28 (or 9.86%)by 11 to 44 species. Cockpit Country in Jamaicasupports an incredible 60 globally threatened species,followed by Litchfield Mountain–Matheson’s Run,Blue Mountains (both with 44) and Massif de la Hotte in2810Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Table 1. Geographical summary of the countries included in the Key Biodiversity Areas analysis for the Caribbean IslandsBiodiversity Hotspot.Country/ territoryArea (ha)No.KBAsArea ofKBAs (ha)% countryin KBAs*No. of KBAs protected/partially protected% of KBAs protected/partially protectedAnguilla 9,800 6 3,885 40 0 0Antigua and Barbuda 44,100 10 18,221 41 4 40Aruba 19,300 1 3,801 20 0 0Bahamas 1,394,000 26 544,158 39 2 8Barbados 43,100 5 5,776 13 0 0British Virgin Islands 15,300 6 6,319 41 3 50Cayman Islands 26,200 8 6,515 25 6 75Cuba 10,988,600 28 2,310,384 21 27 96Dominica 75,400 4 10,948 15 2 50Dominican Republic 4,873,000 32 868,314 18 28 88Grenada 34,400 9 3,321 10 0 0Guadeloupe 171,300 8 48,563 28 2 25Haiti 2,775,000 17 360,314 13 3 18Jamaica 1,082,900 38 444,903 41 21 55Martinique 110,000 8 54,522 50 8 100Montserrat 10,200 3 1,652 16 0 0Netherlands Antilles(Bonaire, Curaçao,Saba, St Eustatius, StMaarten)79,900 7 18,372 23 4 57Puerto Rico 887,000 27 231,524 26 24 89St Barthélemy 2,500 4 1,452 58 0 0St Kitts and Nevis 26,100 1 16 0.06 0 0St Lucia 61,600 6 15,537 25 3 50St Martin 5,600 1 663 12 0 0St Vincent and theGrenadinesTurks and CaicosIslands38,900 7 13,221 34 0 050,000 10 106,001 212 0 0US Virgin Islands 35,300 12 8,435 24 7 58Total 22,859,500 284 5,086,816 22 144 51The percent coverage by KBAs can be over 100% as some KBAs include both land and water area, while the total area for each country is calculatedbased solely on land area. Cuban key biodiversity areas comprise only sites (IBAs) identified as important for globally threatened birds.Table 2. Total number of species triggering the Vulnerabilitycriterion for each higher taxonomic groupTaxonomicGroupCriticallyEndangeredVulnerabilityEndangered Vulnerable TotalAmphibians 47 36 11 94Birds 11 16 21 48Mammals 1 2 11 14Plants 52 58 109 219Reptiles 16 9 9 34Table 3. Total number of KBAs triggered by theVulnerability criterion for each higher taxonomic groupTaxonomicGroupCriticallyEndangeredVulnerabilityEndangeredVulnerableAmphibians 42 75 53Birds 19 61 121Mammals 2 15 49Plants 33 71 58Reptiles 52 25 61Total 127 121 161 409Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442811

KBAs—CaribbeanTable 4. Total frequency distributions of the number oftrigger species per KBA, and the number of KBAs pertrigger species in the Caribbean Islandsn# KBAs holding n triggerspecies# trigger species occurringin n KBAs1 114 1732 37 803 26 434 23 275 14 196 12 97 10 78 8 99 5 910 6 611 2 712 3 413 1 214 0 215 3 016 2 217 1 318 2 219 0 020 1 121 0 022 0 223 1 024 1 125 1 026 3 027 2 028 0 029 0 030 0 031 0 032 0 033 1 034 1 035 0 036 0 037 0 038 0 039 0 040 0 041 0 042 1 043 0 044 2 045 0 046 0 047 0 048 0 049 0 050 0 051 0 052 0 053 0 054 0 155 0 056 0 057 0 058 0 059 0 060 1 0Total 284 409V. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Haiti (with 42). On the other hand, 114 (or 40%) KBAswere identified for a single trigger species (Table 4).A total of 173 (or 42.29%) of the trigger specieshave distributions confined to just one KBA (see Table5). However, 25 KBAs hold populations of more thanone of these “single-site” species with Cockpit Country,Blue Mountains and Massif de la Hotte each supportingpopulations of more than 20 such species. An importantresult of the KBA process was the identificationof 56 KBAs which contained the only record of aglobally threatened species in the Caribbean IslandsBiodiversity Hotspot. No fewer than 19 of these KBAswere identified in 2010 as global Alliance for ZeroExtinction (AZE) sites (Tables 4 and 5)—defined bythe presence of Critically Endangered or Endangeredspecies confined to just a single site. One hundred andsixty nine (169 or 41.32%) of the trigger species occuronly in two to five KBAs and the other 67 (16.38%)trigger species occur in more than six KBAs (Table 4).DISCUSSIONThe countries with the greatest numbers of KeyBiodiversity Areas are the large islands of the GreaterAntilles and multi-island countries such as TheBahamas. This is to be expected as the principlesof island biogeography dictate that the larger (andolder) the island, the greater the species diversity.Higher species diversity on each of the GreaterAntilles, combined with greater ecosystem, habitatand altitudinal diversity, has led to larger numbers ofendemic species and consequently higher numbers ofglobally threatened taxa. Small islands in archipelagossuch as The Bahamas often result in taxonomic isolationand the presence here of globally threatened speciesoccupying very small ranges (often confined to a singleisland) has in turn led to the definition of relatively largenumbers of KBAs. In Cuba, the KBAs included onlyIBAs as it was not possible to incorporate the resultsof analyses of other taxonomic groups or consultationswith experts for the definition of other sites.The amount and quality of available data on thedistribution of globally threatened species amongCaribbean KBAs vary between taxonomic groups butthe sites identified will almost certainly be importantfor other groups for which data are not currentlyavailable. However, there are likely to be additional2812Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—Caribbeansites holding globally threatened species that have notbeen identified during this process. This is becausereptiles, plants (especially cacti and orchids) and batshave not been systematically assessed against RedList criteria. Neither have freshwater fish (of whichthere are numerous endemics in the region), suchthat just five have so far been categorized as globallyV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.threatened, and no KBAs were defined for this group.In addition to the occurrence of globally threatenedspecies (the Vulnerability criterion), KBAs can also bedefined on the basis of the presence of restricted-rangespecies (the Irreplaceability criterion): their inclusionas a next step may result in a better coverage of thepoorly represented taxonomic groups mentioned above.Table 5. Summary data for species triggering the Vulnerability criterion at only one KBA in the Caribbean IslandsBiodiversity HotspotCountry/territory Key Biodiversity Area SpeciesIUCN Red ListcategoryAntigua and Barbuda Offshore Islands Alsophis antiguae CRAruba Arikok National Park Crotalus unicolor CRBahamas Cay Sal Caretta caretta ENBarbados Scotland District Liophis perfuscus ENBritish Virgin Islands Anegada Island Acacia anegadensis CRBritish Virgin Islands Anegada Island Metastelma anegadense CRBritish Virgin Islands Virgin Gorda Calyptranthes kiaerskovii VUCuba Alejandro de Humboldt * Campephilus principalis CRCuba Alejandro de Humboldt * Chondrohierax wilsonii CRCuba Ciénaga de Zapata * Ferminia cerverai ENCuba Ciénaga de Zapata * Cyanolimnas cerverai CRDominica Morne Trois Pitons National Park Phycolepidozia exigua CRDominican Republic Bahoruco Oriental Antirhea radiata VUDominican Republic Loma La Humeadora Ateleia gummifera ENDominican Republic Loma La Humeadora Celestus anelpistus CRDominican Republic Loma La Humeadora Pimenta cainitoides VUDominican Republic Los Haitises * Abarema abbottii VUDominican Republic Los Haitises * Buteo ridgwayi CRDominican Republic Los Haitises * Sideroxylon dominicanum VUDominican Republic Parque Nacional Jaragua Pseudophoenix ekmanii CRDominican Republic Parque Nacional Jaragua Pimenta haitiensis VUDominican Republic Sierra de Neyba Eleutherodactylus parabates CRDominican Republic Valle Nuevo Cleyera vaccinioides VUGuadeloupe Massif forestier de l'île de Basse-Terre * Eleutherodactylus barlagnei ENGuadeloupe Massif forestier de l'île de Basse-Terre * Eleutherodactylus pinchoni ENGuadeloupe Massif forestier de l'île de Basse-Terre * Myotis dominicensis VUHaiti Dame-Marie * Eleutherodactylus caribe CRHaiti Ile de la Tortue Forest Eleutherodactylus warreni CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Calyptranthes ekmanii VUHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Catalpa brevipes VUHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus amadeus CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus apostates CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus bakeri CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus brevirostris CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus chlorophenax CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus corona CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus counouspeus ENHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus dolomedes CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus eunaster CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus glandulifer CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus lamprotes CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus parapelates CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus sciagraphus CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus thorectes CRJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442813

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country/territory Key Biodiversity Area SpeciesIUCN Red ListcategoryHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Eleutherodactylus ventrilineatus CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Nectandra caudatoacuminata CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Nectandra pulchra CRHaiti Massif de la Hotte * Micropholis polita VUHaiti Massif de la Selle * Eleutherodactylus darlingtoni CRHaiti Massif de la Selle * Eleutherodactylus glanduliferoides CRHaiti Plaisance Celestus warreni CRHaiti Presqu'ile du Nord-Ouest I * Eleutherodactylus grahami ENHaiti Presqu'ile du Nord-Ouest I * Eleutherodactylus lucioi CRHaiti Presqu'ile du Nord-Ouest II * Eleutherodactylus rhodesi CRJamaica Black River Great Morass Eugenia brownei VUJamaica Blue Mountains * Annona praetermissa VUJamaica Blue Mountains * Ardisia brittonii ENJamaica Blue Mountains * Bunchosia jamaicensis VUJamaica Blue Mountains * Eleutherodactylus alticola CRJamaica Blue Mountains * Eleutherodactylus nubicola ENJamaica Blue Mountains * Eugenia brachythrix VUJamaica Blue Mountains * Eugenia nicholsii ENJamaica Blue Mountains * Hernandia catalpifolia VUJamaica Blue Mountains * Hyeronima jamaicensis VUJamaica Blue Mountains * Maytenus harrisii CRJamaica Blue Mountains * Psychotria foetens VUJamaica Blue Mountains * Rondeletia brachyphylla ENJamaica Blue Mountains * Rondeletia hirsuta VUJamaica Blue Mountains * Rondeletia hirta VUJamaica Blue Mountains * Sebastiania alpina VUJamaica Blue Mountains * Verbesina rupestris VUJamaica Blue Mountains * Wallenia fawcettii VUJamaica Blue Mountains * Zanthoxylum hartii VUJamaica Blue Mountains * Brunfelsia jamaicensis VUJamaica Blue Mountains * Miconia nubicola ENJamaica Blue Mountains * Nowellia wrightii VUJamaica Bluefields Eugenia abbreviata ENJamaica Bull Bay Brunfelsia membranacea VUJamaica Bull Bay Phialanthus jamaicensis ENJamaica Bull Bay Portlandia albiflora CRJamaica Bull Bay Tetrasiphon jamaicensis ENJamaica Catadupa * Ouratea elegans CRJamaica Catadupa * Phyllanthus cauliflorus VUJamaica Cockpit Country * Bursera aromatica VUJamaica Cockpit Country * Buxus arborea VUJamaica Cockpit Country * Calliandra comosa VUJamaica Cockpit Country * Calyptranthes nodosa VUJamaica Cockpit Country * Cassipourea brittoniana ENJamaica Cockpit Country * Cassipourea subcordata CRJamaica Cockpit Country * Cordia harrisii VUJamaica Cockpit Country * Eleutherodactylus sisyphodemus CRJamaica Cockpit Country * Eugenia laurae ENJamaica Cockpit Country * Eugenia sachetae ENJamaica Cockpit Country * Exostema orbiculatum CRJamaica Cockpit Country * Hamelia papillosa VUJamaica Cockpit Country * Manilkara excisa ENJamaica Cockpit Country * Mitranthes macrophylla CRJamaica Cockpit Country * Pimenta richardii ENJamaica Cockpit Country * Psychotria plicata VUJamaica Cockpit Country * Psychotria siphonophora EN2814Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country/territory Key Biodiversity Area SpeciesIUCN Red ListcategoryJamaica Cockpit Country * Rondeletia amplexicaulis ENJamaica Cockpit Country * Sophora saxicola ENJamaica Cockpit Country * Spathelia coccinea CRJamaica Cockpit Country * Strempeliopsis arborea VUJamaica Cockpit Country * Xylosma proctorii VUJamaica Cockpit Country * Phyllanthus axillaris ENJamaica Dolphin Head Calyptranthes discolor ENJamaica Dolphin Head Cassipourea subsessilis CRJamaica Dolphin Head Comocladia parvifoliola CRJamaica Dolphin Head Dendropanax cordifolius CRJamaica Dolphin Head Eugenia polypora CRJamaica Dolphin Head Lasiocroton fawcettii VUJamaica Dolphin Head Ormosia jamaicensis ENJamaica Dolphin Head Psychotria hanoverensis CRJamaica Dolphin Head Rondeletia cincta CRJamaica Dolphin Head Sebastiania fasciculata ENJamaica Dolphin Head Tabernaemontana ochroleuca VUJamaica Dolphin Head Tabernaemontana ovalifolia ENJamaica Don Figuerero Mountains Coccoloba proctorii ENJamaica Hellshire Hills * Cyclura collei CRJamaica Hellshire Hills * Phialanthus revolutus ENJamaica Hellshire Hills * Siphonorhis americana CRJamaica John Crow Mountains * Clusia portlandiana VUJamaica John Crow Mountains * Dendropanax blakeanus VUJamaica John Crow Mountains * Myrcia calcicola VUJamaica John Crow Mountains * Phyllanthus eximius VUJamaica John Crow Mountains * Psychotria bryonicola CRJamaica John Crow Mountains * Psychotria clusioides ENJamaica John Crow Mountains * Pterodroma caribbaea CRJamaica John Crow Mountains * Rondeletia portlandensis VUJamaica John Crow Mountains * Sideroxylon bullatum VUJamaica John Crow Mountains * Ternstroemia howardiana VUJamaica John Crow Mountains * Wallenia sylvestris VUJamaica John Crow Mountains * Weinmannia portlandiana VUJamaica Litchfield Mountain - Matheson's Run Calyptranthes capitata VUJamaica Litchfield Mountain - Matheson's Run Eugenia aboukirensis CRJamaica Litchfield Mountain - Matheson's Run Ocotea staminoides ENJamaica Mount Diablo Eugenia acutisepala ENJamaica Mount Diablo Gymnanthes glandulosa VUJamaica Mount Diablo Ilex florifera VUJamaica Mount Diablo Ilex subtriflora CRJamaica Mount Diablo Malpighia cauliflora ENJamaica Negril Zanthoxylum negrilense ENJamaica Portland Ridge and Bight * Eleutherodactylus cavernicola CRJamaica Santa Cruz Mountains Rhamnidium dictyophyllum ENMartinique Forêts du Nord et de la Montagne Pelée Allobates chalcopis VUMartinique Pitons du Carbet Freziera cordata VUMartinique Pitons du Carbet Inga martinicensis VUMartinique Pitons du Carbet Schefflera urbaniana VUMartinique Rocher du Diamant Liophis cursor CRMontserrat Centre Hills * Diploglossus montisserrati CRPuerto Rico Carite Eleutherodactylus jasperi CRPuerto Rico Cordillera Central Callicarpa ampla CRPuerto Rico Cordillera Central Ilex cookii CRPuerto Rico Cordillera Central Marlierea sintenisii VUPuerto Rico Culebra Anolis roosevelti CRJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442815

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country/territory Key Biodiversity Area SpeciesIUCN Red ListcategoryPuerto Rico El Yunque * Eleutherodactylus unicolor VUPuerto Rico El Yunque * Styrax portoricensis CRPuerto Rico El Yunque * Ternstroemia subsessilis CRPuerto Rico Karso del Norte Henriettea membranifolia CRPuerto Rico Karso del Norte Myrcia paganii CRPuerto Rico Karso del Norte Pleodendron macranthum CRPuerto Rico Karso del Sur Zamia portoricensis CRPuerto Rico Maricao y Susúa Calyptranthes portoricensis ENPuerto Rico Maricao y Susúa Xylosma pachyphyllum CRPuerto Rico Mona y Monito Eleutherodactylus monensis VUPuerto Rico Mona y Monito Sphaerodactylus micropithecus ENPuerto Rico Mona y Monito Typhlops monensis ENPuerto Rico Sabana Seca * Eleutherodactylus juanariveroi CRPuerto Rico Salinas de Punta Cucharas Trichilia triacantha CRPuerto Rico Sierra de Pandura * Eleutherodactylus cooki VUSt Lucia Government Forest Reserve * Leucopeza semperi CRSt Lucia Point Sables Liophis ornatus EN* Global AZE site 2010 updateSites regularly supporting significant populationsof restricted-range species are global conservationpriorities because there are few or no other sites inthe world where conservation action for these speciescan be taken. However, there are no quantitative datafor restricted-range species (other than birds) in thehotspot and thus this criterion could not be applied.The main threats to the terrestrial biodiversity ofthe insular Caribbean, as prioritized during the nationalecosystem profiling workshops in order of highlysignificant regional threat or impact are: invasivespecies; residential and commercial development;severe weather events and global climate change;agricultural expansion and intensification; overexploitationof natural resources; mining and energyproduction; pollution; transportation; and geologicalevents. There is a complex mix of interacting socioeconomic,political, cultural and environmental factorsthat are driving environmental change and threateningbiodiversity (and thus the KBAs) in the insularCaribbean. Principal among these are the increasinghuman population and material consumption, povertyand inequitable access to resources, the inherenteconomic and environmental vulnerability of theislands to external forces, such as changes in global traderegimes, and climate change. Some of these, such aspoverty, are local or national issues, while others, suchas climate change, require attention at the global level.All these drivers can be either exacerbated or mitigatedby public policies and institutional arrangements,at national, regional and international levels.A number of constraints need to be overcome toaddress the environmental threats and achieve moreeffective conservation of biodiversity and ecosystemservices. The main ones discussed during the nationalworkshops and consultations in order of highlysignificant regional barrier are: weak and ineffectivepolicy; poor land-use planning; limited capacity andresources for biodiversity conservation; inefficientinstitutional frameworks; poor participation bystakeholders; limited technical and scientific knowledgefor decision-making; and lack of awareness ofbiodiversity and ecosystem services (particularly theirvalue) among decision-makers and the general public.Most countries have significantly updated, or are inthe process of updating (e.g. Haiti and St.Vincent), theirpolicies and legislation on biodiversity, environmentalmanagement and sustainable development while theirobligations under international agreements have helpeddrive this process (Brown et al. 2007). However, thereexists significant variation among countries with regardto comprehensiveness and effectiveness, particularlyconcerning the protection of threatened biodiversity andecosystems (BirdLife International 2008), and there isa need for specific analyses of “gaps” in legislation andpolicies, which very few countries have undertaken(an exception being Jamaica [NEPA 2003]). Overall,national public policy frameworks for environmental2816Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—Caribbeanmanagement remain largely oriented toward control,regulation and a reactive approach to environmentalissues, although new approaches and instruments,including environment service markets, have begun tobe promoted by some donors, governments and NGOsas means of changing destructive patterns of behavior.Environmental policy in the Caribbean tends mostlyto address environmental issues and impacts rather thantheir underlying root causes/drivers, such as humanpopulation increase. In the case of climate change,Caribbean countries do not consider themselves tobe net contributors and therefore policy responses arelargely limited to adaptation. All the countries in thehotspot are active participants in the main multilateralenvironmental agreements. All are signatories to thethree “Rio Conventions”—the UN Convention onBiological Diversity, UN Convention to CombatDesertification, and the UN Framework Convention onClimate Change —and most are members of the otherkey biodiversity related agreements, such as the RamsarConvention, the World Heritage Convention and theConvention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies, but not the Convention on Migratory Species.At the regional level, the main agreement is theConvention for the Protection and Development of theMarine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region(Cartagena Convention) and its three Protocols.These together constitute the only legal instrument forregional cooperation on environmental issues for thewider Caribbean, although not all signatory countriesare properly meeting their commitments, e.g. requiredlegislation not enacted, management plans notdeveloped, and biodiversity action plans not in place.Key Biodiversity Areas can achieve the following:(i) Help Caribbean nations honour theircommitments to multilateral environmentalagreements(ii) Provide the basis for protected area gap analyses(as is the case in Haiti where KBAs are being used inthe development of the national system for protectedareas plan)(iii) Provide a prioritized framework within whichto monitor the status of biodiversity in the region.REFERENCESV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Alliance for Zero Extinction (2010). 2010 AZE Update. www.zeroextinction.org. Accessed on January 2011.BirdLife International (2008). Important Bird Areas in theCaribbean: key sites for conservation. Cambridge, UK:BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No.15), 348pp.Brown, N., T. Geoghegan & Y. Renard (2007). A SituationAnalysis for the Wider Caribbean. Gland, Switzerland:IUCN, x+52pp.Brown, J.H. & M.V. Lomolino (1998). Biogeography—2 ndEdition. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers, Sunderland,Massachusetts, 691pp.Dow, W., K. Eckert, M. Palmer & P. Kramer (2007). AnAtlas of SeaTurtle Nesting Habitat for the Wider CaribbeanRegion. The Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle ConservationNetwork and The Nature Conservancy. WIDECASTTechnical Report No. 6. Beaufort, North Carolina, USA,267pp.NEPA (2003). Gap analysis of relevant policies. Report no.2. Policy Analysis Report, prepared by Pauline McHardy.National Environment and Planning Agency, Kingston,Jamaica, 86pp (unpublished report).Smith, M.L., S.B. Hedges, W. Buck, A. Hemphill, S.Inchaustegui, M.A. Ivie, D. Martina, M. Maunder,& J.F. Ortega (2004). Caribbean Islands, pp.112–118.In: Mittermeier, R.A., P.R Gil, M. Hoffmann, J. Pilgrim,T. Brooks, C.G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux & G.A.B. daFonseca (2004). Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s BiologicallyRichest and Most Endangered Ecoregions. Mexico City(Mexico): CEMEX, 392pp.Stattersfield, A.J., M.J. Crosby, A.J. Long & D.C. Wege(1998). Endemic Bird Areas of The World: Priorities forBiodiversity Conservation. Cambridge, U.K.: BirdLifeInternational, 846pp.Wege, D.C., D. Ryan, N. Varty, V. Anadón-Irizarry & A.Pérez-Leroux (2010). Ecosystem Profile: the CaribbeanIslands Biodiversity Hotspot. Washington, DC: CriticalEcosystem Partnership Fund,153pp (unpublished report).Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442817

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Appendix 1. Key Biodiversity Areas in the Caribbean Islands HotspotCountry Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameIUCN Red ListCategoryAnguilla (to UK) Cove Pond Alsophis rijersmai ENEastern Anguilla Alsophis rijersmai ENIguana delicatissimaGrey Pond Alsophis rijersmai ENKatouche Canyon Alsophis rijersmai ENIguana delicatissimaLong Pond Alsophis rijersmai ENScrub Island Alsophis rijersmai ENAntigua and Barbuda Bethesda Dam Dendrocygna arborea VUChristian Cove Dendrocygna arborea VUCodrington Lagoon and the Creek Dendrocygna arborea VUFitches Creek Bay Dendrocygna arborea VUHanson's Bay - Flashes Dendrocygna arborea VUMcKinnons Salt Pond Dendrocygna arborea VUOffshore Islands Alsophis antiguae CRDendrocygna arboreaEretmochelys imbricataGuaiacum officinalePotworks Dam Dendrocygna arborea VUValley Church Bay Dendrocygna arborea VUWallings Forest Guaiacum officinale ENSwietenia mahagoniAruba (to Netherlands) Arikok National Park Crotalus unicolor CRLeptonycteris curasoaeBahamas Allan's Cays Cyclura cychlura VUBitter Guana Cay Cyclura cychlura VUBooby Cay Cyclura carinata CRCat Island Wetlands Dendrocygna arborea VUCay Sal Caretta caretta ENEast Plana Key Geocapromys ingrahami VUExuma Cays Land and Sea Park Cyclura cychlura VUGeocapromys ingrahamiGraham's Harbour Cyclura rileyi ENGreat Inagua Dendrocygna arborea VUGreen Cay Cyclura rileyi ENGrog Pond Dendrocygna arborea VUGuana Cays Cyclura rileyi ENHarrold and Wilson Ponds National Park Tachycineta cyaneoviridis ENLee Stocking Island Dendrocygna arborea VULong Island and Hog Cay Dendrocygna arborea VULow Cay, High Cay and Sandy Hook Cyclura rileyi ENLucayan National Park Tachycineta cyaneoviridis ENMangrove Cay Cyclura cychlura VURed Bays Tachycineta cyaneoviridis ENSan Andros Pond Dendrocygna arborea VUTachycineta cyaneoviridisSan Salvador Eugenia crenata VUSouth Andros Island Cyclura cychlura VUTrachemys terrapenSouthern Great Lake Cyclura rileyi ENStafford Creek to Andros Town Cyclura cychlura VUTachycineta cyaneoviridisWhite Bay, Noddy, North Adderley and Leaf Cays Cyclura cychlura VUWhite Cay Cyclura rileyi ENBarbados Bath Beach Eretmochelys imbricata CRHilton Beach Eretmochelys imbricata CRScotland District Dermochelys coriacea CRLiophis perfuscusVUVUVUCRENENVUVUENVUENEN2818Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameIUCN Red ListCategoryMyotis martiniquensisVUSouth Coast Beaches Eretmochelys imbricata CRWest Coast Beaches Eretmochelys imbricata CRBonaire Dos Pos, Bonaire Amazona barbadensis VULac Bay, Bonaire Amazona barbadensis VUWashikemba-Fontein-Onima, Bonaire Amazona barbadensis VUWashington-Slagbaai National Park, Bonaire Amazona barbadensis VULeptonycteris curasoaeVUBritish Virgin Islands Anegada Island Acacia anegadensis CRCordia rupicolaCRCyclura pinguisCRLeptocereus quadricostatusCRMetastelma anegadenseCRGuana Island Cyclura pinguis CRLittle Thatch Island Cyclura pinguis CRNecker Island Cyclura pinguis CRSage Mountain Area Eleutherodactylus schwartzi ENVirgin Gorda Calyptranthes kiaerskovii CREleutherodactylus schwartziENMachaonia woodburyanaCRMaytenus cymosaENCayman Islands (to UK) Bluff Forest Cedrela odorata VUCyclura nubilaVUBooby Pond Nature Reserve Cyclura nubila VUDendrocygna arboreaVUBotanic Park and Salina Reserve Cyclura lewisi CRDendrocygna arboreaVUCentral Mangrove Wetland Dendrocygna arborea VUCrown Wetlands Cyclura nubila VUDendrocygna arboreaVUEastern Dry Forest Cyclura lewisi CRFranklin's Forest Cyclura lewisi CRSparrowhawk Hill Cyclura nubila VUCuba Alejandro de Humboldt Accipiter gundlachi ENAratinga euopsVUCampephilus principalisCRChondrohierax wilsoniiCRGeotrygon canicepsVUStarnoenas cyanocephalaENTyrannus cubensisENAlturas de Banao Accipiter gundlachi ENAratinga euopsVUGeotrygon canicepsVUCayería Centro-Oriental de Villa Clara Dendrocygna arborea VUCayo Sabinal, Ballenatos y Manglares de la Bahíade NuevitasColaptes fernandinaeVUDendrocygna arboreaVUCayos Romano-Cruz-Megano Grande Accipiter gundlachi ENDendrocygna arboreaVUCiénaga de Lanier y Sur de la Isla de la Juventud Dendrocygna arborea VUTyrannus cubensisENCiénaga de Zapata Accipiter gundlachi ENAratinga euopsVUColaptes fernandinaeVUCyanolimnas cerveraiCRDendrocygna arboreaVUFerminia cerveraiENJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442819

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameGeotrygon canicepsStarnoenas cyanocephalaTorreornis inexpectataTyrannus cubensisIUCN Red ListCategoryDelta del Cauto Accipiter gundlachi ENAratinga euopsColaptes fernandinaeDendrocygna arboreaDelta del Mayarí Accipiter gundlachi ENDendrocygna arboreaDesembarco del Granma Accipiter gundlachi ENColaptes fernandinaeDendrocygna arboreaGeotrygon canicepsStarnoenas cyanocephalaTyrannus cubensisGibara Accipiter gundlachi ENDendrocygna arboreaGeotrygon canicepsGran Humedal del Norte de Ciego de Ávila Accipiter gundlachi ENAratinga euopsDendrocygna arboreaStarnoenas cyanocephalaTorreornis inexpectataGran Piedra - Pico Mogote Accipiter gundlachi ENGeotrygon canicepsTyrannus cubensisGuanahacabibes Accipiter gundlachi ENDendrocygna arboreaStarnoenas cyanocephalaTyrannus cubensisHatibonico - Baitiquirí - Imías Accipiter gundlachi ENColaptes fernandinaeGeotrygon canicepsTorreornis inexpectataHumedal Sur de Pinar del Río Dendrocygna arborea VUHumedal Sur de Sancti Spiritus Dendrocygna arborea VULa Mensura Accipiter gundlachi ENAratinga euopsGeotrygon canicepsLas Picúa- Cayo del Cristo Dendrocygna arborea VULimones-Tuabaquey Accipiter gundlachi ENAratinga euopsColaptes fernandinaeGeotrygon canicepsStarnoenas cyanocephalaMil Cumbres Accipiter gundlachi ENAratinga euopsColaptes fernandinaeGeotrygon canicepsStarnoenas cyanocephalaTyrannus cubensisPico Cristal Accipiter gundlachi ENAratinga euopsGeotrygon canicepsTyrannus cubensisRío Máximo Accipiter gundlachi ENColaptes fernandinaeDendrocygna arboreaGeotrygon canicepsVUENENENVUVUVUVUVUVUVUENENVUVUVUVUENENVUENVUENENVUVUENVUVUVUVUVUENVUVUVUENENVUVUENVUVUVU2820Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameIUCN Red ListCategorySiboney - Juticí Accipiter gundlachi ENSierra del Chorrillo Accipiter gundlachi ENAratinga euopsColaptes fernandinaeDendrocygna arboreaStarnoenas cyanocephalaTyrannus cubensisSierra del Rosario Accipiter gundlachi ENColaptes fernandinaeGeotrygon canicepsStarnoenas cyanocephalaTyrannus cubensisTopes de Collantes Accipiter gundlachi ENAratinga euopsGeotrygon canicepsTurquino-Bayamesa Accipiter gundlachi ENCatharus bicknelliColaptes fernandinaeGeotrygon canicepsPterodroma hasitataStarnoenas cyanocephalaTyrannus cubensisDominica Cochrane Dactylolejeunea acanthifolia VUInga dominicensisTabernaemontana oppositifoliaMorne Diablotin National Park Amazona arausiaca VUAmazona imperialisEleutherodactylus amplinymphaIguana delicatissimaTurdus lherminieriMorne Trois Pitons National Park Amazona arausiaca VUAmazona imperialisDactylolejeunea acanthifoliaEleutherodactylus amplinymphaInga dominicensisLeptodactylus fallaxPhycolepidozia exiguaPouteria pallidaPouteria semecarpifoliaTabernaemontana oppositifoliaTurdus lherminieriPoint Des Foux Iguana delicatissima VUDominican Republic Arroyo Lebrón, El Seybo Stahlia monosperma ENBahía de las Calderas Cyclura cornuta VUDendrocygna arboreaSenna domingensisBahoruco Oriental Amazona ventralis VUAntirhea radiataAratinga chloropteraCalyptophilus frugivorusCorvus leucognaphalusEleutherodactylus armstrongiEleutherodactylus audantiEleutherodactylus heminotaEleutherodactylus hypostenorEleutherodactylus leonceiVUVUVUENENVUVUENENVUVUVUVUVUENENENVUVUENENVUVUENVUENVUCRCRENVUVUVUVUVUVUVUVUVUENVUENENCRJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442821

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameEleutherodactylus rufifemoralisGeotrygon canicepsHuertea cubensisSolenodon paradoxusTachycineta euchryseaIUCN Red ListCategoryCabo Engaño Swietenia mahagoni ENCerro Chacuey Swietenia mahagoni ENDiego de Ocampo Hypsiboas heilprini VUHonduras Calyptophilus frugivorus VUGuaiacum officinaleGuaiacum sanctumHypsiboas heilpriniPeltophryne guentheriSwietenia mahagoniHoyo Claro-Hoyo Azul Amazona ventralis VUEleutherodactylus probolaeusEleutherodactylus ruthaeGuaiacum officinaleGuaiacum sanctumSwietenia mahagoniLago Enriquillo Amazona ventralis VUCorvus leucognaphalusCrocodylus acutusCyclura cornutaCyclura ricordiDendrocygna arboreaEleutherodactylus pictissimusGuaiacum officinaleGuaiacum sanctumPeltophryne guentheriSenna domingensisTrachemys decorataLaguna Bávaro Eleutherodactylus pictissimus VUEleutherodactylus probolaeusEleutherodactylus ruthaeLaguna Cabral Aratinga chloroptera VUCyclura cornutaDendrocygna arboreaEleutherodactylus pictissimusPeltophryne guentheriSenna domingensisTrachemys decorataLaguna Limón Dendrocygna arborea VULoma Guaconejo Catharus bicknelli VUOsteopilus pulchrilineatusOsteopilus vastusPlagiodontia aediumSolenodon paradoxusLoma Isabel de Torres Osteopilus pulchrilineatus ENTabernaemontana oppositifoliaLoma La Humeadora Amazona ventralis VUAntirhea sintenisiiAratinga chloropteraAteleia gummiferaCatharus bicknelliCelestus anelpistusCRVUVUENVUENENVUVUENENENENENENVUVUVUCRVUVUENENVUVUVUENENVUVUVUVUVUVUENENENENVUVUVUENVUCR2822Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameEleutherodactylus auriculatoidesEleutherodactylus minutusEleutherodactylus patriciaeEleutherodactylus pituinusEleutherodactylus pituinusEleutherodactylus schmidtiHypsiboas heilpriniOsteopilus vastusPimenta cainitoidesTurdus swalesiIUCN Red ListCategoryLoma Nalga de Maco y Río Limpio Amazona ventralis VUAratinga chloropteraCalyptophilus frugivorusCatharus bicknelliCoccyzus rufigularisCorvus leucognaphalusEleutherodactylus audantiEleutherodactylus auriculatoidesEleutherodactylus montanusEleutherodactylus schmidtiEleutherodactylus wetmoreiHypsiboas heilpriniLasiurus minorOsteopilus pulchrilineatusPodocarpus hispaniolensisTachycineta euchryseaXenoligea montanaLoma Quita Espuela Amazona ventralis VUAratinga chloropteraCatharus bicknelliEleutherodactylus schmidtiHypsiboas heilpriniOsteopilus pulchrilineatusOsteopilus vastusPlagiodontia aediumSolenodon paradoxusLos Haitises Abarema abbottii VUAmazona ventralisButeo ridgwayiCatharus bicknelliCorvus leucognaphalusHuertea cubensisHypsiboas heilpriniOsteopilus pulchrilineatusOsteopilus vastusPlagiodontia aediumSideroxylon dominicanumSolenodon paradoxusManglares de Estero Balsa Crocodylus acutus VUCyclura cornutaGuaiacum officinaleGuaiacum sanctumPeltophryne guentheriManglares del Bajo Yuna Plagiodontia aedium ENParque Nacional Armando Bermúdez Amazona ventralis VUAratinga chloropteraCalyptophilus frugivorusENENENENENCRVUENVUENVUVUVUENVUVUENENCRVUVUVUENENVUVUVUVUCRVUENENENENVUCRVUVUVUVUENENENVUENVUENENVUVUVUJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442823

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameCatharus bicknelliCoccyzus rufigularisCorvus leucognaphalusEleutherodactylus audantiEleutherodactylus auriculatoidesEleutherodactylus haitianusEleutherodactylus minutusEleutherodactylus montanusEleutherodactylus patriciaeEleutherodactylus pituinusEleutherodactylus ruthaeEleutherodactylus schmidtiHypsiboas heilpriniLasiurus minorLoxia megaplagaOsteopilus vastusPlagiodontia aediumPodocarpus aristulatusPodocarpus hispaniolensisSolenodon paradoxusTachycineta euchryseaTurdus swalesiXenoligea montanaIUCN Red ListCategoryParque Nacional del Este Amazona ventralis VUCatharus bicknelliCorvus leucognaphalusCyclura cornutaEleutherodactylus probolaeusGuaiacum officinaleGuaiacum sanctumPlagiodontia aediumSolenodon paradoxusZanthoxylum flavumParque Nacional Jaragua Amazona ventralis VUAratinga chloropteraCorvus leucognaphalusCyclura cornutaCyclura ricordiDendrocygna arboreaEkmanianthe longifloraEleutherodactylus alcoaeGuaiacum sanctumPimenta haitiensisPlagiodontia aediumPseudophoenix ekmaniiSolenodon paradoxusSwietenia mahagoniTrachemys decorataParque Nacional Jose del Carmen Ramirez Eleutherodactylus audanti VUEleutherodactylus auriculatoidesEleutherodactylus montanusEleutherodactylus patriciaeHypsiboas heilpriniOsteopilus pulchrilineatusOsteopilus vastusPromontorio de Cabrera Solenodon paradoxus ENReserva Científica Ébano Verde Antirhea sintenisii VUVUENVUVUENENENENENENENCRVUVUENENENVUENENVUENVUVUVUVUENENENENENVUVUVUVUCRVUENENENVUENCRENENVUENENENVUENEN2824Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameCalyptophilus frugivorusCleyera bolleanaEleutherodactylus auriculatoidesEleutherodactylus minutusEleutherodactylus pituinusEleutherodactylus schmidtiGeotrygon canicepsHypsiboas heilpriniJuglans jamaicensisLasiurus minorOsteopilus vastusPodocarpus aristulatusTachycineta euchryseaXenoligea montanaIUCN Red ListCategoryRio Anamuya Stahlia monosperma ENSalto de la Damajagua Osteopilus pulchrilineatus ENOsteopilus vastusSolenodon paradoxusSierra de Bahoruco Amazona ventralis VUAratinga chloropteraCalyptophilus frugivorusCatharus bicknelliCoccyzus rufigularisCorvus leucognaphalusCyclura cornutaEkmanianthe longifloraEleutherodactylus alcoaeEleutherodactylus armstrongiEleutherodactylus audantiEleutherodactylus fowleriEleutherodactylus furcyensisEleutherodactylus heminotaEleutherodactylus hypostenorEleutherodactylus jugansEleutherodactylus leonceiEleutherodactylus nortoniEleutherodactylus pictissimusEleutherodactylus rufifemoralisEleutherodactylus wetmoreiJuniperus graciliorLasiurus minorLoxia megaplagaOsteopilus vastusPlagiodontia aediumPodocarpus aristulatusPterodroma hasitataSolenodon paradoxusTachycineta euchryseaTrachemys decorataTurdus swalesiXenoligea montanaSierra de Neyba Amazona ventralis VUCalyptophilus frugivorusCoccyzus rufigularisCorvus leucognaphalusEkmanianthe longifloraEleutherodactylus audantiVUVUENENENCRVUVUVUVUENVUVUVUENENVUVUVUENVUVUENENENVUCRCRENENCRCRCRVUCRVUENVUENENENVUENENVUVUENVUVUENVUENVUJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442825

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameEleutherodactylus parabatesEleutherodactylus wetmoreiHypsiboas heilpriniJuniperus graciliorLasiurus minorPlagiodontia aediumPodocarpus aristulatusPodocarpus hispaniolensisSolenodon paradoxusTachycineta euchryseaTurdus swalesiXenoligea montanaIUCN Red ListCategorySierra Martín García Amazona ventralis VUCalyptophilus frugivorusCatharus bicknelliCyclura cornutaEleutherodactylus pictissimusGuaiacum officinaleJuniperus graciliorManilkara valenzuelanaPeltophryne guentheriSwietenia mahagoniXenoligea montanaZanthoxylum flavumValle Nuevo Amazona ventralis VUAntirhea sintenisiiAratinga chloropteraCalyptophilus frugivorusCatharus bicknelliCleyera bolleanaCleyera vaccinioidesEleutherodactylus audantiEleutherodactylus auriculatoidesEleutherodactylus haitianusEleutherodactylus minutusEleutherodactylus montanusEleutherodactylus patriciaeEleutherodactylus pituinusEleutherodactylus schmidtiHypsiboas heilpriniJuniperus graciliorLasiurus minorLoxia megaplagaOsteopilus vastusPlagiodontia aediumPodocarpus aristulatusPodocarpus hispaniolensisSolenodon paradoxusTachycineta euchryseaTurdus swalesiXenoligea montanaGrenada Bathway Beach Dermochelys coriacea CRBeausejour/Grenville Vale Leptotila wellsi CRGrand Etang Pristimantis euphronides ENLevera Beach Dermochelys coriacea CRMount Hartman Leptotila wellsi CRMount Saint Catherine Pristimantis euphronides ENCRVUVUENVUENVUENENVUENVUVUVUVUVUENENVUVUENVUVUVUVUVUVUVUVUVUENENENENENENCRVUENVUENENENVUENENVUENVU2826Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameIUCN Red ListCategoryPerseverance Leptotila wellsi CRWoodford Leptotila wellsi CRWoodlands Leptotila wellsi CRGuadeloupeFalaises Nord et Îlet de Vieux-Fort de Marie-GalanteGuaiacum officinaleENGallery Forest of Baie-Mahault Chiroderma improvisum VUEptesicus guadeloupensisVUGrand Cul-de-Sac Marin's eastern coastline Turdus lherminieri VUîlets de la Petite-Terre Guaiacum officinale ENIguana delicatissimaVULa Désirade Iguana delicatissima VUMassif forestier de l'île de Basse-Terre Eleutherodactylus barlagnei ENEleutherodactylus pinchoniENEptesicus guadeloupensisVUIguana delicatissimaVUMyotis dominicensisVUSturnira thomasiVUTurdus lherminieriVUPointe des Châteaux Guaiacum officinale ENTrois-Ilets & Folle Anse de Marie-Galante Eretmochelys imbricata CRHaiti Cavaillon Attalea crassispatha CRDame-Marie Eleutherodactylus caribe CREleutherodactylus paulsoniCREleutherodactylus pictissimusVUHypsiboas heilpriniVUDubedou Ekmanianthe longiflora ENFond des Nêgres Attalea crassispatha CRIle de la Tortue Forest Eleutherodactylus warreni CRIlet Bas limbe Cyclura cornuta VULac Azuéi Crocodylus acutus VUPeltophryne guentheriVUTrachemys decorataVULagon-aux-Boeufs Crocodylus acutus VUDendrocygna arboreaVUPeltophryne guentheriVUCitadelle-Sans Souci-Ramier Amazona ventralis VUAratinga chloropteraVUEleutherodactylus pooleiCREleutherodactylus schmidtiCREleutherodactylus wetmoreiVUHypsiboas heilpriniVUOsteopilus pulchrilineatusENPeltophryne guentheriVUPlaisance Celestus warreni CRCyclura cornutaVUEleutherodactylus wetmoreiVUHypsiboas heilpriniVUOsteopilus pulchrilineatusENOsteopilus vastusENPeltophryne guentheriVUMassif de la Hotte Calyptophilus frugivorus VUCalyptranthes ekmaniiVUCatalpa brevipesVUCatharus bicknelliVUEleutherodactylus amadeusCREleutherodactylus apostatesCREleutherodactylus audantiVUJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442827

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameEleutherodactylus bakeriEleutherodactylus brevirostrisEleutherodactylus chlorophenaxEleutherodactylus coronaEleutherodactylus counouspeusEleutherodactylus dolomedesEleutherodactylus eunasterEleutherodactylus glanduliferEleutherodactylus glaphycompusEleutherodactylus heminotaEleutherodactylus lamprotesEleutherodactylus nortoniEleutherodactylus oxyrhyncusEleutherodactylus parapelatesEleutherodactylus paulsoniEleutherodactylus pictissimusEleutherodactylus ruthaeEleutherodactylus sciagraphusEleutherodactylus semipalmatusEleutherodactylus thorectesEleutherodactylus ventrilineatusEleutherodactylus wetmoreiHypsiboas heilpriniLasiurus minorLoxia megaplagaMicropholis politaNectandra caudatoacuminataNectandra pulchraOsteopilus pulchrilineatusOsteopilus vastusPlagiodontia aediumPouteria hotteanaSolenodon paradoxusTachycineta euchryseaXenoligea montanaIUCN Red ListCategoryMassif de la Selle Amazona ventralis VUAratinga chloropteraCalyptophilus frugivorusCatharus bicknelliCyclura cornutaEleutherodactylus alcoaeEleutherodactylus armstrongiEleutherodactylus audantiEleutherodactylus darlingtoniEleutherodactylus fowleriEleutherodactylus furcyensisEleutherodactylus glanduliferoidesEleutherodactylus heminotaEleutherodactylus hypostenorEleutherodactylus jugansEleutherodactylus leonceiEleutherodactylus nortoniEleutherodactylus oxyrhyncusEleutherodactylus paulsoniEleutherodactylus pictissimusEleutherodactylus ruthaeEleutherodactylus semipalmatusCRCRCRCRENCRCRCRENENCRCRCRCRCRVUENCRCRCRCRVUVUVUENVUCRCRENENENENENVUVUVUVUVUVUENENVUCRCRCRCRENENCRCRCRCRCRVUENCR2828Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameEleutherodactylus wetmoreiHypsiboas heilpriniLoxia megaplagaMappia racemosaOsteopilus pulchrilineatusOsteopilus vastusPeltophryne guentheriPlagiodontia aediumPterodroma hasitataTachycineta euchryseaTurdus swalesiXenoligea montanaIUCN Red ListCategoryMorne Bailly Eleutherodactylus poolei CREleutherodactylus schmidtiEleutherodactylus wetmoreiHypsiboas heilpriniOsteopilus pulchrilineatusOsteopilus vastusPic Tete Boeuf Eleutherodactylus glaphycompus ENEleutherodactylus heminotaEleutherodactylus paulsoniEleutherodactylus pictissimusEleutherodactylus wetmoreiHypsiboas heilpriniPresqu'ile du Nord-Ouest I Eleutherodactylus grahami ENEleutherodactylus lucioiPeltophryne guentheriPresqu'ile du Nord-Ouest II Eleutherodactylus rhodesi CRPeltophryne guentheriTrou Caïman Amazona ventralis VUAratinga chloropteraCorvus leucognaphalusDendrocygna arboreaPeltophryne guentheriJamaica Black River Great Morass Crocodylus acutus VUDendrocygna arboreaEleutherodactylus luteolusEugenia browneiSamyda glabrataBlue Mountains Amazona collaria VUAnnona praetermissaArdisia brittoniiBactris jamaicanaBrunfelsia jamaicensisBunchosia jamaicensisCatharus bicknelliEleutherodactylus alticolaEleutherodactylus andrewsiEleutherodactylus jamaicensisEleutherodactylus nubicolaEleutherodactylus orcuttiEleutherodactylus pentasyringosEpicrates subflavusEugenia brachythrixEugenia crenataEugenia nicholsiiEugenia rendleiVUVUENVUENENVUENENVUENVUCRVUVUENENENCRVUVUVUCRVUVUVUVUVUVUVUENVUVUVUENVUVUVUVUCRENENENCRVUVUVUVUENCRJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442829

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameGeocapromys browniiHernandia catalpifoliaHyeronima jamaicensisIlex jamaicanaIlex puberulaIlex puberulaIlex puberulaLunania polydactylaMaytenus harrisiiMiconia nubicolaNesopsar nigerrimusNowellia wrightiiOsteopilus wilderiPatagioenas caribaeaPsychotria foetensRondeletia brachyphyllaRondeletia hirsutaRondeletia hirtaSebastiania alpinaTachycineta euchryseaVerbesina rupestrisViburnum arboreumViburnum arboreumWallenia fawcettiiZanthoxylum harrisiiZanthoxylum hartiiIUCN Red ListCategoryBluefields Amazona collaria VUEpicrates subflavusEugenia abbreviataLasiurus degelidusBrazilleto Mountains Eugenia eperforata ENGeocapromys browniiMalpighia proctoriiBull Bay Brunfelsia membranacea VUBursera hollickiiEleutherodactylus andrewsiEleutherodactylus orcuttiGuaiacum officinaleLasiurus degelidusOsteopilus wilderiPhialanthus jamaicensisPortlandia albifloraTetrasiphon jamaicensisCatadupa Amazona agilis VUAmazona collariaBactris jamaicanaEleutherodactylus cundalliEleutherodactylus fuscusEleutherodactylus grabhamiEleutherodactylus griphusEleutherodactylus jamaicensisEleutherodactylus luteolusGuarea jamaicensisGuettarda longifloraMalpighia obtusifoliaOsteopilus crucialisOsteopilus marianaeVUVUVUENVUVUVUVUCRENENVUENVUVUENVUVUVUVUVUVUVUVUVUVUVUENVUVUCRENENCRENVUENENCRENVUVUVUCRENCRENENVUCRVUENEN2830Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameOsteopilus wilderiOuratea elegansPatagioenas caribaeaPhyllanthus cauliflorusPimenta obscuraTernstroemia glomerataIUCN Red ListCategoryCaymanas Eleutherodactylus jamaicensis ENGeocapromys browniiCockpit Country Alvaradoa jamaicensis VUAmazona agilisAmazona collariaBrunfelsia splendidaBursera aromaticaBuxus arboreaCalliandra comosaCalyptranthes nodosaCassipourea brittonianaCassipourea subcordataCoccoloba troyanaColubrina obscuraComocladia cordataCordia harrisiiEleutherodactylus cundalliEleutherodactylus fuscusEleutherodactylus grabhamiEleutherodactylus griphusEleutherodactylus jamaicensisEleutherodactylus junoriEleutherodactylus luteolusEleutherodactylus sisyphodemusEpicrates subflavusErithalis quadrangularisEugenia lauraeEugenia sachetaeEugenia schulzianaExostema orbiculatumGeocapromys browniiGuettarda longifloraHamelia papillosaLasiocroton trelawniensisLunania polydactylaMalpighia obtusifoliaManilkara excisaMitranthes macrophyllaNesopsar nigerrimusOsteopilus crucialisOsteopilus marianaeOsteopilus wilderiPatagioenas caribaeaPhyllanthus axillarisPimenta obscuraPimenta richardiiPodocarpus purdieanusPsychotria plicataPsychotria siphonophoraRochefortia acranthaRochefortia acranthaENCRVUVUVUCRVUVUVUVUVUVUVUVUENCRVUVUVUVUVUCRENCRENCRENCRVUVUENENVUCRVUCRVUENVUVUENCRENENENENVUENVUENENVUENVUVUJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442831

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameRondeletia amplexicaulisSchoepfia harrisiiScolosanthus howardiiScolosanthus howardiiSophora saxicolaSpathelia coccineaStrempeliopsis arboreaTachycineta euchryseaTrachemys terrapenViburnum arboreumXylosma proctoriiIUCN Red ListCategoryDolphin Head Calyptranthes acutissima CRCalyptranthes acutissimaCalyptranthes discolorCassipourea subsessilisComocladia cordataComocladia parvifoliolaDendropanax cordifoliusEleutherodactylus cundalliEleutherodactylus fuscusEleutherodactylus grabhamiEleutherodactylus jamaicensisEleutherodactylus luteolusEugenia polyporaLasiocroton fawcettiiOrmosia jamaicensisOsteopilus crucialisOsteopilus wilderiPatagioenas caribaeaPsychotria hanoverensisRondeletia cinctaSebastiania fasciculataTabernaemontana ochroleucaTabernaemontana ovalifoliaDon Figuerero Mountains Coccoloba proctorii ENColubrina obscuraEleutherodactylus cundalliEleutherodactylus grabhamiEleutherodactylus jamaicensisErythroxylum incrassatumOsteopilus crucialisOsteopilus marianaeOsteopilus wilderiFont Hill Crocodylus acutus VUGreat River Eleutherodactylus cundalli VUEleutherodactylus fuscusEleutherodactylus jamaicensisEleutherodactylus luteolusGeocapromys browniiOsteopilus crucialisOsteopilus wilderiHellshire Hills Bursera hollickii ENCyclura colleiDendrocygna arboreaEpicrates subflavusGeocapromys browniiGuaiacum officinaleENVUENENENCRVUVUVUVUVUCRENCRVUCRCRVUCRENENENCRVUENENENVUCRCRENVUENVUVUENENVUENENENCRENENVUENENCRVUVUVUEN2832Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameLunania polydactylaPhialanthus revolutusSiphonorhis americanaZanthoxylum harrisiiIUCN Red ListCategoryJohn Crow Mountains Amazona agilis VUAmazona collariaBactris jamaicanaClusia portlandianaDendropanax blakeanusEleutherodactylus andrewsiEleutherodactylus jamaicensisEleutherodactylus orcuttiEleutherodactylus pentasyringosEugenia rendleiGeocapromys browniiIlex jamaicanaIlex jamaicanaMyrcia calcicolaNesopsar nigerrimusOsteopilus wilderiPatagioenas caribaeaPhyllanthus eximiusPsychotria bryonicolaPsychotria clusioidesPterodroma caribbaeaRondeletia portlandensisSideroxylon bullatumTernstroemia howardianaWallenia sylvestrisWeinmannia portlandianaJohnson Mountain Hills Bactris jamaicana VUKellets Camperdown Area Eleutherodactylus cundalli VUEleutherodactylus grabhamiEleutherodactylus jamaicensisEleutherodactylus junoriGeocapromys browniiOsteopilus crucialisOsteopilus marianaeOsteopilus wilderiLitchfield Mountain - Matheson's Run Acidocroton verrucosus VUAmazona agilisAmazona collariaArdisia byrsonimaeCalyptranthes capitataCarica jamaicensisClusia clarendonensisCoccoloba troyanaColubrina obscuraCordia clarendonensisDendropanax filipesDendropanax grandiflorusEleutherodactylus cundalliEleutherodactylus grabhamiEleutherodactylus jamaicensisErithalis quadrangularisErythroxylum jamaicenseEugenia aboukirensisVUENCRVUVUVUVUVUENENCRVUCRVUENENVUENENVUVUCRENCRVUVUVUVUVUENENCRVUENENENVUVUCRVUVUVUVUVUVUCRCRVUENENVUVUCRJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442833

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameEugenia eperforataEugenia heterochroaEugenia lamprophyllaEugenia schulzianaGeocapromys browniiGuarea jamaicensisLasiocroton harrisiiMalpighia harrisiiMitranthes niveaNesopsar nigerrimusOcotea staminoidesOsteopilus crucialisOsteopilus marianaeOsteopilus wilderiPalicourea wilesiiPatagioenas caribaeaPortlandia harrisiiPsychotria clarendonensisRondeletia adamsiiRondeletia clarendonensisSamyda glabrataSchefflera troyanaSchoepfia harrisiiSebastiania spicataTernstroemia bullataTernstroemia calycinaIUCN Red ListCategoryMain Ridge Eleutherodactylus cundalli VUEleutherodactylus grabhamiEleutherodactylus jamaicensisEleutherodactylus junoriGeocapromys browniiOsteopilus crucialisOsteopilus marianaeOsteopilus wilderiMay Pen Eleutherodactylus cundalli VUEleutherodactylus jamaicensisLasiurus degelidusOsteopilus crucialisOsteopilus wilderiMilk River Trachemys terrapen VUMocho Mountains Eleutherodactylus cundalli VUEleutherodactylus grabhamiEleutherodactylus jamaicensisOsteopilus crucialisOsteopilus wilderiMount Diablo Alvaradoa jamaicensis VUAmazona agilisAmazona collariaBrunfelsia splendidaCarica jamaicensisEleutherodactylus cundalliEleutherodactylus grabhamiEleutherodactylus jamaicensisEleutherodactylus junoriErythroxylum incrassatumEugenia acutisepalaExostema triflorumENVUVUVUVUVUVUVUENENENENENENVUVUVUENVUENVUVUVUENCRENENENCRVUENENENENVUENENENENENENVUVUVUVUVUENENCRVUENVU2834Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameExostema triflorumGeocapromys browniiGymnanthes glandulosaIlex floriferaIlex subtrifloraMalpighia caulifloraMalpighia harrisiiNesopsar nigerrimusOsteopilus crucialisOsteopilus marianaeOsteopilus wilderiPalicourea wilesiiPodocarpus purdieanusTrachemys terrapenIUCN Red ListCategoryNegril Crocodylus acutus VUDendrocygna arboreaEleutherodactylus cundalliEleutherodactylus luteolusEpicrates subflavusErithalis quadrangularisTrachemys terrapenZamia amblyphyllidiaZanthoxylum negrilenseNorth Coast Forest Amazona collaria VUEleutherodactylus cundalliEpicrates subflavusEpicrates subflavusLasiurus degelidusOsteopilus wilderiPatagioenas caribaeaTrachemys terrapenPeckam Woods Acidocroton verrucosus VUArdisia byrsonimaeClusia clarendonensisCoccoloba troyanaCordia clarendonensisDendropanax filipesDendropanax grandiflorusErythroxylum jamaicenseEugenia heterochroaEugenia lamprophyllaLasiocroton harrisiiLasiocroton trelawniensisMalpighia harrisiiPalicourea wilesiiPortlandia harrisiiPsychotria clarendonensisRondeletia adamsiiRondeletia clarendonensisSamyda glabrataSchefflera troyanaSchoepfia harrisiiSebastiania spicataTernstroemia bullataTernstroemia calycinaPoint Hill Eleutherodactylus cundalli VUEleutherodactylus jamaicensisVUVUVUVUCRENVUENENENENVUENVUVUVUENVUVUVUVUENVUVUVUVUENVUVUCRVUVUVUCRCRVUVUVUVUENVUVUVUENVUENVUVUVUENCRENENJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442835

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameGeocapromys browniiNatalus jamaicensisOsteopilus crucialisOsteopilus wilderiIUCN Red ListCategoryPortland Ridge and Bight Crocodylus acutus VUDendrocygna arboreaEleutherodactylus cavernicolaEpicrates subflavusEugenia eperforataMalpighia proctoriiNatalus jamaicensisRed Ground Geocapromys brownii VUOsteopilus crucialisRio Cobre Eleutherodactylus jamaicensis ENGeocapromys browniiOsteopilus crucialisTrachemys terrapenRio Grande Eleutherodactylus jamaicensis ENRio Grande Eleutherodactylus pentasyringos VUOsteopilus wilderiTrachemys terrapenRio Magno Eleutherodactylus jamaicensis ENGeocapromys browniiOsteopilus wilderiRio Pedro Eleutherodactylus jamaicensis ENGeocapromys browniiOsteopilus crucialisOsteopilus wilderiSanta Cruz Mountains Eleutherodactylus cundalli VUGeocapromys browniiOsteopilus wilderiRhamnidium dictyophyllumStephney Johns Vale-Bull Head Carica jamaicensis VUColubrina obscuraEleutherodactylus cundalliEleutherodactylus grabhamiEleutherodactylus jamaicensisEleutherodactylus junoriErythroxylum jamaicenseGeocapromys browniiMalpighia harrisiiMitranthes niveaOsteopilus crucialisOsteopilus marianaeOsteopilus wilderiSwift River Trachemys terrapen VUWag Water River Osteopilus wilderi ENTrachemys terrapenWhite Rock Hill Guarea jamaicensis VUPimenta obscuraTernstroemia glomerataYallahs Epicrates subflavus VUPatagioenas caribaeaMartinique Forêts du Nord et de la Montagne Pelée Allobates chalcopis VUIcterus bonanaIguana delicatissimaMyotis martiniquensisVUCRENENVUCRVUENCRCRENVUENVUENVUVUENVUENENVUENENVUVUENENCRVUVUVUENENENENVUVUCRVUVUVUVU2836Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameIUCN Red ListCategoryGrand Macabou Icterus bonana VUIlets Boiseau et Petit Piton Iguana delicatissima VUMangrove de Fort de France Icterus bonana VUMassif forestier entre Le Diamant et les Trois-Îlets Icterus bonana VUPitons du Carbet Freziera cordata VUIcterus bonanaIguana delicatissimaInga martinicensisMyotis martiniquensisPouteria pallidaPouteria semecarpifoliaSchefflera urbanianaPresqu'île de la Caravelle Icterus bonana VUMyotis martiniquensisRamphocinclus brachyurusRocher du Diamant Liophis cursor CRMontserrat Centre Hills Cedrela odorata VUChiroderma improvisumDiploglossus montisserratiGuaiacum officinaleIcterus oberiLeptodactylus fallaxSturnira thomasiTurdus lherminieriNorthern Forested Ghauts Leptodactylus fallax CRTurdus lherminieriSouth Soufriere Hills Icterus oberi CRTurdus lherminieriPuerto Rico Acantilados del Noroeste Antirhea portoricensis VUAuerodendron pauciflorumErythrina eggersiiGoetzea elegansManilkara pleeanaManilkara valenzuelanaPicrasma excelsaSchoepfia arenariaZamia amblyphyllidiaZanthoxylum flavumBahía de Jobos Agelaius xanthomus ENBaños de Coamo Chrysophyllum pauciflorum VUErythrina eggersiiGuaiacum officinaleLeptocereus quadricostatusManilkara pleeanaPeltophryne lemurPicrasma excelsaSolanum drymophilumStahlia monospermaBosque de Vega Erythrina eggersii ENStenoderma rufumCaño Tiburones Dendrocygna arborea VUErythrina eggersiiManilkara pleeanaCarite Eleutherodactylus eneidae CREleutherodactylus gryllusEleutherodactylus hedrickiEleutherodactylus jasperiVUVUVUVUENVUVUVUENVUCRENCRCRVUVUVUVUCRENENVUVUVUENVUVUENENCRVUCRVUCRENVUENVUENENCRJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442837

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameEleutherodactylus karlschmidtiEleutherodactylus locustusEleutherodactylus portoricensisEleutherodactylus richmondiEleutherodactylus wightmanaeGaussia attenuataStenoderma rufumIUCN Red ListCategoryCeiba y Naguabo Chrysophyllum pauciflorum VUChrysophyllum pauciflorumCoccoloba rugosaDermochelys coriaceaGuaiacum officinaleMaytenus cymosaSchoepfia arenariaStahlia monospermaCiénaga Las Cucharillas Banara vanderbiltii CRBuxus vahliiCoccoloba rugosaDendrocygna arboreaGaussia attenuataTabernaemontana oppositifoliaCordillera Central Antirhea sintenisii VUCallicarpa amplaChrysophyllum pauciflorumCornutia obovataEleutherodactylus eneidaeEleutherodactylus gryllusEleutherodactylus hedrickiEleutherodactylus portoricensisEleutherodactylus richmondiEleutherodactylus wightmanaeGaussia attenuataIlex cookiiJuglans jamaicensisMarlierea sintenisiiNectandra krugiiPouteria hotteanaSchefflera gleasoniiStenoderma rufumCorredor Ecológico del Noreste Coccoloba rugosa ENDermochelys coriaceaGoetzea elegansManilkara pleeanaSchoepfia arenariaStahlia monospermaCulebra Anolis roosevelti CRGuaiacum officinaleMaytenus cymosaEl Yunque Amazona vittata CRAntirhea sintenisiiDendroica angelaeEleutherodactylus eneidaeEleutherodactylus gryllusEleutherodactylus hedrickiEleutherodactylus karlschmidtiEleutherodactylus locustusEleutherodactylus portoricensisCRCRENCRENVUVUVUENCRENENENENCRENVUVUVUCRVUCRCRENENENCRENVUCRVUVUENENVUVUCRENVUENENENENVUVUCRENENCRCREN2838Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameEleutherodactylus richmondiEleutherodactylus unicolorEleutherodactylus wightmanaeLasiurus minorStenoderma rufumStyrax portoricensisTernstroemia subsessilisIUCN Red ListCategoryGuaniquilla y Boquerón Agelaius xanthomus ENEugenia woodburyanaGaussia attenuataGuaiacum officinaleLeptocereus quadricostatusHumacao Coccoloba rugosa ENDendrocygna arboreaEretmochelys imbricataKarso del Norte Amazona vittata CRAntirhea portoricensisAntirhea sintenisiiAuerodendron pauciflorumBanara vanderbiltiiBuxus vahliiChrysophyllum pauciflorumCoccoloba rugosaCornutia obovataEleutherodactylus richmondiGaussia attenuataGoetzea elegansGoetzea elegansGoetzea elegansHenriettea membranifoliaLasiurus minorManilkara pleeanaMappia racemosaMaytenus ponceanaMyrcia paganiiNectandra krugiiPeltophryne lemurPleodendron macranthumSchoepfia arenariaSolanum drymophilumStenoderma rufumZamia amblyphyllidiaKarso del Sur Buxus vahlii CRCaprimulgus noctitherusCordia rupicolaEugenia woodburyanaGuaiacum officinalePeltophryne lemurStahlia monospermaZamia portoricensisLaguna Tortuguero Erythrina eggersii ENSchoepfia arenariaLas Piedras Chiquitas Chrysophyllum pauciflorum VUMaytenus ponceanaPicrasma excelsaSolanum drymophilumZanthoxylum thomasianumCRVUENVUVUCRCRCRVUENCRVUCRVUVUCRCRCRVUENCRCRVUENENENCRVUVUVUVUCRENCRCRENCRVUVUCRCRCRENCRENCRENVUVUCRENJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442839

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameIUCN Red ListCategoryMaricao y Susúa Antirhea portoricensis VUCalyptranthes portoricensisCaprimulgus noctitherusChrysophyllum pauciflorumChrysophyllum pauciflorumCoccoloba rugosaCornutia obovataDendroica angelaeEleutherodactylus eneidaeEleutherodactylus gryllusEleutherodactylus portoricensisEleutherodactylus richmondiEleutherodactylus wightmanaeErythrina eggersiiGaussia attenuataLasiurus minorMaytenus ponceanaPouteria hotteanaPouteria hotteanaSchefflera gleasoniiSchoepfia arenariaStahlia monospermaStenoderma rufumTabernaemontana oppositifoliaXylosma pachyphyllumMona y Monito Agelaius xanthomus ENCyclura cornutaEleutherodactylus monensisEretmochelys imbricataGuaiacum sanctumSphaerodactylus micropithecusTyphlops monensisPiñones Dermochelys coriacea CRErythrina eggersiiSchoepfia arenariaSabana Seca Eleutherodactylus juanariveroi CRSalinas de Punta Cucharas Cordia rupicola CRErythrina eggersiiGuaiacum officinaleGuaiacum sanctumLeptocereus quadricostatusMaytenus ponceanaTrichilia triacanthaSierra Bermeja y Laguna Cartagena Agelaius xanthomus ENCaprimulgus noctitherusDendrocygna arboreaEugenia woodburyanaManilkara pleeanaStahlia monospermaSierra de Pandura Eleutherodactylus cooki VUEleutherodactylus locustusEleutherodactylus portoricensisSuroeste Agelaius xanthomus ENCaprimulgus noctitherusEugenia woodburyanaGuaiacum officinaleLeptocereus quadricostatusENCRVUVUENCRVUCRENENCRENENVUVUVUENENVUENENVUVUCRVUVUCRENENENENENENENENCRVUCRCRVUCRVUENCRENCRCRENCR2840Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific nameZanthoxylum flavumIUCN Red ListCategoryVieques Calyptranthes thomasiana ENChrysophyllum pauciflorumErythrina eggersiiGoetzea elegansGuaiacum officinaleManilkara pleeanaMaytenus cymosaStahlia monospermaStenoderma rufumSaba Saba Alsophis rufiventris ENGuaiacum officinaleSt Barthelemy Colombier Alsophis rijersmai ENIguana delicatissimaGustavio to Anse Toiny Alsophis rijersmai ENIguana delicatissimaIle Fourchue and satellites Iguana delicatissima VUPetite Islette Iguana delicatissima VUSt Eustatius Boven Alsophis rufiventris ENIguana delicatissimaThe Quill Alsophis rufiventris ENIguana delicatissimaSt Kitts and Nevis Cayon to Key Dermochelys coriacea CRSt Lucia Government Forest Reserve Amazona versicolor VULeucopeza semperiMelanospiza richardsoniSwietenia mahagoniTurdus lherminieriMandele Dry Forest Amazona versicolor VUCnemidophorus vanzoiMelanospiza richardsoniRamphocinclus brachyurusNorth-east coast Melanospiza richardsoni ENRamphocinclus brachyurusPitons Management Area Melanospiza richardsoni ENPoint Sables Cnemidophorus vanzoi VULiophis ornatusMelanospiza richardsoniRat Island Cnemidophorus vanzoi VUSt Martin Tintamarre Iguana delicatissima VUSt Vincent and theGrenadinesColonarie Forest Reserve Amazona guildingii VUCatharopeza bishopiENChironius vincentiCRPristimantis shreveiENCumberland Forest Reserve Amazona guildingii VUCatharopeza bishopiENChironius vincentiCRPristimantis shreveiENDalaway Forest Reserve Amazona guildingii VUCatharopeza bishopiENChironius vincentiCRPristimantis shreveiENKingstown Forest Reserve Amazona guildingii VUCatharopeza bishopiENChironius vincentiCRVUVUENENENVUENENVUENVUVUVUVUCRENENVUVUENENENENENJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442841

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Country Key Biodiversity Area Species scientific namePristimantis shreveiIUCN Red ListCategoryLa Soufrière National Park Amazona guildingii VUCatharopeza bishopiChironius vincentiPristimantis shreveiMount Pleasant Forest Reserve Amazona guildingii VUCatharopeza bishopiChironius vincentiPristimantis shreveiRichmond Forest Reserve Amazona guildingii VUCatharopeza bishopiChironius vincentiPristimantis shreveiTurks and Caicos Islands Caicos Bank Southern Cays Cyclura carinata CRChalk Sound Cyclura carinata CREast Bay Islands Cyclura carinata CREast Caicos and adjacent areas Cyclura carinata CRDendrocygna arboreaVUFish Ponds and Crossing Place Trail, MiddleCaicosDendrocygna arboreaVUMiddle Caicos Forest Dendrocygna arborea VUNorth, Middle and East Caicos Ramsar Site Cyclura carinata CRDendrocygna arboreaVUSwietenia mahagoniENPrincess Alexandra Land and Sea Cyclura carinata CRSalt Cay Creek and Salinas Cyclura carinata CRTurks Bank Seabird Cays Cyclura carinata CRUS Virgin Islands Buck Island Ameiva polops CRChelonia mydasENEretmochelys imbricataCREast End Bay Chelonia mydas ENHassel Island Eleutherodactylus lentus ENJack's and Issac's Bays Chelonia mydas ENJohn Brewer's Bay Eleutherodactylus lentus ENMagens Bay Chrysophyllum pauciflorum VUEleutherodactylus lentusENErythrina eggersiiENZanthoxylum thomasianumENNorthwestern St Croix Eleutherodactylus lentus ENStenoderma rufumVUProtestant Cay Ameiva polops CRRuth Cay Ameiva polops CRSandy Point National Wildlife Chelonia mydas ENDermochelys coriaceaCREretmochelys imbricataCRSouthgate and Green Cay Ameiva polops CRSt John Calyptranthes thomasiana ENChrysophyllum pauciflorumVUEleutherodactylus lentusENEleutherodactylus schwartziENErythrina eggersiiENGuaiacum officinaleENMachaonia woodburyanaCRMaytenus cymosaENStenoderma rufumVUZanthoxylum thomasianumENENENCRENENCRENENCREN2842Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

KBAs—CaribbeanV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.Spanish Abstract: Resumen: El hotspot de las islas del Caribe es excepcionalmente importante para la conservación de labiodiversidad global por sus altos niveles de endemismo y amenaza. Un total de 755 especies de plantas y vertebrados del Caribeson consideradas globalmente amenazadas, colocándolo en uno de los más altos hotspot de biodiversidad en términos de nivelde amenaza. En el 2009, las Áreas Claves para la Biodiversidad (KBAs) fueron identificadas para las islas del Caribe a través deun análisis de data y literatura accesible a nivel regional, seguido por consultas extensas a expertos a nivel nacional. Aplicando elcriterio de la Vulnerabilidad, un total de 284 Áreas Claves para la Biodiversidad fueron definidas y delimitadas conteniendo 409 (54%)de las especies amenazadas de la región. De éstas, 144 (o 51%) solapan parcialmente o completamente con áreas protegidas.Cockpit Country, seguida por Litchfield Mountain - Matheson’s Run, Blue Mountains (todos en Jamaica) y Massif de la Hotte (Haití)fueron encontrados de sostener números excepcionalmente altos de taxones globalmente amenazados, con más de 40 de estasespecies en cada sitio. Las Áreas Claves para la Biodiversidad, basadas en las Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves,proporcionan un marco valioso contra el cual revisar la adecuación de sistemas de áreas protegidas nacionales existentes y tambiénpriorizar cuales especies y sitios requieren la atención más urgente para su conservación.Acknowledgements: The definition of KeyBiodiversity Areas in the Caribbean IslandsBiodiversity Hotspot was the result of generousfeedback and assistance from a wide range ofpeople and institutions. We would especiallylike to thank the coordinators for facilitatingworkshops and national processes in TheBahamas (Bahamas National Trust), DominicanRepublic (Grupo Jaragua), Haiti (Jean VilmondHilaire) and Puerto Rico (Mayra Vincentyand Verónica Mendez Gallardo). A regionalconsultation group was also instrumental infacilitating a wide review of the priorities, andcomprised the following individuals: PhilippeBayard, Judi Clarke, Andrew Dobson, JuliaHorrocks, Sixto Inchaustegui, Brad Keitt, PennyLanghammer, Nicole Leotaud, Sarah McIntosh,Kalli de Meyer, Sarah Sanders, Lisa Sorenson,Helene Souan, Jack Tordoff, AlessandraVazella-Khouri, Doug Ryan, Hannah Stevens,Ian May, James Millet, Mark O’Connell,Matthew Foster, Michele Zador, Nigel Varty,Gill Bunting and Joe Wunderle. The processwas also assisted by the following individualexperts: Abdel Abellard, Sandra Buckner, SeanCarrington, Colin Clubbe, Rhon Connor, MatCottam, William Crosse, Jenny Daltry, LilianaDavalos, Alison Duncan, Paul Edgar, PhilippeFeldmann, Tony Gent, Martin Hamilton, HughGenoways, Gerard Gray, Blair Hedges, GeoffHilton, Arlington James, Kimberly John, CharlesKnapp, Gary Kwiecinski, Vincent Lemoine,Anthony Levesque, Don McFarlane, MatthewMorton, Farah Mukhida, Andreas Oberli,Scott Pedersen, Laura Perdomo, TinekePrins, Bonnie Rusk, Ronald Stefan Stewart,Ann Sutton, Armando Rodríguez and JoelTimyan. Lastly, individuals from the followinginstitutions provided invaluable information andfeedback before, during and after the variousworkshops: Adventours; AEVA; AMAZONA;American Bird Conservancy; Amigos de SianKa’an A.C.; Anguilla National Trust; ArizonaState University; Asa Wright Nature Centre;Avian Eyes Birding Group; Bahamas Ministry ofTourism and Aviation; Bahamas National Trust;Bahamas Outdoors Limited; Bat ConservationInternational; Bermuda Audubon Society;Bonaire Parrot project, University of Sheffield;Boston University; BVI National Parks Trust;CARE ; Caribbean Coastal Area Management;Caribbean Natural Resources Institute;Centre d’Information Geospatiale; Centro deAprendizaje para la Conservación de Sarapiquí;Centro para la Conservación y Ecodesarrollo dela Bahía de Samaná; The Claremont Colleges;Columbia University; CONHAME; ConsorcioAmbiental Dominicano; Consultora Hernández;Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Department ofConservation Sciences, Bermuda; Departmentof Natural Resources and the Environment,Puerto Rico; Department of the Environment,Anguilla; Department Environment, MontserratGov ; Durham University; Durrell WildlifeConservation Trust; Dutch Caribbean NatureAlliance; Econcerns Ltd; ENAF; Environmentfor the Americas; Environmental AwarenessGroup of Antigua and Barbuda; EnvironmentalManagement Division, Office of the PrimeMinister (Jamaica); Environmental Protectionin the Caribbean; Faculté d’Agronomie etde Medicine Veterinaire; Fauna and FloraInternational; Fenad; Fermata Inc; FondationEcosOphique; Fondation Macaya; FondationSeguin; Forestry Department; Forestry, Wildlifeand Parks Division- Dominica; Fundación parael Desarrollo Humano–PROGRESSIO; GrandBahama Nature Tours; Grupo Jaragua, Inc.;Herpetological Conservation Trust; Institute ofJamaica, Natural History Museum of Jamaica;Institute of Marine Affairs; Instituto Tecnológicode Santo Domingo; Island Conservation; IUCNIguana Specialist Group; Jadora InternationalLLC; Jamaican Caves Organisation; JamaicaForestry Department; Jardín Botánico Nacional;John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation;Klamath Bird Observatory; Laboratorio UASD-Steven; MDE; Ministry of Energy and Mining;Ministry of Agriculture, Montserrat; MuseoNacional de Historia Natural; National AudubonSociety; National Environment and PlanningAgency; National Trust for the Cayman Islands;Natouraves; Negril Area EnvironmentalProtection Trust; New York Botanical Garden;Northern Jamaica Conservation Association;OJJUOES; ONCFS National Hunting and WildlifeAgency; Optics for the Tropics; Pacific UnionCollege; Panos Caribbean; Parque ZoológicoNacional; Planning Institute of Jamaica; PlantConservation Centre; Platte River WhoopingCrane Maintenance Trust; Population MediaCenter; Programa Naciones Unidas para elDesarrollo; Puerto Rico Department of NaturalResources; PWD Gun Club; Rare; REPIE; RossUniversity School of Medicine, Department ofBiochemistry; Royal Society for the Protectionof Birds; Secretaría de Estado de EducaciónSuperior Ciencia y Tecnología/UASD; Secretaríade Estado de Medio Ambiente; SociedadOrnitológica Hispaniola; Sociedad OrnitológicaPuertoriqueña; Société Audubon Haïti; SociétéFinanciere de Developpement ; Society for theConservation and Study of Caribbean Birds;South Dakota State University; State Universityof New York at Stony Brook; Stichting NationaleParken Bonaire; Subsecretaría de Planificacióny Desarrollo; Sustainable Grenadines Project;The Nature Conservancy; The NatureConservancy-DR; The Nature Conservancy,USVI; Trelawny Gun Club; Tourism ProductDevelopment Co Ltd; UCH/DES; UK OverseasTerritories, Conservation Forum; UNDP; UNEP-Caribbean Environment Program; UniversidadAutónoma de Santo Domingo; Universidad deCornell; Université d’Etat d’Haiti; UniversitéQuisqueya; University of California; Universityof Nebraska State Museum; University of NewBrunswick; University of Pittsburgh, NationalAviary; University of Puerto Rico; University ofScranton; University of Simon Bolivar; Universityof the West Indies; University of the West Indies– Cave Hill and Mona Campuses; University ofthe West Indies, Life Sciences; U.S. Agency forInternational Development / DAI; USDA ForestService, Int’l Institute of Tropical Forestry; U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Div. Scientific Authority; U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Latin America and CaribbeanRegion; U.S. Forest Service, Wings Acrossthe Americas; USFS International Institute forTropical Forestry; U.S. Geological Survey; USVIJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–28442843

KBAs—CaribbeanDivision of Fish and Wildlife; Vermont Centerfor Ecostudies; WIDECAST; Windsor ResearchCentre; Zoological Museum of Amsterdam;Zoológico Nacional/Universidad Autónoma deSanto Domingo; Zoological Society of SanDiego; Zoological Society of Trinidad and Tobago.We would like to thank the Critical EcosystemPartnership Fund for the financial andtechnical support. The Critical EcosystemPartnership Fund is a joint initiative of l’AgenceFrançaise de Développement, ConservationInternational, the Global EnvironmentalFacility, the Government of Japan, theMacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. Afundamental goal of the fund is to ensure civilsociety is engaged in biodiversity conservation.Author Details and Contribution:Ve r ó n i c a An a d ó n-Ir i z a r r y is the CaribbeanProgram Manager for BirdLife International. Shehas been supporting the development,management and implementation of BirdLife’sCaribbean Program since 2005. She reviewedboundaries, processed, analyzed and confirmeddata for all the threatened species containedin the 284 Caribbean KBAs included in theCaribbean Hotspot Ecosystem Profile. She islead author of this manuscript.Da v i d C. We g e is BirdLife International’s SeniorCaribbean Program Manager. He has led thedevelopment of a comprehensive program ofCaribbean conservation - delivered by BirdLife’snetwork of national partners. He led the CriticalEcosystem Partnership Fund project to developthe Caribbean Hotspot Ecosystem Profile,defining KBAs that provide the scientific basisfor CEPF’s hotspot investment strategy. Heprovided the lead author with editorial guidance,technical support and advice based on our jointwork to define the hotspot’s KBAs.Am y Up g r e n is the Advisor, ConservationPriorities, with the Conservation Priorities andOutreach team at Conservation International(CI). In conjunction with CI regional offices andpartners, she identifies priorities to safeguardbiodiversity and human well-being. She iscurrently working to develop CI’s institutionalframework for identifying geographic prioritiesand to link science staff in CI headquarters withtechnical staff in the field. She is a member ofthe metrics and priority setting team and thefreshwater and species teams. She compileddata, supported analysis, KBA delineation andprioritization, and edited the manuscript.Ri c h a r d Yo u n g is Head of Conservation Scienceat the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust,and leads research programmes to supportthe design, management and evaluation ofDurrell’s conservation efforts in Madagascar,Mauritius, the Caribbean, the Pacific and India.He is Co-Chair of the IUCN/SSC Small MammalSpecialist Group and a Visiting Lecturer at theUniversity of Bath, UK. He compiled publiclyavailable spatial data on the distributions ofglobally threatened amphibians and reptilesfor the Caribbean, including liaising withglobal experts to gather unpublished data, anddrafted KBAs boundaries for review by nationalcommittees. He provided comments on thedesign of the paper and edited two drafts of themanuscript.Br i a n Bo o m serves as Director of the CaribbeanBiodiversity Program and Bassett MaguireCurator of Botany at The New York BotanicalGarden. In collaboration with Cuban scientists,his current principal focus is to identify andassess Cuba’s most vulnerable plant speciesin the face of climate change and habitat loss.For this study and paper, he compiled spatialdistribution data on globally threatened plantspecies in the Caribbean region, and, withNYBG colleague Hannah Stevens, mappedthese occurrences to propose new KBAs.Yo l a n d a M. Le ó n is a research professor atInstituto Tecnológico de Santo Domingo,managing the Geographic Information SystemsLaboratory and specializing in environmentalapplications of GIS. She is the President ofGrupo Jaragua, whose mission is to preservethe biodiversity of Hispaniola (with emphasison the Jaragua-Bahoruco-Enriquillo UNESCOBiosphere Reserve) through work with localcommunities, environmental advocacy andeducation. She co-coordinated the DominicanRepublic’s KBA stakeholder workshop, assistedwith KBA identification, processed experts’information, developed shapefiles and editedthe manuscript.Yv o n n e Ar i a s is the Executive Director andfounder member of Grupo Jaragua andVice-president of the IUCN Committee forthe Dominican Republic. She was recentlyrecognized with the Woman Merit Medal in thecategory of Science and Technology for theConservation of the Environment and the NaturalResources granted by the Dominican Republicgovernment. She has 30 years of experiencein ecology and herpetology, protected areas andenvironmental education. She is the coordinatorand co-author of the Important Bird Areasand coordinated the Dominican Republic’sKBA stakeholder workshop, and edited themanuscript.Ke l l e e Ko e n i g is the GIS Manager andCartographer at Conservation International. Shecontributed to the study by compiling andhelping correct the GIS data.Al c i d e s L. Mo r a l e s is a biologist working onwetland enhancement and terrestrial birdsurveys, and President of Sociedad OrnitológicaPuertorriqueña, Inc. He is experienced inwildlife research and conservation, workingand collaborating with governmental agencies,universities, non-governmental organizationsas a scientific research assistant and adviserboth with plants and animals (especially birds).He contributed field observations, report anddata to the 27 Puerto Rican KBAs, and providedgeneral review to the manuscript.Wa y n e Bu r k e is Barbados Project Manager ofBirdLife International currently working on aNeotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Actfunded project focusing on increasing survivalprospects for Neotropical migratory shorebirdson Barbados. He acted as a facilitator andresource for species information and siteV. Anadón-Irizarry et al.descriptions for Barbados and the LesserAntilles, and provided general review to themanuscript.Am i r o Pé r e z-Le r o u x is the Interim Director for theAmericas Division of BirdLife International. Heis in charge of overseeing the implementationof key programmes and projects together withproject managers, annual workplans, budgetreview, and financial issues. He coordinatesand oversees the implementation of majorfundraising initiatives with key donors includingthe financial and technical reporting. He leadthe design and facilitation of three national andone regional workshops that were the basis forthe CEPF Caribbean profile and this research.Ca t h e r i n e Le v y is an independent researcherand co-represents Windsor Research Centreon the Steering Committee of the UNDP project“Strengthening the operational and financialsustainability of the National Protected AreaSystem”. She has previously been Presidentof BirdLife Jamaica and the Society for theConservation and Study of Caribbean Birds. Forover 10 years she has been on the ManagementBoard of the Natural History Museum, and aDirector of the Windsor Research Centre. Shewas the co-author of Jamaica’s Important BirdAreas, and provided general review to thismanuscript.Su s a n Ko e n i g holds a doctorate from theSchool of Forestry and Environmental Studies,Yale University. She is a founding director ofWindsor Research Centre, an environmentalNGO located 5 km inside Jamaica’s CockpitCountry and which has a mission to conserveCockpit Country through a programme ofresearch, education outreach, and advocacy.She is co-author of the Jamaica section inthe publication Important Bird Areas of theCaribbean. She collated the amphibian,reptile, and bat datasets, which were utilized byJamaica’s National Ecological Gap AssessmentReport and which subsequently were providedto this study. She participated in Jamaica’snational workshop, which defined the island’sKBAs, and assisted with editorial review of themanuscript.Ly n n Ga p e is the Deputy Executive Directorof the Bahamas National Trust (BNT). Shewas recently recognized for her 20 yearsof service to the BNT. She serves on theNational Biodiversity Sub Committee and actsas an advisor and sometimes instructor inthe Bahamas Ministry of Tourism Tour GuideTraining Programme. She has a keen personalinterest in birding and was one of the foundingmembers of the BNT’s Ornithology group. Sheacted as a resource for species informationand site descriptions with regards to the 26Bahamas KBA’s.Pr e d e n s a Mo o r e is the Science Research Officerfor The Bahamas National Trust. She is thecoordinator for the International Piping PloverCensus in The Bahamas and author of TheBahamas section in the Important Bird Areasfor the Caribbean directory. She reviewed thespecies information for The Bahamas KBAs.2844Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(8): 2806–2844

Dr. Cecilia Kierulff, São Paulo, BrazilDr. Ignacy Kitowski, Lublin, PolandDr. Pankaj Kumar, Tai Po, Hong KongDr. Krushnamegh Kunte, Cambridge, USAProf. Dr. Adriano Brilhante Kury, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilDr. P. Lakshminarasimhan, Howrah, IndiaDr. Carlos Alberto S de Lucena, Porto Alegre, BrazilDr. Glauco Machado, São Paulo, BrazilDr. Gowri Mallapur, Mamallapuram, IndiaDr. George Mathew, Peechi, IndiaProf. Richard Kiprono Mibey, Eldoret, KenyaDr. Lionel Monod, Genève, SwitzerlandDr. Shomen Mukherjee, Jamshedpur, IndiaDr. P.O. Nameer, Thrissur, IndiaDr. D. Narasimhan, Chennai, IndiaDr. T.C. Narendran, Kozhikode, IndiaMr. Stephen D. Nash, Stony Brook, USADr. K.S. Negi, Nainital, IndiaDr. K.A.I. Nekaris, Oxford, UKDr. Heok Hee Ng, SingaporeDr. Boris P. Nikolov, Sofia, BulgariaProf. Annemarie Ohler, Paris, FranceDr. Shinsuki Okawara, Kanazawa, JapanDr. Albert Orr, Nathan, AustraliaDr. Geeta S. Padate, Vadodara, IndiaDr. Larry M. Page, Gainesville, USADr. Arun K. Pandey, Delhi, IndiaDr. Prakash Chand Pathania, Ludhiana, IndiaDr. Malcolm Pearch, Kent, UKDr. Richard S. Peigler, San Antonio, USADr. Rohan Pethiyagoda, Sydney, AustraliaMr. J. Praveen, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Mark R Stanley Price, Tubney, UKDr. Robert Michael Pyle, Washington, USADr. Muhammad Ather Rafi, Islamabad, PakistanDr. H. Raghuram, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Dwi Listyo Rahayu, Pemenang, IndonesiaDr. Sekar Raju, Suzhou, ChinaDr. Vatsavaya S. Raju, Warangal, IndiaDr. V.V. Ramamurthy, New Delhi, IndiaDr (Mrs). R. Ramanibai, Chennai, IndiaProf. S.N. Ramanujam, Shillong, IndiaDr. Alex Ramsay, LS2 7YU, UKDr. M.K. Vasudeva Rao, Pune, IndiaDr. Robert Raven, Queensland, AustraliaDr. K. Ravikumar, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Luke Rendell, St. Andrews, UKDr. Anjum N. Rizvi, Dehra Dun, IndiaDr. Leif Ryvarden, Oslo, NorwayProf. Michael Samways, Matieland, South AfricaDr. Yves Samyn, Brussels, BelgiumProf. S.C. Santra, West Bengal, IndiaDr. Asok K. Sanyal, Kolkata, IndiaDr. K.R. Sasidharan, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Kumaran Sathasivam, IndiaDr. S. Sathyakumar, Dehradun, IndiaDr. M.M. Saxena, Bikaner, IndiaDr. Hendrik Segers, Vautierstraat, BelgiumDr. R. Siddappa Setty, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Subodh Sharma, Towson, USAProf. B.K. Sharma, Shillong, IndiaProf. K.K. Sharma, Jammu, IndiaDr. R.M. Sharma, Jabalpur, IndiaDr. Tan Koh Siang, Kent Ridge Road, SingaporeDr. Arun P. Singh, Jorhat, IndiaDr. Lala A.K. Singh, Bhubaneswar, IndiaProf. Willem H. De Smet, Wilrijk, BelgiumMr. Peter Smetacek, Nainital, IndiaDr. Humphrey Smith, Coventry, UKDr. Hema Somanathan, Trivandrum, IndiaDr. C. Srinivasulu, Hyderabad, IndiaDr. Ulrike Streicher, Danang, VietnamDr. K.A. Subramanian, Pune, IndiaMr. K.S. Gopi Sundar, New Delhi, IndiaDr. P.M. Sureshan, Patna, IndiaProf. R. Varatharajan, Imphal, IndiaDr. Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Dehradun, IndiaDr. R.K. Verma, Jabalpur, IndiaDr. W. Vishwanath, Manipur, IndiaDr. Francesco Vitali, Luxembourg, FranceDr. E. Vivekanandan, Cochin, IndiaDr. Gernot Vogel, Heidelberg, GermanyDr. Ted J. Wassenberg, Cleveland, AustraliaDr. Stephen C. Weeks, Akron, USAProf. Yehudah L. Werner, Jerusalem, IsraelMr. Nikhil Whitaker, Mamallapuram, IndiaDr. Hui Xiao, Chaoyang, ChinaDr. April Yoder, Little Rock, USAEnglish EditorsMrs. Mira Bhojwani, Pune, IndiaDr. Fred Pluthero, Toronto, CanadaJournal of Threatened Taxa is indexed/abstractedin Zoological Records, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts,Index Fungorum, Bibliography of Systematic Mycology,EBSCO and Google Scholar.

Jo u r n a l o f Th r e a t e n e d Ta x aISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)August 2012 | Vol. 4 | No. 8 | Pages 2733–2844Date of Publication 06 August 2012 (online & print)PaperThe identification of sites of biodiversity conservation significance: progress with the application of a globalstandard-- Matthew N. Foster, Thomas M. Brooks, Annabelle Cuttelod, Naamal De Silva, Lincoln D.C. Fishpool,Elizabeth A. Radford & Stephen Woodley, Pp. 2733–2744CommunicationsKey Biodiversity Areas identification in the Upper Guinea forest biodiversity hotspot-- O.M.L. Kouame, N. Jengre, M. Kobele, D. Knox, D.B. Ahon, J. Gbondo, J. Gamys, W. Egnankou, D. Siaffa,A. Okoni-Williams & M. Saliou, Pp. 2745–2752Identifying Important Plants Areas (Key Biodiversity Areas for Plants) in northern Algeria-- N. Yahi, E. Vela, S. Benhouhou, G. De Belair & R. Gharzouli, Pp. 2753–2765Using important plant areas and important bird areas to identify Key Biodiversity Areas in the Republic ofMacedonia-- Ljupcho Melovski, Metodija Velevski, Vlado Matevski, Vasko Avukatov & Aleksandar Sarov, Pp. 2766–2778Key Biodiversity Areas in the Indo-Burma Hotspot: Process, Progress and Future Directions-- A.W. Tordoff, M.C. Baltzer, J.R. Fellowes, J.D. Pilgrim & P.F. Langhammer, Pp. 2779–2787Key Biodiversity Areas in the Philippines: Priorities for Conservation-- R.G.R. Ambal, M.V. Duya, M.A. Cruz, O.G. Coroza, S.G. Vergara, N. de Silva, N. Molinyawe & B. Tabaranza,Pp. 2788–2796Key Biodiversity Areas identification in Japan Hotspot-- Yoji Natori, Mari Kohri, Seiji Hayama & Naamal De Silva, Pp. 2797–2805Sites for priority biodiversity conservation in the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot-- Verónica Anadón-Irizarry, David C. Wege, Amy Upgren, Richard Young, Brian Boom, Yolanda M. León,YvonneArias, Kellee Koenig, Alcides L. Morales, Wayne Burke, Amiro Pérez-Leroux, Catherine Levy, Susan Koenig, LynnGape & Predensa Moore, Pp. 2806–2844Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of articles in any mediumfor non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and thesource of publication.