Assessment of approaches to identify areas with special importance ...

School of Forest Science and Resource Management
Technische Universität München
Master of Science in Sustainable Resource Management
Winter Semester 2009/2010
Assessment of approaches to identify areas with
special importance for biodiversity conservation
in comparison to the HCV concept
A Master's thesis in cooperation with the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH – Programme Office for Social and Ecological
Standards
Elaborated by: Katrina Bayer
Elaborated in: Munich, Germany
Submitted on: 30.03.2010
First Professor in charge of Master’s thesis:
Dipl. Geogr. Sandra Fohlmeister
Second Professor in charge of Master’s thesis: Dr. Wolfgang Zehlius-Eckert

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. ix
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. x
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem Statement and Research Gaps ................................................................. 2
1.3 Objectives of Thesis ................................................................................................ 3
2. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Overview of Methodology ........................................................................................ 4
2.2 Description of Methodological Steps ....................................................................... 5
2.2.1 First Literature Research .................................................................................. 5
2.2.1.1 Development of Key Questions and Criteria ................................................. 5
2.2.1.2 Choice of Approaches for Assessment ......................................................... 6
2.2.2 Set of Key Questions and Criteria .................................................................... 6
2.2.3 Second Literature Research ............................................................................. 9
2.2.4 Semi-Structured Interviews .............................................................................. 9
2.2.5 Design of Assessment Methodology .............................................................. 10
2.2.6 Strength-Weakness Analysis.......................................................................... 11
2.2.7 Additional Criteria ........................................................................................... 15
3. Case Study Selection ................................................................................................. 17
3.1 Possible and Selected Approaches ....................................................................... 17
3.2 Rationale behind Approach Selection .................................................................... 18
3.3 Case Study Approach Profiles ............................................................................... 19
3.3.1 High Conservation Value (HCV) Concept ....................................................... 19
3.3.2 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Approach ......................................................... 20
3.3.3 Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) Approach ......................................... 21
3.3.4 Focal Species Approach (FSA) ...................................................................... 22
3.3.5 Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA).............................................................. 23

3.4 Interim Discussion ................................................................................................. 24
4. Results ........................................................................................................................ 28
4.1 Pre-Assessment – Comparison of Site Identification Criteria ................................. 28
4.1.1 Site Identification Criteria and their Characteristics ........................................ 28
4.1.1.1 Species Specific Criteria ............................................................................. 29
4.1.1.2 Ecosystem Specific Criteria ........................................................................ 30
4.1.1.3 Site Specific Criteria ................................................................................... 32
4.1.2 Explanatory Notes to Approach Criteria Comparison ..................................... 34
4.1.2.1 High Conservation Value (HCV) Concept ................................................... 34
4.1.2.2 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Approach ..................................................... 34
4.1.2.3 Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) Approach ..................................... 35
4.1.2.4 Focal Species Approach (FSA)................................................................... 36
4.1.2.5 Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) .......................................................... 38
4.1.3 Interim Summary I .......................................................................................... 39
4.2 Strength-Weakness Analysis (SWA) ..................................................................... 41
4.2.1 Overview: Strength-Weakness Analysis Criteria Assessment Results ............ 43
4.2.2 Strength-Weakness Profiles of Selected Approaches .................................... 46
4.2.2.1 Profile of High Conservation Value (HCV) Concept .................................... 47
4.2.2.2 Profile of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Approach ...................................... 49
4.2.2.3 Profile of Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) Approach ...................... 52
4.2.2.4 Profile of Focal Species Approach (FSA).................................................... 55
4.2.2.5 Profile of Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) ........................................... 57
4.2.3 Interim Summary II ......................................................................................... 59
4.3 Additional Criteria Analysis .................................................................................... 60
4.3.1 Methods for Site Choice ................................................................................. 62
4.3.1.1 High Conservation Value (HCV) Concept ................................................... 65
4.3.1.2 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Approach ..................................................... 66
4.3.1.3 Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) Approach ..................................... 67
4.3.1.4 Focal Species Approach (FSA)................................................................... 68
4.3.1.5 Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) .......................................................... 69
4.3.2 Required Resources ...................................................................................... 71
4.3.2.1 High Conservation Value (HCV) Concept ................................................... 72
4.3.2.2 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Approach ..................................................... 73
4.3.2.3 Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) Approach ..................................... 74
4.3.2.4 Focal Species Approach (FSA)................................................................... 74

4.3.2.5 Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) .......................................................... 74
4.3.3 Data Requirements ........................................................................................ 75
4.3.3.1 Use of Existing Data ................................................................................... 76
4.3.3.2 Data Acquisition .......................................................................................... 79
4.3.3.3 Data Validation ........................................................................................... 81
4.3.3.4 Use of Remote Sensing .............................................................................. 83
4.3.4 Interim Summary III ........................................................................................ 85
4.4 Summary ............................................................................................................... 90
5. Discussion .................................................................................................................. 94
6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 101
7. General Terms .......................................................................................................... 105
References ................................................................................................................. 113
Appendices ............................................................................................................... 123
A1 Explanations to Key Questions, Criteria and Sub-Criteria ........................................... 123
A2 Semi-structured Interview Guideline ........................................................................... 128
A3 List of Interview Partners ............................................................................................ 131
A4 Interview Reports ....................................................................................................... 132
A5 Strength-Weakness Analyses: Detailed Assessment Results ..................................... 187
A6 Methods for Site Choice: Detailed Assessment Results ............................................. 201
A7 Required Resources: Detailed Assessment Results ................................................... 206
A8 Data Requirements: Detailed Assessment Results ..................................................... 210

ABSTRACT
Abstract
This thesis has assessed a range of local and regional conservation approaches used to
identify areas important for biodiversity conservation. The selected approaches, namely the
Key Biodiversity Approach (KBA) approach, the Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC)
approach, the Focal Species Approach (FSA) and the Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA)
were compared to the High Conservation Value (HCV) concept by detecting strengths and
weaknesses, establishing similarities and differences and identifying their input requirements,
with the ultimate goal of determining their efficiency. To draw the final conclusions presented
in this thesis, a three-step analysis was undertaken. First, the approaches were described
and compared based on their criteria for site identification, the scale they address and their
objectives. Second, strength-weakness profiles for the approaches, based on a set of key
questions and criteria were established. Third, the approaches were ranked according to
their input requirements.
In line with contemporary literature and expert opinion, this thesis concluded that the HCV
concept is a flexible, versatile approach, receiving the second strongest strength-weakness
profile and requiring the least amount of resources. In comparison, the results obtained for
the KBA approach were in contradiction to its popularity amongst leading international
organisations, as it obtained an outcome showing deficiencies in the strength-weakness
analysis and its input requirements. The ERBC approach received excellent results, albeit
with the highest input requirements, both aspects being in agreement with expert opinion.
The assessment of the FSA concurred with existing literature, although this was rather due to
its shortcomings reflected in the weak results obtained. This approach does, however, have
low resource requirements. Finally, the REA showed an extremely comprehensive, yet
successful, assessment performance, reflected in its input requirements and coinciding with
expert opinion. Overall and considering their differing objectives, the HCV concept, the
ERBC approach and the REA received the best results for this assessment.
The lack of accessible data on effectiveness prevented an assessment of the efficiency of
the approaches to be fulfilled. Future research in this direction would firstly provide a better
understanding of the approaches and secondly, and perhaps more importantly, give an
indication of the cost-benefit of the approaches. Therefore, implementation success could be
increased by more easily convincing decision makers of their individual worth.
vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH – Programme Office for Social and Ecological Standards for
the initial idea and permission to carry out this research, in particular Ms Rosemarie Metz
and Ms Laura Meissner.
Furthermore, I am indebted to all interview partners who kindly provided me with valuable
information, without which this thesis would not have been possible.
A special thanks goes to Dr. Christopher Stewart and Mr. Edward Pollard for their additional
insights and advice, as well as to Dr. Klaus Wagner for his recommendations on semistructured
interviews.
Finally, I would like to express my great appreciation to my advisors, Dipl. Geogr. Sandra
Fohlmeister and Dr. Wolfgang Zehlius-Eckert for their dedicated support and guidance.
vii

LIST OF FIGURES
List of Figures
Figure 1: Research methodology ........................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Overview of groups based on pressure-state-response system .............................. 6
Figure 3: Overview of assessment methodology ................................................................. 10
Figure 4: Spatial scales addressed by approaches .............................................................. 26
Figure 5: Overview of criteria used for site identification ...................................................... 28
Figure 6: Overview of criteria adopted for site identification ................................................. 39
Figure 7: Overview of criteria assessment: focus on strength-weakness analysis ............... 42
Figure 8: Example of strength-weakness profile scheme ..................................................... 46
Figure 9: HCV strength-weakness profile ............................................................................ 47
Figure 10: KBA strength-weakness profile ........................................................................... 49
Figure 11: ERBC strength-weakness profile ........................................................................ 52
Figure 12: FSA strength-weakness profile ........................................................................... 55
Figure 13: REA strength-weakness profile .......................................................................... 57
Figure 14: Overview of all strength-weakness profiles ......................................................... 59
Figure 15: Overview of criteria assessment: focus on ranking ............................................. 60
Figure 16: Overview of additional criteria ............................................................................. 61
Figure 17: Overview of methods employed for site choice ................................................... 62
Figure 18: Methods employed for site identification ............................................................. 63
Figure 19: Overview of sub-criteria for data requirements ................................................... 75
Figure 20: Overview of existing data sources ...................................................................... 76
Figure 21: Examples of existing data sources ..................................................................... 77
Figure 22: Overview of methods employed for data acquisition ........................................... 79
Figure 23: Overview of validation tools ................................................................................ 81
Figure 24: Overview of employed remote sensing technology ............................................. 83
Figure 25: Overview of results: strength-weakness profiles ................................................. 92
Figure 26: Overview of results: additional criteria ................................................................ 92
viii

LIST OF TABLES
List of Tables
Table 1: Overview of key questions, criteria and sub-criteria ................................................. 7
Table 2: Defined classification values for key questions and criteria .................................... 12
Table 3: Ordinal ranking system for additional criteria and sub-criteria ................................ 16
Table 4: List of possible approaches ................................................................................... 17
Table 5: Approach objectives .............................................................................................. 24
Table 6: Comparison of approaches concerning species specific criteria ............................ 29
Table 7: Comparison of approaches concerning ecosystem specific criteria ....................... 30
Table 8: Comparison of approaches concerning site specific criteria ................................... 32
Table 9: Overview: approaches according to SWA criteria assessment .............................. 44
Table 10: Overview of required resources ........................................................................... 71
Table 11: Approach ranking according to their methods for site choice ............................... 86
Table 12: Approach ranking according to their required resources ...................................... 87
Table 13: Approach ranking according to their data sources ............................................... 89
Table 14: Overview of classification of criteria for strength-weakness analysis .................... 90
Table 15: Ranking overview for Group III criteria and sub-criteria ........................................ 93
Table 16: List of all interview partners and their organisations/ companies ........................ 131
Table 17: Overview of data obtained for HCV strength-weakness profile .......................... 187
Table 18: Overview of data obtained for the KBA strength-weakness profile ..................... 190
Table 19: Overview of data obtained for ERBC strength-weakness profile ........................ 193
Table 20: Overview of data obtained for the FSA strength-weakness profile ..................... 196
Table 21: Overview of data obtained for REA strength-weakness profile ........................... 199
Table 22: Overview of methods employed by the HCV concept for site choice .................. 201
Table 23: Overview of methods employed by the KBA approach for site choice ................ 202
Table 24: Overview of methods employed by the ERBC approach for site choice ............. 203
Table 25: Overview of methods employed by the FSA for site choice................................ 204
Table 26: Overview of methods employed by the REA for site choice ............................... 205
Table 27: Overview of resources required for the HCV concept ........................................ 206
Table 28: Overview of resources required for the KBA and ERBC approach ..................... 208
Table 29: Overview of resources required for the FSA and REA ....................................... 209
Table 30: List of data required by the HCV concept ........................................................... 210
Table 31: List of data required by the KBA approach ......................................................... 211
Table 32: List of data required by the ERBC approach ...................................................... 212
Table 33: List of data required by the FSA ........................................................................ 213
Table 34: List of data required by the REA ........................................................................ 214
ix

ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations
AZE
CBD
CI
CITES
CPD
ERBC
FSA
FSC
GTZ
ha
HCV
HCVs
IBA
IPA
IUCN
KBA
N.A.
n.d.
PA
REA
REAs
SWA
TNC
WWF
Alliance for Zero Extinction
Convention on Biological Diversity
Conservation International
Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species
Centres of Plant Diversity
Ecoregion-based Conservation
Focal Species Approach
Forest Stewardship Council
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH
hectares
High Conservation Value
High Conservation Values
Important Bird Areas
Important Plant Areas
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Key Biodiversity Areas
not applicable
not determined
Protected Area
Rapid Ecological Assessment
Rapid Ecological Assessments
Strength-Weakness Analysis
The Nature Conservancy
World Wide Fund For Nature
x

1. INTRODUCTION
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Global biodiversity has been drastically decreasing over the last two centuries as a direct
and indirect consequence of human population growth, unsustainable consumption of
resources and associated environmental changes (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2005b, 96). It is agreed that immediate action is needed to defend irreplaceable genes,
species and ecosystems, especially considering that human welfare development is at risk
under the given circumstances (The World Resources Institute 2010).
There are two main ways of protecting these threatened, living resources. The first and more
traditional is to protect representative samples of habitats and their constituents, in a network
of protected areas. The second is to conserve biodiversity in non-protected areas (i.e. mixed
use or production areas) (Interview Partner A).
Protected areas are essential means for saving biodiversity (Dudley 2008, 2). However, in
the past, the planning and establishment of new protected areas has, in general, been
neither systematic nor strategic. It has generally been designated in an ad hoc fashion, often
based on factors such as opportunity (i.e. not valuable for land use), scenery, recreation,
tourist potential, the influence of lobby groups and protection for use such as hunting or
water supply (Pressey 1994, 662). Hence, this route does not ensure that the sites with the
most important contributions to global biodiversity are adequately protected, but instead
protects less biodiverse regions with low human pressure (Pressey et al. 1996, 318, 320).
Furthermore, it also often fails to include the wide range of stakeholders required for the long
term success of conservation (Langhammer et al. 2007, 8). It has now been widely accepted
that conservation activities should be targeted systematically and strategically (Langhammer
et al. 2007, xi; Margules and Pressey 2000, 243; Warman and Sinclair 2000, 141) in order to
ensure the persistence of biodiversity over time.
Even though protected areas are essential for biodiversity conservation, sufficient
conservation efforts will not be achieved through the establishment of these alone (Interview
Partner E). The primary threat to biodiversity is habitat destruction and degradation, driven
largely by agriculture and forestry (Baillie et al. 2004, 86). These high levels of conversion of
natural habitat are due to land use requirements of a large and still growing human
population. Moreover, the negative implications for biodiversity are greatly exacerbated in
1

1. INTRODUCTION
areas with high rates of land conversion, coinciding with high species richness or endemism
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005b, 96). Therefore, an increasingly important part of
modern conservation planning is the protection of production landscapes. The elements of
biodiversity can further be safeguarded in production landscapes by either setting up
additional protected areas, for instance in a voluntary manner, or finding ways of sustainably
managing these regions (Interview Partner D).
Due to the rapid loss of biodiversity and the limited resources available to protect it, priorities
need to be identified. Not all elements of biodiversity have the same conservation needs, nor
do they provide the same contribution to the safeguarding of global biodiversity. Prioritisation
is about deciding which elements require immediate attention (Pressey et al. 1993, 124).
Biodiversity and its threats are not evenly distributed, some areas are far richer in
biodiversity and especially in endemism, and since these areas are often also under the
most threat, prioritising conservation efforts in these areas will achieve maximum impact,
making a greater contribution towards global biodiversity preservation (Mittermeier et al.
1998, 516).
1.2 Problem Statement and Research Gaps
Many prioritisation approaches for the conservation of biodiversity, at a global, regional and
local scale, have been developed and employed to assist in the effective allocation of limited
resources (Brooks et al. 2006, 58; Knight et al. 2007, 256). The variety in concepts has
evolved due to biodiversity conservation organisations requiring powerful and cost-effective
approaches to market as their own, and thereby, improve fundraising (Interview Partner G).
Even though this diversity in approaches contributes usefully to an ongoing debate about
their appropriateness (Margules and Pressey 2000, 251), it does however, also lead to
criticism that there is a duplication of effort and a lack of clarity between the different
approaches at all levels (Mace 2000, 393; da Fonseca 2000, 394). So far, few attempts have
been made to summarize and compare global prioritisation approaches (Redford et al. 2003,
118; Brooks et al. 2006, 58). More importantly, purely regional and local scale prioritisation
approaches, being important for the identification of more precise and most urgent
conservation targets (Langhammer et al. 2007, 6), have seemingly not been compared in an
adequate manner. The criteria required by and the efficiency of these approaches are until
now not that well understood (Interview Partner I). Hence, the need for gaining an overview
of contemporary methods used for the identification of biodiversity relevant areas has arisen.
2

1. INTRODUCTION
The High Conservation Value (HCV) concept, a local prioritisation approach, is commonly
used by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH and other
international organisations, such as the Rainforest Alliance (The Rainforest Alliance, 2005),
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (High
Conservation Value Resource Network, 2005 - 07). Thus, the GTZ - Programme Office for
Social and Ecological Standards has requested research to be carried out to identify other
local and regional conservation approaches, to provide a deeper understanding and
determine the efficiency of contemporary approaches in comparison to the HCV concept.
Realising advantages, disadvantages and divergences of such approach identification
phases shall help conservation practitioners make more precise decisions on the choice of
the approach to be employed (Interview Partner A).
1.3 Objectives of Thesis
This thesis intends to assess a range of regional and local conservation approaches used to
identify areas with special importance for biodiversity conservation in comparison to the HCV
concept. Hereby a detailed overview of selected approaches, with regard to their similarities,
differences, strengths and weaknesses shall be produced, embarking on the task of
attempting to evaluate their efficiency.
The aim of this work is to provide answers for the approaches’ identification stage to the
following research questions:
1. Which local and regional conservation approaches exist beyond the HCV concept?
2. What are their differences and similarities?
3. What are their strengths and weaknesses?
4. What input do they require?
5. How effective are they?
Thus, a contribution to determine the approach efficiency shall be made – and a thorough
overview of contemporary approaches used for the identification of biodiversity relevant sites
shall be provided.
3

2. METHODOLOGY
2. Methodology
2.1 Overview of Methodology
In order to compare the HCV concept to other contemporary approaches used to identify
biodiversity relevant sites, the strength-weakness analysis method was selected as the core
methodology to be employed for this thesis. The subsequent steps leading up to the strengthweakness
analysis and final results are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Research methodology
2.2.1 First Literature Research
2.2.1.1 Development of
Key Questions and Criteria
2.2.1.2 Choice of
Approaches for Assessment
2.2.2 Set of Key Questions and Criteria
2.2.3 Second Literature
Research
2.2.4 Semi-Structured
Interviews
2.2.5. Design of Assessment Methodology
2.2.6 Strength-Weakness
Analysis
2.2.7 Additional Criteria
Results
Source: Own design
The following chapters are dedicated to the detailed description of these methodological steps.
4

2. METHODOLOGY
2.2 Description of Methodological Steps
2.2.1 First Literature Research
In order to compare contemporary approaches to the HCV concept, a set of indicators, in the
form of key questions and criteria, required development. Simultaneously, suitable approaches
for the assessment needed to be identified. Thus, a detailed literature review was undertaken.
All literature research was limited to books, journal articles and web sites sourced through online
databases, generalized search engines, library research or by tracking back through citations 1 .
2.2.1.1 Development of Key Questions and Criteria
For the performance of the strength-weakness analysis, an elaborated set of key questions,
criteria and sub-criteria 2 was formulated. Therefore, a thorough comparison of the HCV
concept with the other contemporary approaches would be possible. Furthermore, this
diverse set of indicators was divided into 5 thematic groups: I. Ecology; II. Implementation;
III. Input; IV. Supplementary; and V. Effectiveness.
The integration of the key questions into these groups was mainly based on the pressurestate-response
(PSR) system and also undertaken with the intention of providing a clear
orientation to the reader concerning the approaches inherent qualities.
Group I (Ecology) was formulated to determine whether an approach addresses ecological
aspects of biodiversity. Hence, it represents state in the PSR system.
Group II (Implementation) should determine how an approach moves from state to
response, in terms of who (Criteria F and D), where (Criterion C) and how (Criterion E).
The response aspect is represented by Group III (Input) and Group V (Effectiveness).
Group III represents the expenditure of a conservation project, whereas Group V should
show which approach protects the largest number of species and results in the highest
percentage of a set-aside area.
Lastly, Group IV (Supplementary) represents additional criteria that should detect an
approach’s ability to firstly detect the pressures influence on state (Criterion K) and secondly
detect the response’s influence on pressure (Criteria J, L and M).
The pressure aspect in itself was not addressed during this thesis, as it was assumed that
this would be more or less the same for all approaches, namely the loss of biodiversity due
to human activity.
1 All references can be found at the end of the thesis in the References section.
2 An overview of the key questions and criteria can be seen in Chapter, 2.2.2.
5

2. METHODOLOGY
Figure 2 provides an overview of the thematic groups based on the PSR system.
Figure 2: Overview of groups based on pressure-stateresponse
system
Group IV
Supplementary
Criterion K
Group II
Implementation
PRESSURE
STATE
RESPONSE
Group I
Ecology
Group V
Effectiveness
Group IV
Supplementary
Criterion J, L,M
Group III
Input
Source: (OECD 1993, 5)
Own design based on and modified from OECD 1993
2.2.1.2 Choice of Approaches for Assessment
The selection of approaches was subject to a systematic concept. All approaches
needed to be comparable to the HCV concept, collectively covering a broad range of
conservation targets and providing sufficient case studies for reviewing. For practical purposes,
the number of assessed approaches should lie between 5 and 10 3 .
2.2.2 Set of Key Questions and Criteria
An overview of the key questions, criteria and sub-criteria divided into their thematic groups
is provided in Table 1 (see next page). In order to set up a comparison of the contemporary
approaches on these key questions and criteria, these were specifically explained and
clearly defined based on argumentative reasoning 4 .
3 Please refer to chapter 3.2, Rationale behind Approach Selection, for an explanation to the choice of
approaches.
4 Please refer to Appendix A1, for the detailed definitions of the key questions and criteria.
6

2. METHODOLOGY
Table 1: Overview of key questions, criteria and sub-criteria
Group Key Questions Criteria Sub-criteria 5
genetic diversity (C1)
A. Are all levels of biodiversity addressed? Addressed biodiversity levels
species diversity (C2)
I. Ecology
ecosystem diversity (C3)
B. Are all ecosystem types addressed? Addressed ecosystem types
terrestrial (C4)
aquatic (C5)
local (C6)
C. At which geographic scale is the approach applicable? Geographic scale of applicability
regional (C7)
global (C8)
D. At which level has the method been implemented? Level of approach
II. Implementation
E. Which style of implementation does the approach apply? Implementation style
private sector level (C9)
public sector level (C10)
top-down (C11)
bottom-up (C12)
international experts (C13)
F. For whom is the approach suitable? Suitability for different users
national experts (C14)
local user groups (C15)
site visits (C16)
III. Input G. Which methods were employed for site choice? Methods for site choice
surveys (C17)
additional methods (C18)
5 For definitions of the sub-criteria, please refer to chapter 7, General Terms.
7

2. METHODOLOGY
Group Key Questions Criteria Sub-criteria
Required resources
H. Which resources are required for identification?
financial resources (C19)
human resources (C20)
III. Input
Continued
I. Which data are required for the identification of important
areas?
Data requirements
required time (C21)
use of existing data (C22)
data acquisition (C23)
data validation (C24)
remote sensing (C25)
J. Is a scoping assessment possible?
Possibility of scoping
assessment
required resources (C26)
required time (C27)
IV. Supplementary K. Which threats are considered? What is their severity? Consideration of threats
internal (C28)
external (C29)
L. Is guidance for appropriate monitoring steps provided? Monitoring recommendations monitoring recommendations (C30)
M. Is guidance for appropriate management steps provided? Management recommendations management recommendations (C31)
amount (C32)
N. How many different species are conserved?
What is their status?
Conserved species
threat status (C33)
irreplaceability (C34)
V. Effectiveness
sensitivity/ tolerance towards threat (C35)
size (C36)
O. How large is the protected area (PA)? Is this area
connected to other Protected areas (PAs)?
Protected area
state/ naturalness (C37)
connection with other PAs (C38)
Source: Own design
representativeness (C39)
8

2. METHODOLOGY
2.2.3 Second Literature Research
A second literature research was performed. Firstly to gain some general insight into the
selected approaches 6 was thereby gained which enabled a comparison of the approaches’
scale and objectives, as well as the criteria they employ for site identification. Secondly,
data with regard to the key questions and criteria was gathered for the individual
approaches. During this research it became apparent that not all key questions and criteria
could be answered through literature research alone 7 . Thus, the semi-structured interviews,
which at first were solely designed to validate the data obtained from the review, were
redesigned to allow for data acquisition as well.
2.2.4 Semi-Structured Interviews
Since this thesis required qualitative, descriptive information, semi-structured interviews
were chosen as method for additional data acquisition and overall data validation. This style
of interviewing lends itself well to gathering qualitative information, often based on the
interviewee’s in depth opinion and perspective (USAID 1996, 1). To obtain some background
knowledge on performing semi-structured interviews, a specialist of the Technical University
of Munich was consulted and literature reviewed (Mieg et al. 2005, 1-26; USAID 1996, 1-4).
This enabled an outline and questions for the interviews to be formulated 8 .
Furthermore, a list of possible interview candidates was established with the help of a
preliminary stakeholder network analysis and support from the GTZ-Programme Office for
Social and Ecological Standards.
A total of 34 possible candidates were contacted with 14 expert interviews (41%) being held
between 21.09.2009 and 02.11.2009. Each interview took between half an hour and one and
a half hours. Since the majority of interviewees 9 were based outside of Germany, the
interviews were held via telephone or internet. The interviews were recorded and then
transcribed into a report. All recordings were subsequently erased. Permission from all
interviewees to include the interview reports anonymously in this thesis was obtained 10 .
6 An overview of each approach is provided in chapter 3.3, Case Study Approach Profiles.
7 For further detail, please refer to chapter 2.2.5, Design of Assessment Methodology.
8 Please refer to Appendix A2 for the interview outline design.
9 Please refer to Appendix A3 for a list of all interviewees.
10 Please refer to Appendix A4 for all interview reports.
9

2. METHODOLOGY
2.2.5 Design of Assessment Methodology
During the literature reviews and interviews it became apparent that the Group III (Input) and
Group V (Effectiveness) key questions and criteria could not be assessed by a strengthweakness
analysis, due to either the complexity or lack of available data. Thus, additional
assessment methodology was chosen.
Figure 3 shows the resulting assessment methodology used to analyse the selected
approaches.
Figure 3: Overview of assessment methodology
Strength-Weakness Analysis Ranking No Assessment Possible
Group Criteria Group Criteria
Group
Criteria
I. Ecology
A. Addressed
Biodiversity Levels
B. Addressed
Ecosystem Types
III. Input
G. Methods for
Site Choice
H. Required
Resources
I. Data
Requirements
V. Effectiveness
N. Conserved
Species
O. Protected
Area
C. Geographic
Scale of Applicability
D. Level of Approach
II. Implementation
E. Implementation
Style
F. Suitability for
Different Users
IV. Supplementary
Source: Own Design
J. Possibility of
Scoping Assessment
K. Consideration of
Threats/ Risks
L. Monitoring
Rec ommendations
M. Management
Recommendations
10

2. METHODOLOGY
Criteria A-B (Group I Ecology), criteria C-F (Group II Implementation) and criteria J-M
(Group IV Supplementary) were assessed in the strength-weakness analysis 11 . Enough
data was obtained to classify the approaches and to display the results in strength-weakness
profiles.
Criteria G-I (Group III Input) were not included in the strength-weakness analysis, but
instead were addressed separately. These criteria are more complex, often also
interdependent and therefore could not be classified according to “strong” and “weak”. Thus,
this thesis provides a ranked estimation of the approaches based on an ordinal ranking
system 12 .
Criteria N-O (Group V Effectiveness) were not assessed in this thesis, as both literature
reviews and interviews did not provide any data on these criteria.
Consequently, a detailed comparison was undertaken for the selected contemporary
approaches used to identify biodiversity relevant areas. This was based on a strengthweakness
analysis for the Groups I (Ecology), II (Implementation) and IV (Supplementary)
and an ordinal ranking system for the Group III (Input).
2.2.6 Strength-Weakness Analysis
The second literature review and the semi-structured interviews provided sufficient data on
strengths and weaknesses for all approaches. Strengths and weaknesses could be identified
for the key questions and criteria in Group I (Ecology), Group II (Implementation) and Group
IV (Supplementary). Supported by argumentative reasoning 13 the approaches were classified
according to very weak (--), weak (-), average (O), strong (+) and very strong (++) for each
key question within the respective groups. The argumentative reasoning was summarised in
tabular form to provide specific guidelines in order to allocate measures for each key
question and criteria as shown in Table 2. Hence, a strength-weakness profile could be
determined for each approach for the key questions and criteria of Groups I, II and IV.
11 Please refer to chapter 2.2.6, Strength-Weakness Analysis, for the methodological description.
12 Please refer to chapter 2.2.7, Additional Criteria, for the methodological description.
13 Please refer to Appendix A1 for the argumentation on which the classification is based.
11

2. METHODOLOGY
Table 2: Defined classification values for key questions and criteria
Group Criteria 14 Sub-criteria -- - 0 + ++
I. Ecology
II.
Implementation
A. Addressed
biodiversity levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem types
C. Geographic
scale of
applicability
genetic diversity
(C1)
species diversity
(C2)
ecosystem
diversity (C3) 15
terrestrial (C4)
aquatic (C5)
local (C6)
regional (C7)
global (C8)
EITHER C1, C2,
C3 not
addressed
OR
one sub-criterion
addressed
partially/
indirectly and
the other two not
addressed
C4 and C5 not
addressed
C6, C7, C8 not
addressed
EITHER C1, C2
C3 addressed
partially/
indirectly
OR
one subcriterion
addressed fully
and the other
two not
addressed
EITHER C4
partially
addressed and
C5 not
addressed
OR
vice versa
C6, C7, C8
addressed
partially
EITHER C2 fully
addressed; C1
partially/
indirectly and C3
not addressed
OR
C3 fully
addressed; C1
and C2 partially
EITHER
C4 and C5
partially
addressed
OR
one sub-criterion
addressed fully
and the second
not at all
One sub-criterion
addressed fully
(either C6, C7 or
C8) and the
other two
addressed
partially (either
C6 & C7 or C7 &
C8 or C6 & C8)
C2 and C3 fully
addressed and
C1 not
addressed
EITHER
C4 fully
addressed and
C5 partially
OR
vice versa
EITHER
C6 and C7
OR
C6 and C8 fully
addressed
AND
C8 OR C7
indirectly OR not
addressed
C1, C2, C3 fully
addressed
Or
C2 and C3 fully
addressed and
C1 indirectly/
partially
C4 and C5 fully
addressed
C6, C7, C8 fully
addressed
or
C7 and C8 fully
addressed and
C6 indirectly
14 The criteria are defined as being met fully, if the approach has actually been implemented at the specific level and not, if it could theoretically be
implemented.
15 It should be noted that ecosystem diversity refers to the number of different ecosystems. Due to the scope of this thesis a more in depth analysis of the
various levels of biodiversity, by including ecosystem functioning, was not possible.
12

2. METHODOLOGY
Group Criteria Sub-criteria -- - 0 + ++
D. Level of
approach
private sector
level (C9)
public sector
level (C10)
C9 and C10 not
addressed
One subcriterion
addressed
partially; the
other one not at
all
EITHER
C9 addressed
fully and C10 not
addressed
OR
C10 addressed
fully and C9 not
addressed
One subcriterion
addressed fully;
the other one
addressed
partially
C9 and C10 fully
addressed
II.
Implementation
(continued)
E. Implementation
style
F. Suitability for
intended users
top-down (C11)
bottom-up (C12)
international
experts (C13)
national experts
(C14)
local user groups
(C15)
C11 and C12
not addressed
C15 and/ or C13
addressed fully;
C14 not
addressed
One subcriterion
addressed
partially; the
other one not at
all
C14 addressed;
C13 and C15
not addressed
EITHER C11
addressed fully
and C12 not
addressed
OR
vice versa
OR both
addressed
partially
C14 fully
addressed and
EITHER
C13 and C15
partially
addressed
One subcriterion
addressed fully;
the other one
addressed
partially
EITHER
C13 and C14
addressed fully
and C15 not or
partially
addressed
OR
C14 and C15
addressed fully
and C13 not or
partially
addressed
C11 and C12
fully addressed
all sub-criteria
are addressed
fully
13

2. METHODOLOGY
Group Criteria Sub-criteria -- - 0 + ++
IV.
Supplementary
J. Possibility of
scoping
assessment
K. Consideration
of threats
required
resources (C26)
required time
(C27)
internal (C28)
external (C29)
C26 and C27
not addressed
C28 and C29
not addressed
EITHER
C26 partially
addressed and
C27 not
addressed
OR
vice versa
OR
C26 and C27
not
determinable
with an inherent
weakness
EITHER
C26 fully
addressed;
C27 not
addressed
OR
vice versa
OR
C26 and C27 not
determinable
N.A. C28 and C29
partially
addressed
C26 partially and
C27 fully
addressed
C26 and C27
fully addressed
N.A. C28 and C29
fully addressed
L. Monitoring
recommendations
M. Management
recommendations
Key: N.A. = not applicable
Source: Own design
monitoring
recommendations
(C30)
management
recommendations
(C31)
C30 not
addressed
C31 not
addressed
N.A. C30 is partially
addressed
N.A. C31 is partially
addressed
N.A. C30 is fully
addressed
N.A. C31 is fully
addressed
14

2. METHODOLOGY
2.2.7 Additional Criteria
The assessment of Group III (Input) criterion G (methods for site choice), criterion H
(required resources) and criterion I (data requirements) was based on literature research
and expert interviews. For this purpose the detailed measures of the strength-weakness
analysis were reduced to a sequence of ordinal numbers or rankings which enabled the
complex information, obtained for the Group III criteria, to be evaluated.
The ordinal ranking system was established individually for each criterion.
Criterion G (methods for site choice), in general, based this ranking on the number of
different methods an approach may implement to identify sites important for biodiversity
conservation. However, any identified weaknesses or shortcomings were also taken into
consideration when ranking the approaches.
Criterion H (required resources) based this ranking on the amount of resources (financial,
human and time) an approach requires. The lower the required resources, the higher the
approach will be ranked. For this criterion, each sub-criterion was assigned an individual
ranking.
Criterion I (data requirements) based this ranking on the amount of different information
sources an approach may make use of.
Table 3 shows the divisions behind the ranking system (see next page).
15

2. METHODOLOGY
Table 3: Ordinal ranking system for additional criteria and sub-criteria
Criteria Sub-criteria 1 2 3
Group
III
Input
G. Methods for
Site Choice
H. Required
resources
I. Data
requirements
Site visits (C16)
Survey (C17)
Additional methods
(C18)
Financial resources
(C19)
Human resources
(C20)
Time required
(C21)
Use of existing data
(C22)
Data acquisition
(C23)
Data validation
(C24)
Use of remote
sensing (C25)
9-11 Methods 6-8 Methods 3-5 Methods
No ranking possible since the range of data
obtained was not wide enough 16
Least
intensive
(1-2 people)
Shortest time
(1-12 months)
13-15 data
sources
Key: 1=first place; 2=second place; 3=third place;
Source: Own design
Average
intensive
(3-4 people)
Average
time (1-2,5
years)
10-12 data
sources
Highest
intensive
(≥ 5 people)
Longest time
(≥ 3 years)
7-9 data
sources
This ordinal system enabled a ranking of the approaches to be undertaken for the criteria
and sub-criteria of Group III. The approaches were ranked according to first, second and
third place.
16 Please refer to chapter 4.3.4, Interim Summary III, for more detail.
16

3. CASE STUDIES
3. Case Study Selection
3.1 Possible and Selected Approaches
During the first stage of research a desk top study was undertaken to determine all possible
approaches that identify areas important for biodiversity conservation (see Table 4).
However, the majority of these were discovered to be unsuitable for the assessment 17 .
Table 4: List of possible approaches
Possible Approaches to identify biodiversity
relevant sites 18
High Conservation Value (HCV)
Biodiversity Assessment and Mapping Methodology
(BAMM)
Biodiversity Hotspots
Centres for Plant Diversity (CPD)
Endemic Bird Areas (EBA)
Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC)
Ecosystem Risk-Representativeness Approach
Focal Species Approach (FSA)
Global 200 Ecoregions
Important Bird Areas (IBA)
Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA)
Major Tropical Wilderness Areas
Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA)
Source: Own design
Main Characteristics supporting selection
Stipulated by the GTZ
Multiple criteria
Implementation in production landscapes
Case studies limited to Australia
Macro-level approach
Macro-level approach
Macro-level approach
Global application
Ecosystem specific criteria
Numerous case studies
Ecosystem specific criteria
Only one case studies found in literature
Global application
Taxon based surrogate scheme
Implementation in production landscapes
Macro-level approach
Part of the KBA process
Global application
Multiple taxon specific criteria
Numerous case studies
Macro-level approach
Global application
Tool used for biodiversity assessments
Numerous case studies
17 Please refer to chapter 3.2, Rationale behind Approach Selection, for a detailed explanation.
18 Approaches selected for the assessment are shown in bold.
17

3. CASE STUDIES
3.2 Rationale behind Approach Selection
Many global biodiversity prioritisation conservation approaches (macro-level approaches)
have been developed over the years (Brooks et al. 2006, 58). Although these approaches,
such as Centres for Plant Diversity (WWF and IUCN 1994-97), the Global 200 Ecoregions
(Olson and Dinerstein 1998), Biodiversity Hotspots (Myers et al. 2000) and Endemic Bird
Areas (Stattersfield et al. 1998), have been highly influential in directing conservation
resources on a global scale (Brooks et al. 2006, 61), they have had little success in
identifying regional and local conservation targets (Mace 2000, 393, Sanderson et al. 2002,
902).
Thus, these global approaches require subsequent prioritisation at a finer resolution within
the identified areas (Proforest 2005-07). Many national and international organisations have
consequently developed a range of regional and local scale prioritisation conservation
assessment schemes (micro-scale approaches) to identify biodiversity at the respective
scales and to assist in the effective allocation of limited resources (Knight et al. 2007, 256).
Among these is the High Conservation Value (HCV) concept which has, over the years,
increasingly gained wide spread application from many international organisations. Since
this approach is of major interest to the GTZ - Programme Office for Social and Ecological
Standards and since it is a micro-level approach (i.e. identifying regional and/ or local
conservation targets) (Interview Partner E), the other approaches used for this assessment
should also be micro-level approaches, in order to possess the necessary comparative
character for this research. Another determining factor for the selection of approaches was
their global application and with this, the number of case studies available for the intended
review. Furthermore, this thesis attempted to choose a sample of approaches that
collectively address the full range of conservation targets. For instance, the Key Biodiversity
Areas (KBA) approach relies on multiple taxon specific criteria and the Ecoregion-Based
Conservation (ERBC) approach uses ecosystem specific criteria. In contrast, the HCV
concept relies on multiple criteria identifying a broad range of conservation targets within
biodiversity relevant sites. The Focal Species Approach (FSA) is implemented in production
landscapes, and was added to the set of selected approaches as a direct comparison to the
HCV concept which was also first designed for implementation in this context. Contrasting all
four above mentioned approaches, the Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) was finally
added. This approach is a biodiversity characterisation tool based on scientific methodology.
A total number of five was thought to be an adequate size for a comparison within the limited
research scope of a Master’s thesis, yet guaranteeing the proficiency of research to draw
18

3. CASE STUDIES
profound conclusions. Thus, the sample assessed in this thesis is made up of five extremely
different, but reasonably representative approaches, in terms of collectively addressing a
wide range of conservation targets. However, this sample is far from being exhaustive and
the reader should consider that other sets of approaches could have been conceivable.
To summarise, the selected approaches were: the High Conservation Value (HCV) concept,
the Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) approach, the Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC)
approach, the Focal Species Approach (FSA) and the Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA).
3.3 Case Study Approach Profiles
3.3.1 High Conservation Value (HCV) Concept
The HCV concept was originally developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for
sustainable forest practices in the context of forest certification in 1999 (High Conservation
Value Forests or HCVF). The aim was to identify forest areas of outstanding significance or
critical importance (HCV Resource Network 2005-07) with the general phrase ‘Value’
emerging, as the method expanded to all kinds of ecosystems, habitats and alternative forms
of land-usage (Interview Partner A). Since this framework integrates ecological, social and
economic aspects, it has been implemented in a variety of areas, including land-use
planning, conservation advocacy and designing responsible investment policies (HCV
Resource Network 2005-07).
The foundation of this concept is the identification of up to six High Conservation Values
(HCVs) 19 based on either biological, ecological, social or cultural components which are
deemed exceptional or critically important at a local, regional or global level. The HCV is the
area where the value is situated and which needs to be appropriately managed to either
maintain or enhance it (HCV Resource Network 2005-07). Hence, the HCV concept is a
management orientated process that helps land managers and owners find ways to
sustainably manage their land (Interview Partner G). In addition, monitoring establishes the
effectiveness and success of this management. The process’ success, to date, has been
accredited to its flexibility, wide ranging stakeholder participation and transparency (HCV
Resource Network 2005-7).
19 Please refer to chapter 4.1.2.1 for further detail on the HCV criteria.
19

3. CASE STUDIES
3.3.2 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Approach
Since the dominant threat for most terrestrial and freshwater species is the destruction of
their habitats (Baillie et al. 2004, xxii), it has become clear that the establishment of
protected areas is an effective tool for biodiversity conservation (Brunner et al. 2001, 126).
The objective of the Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) approach is to provide guidelines for
identifying priorities for both expanding and strengthening the global protected area system,
to ensure its representativeness, comprehensiveness and long-term effectiveness
(Langhammer et al. 2007, xiv, 6). KBA are globally significant sites for biodiversity which are
large enough and sufficiently interconnected to support viable populations of species
(Langhammer et al. 2007, 5).
They are identified using globally-set, simple, standard criteria and thresholds 20 based on
their importance in maintaining populations of species (Eken et al. 2004, 1111). These
globally set, quantitative criteria are based on the concepts of vulnerability and
irreplaceability (Langhammer et al. 2007, 7). This consistent methodology identifies and
maps biologically significant sites of the size of a practical management unit, such as
protected areas, concessions and properties. Thus, conservation targets and gaps can be
identified (Conservation International 2008, 1). The identification of KBA, at a national or
regional scale, may be the starting point for landscape level conservation planning, as these
priority sites provide the building blocks for maintaining ecological networks (Langhammer et
al. 2007, 6).
The approach builds on and is supported by previous initiatives, such as the IUCN’s Red List
of Threatened Species, BirdLife International’s Important Bird Areas (IBA), PlantLife
International’s Important Plant Areas (IPA) and sites identified by the Alliance for Zero
Extinction (AZE), as well as Conservation International (CI). Thus, all taxonomic groups, for
which data is available, are considered (Langhammer et al. 2007, 5). Additionally, this
iterative process allows for the immediate identification of important sites using existing data,
while allowing for continuous refinement as new information becomes available
(Conservation International 2008, 2).
20 Please refer to chapter 4.1.2.2 for further detail on the KBA criteria and thresholds.
20

3. CASE STUDIES
3.3.3 Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) Approach
In 1998 the Global 200 Assessment presented a valuable method for identifying terrestrial,
freshwater, and marine ecoregions containing significant biodiversity values. In addition, this
analysis performed conservation status assessments on the world’s terrestrial ecoregions.
This provided an estimate of the current and future ability of an ecoregion to maintain viable
species populations, to sustain ecological processes and to be responsive to short and long
term environmental changes. The ecoregions were classified according to three categories:
(i) critical / endangered, (ii) vulnerable or (iii) relatively stable / relatively intact. Preliminary
assessments for marine and freshwater ecoregions have also been performed (Ohlson and
Dinerstein 1998, 512). The rationale behind this work is to conserve a comprehensive
representation of the world’s habitats and ecosystem types, therefore also safeguarding the
broadest range of the world’s species and the ecological processes that maintain life
(Dinerstein et al. 2000, 6). This macro-level approach lays the foundation for more fine scale
conservation approaches, such as the Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) approach, to
identify and conserve important targets within these ecoregions (Ohlson and Dinerstein
1998, 512, Dinerstein et al. 2000, 6).
The ERBC approach was originally developed by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
(Dinerstein et al. 2000; Groves et al. 2004). It arose, in part, from the need to find ways to
operate at a scale (i.e. the ecoregion) large enough to achieve conservation results that are
ecologically viable and to conserve networks of key sites, migration corridors, and the
ecological processes that maintain healthy ecosystems. Hereby it attains full representation
within an ecoregion. Since the scale of the ecoregion is often too large for a detailed analysis
that is required for guidance on specific land management options, ERBC identifies, at the
scale of the landscape, priority areas as operational units for implementation. This allows for
the development of more specific recommendations and involvement of local stakeholders
and land managers (Groves et al. 2004, 2).
The foundation of the ERBC approach could be considered to be the “biodiversity vision
plan” which aims to conserve and, where necessary, restore the full expression of
biodiversity in the long-run. In order to achieve this ambitious goal, the approach addresses
not only different spatial, but also different temporal scales (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 16;
Marshall et al. 2004, 17). The goals and strategies identified as part of the biodiversity vision
plan are set within a short, medium and long term time frame. Site identification is based on
five explicit conservation criteria 21 , resulting in protected areas as core conservation targets
21 Please refer to chapter 4.1.2.3 for further detail on the ERBC criteria.
21

3. CASE STUDIES
with the establishment of a network representing all habitats and ecosystems. The concept
addresses minimal area requirements necessary to maintain viable populations and critical
processes (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 19). Thus, it tries to capture and maximise the different
scales and conservation targets of biodiversity, making it exceptionally comprehensive and
representative (Interview Partner I).
3.3.4 Focal Species Approach (FSA)
Due to the threat of habitat destruction and degradation (Baillie et al. 2004, 86), and since
data on biodiversity is extremely limited and more often than not riddled with gaps and
biases (The Royal Society 2003, 6; Langhammer et al. 2007, 9), the need to act quickly with
incomplete information has emerged. Therefore, short-cuts relying on the identification of a
few key species that could be concentrated on during conservation planning have been
developed (Hess and King 2002, 25). More precisely, to halt the loss of species from
production landscapes, such as agriculture, forestry and grazing areas, it is necessary to
identify the composition, quantity, and structure of landscape elements that are required to
meet the needs of the species present (Lambeck 1997, 850).
The Focal Species Approach (FSA) is a multi-species approach used to define the
landscape features and the management strategies essential for the survival of biota within a
fragmented landscape. It identifies a set of focal species, each of which is used to determine
the exact attributes required by all other species for their survival (Lambeck 1997, 851). All
species considered at risk are grouped according to the processes that threaten their
survival 22 . Within each group, the most sensitive species to that particular threat is termed
the focal species and is used to define the minimum threshold at which the threat can occur
without causing the destruction of that particular species (Lambeck 1997, 852). Since the
landscape is designed, managed and, where needed, restored to meet the needs of the
most demanding species, it is presumed that all other needs will be covered by the
approach, thus, effectively leading to the conservation of all biota present in the area of
interest (Lambeck 1997, 851; Lindenmeyer et al. 2002, 338).
This approach provides an efficient and strategic means of enhancing the conservation value
of a landscape. However, it does not provide a method for achieving a viable landscape (i.e.
one that will retain its biota over time), since it does not identify the area over which the
solution must be applied. In the future, this shortcoming may be resolved if further
investigations reveal that landscapes ensuring population viability for the focal species also
22 Please refer to chapter 4.1.2.4, for a detailed description of the FSA threat groups.
22

3. CASE STUDIES
provide the requirements to support viable populations of all other species (Lambeck 1997,
855).
3.3.5 Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA)
Considering the relatively superficial knowledge of biodiversity and the substantial threat
towards it, a need for comprehensive, reliable information about biodiversity resources has
arisen, in order to protect this natural heritage. Given the urgency of the situation and the
limited financial resources available, the Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) was born by
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in 1991. This methodology is a scientifically sound survey of
vegetation types and species (Sayre et al. 2000, 2). Its objective is to characterise the
landscape and species level of biodiversity of large unknown areas (Interview Partner I;
Sayre et al. 2000, 33, 81).
The REA utilizes a combination of remote sensed imagery, reconnaissance overflights, field
data collection, and spatial information visualization to generate useful data for conservation
planning (Sayre et al. 2000, 6). Essentially, the basic REA methodology has remained
relatively unchanged since its original inception. It continues to focus on landscape level
conservation, however, adopting a coarse filter-fine filter emphasis with the goal of
conserving landscapes (coarse filter) and subsequently resulting in the conservation of
species (fine filter) contained within them. The rapid development of spatial information
technologies has revolutionized the methodology of a REA at the coarse scale. Thus,
refinement of and focusing-in to more detailed complementary information from the field (fine
scale) is enabled (Sayre et al. 2000, 6).
The REA has not only resulted in the selection of priority conservation areas, but also in the
establishment of protected areas, development of management plans, design of corridors,
and identification of future research needs. Furthermore, the resulting mapped and
documented characterisation of biodiversity has improved scientific knowledge (Sayre et al.
2000, 7) and has been used for numerous activities, such as providing information for the
identification of important ecological sites or special conservation areas and defining
ecologically based boundaries, amongst several other activities (Sayre et al. 2000, 34).
Overall, the selected approaches are not only varied in their origin and objectives, but also in
the conservation targets and scales they address.
23

3. CASE STUDIES
3.4 Interim Discussion
Due to the predetermined set of key questions, criteria and sub-criteria, certain aspects of
the approaches, dealing with strengths, weaknesses and differences in their objectives and
the scale they address would not be included in the actual comparison. In order to produce
an overall picture of the approaches, these issues were briefly addressed.
Through their different origins the majority of the assessed approaches also have different
objectives, as can be seen in Table 5. The desired outcome of any project plays an
important role in which approach should ultimately be implemented for various biodiversity
aspects (Interview partner A). Thus, to produce an overall picture of the individual
approaches, their objectives should also be considered (Interview Partner D).
Table 5: Approach objectives
Approach
HCV concept
KBA approach
ERBC approach
FSA
REA
Source: Own design
Objectives
Management Plans in Production Landscapes
(identifying social and biodiversity values)
Strengthening Protected Area System
Conserve Full Range of Biodiversity
Management Plans in Production Landscapes
(halting the further loss of species)
Characterisation of Biodiversity
The HCV concept focuses on biodiversity and social values of outstanding significance or
critical importance in production landscapes (Interview Partner D). It is a managementoriented
process which produces management plans and recommendations to either
maintain or enhance the identified values at the site scale (Interview Partner D, E and G).
The KBA approach’s objective is to provide guidelines for strengthening and expanding the
global protected area system, in order to ensure its representativeness, comprehensiveness
and long-term effectiveness (Langhammer et al. 2007, xiv, 6). It not only informs national
conservation planning, but also development planning (Langhammer et al. 2007, xi),
indicating a recipe for implementation success. Biodiversity conservation will have higher
chances of success, if strategies are reflected in the national development or poverty
reduction strategies. Simultaneously, development plans can be more effective, if they take
24

3. CASE STUDIES
into account existing plans and priorities for the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a, 14).
In general, the aim of the ERBC approach is to conserve the full range of species, natural
communities, habitats and ecological processes (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 24), with the
development of strategies for short- (within 1 year), medium- (1-10 years) and long-term
goals (up to 100 years) (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 29). Therefore, these objectives allow for a
more comprehensive and integrated analysis. It is the most suited approach for capturing
ecological processes and entire ecosystems (Interview Partner I).
The objective of the FSA is to prevent any further loss of species in production landscapes.
To achieve this, it is necessary to determine the composition, quantity and configuration of
the landscape, to meet the needs of any species present (Lambeck 1997, 849). Even though
it does not ensure the persistence of viable populations over time, it provides an efficient and
strategic tool for enhancing the conservation value of the production landscape (Lambeck
1997, 854).
In general, the REA aims to characterise the distribution of vegetation and specific taxa,
producing baseline biophysical information required for a number of different actions. It is an
extremely flexible, iterative methodology that can be employed for a variety of different uses
and is exceptionally well suited for information-poor regions of the world (Sayre et al. 2000,
11).
In general, the approaches’ objectives all differ and careful consideration should be taken
when choosing an approach for identifying areas important for biodiversity conservation.
The spatial scale of conservation actions required for halting the loss of biodiversity is an
ongoing and rigorous debate. However, a wide-spread consensus is that by addressing a
multitude of scales, such as the site, landscape and ecoregional scale 23 , the success of any
biodiversity conservation approach will be enhanced (Boyd et al. 2008, 42), as this will
ensure the persistence of broad scale ecological processes and biodiversity in the long term
(Langhammer et al. 2007, 6; Interview Partner M).
23 Please refer to chapter 7, General Terms, for precise definitions.
25

3. CASE STUDIES
Figure 4 provides an overview of the different spatial scales the approaches address.
Figure 4: Spatial scales addressed by approaches
Different
Spatial Scales
Site scale
HCV
KBA
ERBC
REA
Landscape scale
HCV
ERBC
FSA
REA
Ecoregional
scale
ERBC
Source: Own design
Since the HCV concept is an approach used for the identification of values in a land
management unit (i.e. the site scale) and since work has begun at the landscape level in
order to incorporate the wider context (Interview Partner D), this approach successfully
merges two conservation scales, thereby increasing its efficacy 24 .
In contrast, the KBA approach is employed solely at the site scale for the identification of
global biodiversity priorities. Even though working at this scale alone will prevent the long
term persistence of biodiversity (Boyd et al. 2008, 42; Dinerstein et al. 2000, 15; Knight et al.
2007, 258), it forms a solid foundation and encourages additional conservation approaches
at different scales to compliment it (Langhammer et al. 2007, 6; Interview Partner M).
The ERBC approach successfully merges three conservation scales 25 , thereby increasing
its efficacy. Even though the development of strategies, at the scale of an ecoregion enables
a more comprehensive and integrated approach to be undertaken, it also increases the
complexity of the process, posing a number of challenges for conservation planning (Young
and Fowkes 2003, 16). The ecoregion, as a unit, is useful for understanding environmental
issues and threats that transcend individual agencies and administrative boundaries
24 Please refer to chapter 4.3.1.1, Methods for Site Choice, for a more detailed description hereof.
25 Please refer to chapter 4.3.1.3, Methods for Site Choice, for a more detailed description hereof.
26

3. CASE STUDIES
(Marshall et al. 2004, 4). Hence, conservation practitioners are obliged to work in a complex
political, legal and socio-economic environment, adding to the complexity of the task (Young
and Fowkes 2003, 16). Since this scale is often too large for specific land management
options and recommendations and for identifying conservation targets at the species level,
landscape and site scale planning within an ERBC approach’s conservation strategy has
rapidly emerged (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 13, 39; Groves et al. 2004, viii, 2). Thus, this
approach is the most comprehensive and representative in terms of trying to capture and
maximise the different scales of biodiversity (Interview Partner I).
The FSA has been designed to target conservation issues at the landscape scale (Lambeck
1997, 851), especially heavily fragmented agricultural or urbanised landscapes (Hugget
2007, 1; Hess and King 2002, 26). Although it does not identify the requirements for a viable
landscape in the long term (Lambeck 1997, 855; Hess 2006, 363), it is a start in the right
direction in regions where strong economic pressure makes implementation of any
conservation action extremely difficult (Hess and King 2002, 37).
The REA can be implemented at the site and landscape scale. The information on
biodiversity distribution, obtained during the REA, is used to design regional conservation
strategies, thereby conserving representative examples of biodiversity. This approach places
less emphasis on the understanding of ecological processes, but rather characterises the
distribution of biota (Sayre et al. 2000, 13). Therefore, it combines two conservation scales.
In conclusion, the long term persistence of biodiversity, as well as identifying land
management options and species specific concerns can only be accounted for when
conservation actions are targeted at an ecoregion, landscape and site. Thus, the ERBC
approach best achieves this, followed by the HCV concept and REA. The KBA approach and
FSA are not designed to address more than one approach. However, the KBA approach was
designed to compliment other initiatives addressing scales other than the site. This is not the
case for the FSA.
In terms of identifying and conserving biodiversity, the approaches with this exact objective
and those combining multiple scales tend to be more successful. Therefore, the ERBC
approach was found to be the most successful, followed closely by the HCV concept and the
REA. Both the KBA approach and the FSA are - judged from the perspective mentioned
above - the least successful approaches for ensuring the long-term persistence of
biodiversity.
27

4. RESULTS
4. Results
4.1 Pre-Assessment – Comparison of Site Identification Criteria
4.1.1 Site Identification Criteria and their Characteristics
The five approaches all apply criteria for the identification of biodiversity relevant areas.
This section provides an overview of these criteria, showing similarities and differences in
the approaches’ identification processes. The criteria herein have been divided and
clustered into three groups: species specific, ecosystem specific and site specific criteria
(see Figure 5).
Figure 5: Overview of criteria used for site identification
Approach’s Site
Identification Criteria
Species specific
criteria
4.1.1.1
Site specific
criteria
4.1.1.3
Ecosystem
specific criteria
4.1.1.2
Source: Own design
28

4. RESULTS
4.1.1.1 Species Specific Criteria
Table 6 lists all species specific criteria identified within this thesis and shows
which approaches apply these. While species based conservation is often the most available
proxy for biodiversity conservation, it cannot and should not replace efforts to conserve
genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity and functioning (Baillie et al. 2004, 2).
Table 6: Comparison of approaches concerning species specific criteria
Species Specific Criteria
Approaches
HCV KBA ERBC FSA REA
A. Threatened X X X X O
B. Endemic X X X – O
C. Congregations X X X – –
D. Keystone species O – X O O
Key: X = addressed fully – = not addressed O = addressed partially
Source: Own design
In this thesis criterion A (threatened) is based on the definition by the IUCN red list which
describes species vulnerability towards extinction (Baillie et al. 2004, 2).
Criterion B (endemic) refers to any species confined to a given area (Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2009). A common assumption, shared by both national and global prioritisation
initiatives for determining priority areas for conservation based on the occurrence of
threatened and/ or endemic species, is that these areas also prove to be effective in
safeguarding most of the other species (Bonn et al. 2002, 733).
Criterion C (congregation) refers to congregations of species during any time of their life
cycle and species with highly clumped distributions within large ranges (Langhammer et al.
2007, 15). This criterion includes habitats or sites that may not be particularly distinctive in
terms of biodiversity, but may still act as critical habitats for either long distance, seasonal or
trans-ecoregional migratory species (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 18), thus, providing suitable
safeguards for their persistence.
The last criterion in this category, criterion D (keystone species) refers to any species that
exerts a powerful influence on biodiversity in neighbouring habitats and across entire
ecosystems (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 18). Keystone species have been implied to be
29

4. RESULTS
responsible for the type of an ecosystem, since their disappearance will cause a change in
the ecosystem type (Khanina 1998, 1). Thus, keystone species should be specific
conservation targets in order to maintain the integrity of the communities in which they
reside.
However, since species distribution data is extremely limited to a handful of well known taxa,
in particular vertebrates and vascular plants and these data sets are frequently riddled with
large gaps or biases due to sampling (The Royal Society 2003, 6; Lombard et al. 2003, 56),
this would suggest that other criteria would be more suited for the identification of
conservation targets (Brooks et al. 2004, 616). With the improvement of remote sensing
technology, maps of abiotic information, ecosystems and vegetation classes are being
produced at an increasingly finer resolution (Turner et al. 2003, 306), thus making
ecosystem specific criteria important for the identification of conservation targets (Pressey
2004, 1677).
4.1.1.2 Ecosystem Specific Criteria
Table 7 provides an overview of the ecosystem specific criteria used by the
approaches for site identification and delineation.
Table 7: Comparison of approaches concerning ecosystem specific criteria
Ecosystem Specific
Criteria
E. Large expanses of
intact habitat
Approaches
HVC KBA ERBC FSA REA
X – X – –
F. Distinctive ecosystems X – X – X
Key: X = addressed fully – = not addressed
Source: Own design
Empirical research has shown that large areas of intact natural habitat are extremely
successful in conserving the full range of species, habitats, and natural processes. However,
large intact habitats are becoming increasingly rare (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 17). These areas
contain viable populations of most, if not all, naturally occurring species and have been
known to contain important sub-populations of extremely wide ranging species (HCV
Resource Network 2005-07). These species are exceptionally vulnerable and are
30

4. RESULTS
disappearing rapidly, mainly due to habitat destruction (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 18). In
general, habitat destruction and degradation are implicated in the decline of over 85% of the
world’s mammals, birds and amphibians (Baillie et al. 2004, 86). Hence, the importance of
conserving large expanses of habitat has widely been recognised (Bryant et al. 1997, pg 8;
Mittermeier et al. 1998, 516; Sanderson et al. 2002, 893). Even though these areas often do
not support high levels of biodiversity (Mittermeier et al. 2003, 10309), they are important for
essential ecosystem services and for supporting ecological and evolutionary processes key
to the long term persistence of biodiversity (Boakes et al. 2009, 1). Thus, criterion E (large
expanses of intact habitat) is an extremely important aspect of ecosystem specific criteria
used for site identification of biodiversity relevant areas.
Criterion F (distinctive ecosystems) refers to a functional system that includes an ecological
community of organisms together with the physical environment, interacting as a
characteristic unit (The Free Dictionary 2009). Since the term biodiversity describes the
whole expression of life from genes to species to ecological interactions and entire
ecosystems, conservation requirements should include the full range of biodiversity. Thus,
identifying complete ecosystems should be an integral part of conservation planning
strategies and should ensure a better representation of global ecosystems (Dinerstein et al.
2000, 17).
However, the sole use of ecosystem specific criteria has resulted in the exclusion of
conservation targets, often most in need of safeguarding (Araújo et al. 2001, 103; Lombard
et al. 2003, 58). Furthermore, these criteria are normally based on percentage targets
(Brooks et al. 2004, 616) which fail to recognise that areas of higher species richness and
endemism may require higher representation targets (Rodriquez et al. 2003, 1095). Thus,
ideally a mixture of both species and ecosystem criteria should be implemented in the
identification phase to produce an overall better picture (Pressey 2004, 1677).
Ecosystem and species specific criteria cover the biotic components of biodiversity. For
many assessment purposes, it is also extremely important to gather data on the socioeconomic
and cultural components of biodiversity (CBD 2005, 14).
31

4. RESULTS
4.1.1.3 Site Specific Criteria
Therefore, additional criteria for site identification have been implemented by some of
the approaches. Even though these site specific criteria do not play a direct role in
biodiversity conservation (HCV Resource Network 2005-07), they have been mentioned in
this thesis to show that some approaches do apply a more general and holistic approach to
identifying biodiversity rich areas. These have been listed under the heading, “site specific
criteria” in Table 8.
Table 8: Comparison of approaches concerning site specific criteria
Approaches
Site specific Criteria
HVC KBA ERBC FSA REA
G. Provision of
ecosystem services
H. Provision of basic
needs
X – X – –
X – – – –
I. Provision of traditional
cultural identity
Key: X = addressed fully – = not addressed
Source: Own design
X – – – –
Criterion G (provision of ecosystem services) provides benefits to human well being
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a, 2) and therefore, should be maintained,
enhanced or restored (HCV Resource Network 2005-07). Biodiversity plays an important role
in underpinning ecosystem services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a, ii).
Consequently, the deterioration of ecosystems, due to an overexploitation of ecosystem
services, results in the loss of biodiversity (Baillie et al. 2004, xxii) and furthermore, in the
deterioration of human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a, 2). Thus, by
identifying priority areas providing ecosystem services, a first step towards conserving
biodiversity is taken.
Criterion H (provision of basic needs) recognises that some areas are essential for human
well-being by providing food, income or other benefits. By meeting this criterion, the basic
subsistence and security of local communities within and surrounding any given area will be
protected (HCV Resource Network 2005-07). Hence, by identifying and delineating any area
meeting this criterion, with sustainable management of the benefit, the well-being of the local
communities, as well as the intactness of the area, shall be maintained (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005a, 10). Therefore, biodiversity will indirectly be conserved.
32

4. RESULTS
Criterion I (provision of traditional cultural identity) acknowledges that areas can be critical
for the cultural identity of societies and communities. Thus, identifying and delineating these
areas is the first step towards protecting the traditional culture of local communities and
thereby maintaining cultural integrity (HCV Resource Network 2005-07).
These three site specific criteria address additional aspects of conservation, including socioeconomic
features. By applying a more holistic approach to the identification process, it is
hoped for a more successful outcome of implementation (Interview Partner K).
None of the approaches utilizes genetic specific criteria. Despite the well-established theory
regarding genetic structure of populations, empirical data is mostly limited to a small set of
species, most commonly related to agriculture. Furthermore, continuing assessments over
time and space, which would allow for long term and large scale trends to be determined,
are still lacking (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005b, 95). Resources for improving our
knowledge of species’ genetics will have a huge impact on the future of conservation, but
should not be taken from the already scarce resources for management (Gebremedhin et al.
2009, 108). The lack of resources is a major reason why large scale databases on genetic
variation are unlikely to be established in the foreseeable future. Since conservation planning
requires variables that are easily measured and reliable, genetic specific criteria will
according to contemporary scientific research not be included in a conservation approach
any time soon (Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, 30).
Overall, implementing a mixture of species, ecosystem and site specific criteria should
ensure firstly more accurate identification of biodiversity relevant sites and secondly greater
implementation success (Pressey 2004, 1677; Interview Partner K).
33

4. RESULTS
4.1.2 Explanatory Notes to Approach Criteria Comparison
In order for an area to be identified and delineated, all of the approaches require at least one of
their approach specific criteria to be fulfilled. The approaches’ criteria used for the identification of
biodiversity relevant sites have been described (see below). Even though some of the
approaches address a broader spectrum of criteria (i.e. social values, protection values, etc),
these have only been mentioned in the following chapters and will not be discussed any further.
4.1.2.1 High Conservation Value (HCV) Concept
The key to using the HCV concept is the identification of six High Conservation
Values (HCVs) which are: HCV1 - Areas containing globally, regionally or nationally
significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species,
refugia); HCV2 - Globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape-level areas,
where viable populations of most, if not all, naturally occurring species exist in natural
patterns of distribution and abundance; HCV3 - Areas that are in, or contain, rare, threatened
or endangered ecosystems; HCV4 - Areas that provide basic ecosystem services in critical
situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control); HCV5 - Areas fundamental to meeting
basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health) and HCV6 - Areas critical to local
communities’ traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious
significance identified in cooperation with such local communities) (HCV Resource Network
2005-07).
The species specific criterion, HCV1, addresses criteria A (threatened), B (endemic) and C
(congregations). In addition HCV1 can partially address criterion D (keystone species), if the
identified species is on the IUCN red list. For instance, the African elephant, jaguar and
prairie dog are all keystone species that have been included in the IUCN red list (IUCN
2009). Both ecosystem criteria, E (large intact habitats) and F (distinctive ecosystems), are
met by HCV2 and HCV3, respectively and the site specific criteria G (ecosystem services), H
(basic needs) and F (cultural identity) are captured by HCV4, 5 and 6, respectively.
4.1.2.2 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Approach
The KBA approach bases its site identification and prioritisation on the concepts of
vulnerability and irreplaceability. KBA are selected with regard to specific species that
require site specific conservation efforts.
Any area will meet the vulnerability criterion if it contains globally significant numbers of
threatened species according to the IUCN red list (Langhammer et al. 2007, 15). Hence,
34

4. RESULTS
criterion A (threatened) is captured. The irreplaceability criterion will be met if an area
contains a globally significant concentration of a species total population at some point in
that species’ lifecycle. This addresses several aspects of irreplaceability, which is divided
into the sub-criteria: restricted range species; species with a large, but clumped distribution;
globally significant congregations and source populations; and bioregionally restricted
assemblages (Eken et al. 2004, 1111; Langhammer et al. 2007, 15). Thus, the criteria B
(endemic and C (congregations) are fulfilled.
For each irreplaceability criterion and sub-criterion, thresholds have been established to
ensure repeatability in the criteria globally, throughout time and with implementation by
different practitioners. However, these designated thresholds are part of an iterative process,
accounting for temporal changes (Eken et al. 2004, 1112). Especially, thresholds for marine
and freshwater sites require further testing and refinement (Langhammer et al. 2007, 16).
Based on these measures of vulnerability and irreplaceability, any area holding species
meeting the defined criteria will be delineated at a size that is or could be potentially
managed for biodiversity conservation. Thus, KBA status is assigned (Langhammer et al.
2007, 15). Although KBA delineation is done through a biological assessment, the need for a
subsequent socio-economic analysis is crucial for establishing effective tools for biodiversity
conservation (Eken et al. 2004, 1117).
4.1.2.3 Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) Approach
The ERBC approach bases its site identification and prioritisation on five specific
conservation targets. Throughout implementation, emphasis is placed on representation with
the concept of complementarity adding further rigour to the selection process. These five
conservation targets are the minimum that should be aimed for under the ERBC approach.
The first target is ‘distinct communities, habitats and assemblages’. Thus, representative
examples of all distinct habitat types and species assemblages over their full natural ranges
of variation should be identified as priority conservation targets. These will include areas of
exceptional richness, endemism, higher taxonomic uniqueness, or unusual ecological or
evolutionary phenomena (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 18, 19). Here, the ERBC approach
addresses criteria B (endemic) and G (ecosystem services).
The second target is ‘large intact habitats and intact biotas’, addressing criterion E (large
intact habitats) fully (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 18). Here an example would be to establish large
protected areas that can support and maintain all viable populations, including wide-ranging
species and to link the core areas via corridors of natural habitats to create extensive
35

4. RESULTS
networks (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 20). Additionally, this will conserve genetic variation
(Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, 31).
The third conservation target is ‘keystone ecosystems, habitats, species and phenomena’,
since certain habitats may influence biodiversity in neighbouring habitats and across entire
ecosystems. Thus, their persistence and intact ecological functioning may be critical for
species and ecological processes in the surrounding areas (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 18).
Examples include riparian habitats for flood and erosion control (criterion G – ecosystem
services), species such as elephant or beaver (criterion D – keystone species) and
phenomena such as natural fires (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 18, 19, 20). Here, criterion E and G
are fully addressed.
The fourth target is ‘distinct large-scale ecological phenomena’ which refers to important
targets extending beyond the ecoregion. Examples include areas essential to either long
distance, seasonal or trans-ecoregional migration of species. These sites are not necessarily
of high distinctiveness, but their intactness will provide stepping stones for migratory species
(Dinerstein et al. 2000, 18), such as birds, bats and monarch butterflies (Dinerstein et al.
2001, x, 35, 37). Thus, criterion C (congregations) is captured.
The fifth and final conservation target of the ERBC approach is ‘species of special concern’
which may include species heavily hunted, depleted in numbers or specialised in their
habitat requirements. Conservation plans must take into account strict protection of these
populations which may include rare, threatened or endemic species (Dinerstein et al. 2000,
18, 19, 20). Thus, criteria A (threatened) and B (endemic) have been fully captured.
Even though an ERBC approach does not in itself address social and cultural issues, it does
emphasise the need for a subsequent socio-economic analysis (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 11)
ERBC is exceptionally comprehensive and representative in terms of trying to capture and
maximise the different scales and different conservation targets of biodiversity. It is a
representative approach as it addresses several scales: species level, natural communities
and biophysical level. It is, therefore, extremely successful in delineating important ecological
processes and whole ecosystems (Interview Partner I).
4.1.2.4 Focal Species Approach (FSA)
The FSA is not based on either ecosystem or site specific criteria. It is a taxon
based surrogate scheme where a suite of focal species is presumed to act collectively for
other elements of biota (Lindenmayer et al. 2002, 338). The identification of the set of focal
species and the subsequent site identification rely on an entirely different methodology.
Firstly, all species considered at risk are identified and then distinguished between species
requiring restoration activities and those requiring changes in management strategies.
36

4. RESULTS
Species requiring the reconstruction of the landscape will either be resource-limited,
dispersal-limited or area-limited. These species are at least locally, if not regionally or
globally threatened and thus, capture criterion A (threatened).
For resource-limited species, the number of individuals the area can support is determined
by the carrying capacity at the time of lowest resource availability. Therefore, any restoration
activity should aim to increase the local carrying capacity. Patches sustaining small
populations, but which are separated so that no movement of these populations is permitted,
contain dispersal-limited species. To ensure their persistence, such species will require
habitat patch connectivity or reduction of the threat between patches, thereby enabling
movement (Lambeck 1997, 852).
Area-limited species are those for which habitat patches are too small to either support a
breeding pair or a functional social group. This group of species can further be subdivided
into the major habitat groups that exist within the area of interest.
In contrast, species requiring changes in management strategies will vary, depending on the
area, as the threats and their relative importance will also differ. These species have been
termed process-limited (Lambeck 1997, 852).
Each species considered at risk is allocated to at least one of the four main threat
categories, resource-limited, dispersal-limited, area-limited and process-limited, as described
above. The species in each threat category are then ranked according to their vulnerability
towards that threat. The species most sensitive to, or most dependent upon, a given process
is termed the focal species, in order to determine the intensity, rate or frequency at which
that process should be managed. This will result in a list of species, the focal community that
can be used to determine different attributes required for the persistence of all biota within
the landscape (Lambeck 1997, 853).
This focal community defines the minimum area of each patch type, the minimum width,
length and structure of connecting vegetation, the appropriate levels of critically limiting
resources and the minimum rate or intensity of each potentially threatening process. The
needs of the set of focal species can be used to determine the minimum requirements or
thresholds that must be exceeded if the needs of all biota are to be met (Lambeck 1997,
853). Some keystone species might be included within one of the four groups, whereas
others might not (Noss et al. 1997, 119). Thus, criterion D has partially been captured by the
FSA.
37

4. RESULTS
4.1.2.5 Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA)
The main objective of a REA is to efficiently characterize the landscape and
species level biodiversity of large areas for which relatively little is known (Interview Partner
I; Sayre et al. 2000, 33, 81). Therefore, the need for a REA depends on the amount of
available data for the area under consideration and the urgency of obtaining new information
for areas, habitats and species distributions. Marginally surveyed or un-surveyed areas, such
as large, poorly understood and highly threatened areas, are best suited for this application,
especially when the lack of data prevents sound conservation planning (Sayre et al. 2000,
33, 34). Biological information obtained during a REA has, in the past, been used for
numerous activities, such as the identification of important ecological sites or special
conservation areas and defining ecologically based boundaries, amongst several other
schemes (Sayre et al. 2000, 34).
The REA normally adopts a coarse filter-fine filter approach, with the coarse filter
concentrating on vegetation types and the fine filter on the conservation of species (Sayre et
al. 2000, 6). The vegetation fieldwork prioritises the sampling of rare and complex vegetation
types based on endemism, representativeness and degree of fragmentation (Sayre et al.
2000, 82). Since the unit of an ecosystem can be characterised by species composition
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005b, 82), identifying rare vegetation types as
priorities is taken as meeting criterion F (distinctive ecosystem).
Even though species specific criteria do not directly steer a REA, species that are rare,
threatened, endangered or endemic, as well as keystone species can also be identified as
part of this assessment (Sayre et al. 2000, 89, 97). Thus, criterion A (threatened), B
(endemic) and D (keystone species) are partially captured, as they may form part of
identifying conservation targets (Sayre et al. 2000, 97). The information obtained during the
fine filter flora and fauna surveys can be used to prioritise sites and inform conservation
based management planning (Sayre et al. 2000, 89). The remaining REA does not rely on
any of the other approach criteria listed above in Tables 7 and 8.
38

4. RESULTS
4.1.3 Interim Summary I
It is now widely accepted that different biodiversity surrogates (i.e. different approach criteria)
have different advantages and disadvantages. Thus, with this knowledge, divergent courses
can be taken (Pressey 2004, 1677). Some conservation planners rely on species specific
criteria, whilst others prefer ecosystem specific criteria (Pressey 2004, 1677) and still others
have taken again a different course, relying on a mixture of criteria for identification
purposes (HCV Resource Network 2005-07; Dinerstein et al. 2000, 17, 18). All surrogates
are limited in their outline of biodiversity processes and patterns, therefore a more
comprehensive array of criteria produces a better picture (Pressey 2004, 1677).
The comparison of the approaches’ site identification criteria showed that some of the
selected approaches employ a range of criteria for site identification, as can be seen in
Figure 6.
Figure 6: Overview of criteria adopted for site identification 26
Approach’s Site
Identification
Criteria
Species specific
criteria
All approaches
Ecosystem
specific criteria
HCV
ERBC
(REA)
Site specific
criteria
HCV
(ERBC)
Source: Own design
26 Brackets indicate that the grouped criteria were only partially addressed.
39

4. RESULTS
Species specific criteria are most commonly adopted for the identification of sites important
for biodiversity conservation. All approaches implement the majority of criteria grouped under
this heading. One advantage of using species specific criteria is that the success of the
conservation effort is easier to measure (Mace et al. 2006, 18). Species data, either through
direct counts of indicator species (Balmford et al. 2005, 212) or through assessments of
threat (Butchart et al. 2004, 2), provide easier monitoring systems for measuring
effectiveness 27 . In practice, conservation approaches often direct conservation action
towards species and communities, as these are firstly manageable and comprehensible
components of biodiversity and secondly, often hold more appeal with the general public
(Mace et al. 2006, 18).
Ecosystem specific criteria are employed by the HCV concept and the ERBC approach. The
REA was added in brackets as it only employs criterion F (distinctive ecosystems). On the
one hand, these criteria tend to loose precision. On the other hand, data is more readily
available and consistent than species specific data. Furthermore, ecosystem specific criteria
are able to integrate ecological processes and thus contribute to the maintenance of
ecosystem functioning (Margules and Pressey 2000, 245).
The HCV concept is the only one that implements all three criteria listed in the site specific
criteria group. The ERBC approach only implements criterion H (provision of ecosystem
services) and thus, has only been added in brackets in Figure 6. For successful
implementation, biological priorities must also be integrated with socio-economic
considerations (CBD 2005, 14; Mace et al. 2000, 393), however, these evaluations, as part
of a biological assessment, are still in their “infancy stages” (Mace 2000, 393).
Although approaches based purely on ecosystem specific criteria are critical for
conservation, they are not a replacement for approaches based on species specific criteria
and vice versa (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a, 11). There is no best surrogate.
The choice of criteria should depend on data and resource availability. In the majority of
situations a combination of criteria is most practical (Margules and Pressey 2000, 246;
Pressey 2004, 1677).
Judging from the approach criteria used for site identification, the HCV concept is the most
extensive in terms of the broad variety it employs. This is followed closely by the ERBC
approach, the REA and then the KBA approach. The FSA must be viewed separately, as it
relies on a completely different set of criteria, all of which are species based.
27 Please refer to chapter 7, General Terms, for a detailed explanation.
40

4. RESULTS
4.2 Strength-Weakness Analysis (SWA)
In order to assess the selected approaches 28 used to identify biodiversity relevant areas a
strength-weakness analysis was performed based on a predetermined set of key questions,
criteria and sub-criteria 29 . These indicators were divided into thematic groups 30 to provide a
clear orientation to the reader concerning the approaches’ inherent qualities.
The selected approaches are the High Conservation Value (HCV) concept, the Key
Biodiversity Areas (KBA) approach, the Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) approach,
the Focal Species Approach (FSA) and the Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA).
For the strength-weakness analysis 31 the Groups I (Ecology), II (Implementation) and IV
(Supplementary) were assessed. This entails criteria A-F and J-M 32 , as shown in Figure 7
(see next page).
Supported by argumentative reasoning 33 the approaches were classified according to very
weak (--), weak (-), average (O), strong (+) and very strong (++) for each key question within
the respective groups. Hence, a strength-weakness profile could be determined for each
approach based on the Groups I, II and IV.
28 Please refer to chapter 3.2, Rational behind Approach Selection, for more detail.
29 Please refer to the chapter 2.2.2 for an overview of all key questions, criteria and sub-criteria.
30 Please refer to chapter 2.2.1.1 for an explanation to the thematic group divisions.
31 Please refer to chapter 2.2.6, Strength-Weakness Analysis, for the exact methodological
description.
32 Please refer chapter 2.2.2, Design of Assessment Methodology, for an explanation.
33 Please refer to Appendix A1 for the argumentative reasoning which enabled a classification of the
results.
41

4. RESULTS
Figure 7: Overview of criteria assessment: focus on strength-weakness analysis
Strength-Weakness Analysis Ranking No Assessment Possible
Group Criteria Group Criteria
Group
Criteria
I. Ecology
A. Addressed
Biodiversity Levels
B. Addressed
Ecosystem Types
III. Input
G. Methods for
Site Choice
H. Required
Res ources
I. Data
Requirements
V. Effectiveness
N. Conserved
Species
O. Protected
Area
C. Geographic
Scale of Applicability
D. Level of Approach
II. Implementation
E. Implementation
Style
F. Suitability for
Different Users
IV. Supplementary
J. Possibility of
Scoping Assessment
K. Consideration of
Threats/ Ris ks
L. Monitoring
Rec ommendations
M. Management
Recommendations
Source: Own design
42

4. RESULTS
4.2.1 Overview: Strength-Weakness Analysis Criteria Assessment Results
The argumentative reasoning and subsequent summary into tabular form enabled the
approaches to be classified according to a more differentiated scale expressed in five
different degrees of strong and weak (very weak (--), weak (-), average (0), strong (+) and
very strong (++)) 34 .
Table 9 (see next page) provides an overview of these detailed results 35 . The classification of
the approaches is shown individually for each key question, therefore enabling a direct
comparison between them. The overview indicates a clear differentiation of the key
questions in Group I (Ecology) and II (Implementation), whereas the outcome for the key
questions in Group IV (Supplementary) shows much less variation. Therefore Group I and II
enable a clear division of the approaches.
34 Please refer to chapter 2.2.6 for a detailed explanation and Appendix A1 for the argumentative
reasoning.
35 Please refer to chapter 4.2.2 for the individual strength-weakness profiles and Appendix A5 for the
detailed assessment results. Furthermore, an overall summary of the strength-weakness analysis
results is also provided in chapter 4.4.
43

4. RESULTS
Table 9: Overview: approaches according to SWA criteria assessment 36
Group Criteria Sub-criteria HCV KBA ERBC FSA REA
I. Ecology
II.
Implementation
A. Addressed
biodiversity levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem types
C. Geographic
scale of
applicability
D. Level of
approach
genetic diversity (C1)
species diversity (C2)
ecosystem diversity
(C3) 37
terrestrial (C4)
aquatic (C5)
local (C6)
regional (C7)
global (C8)
private sector level
(C9)
public sector level
(C10)
++
C2 and C3
fully
addressed and
C1 indirectly
addressed
-
C4 is partially
addressed and
C5 not
addressed
+
C6 and C8
addressed
fully; C7
partially
addressed
+
C9 addressed
fully; C10
addressed
partially
0
C2 fully
addressed; C1
addressed
indirectly and
C3 not
addressed
+
C4 fully
addressed and
C5 indirectly
0
C6 and C7 fully
partially; C8
addressed fully
+
C9 addressed
partially and
C10 addressed
fully
++
C2 and C3 fully
addressed and
C1 partially
addressed
++
C4 and C5 fully
addressed
++
C7 and C8 fully
addressed and
C6 indirectly
+
C9 addressed
partially; C10
addressed fully
-
C2 addressed;
C2 and C3 not
addressed
0
C4 is fully
addressed and
C5 not
addressed
+
C6, C8 fully
and C7 not
addressed
++
C9 and C10
both fully
addressed
+
C2 and C3 fully
addressed; C1
not addressed
++
C4 and C5 fully
addressed
++
C6, C7 and C8
fully addressed
++
C9 and C10
both fully
addressed
36 Approaches were defined as very weak (--), weak (-), average (0), strong (+) or very strong (++) for each key question and criteria.
37 It should be noted that ecosystem diversity refers to the number of different ecosystems. Due to the scope of this thesis a more in depth analysis of the
various levels of biodiversity, by including ecosystem functioning, was not possible.
44

4. RESULTS
Group Criteria Sub-criteria HCV KBA ERBC FSA REA
II.
Implementation
(continued)
IV.
Supplementary
Source: Own design
E. Implementation
style
F. Suitability for
intended users
J. Scoping
assessment
K. Consideration
of threats
L. Monitoring
recommendations
M. Management
recommendations
top-down (C11)
bottom-up (C12)
international experts
(C13)
national experts (C14)
local user groups
(C15)
required resources
(C26)
required time (C27)
internal (C28)
external (C29)
monitoring
recommendations
(C30)
management
recommendations
(C31)
++
C11 and C12
fully
addressed
++
C13, C14 and
C15 are
addressed
fully
++
C26 and C27
fully
addressed
++
C28 and C29
fully
addressed
++
C30 is fully
addressed
++
C31 is fully
addressed
0
C11 and C12
addressed
partially
+
C13 and C14
fully addressed;
C15 partially
addressed
-
C26 and C27
not
determinable,
with an inherent
weakness
++
C28 and C29
fully addressed
++
C30 is fully
addressed
++
C31 is fully
addressed
++
C11 and C12
fully addressed
++
C13, C14 and
C15 are
addressed fully
++
C26 and C27
fully addressed
++
C28 and C29
fully addressed
++
C30 is fully
addressed
++
C31 is fully
addressed
++
C11 and C12
addressed
fully
-
C14
addressed
fully; C13 and
C15 not
addressed
0
C26 and C27
not
determinable
++
C28 and C29
fully
addressed
++
C30 is fully
addressed
++
C31 is fully
addressed
++
C11 and C12
fully addressed
++
C13, C14 and
C15 are
addressed fully
++
C26 and C27
fully addressed
++
C28 and C29
fully addressed
++
C30 is fully
addressed
++
C31 is fully
addressed
45

4. RESULTS
4.2.2 Strength-Weakness Profiles of Selected Approaches
The assessed approaches’ strength-weakness profiles 38 were produced from the
classification according to a differentiated scale expressed as five degrees of strong and
weak (very weak (--), weak (-), average (0), strong (+) and very strong (++)) for each key
question and their respective criteria 39 .
Figure 8 shows an example of the strength-weakness profile pattern used in this thesis.
Figure 8: Example of strength-weakness profile scheme
Group
I. Ecology
Criteria
A. Addressed
Biodiversity levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem types
C. Geographic
scale of applicability
very
weak
(--)
w eak
(-)
average
(0)
strong
(+)
very
strong
(++)
II.
Implementation
D. Level of approach
E. Implementation style
F. Suitability for
intended users
J. Possibility of scoping
assessment
IV.
Supplementary
K. Consideration of
threats
L. Monitorin g
recommendations
Source: Own Design
M. Management
recommendations
The following chapters show separate strength-weakness profiles (Figures 9-13) for each
assessed approach. Furthermore, an individual explanation and interpretation of the results
is offered to the reader.
38 For more detailed information to the individual profiles, please refer to Appendix A5.
39 Please refer to Appendix A1 for the argumentative reasoning behind the classification scheme.
46

4. RESULTS
4.2.2.1 Profile of High Conservation Value (HCV) Concept
Since the aim of this thesis was to compare contemporary approaches used for
identifying biodiversity relevant sites to the HCV concept, the core analysis started by
showing the results obtained for the HCV approach, as can be seen in Figure 9.
Figure 9: HCV strength-weakness profile
Group
Criteria
very
weak
(--)
w eak
(-)
average
(0)
strong
(+)
very
strong
(++)
I. Ecology
A. Addressed
Biodiversity levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem types
C. Geographic
scale of applicability
II.
Implementation
D. Level of approach
E. Implementation style
F. Suitability for
intended users
J. Possibility of scoping
assessment
IV.
Supplementary
K. Consideration of
threats
L. Monitorin g
recommendations
Source: Own design
M. Management
recommendations
In Group I (Environmental), the HCV concept scored very strong for criterion A
(addressed biodiversity levels), as both species diversity and ecosystem diversity are
addressed fully (Jennings et al. 2003, 2) and genetic diversity is indirectly maintained in
HCV2 40 . These maintain viable populations and thus, allow for genetic variation to be
conserved (Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, 31). Criterion B (addressed ecosystem
types) was classified as weak, since the sub-criterion, terrestrial, is only partially met
and the sub-criterion, aquatic, not at all. The concept was designed for forests and even
though it can be adapted to other ecosystems, widespread implementation is still lacking
(Jennings et al. 2003, 1, Lindhe 2005-07, 1). Furthermore, aquatic ecosystems cannot
be assessed by the concept, yet (Lindhe 2005-07, 2).
40 The generic HCV definitions are described in chapter 4.1.2.1.
47

4. RESULTS
In Group II (Implementation), the HCV concept was classified strong for the criterion C
(geographic scale of applicability). Here the sub-criterion, regional, shows an
apparent weakness. Even though this concept has also been implemented for
conservation purposes at a regional scale, excluded from the FSC, in this context, it will
result in smaller areas being set aside for conservation, than would be the case under
conventional conservation planning tools (Interview Partner E). Therefore, applied in this
manner, small islands of protected areas 41 surrounded by large areas of development
will be created (Colchester 2005-07, 2). This is an inherent weakness. Hence, the subcriterion,
regional, can only be partially met. Criterion D (level of approach) scored a
strong, as the HCV concept attempts to identify the smallest possible area necessary to
be set-aside in order to save the last threatened area or species. Thus, for the public
sector level, more traditional conservation planning approaches would be better suited,
as these identify the largest possible set-aside areas 41 (Interview Partner E). In contrast,
criteria E (implementation style) and F (suitability for different users) were both
classified as very strong. For criterion E, the concept adopts a combination of top-down
and bottom-up (Interview Partner D) and all three sub-criteria for criterion F are
addressed fully (Interview Partner D) 42 .
In Group IV, (Supplementary), the HCV concept was assigned a very strong
classification for criteria J to M. All sub-criteria, as per definition, are fully addressed. Part
of the HCV scoping assessment is the implementation of a pilot study. This is seen as a
rapid assessment to determine whether HCVs are present or not (Proforest 2005-07, 12;
Pollard 2005, 1). The fieldwork for this assessment can be completed within 2 days
(Pollard 2005, 1). However, if HCVs have been identified during this stage, a full
assessment will always be necessary to determine the status and to propose
management and monitoring plans and strategies (Proforest 2005-07, 12).
This analysis produced a strong to very strong classification for the majority of key questions
for the HCV concept. This result coincides with its increasing popularity amongst
practitioners from different industries and with the results obtained from the expert
interviews 43 .
41 Please refer to chapter 7, General Terms, for a definition of protected area which has been used
synonymously with set-aside area in this thesis.
42 Please refer to Appendix A5-1 for more detailed information.
43 An overview of all approach profiles can be seen in chapter 4.2.3, Interim Summary II. The
comparison thereof with an overall result for the entire assessment is shown in chapter 4.4,
Summary.
48

4. RESULTS
4.2.2.2 Profile of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Approach
In terms of KBA approach’s objectives, scale and criteria it addresses, it contrast
strongly to the HCV concept. The results obtained for this approach during the strengthweakness
analysis can be seen in the following figure.
Figure 10: KBA strength-weakness profile
Group
Criteria
very
weak
(--)
w eak
(-)
average
(0)
strong
(+)
very
strong
(++)
I. Ecology
A. Addressed
Biodiversity levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem types
C. Geographic
scale of applicability
II.
Implementation
D. Level of approach
E. Implementation style
F. Suitability for
intended users
J. Possibility of scoping
assessment
IV.
Supplementary
K. Consideration of
threats
L. Monitorin g
recommendations
Source: Own design
M. Management
recommendations
In Group I (Environmental), the KBA approach was classified as average for criterion A
(addressed biodiversity levels), since only the species diversity sub-criterion is fully
met. Ecosystem diversity is not addressed, as the process does not aim to identify rare,
threatened or endangered ecosystems and genetic diversity is addressed indirectly.
Considering that KBA are large enough and sufficiently interconnected to support viable
populations (Eken et al. 2004, 1111), genetic variation is indirectly conserved
(Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, 31). The KBA criteria were established to be applied
across all biogeographic regions consistently and easily (Eken et al. 2004, 1111,
Langhammer et al. 2007, xiii). Thus, the approach has been designed for implementation
in all ecosystem types. However, further testing and refinement of criteria for marine and
freshwater environments are required (Langhammer et al. 2007, 16). Due to this inherent
49

4. RESULTS
weakness the sub-criterion, aquatic ecosystems, is only addressed partially, and
criterion B (addressed ecosystem types) therefore scored a strong.
In Group II (Implementation), criterion C (geographic scale of applicability) was
assigned an average classification, since the sub-criteria regional and local are only
partially met. KBA are identified at a national level 44 with site-scale implementation
(Langhammer et al. 2007, xiii). However, since the criteria thresholds (species based)
are all set globally (Knight et al. 2007, 258; Langhammer et al. 2007, xiii), the
identification of KBA, at a regional or local level, may result in significant omission and
commission errors. This is caused by a lack of resolution, resulting in an inaccuracy to
assess conservation values at regional or local scales (Knight et al. 2007, 258). In
addition, this resolution shortcoming has presented problems in prioritising KBA,
especially in countries with high concentrations of biodiversity. Here any area could be
assigned a KBA status (Interview Partner G). For criterion D (level of approach), the
sub-criterion, private sector level, is partially captured. Even though the approach was
not designed for implementation at this level, it does provide the private sector with a
powerful watch list for identifying sites not suitable for development (Interview Partner
M). Thus, it was classified as strong. In contrast, criterion E (implementation style) only
scored an average. As per definition, the sub-criterion, top-down, is fully met, since the
KBA approach strictly adherences to globally set thresholds (Eken et al. 2004, 1112;
Langhammer et al. 2007, 18, 20). However, inherent weakness were identified. This rigid
adherence to the globally set criteria causes difficulties in defining priority regions
(Interview Partner G) and may result in omission and commission errors (Knight et al.
2007, 258). For the bottom-up sub-criterion, KBA identification occurs at the national and
only sometimes at the local level (Interview Partner M). Thus, both sub-criteria were only
partially addressed. Criterion F (suitability for intended users) received a strong
classification, as the sub-criteria, national and international experts, are fully met
(Langhammer et al. 2007, 8). Since the KBA identification process is data driven, in that
the international thresholds and criteria need to be met, national experts (and
international experts) are vital for data validation (Interview Partner M). The inclusion of
stakeholders in the delineation process mobilises local pride and ownership at the site
level through the establishment of local groups and civil societies (Interview Partner M).
However, participation of stakeholders is only encouraged for a refinement of boundaries
after the selection of KBA (Knight et al. 2007, 258, Langhammer et al. 2007, 48, 50).
Thus, the local user groups sub-criterion is only partially captured.
44 National and regional have been used synonymously in this thesis. Please refer to chapter 7,
General Terms.
50

4. RESULTS
In Group IV (Supplementary), the criteria K (consideration of threats), L (monitoring
recommendations) and M (management recommendations) were all classified as
very strong. During priority-setting workshops, thematic working groups identify overall
biological priorities and areas of threat and opportunity, both internal or external (García-
Moreno et al. 2007, 322). In addition, threats are also ranked according to their severity
which ranges from low, moderate, high, to extreme (Gerlach 2008, 322, 323;
Langhammer et al. 2007, 70). Monitoring recommendations are given by the KBA
process. Even though exact monitoring tools are not mentioned, examples hereof are
provided. These include monitoring of the KBA site itself or monitoring of rare, threatend
or endangered species within these sites to assess their current status. Therefore,
criterion L (monitoring recommendations) is fully met. The delineation of KBA occurs at
existing management units, as these ensure that conservation needs reach the species
of interest. Thus, they are areas that actually are, or can be, suitably managed for
conservation on the ground, either through management of protected areas or other
appropriate measures (Interview Partner M). In addition, general management
recommendations are provided, again in the form of examples. These include examples
of habitat restoration strategies or recommendations on captive breeding programmes to
supplement depleted populations. Thus, this sub-criterion is fully captured. Contrastingly,
criterion J (scoping assessment) was classified as weak, since the approach’s design
does not intend for a scoping assessment.
The obtained profile ranging from weak to very strong remained predominantly in the
categories of average and strong 45 . Due to its strong support from leading international
organisations 46 , this result was somewhat surprising.
45 An overview of all approach profiles can be seen in chapter 4.2.3, Interim Summary II. The
comparison thereof with an overall result for the entire assessment is shown in chapter 4.4,
Summary.
46 The organisations supporting this approach have been mentioned in chapter 3.2.2.
51

4. RESULTS
4.2.2.3 Profile of Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) Approach
The results obtained for the strength-weakness analysis for one of the more
comprehensive approaches, in terms of its objectives, the scales it addresses and the criteria
it employs, is shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11: ERBC strength-weakness profile
Group
Criteria
very
w eak
(--)
w eak
(-)
average
(0)
strong
(+)
very
strong
(++)
I. Ecology
A. Addressed
Biodiversity levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem types
C. Geographic
scale of applicability
II.
Implementation
D. Level of approach
E. Implementation style
F. Suitability for
intended users
J. Possibility of
scoping assessment
IV.
Supplementary
K. Consideration of
threats
L. Monitoring
recommendations
Source: Own design
M. Management
recommendations
In Group I (Environmental), the ERBC approach was classified as very strong for both
criteria. For criterion A (addressed biodiversity levels) all three sub-criteria are fully
captured. Genetic variation is conserved through the conservation of viable populations
or metapopulations (Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, 31) which are conserved in large
intact habitats, one of the approach criteria (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 17). Additionally,
specific conservation targets, within each subdivision of the ecoregion, aim to protect the
genetic diversity of species for which data is available. Thus, it is assumed that genetic
diversity of all species is also captured (Interview Partner J). Species diversity is
captured at two levels. First, at a coarse level, albeit only partially, as it is assumed that
by protecting plant communities and ecological systems most of the biodiversity, genetic,
species and ecosystem diversity will be captured. Second, at a finer level, the
assessment identifies threatened, rare or endemic species requiring a special need for
conservation (Marshall et al. 2004, 11). Species diversity is, therefore, fully addressed.
52

4. RESULTS
This approach places emphasis on the conservation of all communities and ecosystem,
both aquatic and terrestrial (Groves et al. 2000, 1-1). Through the implementation of the
concept of complimentarity 47 , rare ecosystems will be prioritised for selection as
conservation targets (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 17). Therefore, criterion B (addressed
ecosystem types) is fully met. However, it should be noted that, within an ecoregion,
prioritisation for specific conservation measures is based on threat status, rather than on
rarity (Interview Partner J).
In Group II (Implementation), criteria C (geographic scale of applicability), E
(implementation style) and F (suitability for intended users) all scored very strong 48 .
For criterion C, the two sub-criteria, global and regional, are fully addressed. Ecoregionbased
conservation has been designed for global application (Olson and Dinerstein
1998, 509). When ecoregions are compared, ERBC can be viewed as a globalcontinental
analysis, whereas it becomes a landscape level analysis (i.e. at the local
scale) when analytical work is being performed within the ecoregion (Dinerstein et al.
2000, 14). Thus, both criteria regional and global are completely captured. Whereas, the
sub-criterion for local is only met indirectly, as it is represented through analytical work
being conducted within an ecoregion, but the assessment itself is applied at a larger
scale. In contrast, criterion D (level of approach) was assigned a strong classification,
since its sub-criterion, private sector level, is only partially addressed. The ERBC
approach aims to conserve biodiversity at an ecoregional scale. One of its goals is to
conserve blocks of natural habitat large enough to be resilient and responsive to large
scale, short and long term change (Dinerstein et al. 2001, 4). Depending on the
assessment location, this may be difficult to achieve at the private sector level, especially
in heavily fragmented production landscapes (Interview Partner N). However, ERBC
could, in theory, also be applied in a private sector setting. For example, in large-scale
logging concessions, such as in Central Africa, where only one tree per hectare, per 25
years is cut (Interview Partner F). Hence, the private sector level is partially addressed.
The goal of the ERBC approach is to identify areas for legal protection. Thus, the subcriterion,
public sector level is fully addressed.
In Group IV (Supplementary), all four criteria (J, K L and M) were classified as very
strong. During preparation the assessment team should be formed. They should then
design and prepare expert workshops and gather essential data (Dinerstein et al. 2000,
50). These expert workshops should aid in determining available data, its validity and still
47 Please refer to chapter 7, General Terms, for a definition.
48 Please refer to Appendix A5-3 for more detail.
53

4. RESULTS
required data. In addition, the financial cost of the assessment and the required time
should be considered when choosing the assessment team and also when considering
new versus old data (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 55; Groves et al. 2000, 2-1). Therefore, both
sub-criteria for criterion J (scoping assessment) are fully captured. In addition, the subcriteria
for criterion K (consideration of threats) are also fully addressed. The ERBC
approach provides a detailed threat assessment tool (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 112, Groves
et al. 2000, vii). The levels of threat are determined by the degree to which the threat is
isolated to a specific footprint, or whether the adverse effects of the footprint radiate out
(Interview Partner J). These levels of threat are ranked qualitatively, low, medium or
high, from the source. Therefore, zones of threat degree or zones of degradation
emanating from the centre of each source are established. Consequently landscapes
within an ecoregion can be ranked in order to pinpoint the area with lowest ecological
cost to work in. This approach identifies priority areas that are highly threatened, but
where these threats can be abated (Interview Partner J). Since the exact location of the
threat footprint can either be within or outside of the ecoregion, both internal and external
threats are addressed.
In summary, the very strong profile obtained for the ERBC approach profile corresponded to
the common opinion that it is extremely comprehensive and successful in conserving
biodiversity (Interview Partner I and J).
54

4. RESULTS
4.2.2.4 Profile of Focal Species Approach (FSA)
The FSA was included in this assessment, as a direct comparison to the HCV
concept, since it is also implemented in production landscapes. The results obtained can be
seen in Figure 12.
Figure 12: FSA strength-weakness profile
Group
Criteria
very
w eak
(--)
w eak
(-)
average
(0)
strong
(+)
very
strong
(++)
I. Ecology
A. Addressed
Biodiversity levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem types
C. Geographic
scale of applicability
II.
Implementation
D. Level of approach
E. Implementation style
F. Suitability for
intended users
J. Possibility of
scoping assessment
IV.
Supplementary
K. Consideration of
threats
L. Monitoring
recommendations
Source: Own design
M. Management
recommendations
In Group I (Environmental), criterion A (addressed biodiversity levels) was classified
as weak, as only one of the sub-criterions is fulfilled. It only takes into account locally
rare, threatened and endangered species. Genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity are
both not considered. In contrast, criterion B (addressed ecosystem types) was given
an average value, since it was designed for implementation in terrestrial ecosystems, but
not for aquatic ones.
In Group II (Implementation), two of the three sub-criteria for criterion C (geographic
scale of applicability) are addressed fully, thus, a strong classification was assigned.
The FSA is implemented throughout the world, with case studies existing in Australia,
the USA and Italy (Hugget 2007, Hess and King 2002, Bani et al. 2002). Furthermore,
55

4. RESULTS
the FSA is applied at the local level (Hess and King 2002, 26, Hugget 2007, 1). No
examples of regional assessments were obtained through literature or expert interviews.
Criterion D (level of approach) was assigned a very strong score, as both the private
and public sector level are fully addressed. The FSA addresses some of the more
pressing issues facing conservation in agricultural lands that are predominantly privately
owned (Hess and King 2002, 26). However, it is also applied to areas of both private and
public ownership (Bani et al. 2002, 827). The FSA is typically supported through
partnerships between government, community-based organisations (Hugget 2007, 1)
and landowners (Freudenberger et al. 2004, 9). Thus, the process is part bottom-up, part
top-down and criterion E (implementation style) was therefore classified as very strong.
Criterion F (level of approach), on the other hand, was given a weak score, as the subcriteria,
international experts and local user groups, are not met. The identification of
focal species and their key threats requires input from local or national experts (Hugget
2007, 3, 4; Hess and King 2002, 29).
In Group IV (Supplementary), no information on criterion J (scoping assessment) was
identified, thus it was assigned an average value. The last three criteria K
(consideration of threats), L (monitoring recommendations) and M (management
recommendations) were all given a very strong classification, as all sub-criteria are
met 49 .
The FSA obtained a profile ranging from weak to very strong. This variable result is
reflected in the opinion found in contemporary literature where both proponents and
opponents of the approach were identified (Lindenmeyer and Fischer 2003, Hugget
2007, Hess and King 2002).
49 Please refer to Appendix A5-4 for more detail.
56

4. RESULTS
4.2.2.5 Profile of Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA)
Contrasting the four previous approaches, the REA was added to include an
approach based on scientific methodologies. Its profile can be seen in Figure 13.
Figure 13: REA strength-weakness profile
Group
Criteria
very
w eak
(--)
w eak
(-)
average
(0)
strong
(+)
very
strong
(++)
I. Ecology
A. Addressed
Biodiversity levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem types
C. Geographic
scale of applicability
II.
Implementation
D. Level of approach
E. Implementation style
F. Suitability for
intended users
J. Possibility of
scoping assessment
IV.
Supplementary
K. Consideration of
threats
L. Monitoring
recommendations
Source: Own design
M. Management
recommendations
In Group I (Environmental), criterion A (addressed biodiversity levels) was classified
as strong. Both sub-criteria, species diversity and ecosystem diversity, are fully captured.
The vegetation fieldwork prioritises the sampling of rare and complex vegetation types.
Prioritisation is based on a process which includes considerations such as endemism,
representativeness and degree of fragmentation (Sayre et al. 2000, 82). Since the unit of
an ecosystem can be characterised by species composition (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment 2005b, 82), identifying rare vegetation types as priorities is taken as
meeting the sub-criterion, ecosystem diversity. Faunal surveys prioritise target species
for sampling. These species are threatened, endangered or endemic (Sayre et al. 2000,
96). A direct assessment of genetic diversity is not part of an REA (CBD 2005, 10).
Additionally, it does not specifically foresee the conservation of large intact natural
habitats which would enable the conservation of genetic diversity (Lindenmayer and
Burgman 2005, 31). Hence, this sub-criterion is not addressed. Criterion B (addressed
57

4. RESULTS
ecosystem types) was classified as very strong, since both sub-criteria are met fully. A
REA can be implemented in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (CBD 2005, 9;
Sayre et al. 2000, 2, 8, 9).
In Group II (Implementation), criterion C (geographic scale of applicability) was given
a very strong score. All three sub-criteria are fully captured. REAs have been
implemented throughout the world (Sayre et al. 2000, 3) at both regional (Sayre et al.
2000, 10, 13) and local levels (Sayre et al. 2000, 10, 13; Meerman et al. 2003, 7).
Criterion D (level of approach) also scored a very strong. Over the years, REAs have
resulted in the establishment of, amongst others, protected areas, zoning and boundary
changes, biological corridor design and community-based conservation activities (Sayre
et al. 2000, 16). Hence, the public sector level is addressed fully. In addition, the private
sector level is also fully captured, as REAs have been implemented in privately owned
logging concessions (Gillison et al. 1996, 1). Criterion E (implementation style) was
classified as very strong, as the approach can be both bottom-up and top-down. REAs
have been implemented at both a national and local level (Sayre et al. 2000, 8, 9). Thus,
both sub-criteria are met. Additionally, local data sets are produced by a REA which
have benefited research programmes (Sayre et al. 2000, 16) and aided the identification
of stakeholders and constituencies (Interview Partner I) 50 .
In Group IV (Supplementary), all criteria J to M were classified as very strong with all
sub-criteria being fully addressed. During the scoping assessment, the scope, cost,
timing and team composition are identified (Sayre et al. 2000, 35-37). Existing and
potential threats, both internal and external, are pinpointed and ranked according to low,
medium or high (Sayre et al. 2000, 119). Any monitoring needs, such as monitoring of
threatened or endangered species or vegetation types and monitoring of threat
abatement practices, are formulated as part of management recommendations (Sayre et
al. 2000, 123, 134). One of the final stages of any REA is the preparation of
management recommendations and strategies. These may include aspects such as
practices to maintain watershed integrity, to sustainably use resources, or the creation of
biological corridors or buffer zones (Sayre et al. 2000, 134).
The very strong results obtained during the analysis of the REA correspond to the overall
opinion gathered during the interviews (Interview Partner I and J). It is extremely
comprehensive and representative in terms of characterising the species and landscape
levels of biodiversity (Interview Partner I and J; Sayre et al. 2000, 33, 81).
50 For more detail, please refer to Appendix A5-5.
58

4. RESULTS
4.2.3 Interim Summary II
As seen in Figure 14, the individual strength-weakness profiles show a clear differentiation of
the approaches. The ERBC approach and the REA produced the strongest profile for the
strength-weakness analysis. This was followed closely by the HCV concept, then the KBA
approach and the FSA.
Figure 14: Overview of all strength-weakness profiles
Group
Criteria
very
w eak
(--)
weak
(-)
average
(0)
strong
(+)
very
strong
(++)
Group
Criteria
very
weak
(--)
weak
(-)
average
(0)
strong
(+)
very
strong
(++)
I. Ecology
A. Addressed
Biodiversity levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem types
I. Ecology
A. Addressed
Biodiversity levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem types
C. Geographic
scale of applicability
C. Geographic
scale of applicability
II.
Implementation
D. Level of approach
E. Implementation style
II.
Implementation
D. Level of approach
E. Implementation style
F. Suitability for
intended users
F. Suitability for
intended users
J. Possibility of
scoping assessment
J. Possibility of
scoping assessment
IV.
Supplementary
K. Consideration of
threats
L. Monitoring
recommendations
IV.
Supplementary
K. Consideration of
threats
L. Monitoring
recommendations
M. Management
recommendations
HCV Profile
M. Management
recommendations
KBA Profile
Group
Criteria
very
weak
(--)
weak
(-)
average
(0)
strong
(+)
very
strong
(++)
Group
Criteria
very
weak
(--)
weak
(-)
average
(0)
strong
(+)
very
strong
(++)
I. Ecology
A. Addressed
Biodiversity levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem types
I. Ecology
A. Addressed
Biodiversity levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem types
C. Geographic
scale of applicability
C. Geographic
scale of applicability
II.
Implementation
D. Level of approach
E. Implementation style
II.
Implementation
D. Level of approach
E. Implementation style
F. Suitability for
intended users
F. Suitability for
intended users
J. Possibility of
scoping assessment
J. Possibility of
scoping assessment
IV.
Supplementary
K. Consideration of
threats
L. Monitoring
recommendations
IV.
Supplementary
K. Consideration of
threats
L. Monitoring
recommendations
M. Management
recommendations
ERBC Profile
M. Management
recommendations
FSA Profile
Group
Criteria
very
weak
(--)
weak
(-)
average
(0)
strong
(+)
very
strong
(++)
I. Ecology
A. Addressed
Biodiversity levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem types
C. Geographic
scale of applicability
II.
Implementation
D. Level of approach
E. Implementation style
F. Suitability for
intended users
J. Possibility of
scoping assessment
IV.
Supplementary
K. Consideration of
threats
L. Monitoring
recommendations
M. Management
recommendations
Source: Own design
REA Profile
59

4. RESULTS
4.3 Additional Criteria Analysis
Since the Group III (Input) criteria (G. methods for site choice; H. required resources; I.
data requirements) were too complex to be classified only according to the characteristics
“strong” and “weak”, an ordinal ranking scheme 51 was designed. The following chapters
provide detailed insight into the approaches, resulting in their subsequent ranking 52 , whilst
making the ranking procedures transparent.
An overview of the criteria that were ranked is shown in Figure 15.
Figure 15: Overview of criteria assessment: focus on ranking
Strength-Weakness Analysis Ranking No Assessment Possible
Group Criteria Group Group
Criteria
Criteria
I. Ecology
A. Addressed
Biodiversity Levels
B. Addressed
Ecosystem Types
III. Input
G. Methods for
Site Choice
H. Required
Res ources
I. Data
Requirements
V. Effectiveness
N. Conserved
Species
O. Protected
Area
C. Geographic
Scale of Applicability
D. Level of Approach
II. Implementation
E. Implementation
Style
F. Suitability for
Different Users
IV. Supplementary
J. Possibility of
Scoping Assessment
K. Consideration of
Threats/ Ris ks
L. Monitoring
Rec ommendations
Source: Own design
M. Management
Recommendations
51 The ranking methodology is explained in chapter 2.2.7, Additional Criteria.
52 The overall ranking of the Group III criteria can be seen in chapter 4.3.4, Interim Summary III.
60

4. RESULTS
As can be seen in Figure 16, chapter 4.3.1 deals with Methods for Site Choice (criterion G),
whereas 4.3.2 centres around Required Resources (criterion H) and 4.3.3 with Data
Requirements (criterion I). Furthermore chapter 4.3.4 (Interim Summary II) offers the reader
an overview to the findings concerning the approaches’ ranking, before embarking on the
complete summary, discussion and conclusions.
Figure 16: Overview of additional criteria
Additional Criteria
Group III
Input
G. Methods For
Site Choice
4.3.1
I. Data
Requirements
4.3.3
H. Required
Required
4.3.2
Source: Own design
61

4. RESULTS
4.3.1 Methods for Site Choice
In order to determine the appropriate site for implementation of the approaches, biodiversity
needs to be evaluated (Hill et al. 2005, 65). The exact methodology employed by the
approaches varies considerably 53 . The method of site choice will always depend on the
objectives and available resources, since the latter will, of necessity, have to increase when
assessing remote areas, large spatial scales, high topographic resolution and a large
number of different features (CBD 2005, 11).
The various methods were divided into the three groups: Site visits, surveys and additional
methods (Figure 17).
Figure 17: Overview of methods employed for site choice
Methods for Site
Choice
Site Visits
Additional
methods
Surveys
Source: Own design
53 For an overview of the individual approach methodology used for site choice, please refer to
Appendix A6. These have also been described in following chapters, 4.3.1.1-.4.3.1.5.
62

4. RESULTS
In Figure 18, the sub-criteria were further divided according to the most important issues as
stated in contemporary literature. Here a detailed overview of the methods employed by the
various approaches was provided.
As per definition, field surveys and rapid assessments are used synonymously in this
thesis 54 .
Figure 18: Methods employed for site identification
Site Visits Surveys Additional
methods
•Inventories
KBA, REA
•Rapid assessment
all approaches
•Indicator species
HCV, ERBC, FSA, REA
•Ground truthing
HCV, ERBC, FSA, REA
•Field surveys
all approaches
•Expert surveys
ERBC, FSA
•Stakeholder surveys
HCV, ERBC, REA
•Remote sensing
all approaches
•Existing data
•Models
all approaches
ERBC
•Environmental indicators
ERBC
Source: Own design
Inventories have been employed by the KBA approach (Eken et al. 2005, 3) and REA (CBD
2005, 82). Though this form of site visit is highly objective in its field sampling (Sayre et al.
2000, 28), it also tends to be resource and time intensive (CBD 2005, 6). For a REA,
sampling intensity will depend on the availability of resources (Sayre et al. 2000, 82).
Furthermore, as part of a REA, it is not necessary to identify every plant to the species level,
however, certain plants must always be identified to this level. These include species
characterising vegetation type, species of conservation concern (i.e. endemic, rare or
endangered plants) and species of management concern (i.e. exotic or economic plants)
(Sayre et al. 2000, 85).
54 As defined in chapter 7, General Terms.
63

4. RESULTS
Rapid assessments (i.e. field surveys) have been implemented by all approaches
(Rainforest Alliance 2005, 29; Interview Partner M; Dinerstein et al. 2000, 63; Hugget 2007,
12; Sayre et al. 2000, 82), as these provide a fast, efficient and cost effective method for
producing estimates on total biodiversity (Oliver et al. 1993, 562).
Indicator species offer a simple and cost-effective way to determe numbers, status or
trends of biodiversity, as well as habitat quality (Millspaugh and Thompson 2008, 59) and
have been employed by all approaches, except the KBA approach (Rayden et al. 2009, 22;
Interview Partner I, Lambeck 1997, 849-856; Sayre et al. 2000, 96).
Ground truthing has been implemented by the HCV concept (Stewart et al. 2000, 20, 25),
the ERBC appproach (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 86) and the REA (Sayre et al. 2000, 29). This
method is predominantly used to verify data, such as remotely sensed or land cover maps
(Stewart et al. 2008, 20, 25). It is especially useful with inaccurate or outdated data and
maps (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 86). Additionally, it has also been employed for more detailed
site level mapping, as part of a HCV assessment (Rayden et al. 2009, 8).
Stakeholder surveys have been employed by three of the five approaches, as a method for
site identification (Stewart 2009, 11, 13; Dinerstein et al. 2000, 31, CBD 2005, 18). The
bottom-up approach of stakeholder surveys gives the assessment credibility (Stewart et al.
2008, 11, 13; Interview Partner M) by providing more accurate local and regional data sets
and also endowing a sense of ownership and commitment to the approach (Knight et al.
2007, 258). The KBA approach has not been included here, as stakeholder surveys are only
included for the refinement of delineated KBA and not for the delineation process itself
(Langhammer et al. 2007, 50, Knight et al. 2007, 258).
The ERBC approach and the FSA have made use of expert surveys for site identification,
as experts provide a vast experience and understanding of the biota and threats to the area
of interest (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 9, Hess and King 2002, 28).
This last sub-criterion was added to include any additional methodology which does not fall
under the first four sub-criteria. Examples of the sub-criterion, additional methods, include
the use of remote sensing technology, existing data, environmental indicators and predictive
models. Remote sensing technology and existing data have been implemented by all
approaches (Stewart et al. 2008, pg 14, 25, 37; Interview Partner M; Dinerstein et al. 2001,
55, 57; Lambeck 1997, 854; Sayre et al. 2000, pg 54) 55 . Environmental indicators, such as
biophysical data, and predictive models have only been employed by the ERBC approach.
These allow for the best informed decisions with limited resources (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 63,
86). Even though the quality of environmental indicators are continuously improving with the
55 For a more thorough analysis, please refer to section 4.3.3.4, Use of Remote Sensing and chapter
4.3.3.1, Use of Existing Data.
64

4. RESULTS
advancement of remote sensing technology (Turner et al. 2003, 306), taken on their own,
indicators present certain weaknesses in identifying biodiversity relevant sites (Langhammer
et al. 2007, 10; Interview Partner J). Hence, the use of indicators and predictive models
always has to be followed by ground truthing in a certain subset of the area to verify satellite
imagery and land form composition. (Interview Partner J).
The majority of the approaches result in an extensive, multilayered GIS database which
permits both spatial analysis and map production (Stewart et al. 2008, 40; Dinerstein et al.
2000, 57, Groves et al. 2000, 14; Langhammer et al. 2007, 29; Sayre et al. 2000, 74). As has
been described above, all approaches may make use of an array of different methods for site
choice.
However, each approach provides guidelines on the methods for site choice. The following
chapters (4.3.1.1-4.3.1.5) cover these recommendations for the assessed approaches
individually, listing any identified strengths and weaknesses.
4.3.1.1 High Conservation Value (HCV) Concept
The method for site choice relies on a type of coarse filter-fine filter approach,
where the coarse filter can be viewed as the landscape level assessment and the fine filter
as the site scale level assessment. The preliminary assessment at the landscape level relies
purely on remotely sensed data which establishes a broad framework, allowing for
subsequent site level decisions (Stewart 2009, 7). By analysing the landscape level, site
scale features are set into the correct context and therefore, the HCV concept, as a whole, is
strengthened (Stewart 2009, 6). Thus, implementation is improved and conservation values
are either maintained or enhanced (Stewart and Rayden 2009, 3).
The site scale analysis relies on existing data and field visits (Stewart 2009, 7). Prior to the
field visit and during the planning stage of the assessment, data is sourced from the remotely
sensed information sets, literature reviews, available public sector maps and lists of possibly
present indicator species, amongst others (Stewart et al. 2008, 13, 14, 15). Due to the
generally short field surveys, on average about 5-10 days (Interview Partner D), the majority
of data for site choice is gathered through rapid assessments and stakeholder surveys.
However, examples of aerial surveys by helicopter also exist (Rainforest Alliance 2005, 30).
These surveys increase the resolution of data obtained at the landscape level assessment
(Stewart 2009, 7). In addition, stakeholder surveys are extremely important in gathering
species sightings data, determining the socio-economic situation (also in the wider
65

4. RESULTS
landscape, especially for possible external threat identification) (Rainforest Alliance 2005, 31,
58), avoiding or reducing conflicts arising from operations and ensuring the transparency of
the process and therefore, also strengthening the credibility of the decision-making (Stewart
2009, 9).
Hence, through its methods for site choice, the HCV concept not only effectively merges the
site and landscape level conservation scale, but also increases its implementation success
through the incorporation of stakeholder knowledge and opinion (Interview Partner M).
4.3.1.2 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Approach
The KBA approach identifies conservation targets at the site level with the exact
mechanism for site choice depending on the national institutions implementing the
framework.
In order for any area to be assigned KBA status, the species based criteria and thresholds
need to be met. Whether precise inventories, stakeholder surveys, rapid assessments or
indicator species are used, is always left up to the implementing body (Interview Partner M).
Unfortunately a thorough literature review did not reveal any exact mechanisms in the choice
for sites.
International organisations support the identification process through access to literature,
remote sensing data or site specific biodiversity database sets (Interview Partner M). It is,
however, important to mention that identification and refinement of KBA is an iterative
exercise, remaining flexible into the future and being continuously improved as land-use
patterns change, as habitat destruction progresses and as underlying data and datasets are
updated (García-Moreno et al. 2007, 46; Interview Partner M). Previously, identification has
often occurred based solely on literature, museum specimens and remotely sensed data,
due to the funding structure of the process with no field work component being included in
the assessment (Interview Partner M). Furthermore, stakeholder involvement is only
employed for refining already delineated KBA, not for the actual identification and delineation
process (Langhammer et al. 2007, 50). In addition, the sole reliance on globally set criteria
and thresholds, being purely top-down, limits the provision of perhaps more accurate local or
regional data by stakeholders. This may prevent a sense of ownership and commitment
(Knight et al. 2007, 258) and result in a reduction in implementation success (Interview
Partner M).
In summary, these shortcomings may cause the inclusion of commission and omission errors
in the identification and subsequent delineation phase of the KBA process (Knight et al.
2007, 259) and should urgently be addressed.
66

4. RESULTS
4.3.1.3 Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) Approach
In order to determine the exact site location, the site choice relies firstly on the
global ecoregion map of Ohlson and Dinerstein (1998). These ecoregions are small enough
to receive correct conservation attention, roughly averaging 15 million ha (median 5,6 million
ha), a finer level of resolution than, for example, biodiversity hotspots (Ohlson et al. 2001,
934). However, the Global 200 ecoregions are still an agglomeration of several regional
ecoregions and therefore require decisions on the exact scale and assessment capacity to
be made. Hence, a boundary refinement is completed by expert surveys (Dinerstein et al.
2000, 35). The resolution of delineation is then increased further until finally sub-regions are
also delineated as conservation targets (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 36). These targets are
identified through a combination of methods, such as indicators, predictive models, remote
sensing and targeted stakeholder and expert surveys, allowing for the best outcome with
limited time and resources.
The exact combination of methods will depend on the availability of data for the specific
ecoregion of interest (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 63, 75) and follows a coarse filter-fine filter
approach, a powerful tool which enables the most extensive collection of biodiversity to be
represented (Marshall et al. 2004, i). Conservation targets are selected at multiple spatial
scales and levels of biodiversity and should include both aquatic and terrestrial types
(Groves et al. 2000, vi).
The primary focus of the ERBC assessment should be to identify ecological characteristics
and critical processes, such as those important for maintaining ecosystem integrity. In some
cases, the maintenance of conserving these characteristics may be more important than
conserving local hotspots of endemism (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 40). This focus is captured in
the coarse filter which relies on ecological groups, or assemblages of plant species present
in repeated patterns across the ecoregion (Marshall et al. 2000, 12).
From here the prime conservation priorities, requiring immediate action, are determined
(Dinerstein et al. 2000, 44) by applying the criteria of complementarity 56 , conservation value,
threat and feasibility to each of these sites (Groves et al. 2000, x, 8-1). This fine filter
identifies species which, due to their rare, threatened or endemic status, are not likely to be
captured by the coarse filter. Distributional and population data on these species is often
available through global, national, regional or local datasets which are then complemented
by expert knowledge (Marschall et al. 2000, 12). In the absence of available data, a REA
may be performed to fill any gaps (Interview Partner I). The conservation goal, formulated
56 Please refer to chapter 7, General Terms, for a definition hereof.
67

4. RESULTS
during the “biodiversity vision plan”, is to identify the minimum viable number to ensure the
long-term persistence of these species of interest (Groves et al. 2000, viii).
Determining which priority sites are most feasible for successful conservation (i.e. which
areas have the right enabling conditions?) is difficult to achieve and also adds to the time
and cost of the identification phase (Interview Partner I).
However, the ERBC approach is the most comprehensive and the most representative in
terms of trying to capture and maximise different scales and conservation targets of
biodiversity. Furthermore, it probably is the most successful in delineating important
ecological processes and entire ecosystems (Interview Partner I) which ensures the long
term persistence of biodiversity. This coincides with the results obtained here, namely that
this approach is able to employ the broadest range of different methods for site choice,
therefore, making it also the most flexible in its use of data sources and data acquisition 57 .
4.3.1.4 Focal Species Approach (FSA)
The first step in identifying the conservation site is the identification of threats to
the area of interest. Species considered susceptible to the different threats are grouped and
the most sensitive one, towards a given threat, is identified (Lambeck 1997, 851). For the
identification of threats and subsequent focal community determination, various methods
have been employed. These include expert surveys and literature reviews (Hess and King
2002, 29, 35) or analysis of existing data sets and validation through field surveys (Brooker
2002, 187; Bani et al. 2002, 827; Lambeck 1997, 852).
Within the production landscape (i.e. the area under consideration) any remaining remnant
patches are next identified through aerial photography and then validated through vegetation
surveys. In addition, the habitat quality of these patches is also established during surveying
(Brooker 2002, 188). To determine the remnant patches required by the set of focal species,
the following needs to be established: the focal species’ habitat requirements, an estimation
of the range of population densities and an estimation of viable population sizes. From this,
the area of habitat able to maintain viable populations of each focal species can be
determined (viable population size divided by density). Thus, the required habitat size for a
focal species can be mapped and then overlaid with all other focal species maps (Hess and
King 2002, 35). Again various methods have been applied to determine this. These may
include literature reviews followed by expert surveys (Hess and King 2002, 35), literature
reviews followed by a statistical analyses (Brooker 2002, 187) or site surveys followed by a
statistical analyses (Bani et al. 2002, 828).
57 This has been described in detail in chapter 4.3.3.
68

4. RESULTS
The primary criticism of FSA deals with the assumption that the identified focal community
covers the needs of all biota within a given landscape. This argument has been raised by
several authors (e.g. Noss et al. 1997, 118; Lindenmayer et al. 2002, 338; Lindenmayer and
Fischer 2003, 150). Due to the complex and often poorly understood requirements of
individual species, this taxon-based surrogate approach attempts to reach an unrealistic
goal, especially since conservation actions for one particular taxon do not result in successful
conservation of other taxa. The effects of landscape change and habitat fragmentation or
alteration can vary among species (Robinson et al. 1992, 54) and among groups of species
(Gascon et al. 1999, 223).
A second critique lies in the identification of focal species, key threatening processes and
their interactions. Identifying the focal species and their threats has caused difficulties due to
a general lack of available species data (Lindenmayer et al. 2002, 340).
4.3.1.5 Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA)
To achieve an efficient characterisation of the landscape and species level of
biodiversity, using scientifically sound methodology, the REA first delineates either the
vegetation classes or the land use-land cover classes through satellite imagery and aerial
photography. This is important firstly to characterise and map the distribution, abundance
and condition of biodiversity at the landscape level and secondly to establish a sampling
framework within which to conduct field sampling (Sayre et al. 2000, 81). Next an overflight
should provide a general familiarity of the study area and collect valuable data on vegetation
types (Sayre et al. 2000, 70). Following this, grond truthing is performed to identify and verify
the delineation of vegetation classes. The intensity of sampling will depend on the exact
objective of the assessment (Sayre et al. 2000, 82; Meerman et al. 2003, 4). The field team
collects data on vegetation structure and dominance and on environmental parameters, such
as slope, aspect and topographic positioning. In addition, plant diversity at the species level
is also characterised and specimens are collected as part of a thorough inventory (Sayre et
al. 2000, 89). Subsequently, fauna inventories can be taken at these sites (Sayre et al. 2000,
93). The fauna analysed normally includes birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and, where
appropriate, fish or invertebrates (Sayre et al. 2000, 96; Meerman et al. 2003, 4). To facilitate
the maximum number of species identified, multiple field visits should be made, taking into
account seasonality (Meerman et al. 2003, 5). However, this choice of methodology is
extremely time and personnel intensive (Interview Partner I). The choice of surveyed taxa will
depend on the time and resources available (Sayre et al. 2000, 95) and is also often based
69

4. RESULTS
on such considerations as conservation value (i.e. target species), indicator value (i.e.
indicator species), ecosystem value (i.e. keystone species) and detectability (Sayre et al.
2000, 96). Target species for conservation are any species that are listed as threatened or
endangered by the IUCN red list or listed in appendix I or II of CITES (Sayre et al. 2000, 98).
The REA prouces a final map of vegetation types derived from image interpretation and
verified in the field. This map is a comprehensive characterisation of landscape and site
level biodiversity and is extremely suitable for management planning. It also forms the basis
for threat assessments and the formulation of recommendations. In addition, other thematic
maps may be produced. Again, this will depend on the exact objectives and may include
species of conservation concern maps or threat maps (Sayre et al. 2000, 74; Meerman et al.
2003, 45).
The REA employs a broad range of methods for site identification and is therefore extremely
comprehensive in its characterisation of the landscape under consideration. It is, however,
notably time and resource intensive which is described in the subsequent chapter.
Overall, the ERBC approach is able to implement the most broad range methods. This is
followed closely by the REA, then the HCV concept and the FSA. The KBA approach makes
use of the least amount of methods for site choice.
A ranking of the approaches for the criterion G (Methods for Site Choice) is covered in
chapter 4.3.4.
70

4. RESULTS
4.3.2 Required Resources
The majority of information for this criterion (H. Required Resources) was obtained from the
interviews, predominantly in the form of estimations. These show great variations for all three
sub-criteria.
Minimum and maximum values 58 for all three criteria have been listed in Table 10. The
financial cost estimates have been converted to euros (€) 59 and figures from earlier years
were not adjusted for inflation.
Table 10: Overview of required resources
HVC KBA ERBC FSA REA
Financial
Resources
(€) 59 • 5,600-
65,000
• 32,500
(Country
wide)
• 100,000-
235,000
• 6,500-
60,000
• 50,000-
170,000
Human
Resources
Time
Required
Site size
(ha)
• International
and/ or
national
experts;
• Minimum: 4
experts
• 3-6 experts
with
validation by
expert panel
• Very human
resource
intensive;
• Many
international
and/ or
national
experts
• University
students
and/ or
• national
experts
• Many
international
and/ or
national
experts
• 1-6 months • ~ 3 years • 1,5-2 years • 3-4 months • 12 months
• ~ 100-
200,000
Key: n.d. = not determined
ha = hectare
Source: Own design
• n.d.
• 400,000-
3,6 mill
• ~ 1,000s -
100,000s
• n.d.
58 For a detailed listing of all obtained information for each individual approach, please refer to
Appendix A7.
59 Converted currency: XE (1995-2009): The Universal Currency Converter; (retrieved 18.10.2009)
http://www.xe.com/
1 US$ = 0.67 €; 1 € = 1.49 US$
1 GB£ = 1.13 €; 1 € = 0.89 GB£
71

4. RESULTS
In general, the identification of sites always requires the input of experts, irrespective of the
approach used (Interview Partner A). In addition, the cost of any approach, or the
identification phase thereof, will depend on the size of the area to be assessed and on
available data, time and experts to perform the assessment (Interview Partner D and J).
Furthermore, the objective of the approach and therefore the quality of the required outcome
will also play a significant role in the amount of resources needed (Interview Partner I).
The following chapters (4.3.2.1 - 4.3.2.5) provide explanations to the resource requirements
of the individual approaches.
4.3.2.1 High Conservation Value (HCV) Concept
The financial resources 60 required for the HCV assessment range from 5,600€ to
65,000€ (Interview Partner D and K). It should be noted that the values on cost and size
obtained from Interview Partner C (100,000€ to map 10 mill hectares) were only possible at a
very low resolution and with a lot of existing data (Interview Partner C) and have therefore
not been used as maximum values for cost and site size. The minimum cost of an HCV
assessment is approximately 5,600€ for a medium to large forestry operation with an
average of 7,500€ to 11,000€. The average forest management unit (FMU) was estimated as
100 to 10,000 hectares (Interview Partner D). The highest cost estimates lie between
35,000€ to 65,000€ which are presented for large scale operations of between 20,000 and
100,000 hectares (Interview Partner K). Thus, the size of the forest operation plays a very
important role in the cost of the process. Furthermore, the data availability is also influential
in the cost of a project. A HCV assessment can cost between 6,500€ to 10,000€ with valid
available data, however these minimum and maximum value rise to 20,000€ to 25,000€ for
the same size operation with no valid data available, since extensive field work will be
required as part of the assessment (Interview Partner E).
The average time for an individual HCV assessment is between 1 and 6 months with field
work taking between 7 and 13 days (Interview Partner C, D, E, F and K). If the HCV
assessment is part of an entire management plan, the process will take 2 to 3 years
(Interview Partner E and F).
The HCV process requires a minimum team of 3 to 4 experts, comprising a soil scientist, a
biologist and a social scientist (Interview Partner G). The assessment is normally performed
with a combination of international and national experts (Interview Partner D, E, F, G and K),
especially for high impact operations (Interview Partner D). For low impact operations, the
60 All required resources for the HCV concept are listed in detail in Appendix A7-1.
72

4. RESULTS
assessment could be performed by non-experts with validation of results by experts
(Interview Partner D).
Overall, the HCV assessment is very efficient with regard to the financial, human and time
resources required.
4.3.2.2 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Approach
The financial resources 61 required for the KBA identification phase, for about ten
different regions, were approximately 650€/ KBA site identified. Therefore, the cost of a
national assessment would be in the order of 32,500€, for a country or region containing
around 50 KBA. Unfortunately, this value is difficult to place into perspective, since there are
no fixed size limits to KBA. They range from very small to very large, depending on the
management context and the species distribution of a given region (Langhammer et al. 2007,
42; Interview Partner M). Therefore, no minimum or maximum site sizes can be defined.
On average, the time required for a regional or national KBA identification is around 3 years.
This time estimate and the indicated cost requirements do not really match and further data
should be consulted for a more accurate conclusion. Nevertheless, the exact time required
for an assessment will vary depending on the availability and accuracy of data. The general
opinion is that this is probably faster than it should be, since the most effective processes
were those involving extensive field surveys prior to identification. With the progression from
IBA, IPA and others to KBA, these extensive field work components were not incorporated.
KBA identification has instead often relied solely on literature, museum specimens and
remotely sensed data (Interview Partner M).
This process does not require a large amount of human resources to complete the
identification phase. A team of 3-6 experts is sufficient. The results obtained from these
experts will, however, be validated by a panel of experts, usually in the form of a workshop.
Thus, a relatively small number of professionals are involved in organising and managing the
process with a much broader community participating in the review (Interview Partner M).
On the whole, the KBA approach is efficient in its financial and human resources
requirements, but, at the same time, is also extremely time consuming.
61 All required resources for the KBA approach are listed in detail in Appendix A7-2.
73

4. RESULTS
4.3.2.3 Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) Approach
On average the ERBC approach costs between 100,000€ and 217,000€ 62
(Interview Partner I and J). The cost estimate for China was not considered as the maximum
value, as the size of the site was not given. Assessments within the United States have
tended to be slightly less expensive than in other regions, due to the size of the assessment,
the required human resources and available data (Interview Partner J). The size normally
assessed during this approach ranges from 400,000 to 3.6 million hectares, the largest area
to be looked at. It takes approximately one and a half to two years to complete and requires
many experts, either international or national.
In general, the ERBC approach is extremely resource and fairly time intensive, but it is also
the approach that assesses the largest area.
4.3.2.4 Focal Species Approach (FSA)
Unfortunately, only rough estimates were obtained for the resources required 63 by
the FSA. This approach can be implemented by either university students or experts. If the
approach is being implemented within a university setting, the cost will decrease, however
the time required may increase (Interview Partner O). When performed by a group of experts
it takes between 3 to 4 months and costs anywhere between 6,500€ and 60,000€ (Interview
Partner O).
Overall, the FSA is efficient in its personel and time requirements, but further data should be
consulted to provide more accurate results on the cost of an assessment.
4.3.2.5 Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA)
The cost of an REA was estimated to lie between 50,000€ and 170,000€ 64 . It takes
approximately 1 year to complete (Sayre et al. 2000, 37) and requires an extensive array of
experts (Sayre et al. 2000, 36, 79, 93; Interview Partner I). No values to maximum and
minimum site sizes were found in the literature. The cost of an assessment will increase,
especially when assessing remote areas, large spatial scales or high topographic resolution.
Furthermore, the faster the results are required, the higher the cost will be, for example, due
to the requirement of large filed teams (CBD 2005, 11).
On the whole, the REA has intensive human resource requirements, but can be completed in
a relatively short time frame.
62 All required resources for the ERBC approach are listed in detail in Appendix A7-3.
63 All required resources for the FSA are listed in detail in Appendix A7-4.
64 All required resources for the REA are listed in detail in Appendix A7-5.
74

4. RESULTS
Due to the lack of data on the financial resource requirements and the exact size of an
assessment area, the approaches’ differences in cost were not discussed further. However,
when comparing the remaining two sub-criteria of required resources, the HCV concept and
the FSA require the least input. They are followed by the REA, with the KBA and ERBC
approaches requiring the most input.
An overall ranking of the required resources for each individual approaches is further
discussed in chapter 4.3.4.
4.3.3 Data Requirements
Each approach has specific data requirements that are needed to successfully complete an
assessment. Certain requirements will be the same for the approaches, however some
differences do exist. This section provides an overview of each approach’s specific data
requirements, showing similarities and differences between the approaches for the subcriteria:
use of existing data (C22), data acquisition (C23), data validation (C24) and remotely
sensed data (C25) 65 . For the selected approaches each sub-criterion is addressed
separately in the following chapters, as can be seen in Figure 19.
Figure 19: Overview of sub-criteria for data requirements
4.3.3
Data Requirements
Use of Existing
Data
4.3.3.1
Use of Remote
Sensing
4.3.3.4
Data Acquisition
4.3.3.2
Data Validation
4.3.3.3
Source: Own design
65 For further detail on the individual approach’s data requirements, please refer to Appendix A8.
75

4. RESULTS
4.3.3.1 Use of Existing Data
An attempt should always be made to identify existing data sources, as a thorough
knowledge of these enable a more efficient identification of further assessment requirements
(Sayre et al. 2000, 81).
Six areas of existing data sources, as shown in Figure 20, were identified during the course
of this thesis. These include: macro-scale databases, micro-scale databases, species
conservation status according to the IUCN red list, primary literature and expert
knowledge, remotely sensed data sources and additional data sources which are made
up of a wide collection of different references.
Figure 20: Overview of existing data sources
Macro-scale
databases
HCV
ERBC
REA
Use of Existing Data
(C22)
Additional
data sources
HCV
KBA
ERBC
REA
Micro-scale
databases
HCV
KBA
FSA
REA
IUCN red list
HCV
KBA
ERBC
REA
Literature
and experts
all
approaches
Remotely
sensed data
all
approaches
Source: Own design
76

4. RESULTS
Remotely sensed data sources are employed by all approaches 66 .
The IUCN red list provides the world’s largest data base and therefore, insight on the status
and trends of species, focusing on those at greatest risk of extinction (Baillie et al. 2004, 2).
Except for the FSA, all approaches employ information from this list to obtain knowledge on
the conservation status of possible species within an area of interest (Stewart et al. 2008, 13;
Langhammer et al. 2007, 17; Groves et al. 2000, 3-8; Sayre et al. 2000, 81).
All approaches review primary literature sources or make use of expert knowledge as
existing data sources (Stewart et al. 2008, 13; Langhammer et al. 2007, 31; Dinerstein et al.
2000, 51; Sayre et al. 2000, 81). Expert consultation should be an important step in
identifying existing data, as much of the information required for an assessment will be
buried in the grey literature, in unpublished manuscripts or in the heads of experts
(Dinerstein et al. 2000, 50).
Figure 21 provides examples on the remaining three identified areas of existing data, namely
macro-scale databases, micro-scale databases and additional data sources.
Figure 21: Examples of existing data sources
Macro-scale
databases
HCV
ERBC
REA
Micro-scale
databases
HCV
KBA
FSA
REA
Additional
data sources
HCV
KBA
ERBC
REA
For example:
Biodiversity hotspots
Priority ecoregions
Frontier forests
Last of the wild
For example:
IBAs, IPAs, KBAs
AZE
National databases
Local databases
For example:
Museum specimens
Traditional knowledge
Management plans
Priority-setting plans
Source: Own design
66 For further clarification on the use of remote sensing, please refer to chapter 4.3.3.4.
77

4. RESULTS
Macro-scale databases provide coarse filter maps and descriptions of regions with high
levels of biodiversity or conservation significance (Stewart et al. 2008, 14). These databases
include maps produced by approaches, such as Biodiversity Hotspots (Meyers et al. 2000),
Priority Ecoregions (Olson and Dinerstein 1998), Last of the Wild Habitats (Sanderson et al.
2002) and Frontier Forests (Bryant et al. 1997). The maps and databases provide an
indication of likely conservation targets and are employed by the HCV concept (Stewart et al.
2008, 14), the ERBC approach (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 35) and the REA (Sayre et al. 2000,
81), as a source of existing data.
In contrast, micro-scale databases provide fine filter maps and descriptions of group
specific data provided by approaches, such as Important Bird Areas (IBA) (BirdLife
International 2009), Important Plant Areas (IPA) (PlantLife International 2009), Key
Biodiversity Areas (KBA) (Eken et al. 2004; Langhammer et al. 2007) and sites identified by
the Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) (Alliance for Zero Extinction 2005), the latter being
extremely important for preventing the extinction of critically endangered species (Interview
Partner M). These maps are employed by the HCV concept (Stewart et al. 2008, pg 14), the
KBA approach (Langhammer et al. 2007, 29, 30) and, if available, the REA (Sayre et al.
2000, 81). National or local databases, which have also been placed under the heading of
micro-scale databases, are employed by the FSA (Brooker 2002, 187).
Additional data sources include information from previously established management
plans, ecoregional assessments, national and regional conservation plans or databases and
priority setting exercises (Stewart et al. 2008, 13; Groves et al. 2000, viii; Sayre et al. 2000,
81). At least one source of information from within this very broad category is used by all of
the approaches 67 , except for the FSA, which does not employ any of the additional data
sources.
Obtaining valuable information is key to identifying conservation targets. Therefore, all
existing data should be collected during the scoping stage, thereby pinpointing data gaps
and judging data quality and reliability. This leads to decisions on final team composition,
methods of data acquisition (Stewart et al. 2008, 12, 15) and hence time requirements and
cost (Hill et al. 2005, 5).
67 More detailed information is provided in Appendix A8.
78

4. RESULTS
4.3.3.2 Data Acquisition
Data acquisition is extremely important to augment and replace missing and
unreliable or outdated data. Existing data and the lack thereof will pinpoint where, when and
how this should be undertaken (Stewart et al. 2008, 15).
For this thesis, methods of data acquisition were divided into three categories: site visits,
expert surveys and stakeholder surveys, as can be seen in Figure 22.
Figure 22: Overview of methods employed for data acquisition
Data Acquisition
All approaches
Site visit
All
approaches
Expert
surveys
HCV
KBA
ERBC
FSA
Stakeholder
Surveys
HCV
KBA
ERBC
Inventories
KBA, ERBC, FSA, REA
Rapid assessment
all approaches
Remote sensing
HCV, ERBC, FSA, REA
Source: Own design
Site visits are essential components of data acquisition, as these identify or confirm
conservation values and features of interest and assess their overall importance (Hill et al.
2005, 95).
Targeted surveys of experts and stakeholders provide the best information for decision
making with limited resources and time (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 63). They provide experience,
knowledge and understanding of the biota and threats affecting the integrity of an ecoregion
and the persistence of important ecological processes, habitats and species assemblages
(Dinerstein et al. 2000, 9). Using stakeholder knowledge and opinion in the assessment,
79

4. RESULTS
imparts ownership and pride in the process, ensuring a certain degree of implementation
success (Interview Partner M).
All approaches have been designed to employ a combination of methods within these loose
categories. The exact combination of methods employed by any approach will also depend
on the objectives and required outcome of the assessment (Hill et al. 2005, 3).
All approaches make use of site visits to obtain information for the identification process. A
rapid assessment is the most wide-spread method employed (Stewart et al. 2008, 24;
Langhammer et al. 2007, 22, 30; Dinerstein et al. 2000, 230; Dinerstein et al. 2001, appendix
A 2; Brooker 2002, 187; Lambeck 1997, 855; Sayre et al. 2000, 84) which, as per definition,
is a fast, efficient and cost efficient tool for obtaining information on biodiversity (Oliver et al.
1993, 562). In contrast, an inventory is far more time-consuming, requires considerable
organisation and methodological rigour (Sayre et al. 2000, 82), and is therefore, employed by
less methods. These include the KBA approach (Langhammer et al. 2007, 19), ERBC
(Dinerstein et al. 2001, 21), the FSA (Bani et al. 2002, 826; Lambeck 1997, 855) and the
REA (Sayre et al. 2000, 82). The HCV process (Stewart et al. 2008, 25), the ERBC approach
(Dinerstein et al. 2001, 51), the FSA (Bani et al. 2002, 828) and the REA (Sayre et al. 2000,
81) acquire data through remote sensing technology 68 .
The HCV concept, the KBA and ERBC approaches employ both expert and stakeholder
surveys as a means of acquiring data (Stewart et al. 2008, 17, 18; Langhammer et al. 2007,
31; Dinerstein et al. 2000, 51,151). The KBA approach uses stakeholder surveys to refine
the delineation of KBA designated sites (Langhammer et al. 2007, 50), whereas the FSA
makes use of expert surveys to identify the focal community, their habitat requirements and
distribution range, as well as to estimate viable population sizes (Hess and King 2002, 30).
Overall, all approaches employ a varying range of tools for data acquisition. However, all
acquired or existing data should always be validated to ensure the reliability and overall
confidence in an assessment (CBD 2005, 11).
68 For further detail on the use of remote sensing, please refer to chapter 4.3.3.4.
80

4. RESULTS
4.3.3.3 Data Validation
Every data set has limitations or biases which need to be considered during the
identification stage (Langhammer et al. 2007, 33). For this thesis, three main categories of
data validation were identified, namely site visits, expert surveys and literature or peer
reviews.
All approaches make use of a combination of different tools for data validation 69 , depending
on the resources and time available, as well as the objective of the assessment (Interview
Partner I).
Figure 23 provides an overview of all validation tools that are employed by the approaches.
Figure 23: Overview of validation tools
Data validation
All approaches
Site visit
All
approaches
Rapid assessment
HCV, KBA,
ERBC, REA
Ground truthing
HCV, KBA, ERBC,
FSA, REA,
Expert
surveys
HCV
KBA
FSA
Literature/
reviews
HCV
KBA
ERBC
REA
Museum collections of
species
KBA
Peer reviewing
HCV, KBA,
ERBC, REA
Source: Own design
69 Please refer to Appendix A8, for more detail on the individual approaches‘ validation methodology
81

4. RESULTS
All approaches make use of site visits for data validation. Rapid assessments or ground
truthing of maps are employed by all of the approaches. The KBA approach uses site visits,
museum records and expert surveys to increase the reliability of data, such as species
occurrence or point locality data. It also foresees the validation of existing micro-scale
databases, such as IBA, IPA and the AZE (Langhammer et al. 2007, 34, 35). The HCV
concept verifies maps or databases of endangered or threatened conservation targets
through ground truthing (Stewart et al. 2008, 25, 26) and rapid assessments (Stewart et al.
2008, 25, 26; Stewart 2009, 7). Therefore, the uncertainty of uneven or poor quality data is
reduced (Stewart et al. 2008, 20). The ERBC approach and the REA confirms its remotely
sensed data through ground truthing (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 151; Sayre et al. 2000, 81).
The FSA has used expert surveys to confirm candidate focal species and habitat
requirements (Hess and King 2002, 30).
Peer reviewing enhances the value and effectiveness of an assessment report (Sayre et al.
2000, 139) and is included in the HCV concept (HCV Resource Network 2005-07), the KBA
approach (Interview Partner M), the ERBC approach (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 231) and REA
(Sayre et al. 2000, 139). In addition, it is vital that all results of a REA include an overall
estimation on confidence (CBD 2006, 12), endowing validity onto the assessment. The same
has been suggested for species occurrence data under the KBA approach (Langhammer et
al. 2007, 35). This approach alone requires, where possible, that identified species be traced
to sources in museum collections or herbariums (Langhammer et al. 2007, 32) and that the
presence of a species be confirmed prior to a site being considered for KBA status
(Langhammer et al. 2007, 35). In practice, however, data validation has not been this
rigorous, as identification has often purely been based on literature, museum specimens and
remote sensing (Interview Partner M).
In general, all approaches validate existing and acquired data to increase the reliability of the
assessment. Amongst the three validation tools looked at during this thesis, site visits are
most commonly implemented by the approaches.
82

4. RESULTS
4.3.3.4 Use of Remote Sensing
Advancement in remote sensing technology has increased the resolution and
quality of landscape data tremendously over the past years and the cost of obtaining such
data is continuously decreasing (Turner et al. 2003, 306, 312). Although the incorporation of
remote sensing in conservation work always requires technical expertise and needs to be
validated through ground truthing (Turner et al. 2003, 312; Interview Partner J), it may lead to
a decrease in overall assessment costs and required time (Langhammer et al. 2007, 10) with
a consequence of ultimately aiding the overall efficiency of the approach.
All approaches implement remote sensing technology; however, the exact uses differ
between approaches, as is shown in Figure 24.
Figure 24: Overview of employed remote sensing technology
Remote sensing
Aerial photography &
satellite imagery
All approaches
General
overview
HCV
REA
Delineation
HCV
ERBC
FSA
Data
acquisition
HCV
KBA
ERBC
Initial landscape
characterisation
REA
Broad framework for
site-scale decisions
HCV
Source: Own design
Macro-scale mapping
HCV
Micro-scale mapping
ERBC, FSA
Assessment of
current condition
HCV, ERBC
Assessment of threats
ERBC
Monitoring
KBA, ERBC
83

4. RESULTS
The HCV concept and REA apply the technology to obtain a general overview at a macroscale.
The HCV concept establishes a broad framework for site scale decisions which
enables the establishment of appropriate limits to the landscape level assessment at a
coarse scale (Stewart 2009, pg 7, Stewart and Rayden 2009, 8). The REA performs an initial
landscape characterisation based on remotely sensed data (Sayre et al. 2000, 68, 81; CBD
2006, 11).
In contrast, the KBA approach, the ERBC approach and the FSA use remotely sensed
information for delineation of sites at a micro-scale. KBA sites are themselves often
identified purely on literature, museum specimens and remote sensing (Interview Partner M).
Whereas the FSA relies on remote sensing to delineate remnant patches within the study
area (Lambeck 1997, 854; Bani et al. 2002, 828) and the ERBC approach requires this
information for the precise delineation of ecoregion and sub-region boundaries (Dinerstein et
al. 2000, 75).
Three of the assessed approaches, namely the HCV concept, the KBA approach and the
ERBC approach, use remote sensing technology for data acquisition. The ERBC approach
uses this source of data most extensively, especially for monitoring of habitat quality, notably
in inaccessible forest regions (Dinerstein et al. 2001, 51) and to assess the current condition
of areas of interest (Dinerstein et al. 2001, 86). The HCV concept uses remote sensing for
acquiring data on current conditions of significant landscape level regions (HCV2) (Stewart et
al. 2008, 25), whereas the KBA approach employs this technology as a cost effective and
relatively rapid monitoring tool, to determine the status of biodiversity at a broad scale
(Langhammer et al. 2007, 83; Interview Partner M).
With the continuously decreasing cost and increasing spectral and spatial resolution (Turner
et al. 2003, 306, 313), the use of remote sensing, as a data source, is becoming more widespread.
Furthermore, the advances in this technology, providing direct and indirect measures
of biodiversity, have also lead to a wide divergence in its application (Turner et al. 2003,
306). These facts are reflected in the results obtained during this thesis which show a widespread,
yet different use in the implementation of remote sensing.
All approaches are able to employ a variety of different sources to fulfill their data
requirements and are also more or less flexible in their exact choice of tools to make use of
existing data, acquire and validate data sets and to incorporate remote sensing technology in
their assessment. The HCV concept utilizes the widest range of different data sources. This
is followed by the KBA and ERBC approaches and the REA. In contrast, the FSA employs
the least amount of data sources looked at during this thesis.
84

4. RESULTS
4.3.4 Interim Summary III
For Group III (Input) criteria, the approaches were evaluated based on a ranking system
which was established individually for each criterion. Criteria G (methods for site choice)
and I (data requirements) were dealt with as a whole, whereas the sub-criteria for criterion
H (required resources) were ranked separately 70 .
This chapter provides an overview of the results obtained for the additional criteria, thus
providing transparency to the ranking of the approaches. Any deviations from the original
ranking system, as established in chapter 2.2.7, are explained in this chapter.
Criterion G: Methods for Site Choice
Table 11 shows an overview of the methods that can be employed by the various
approaches for site choice. Not all methods are employed simultaneously by the approaches
during site identification, but this overview rather provides an indication of an approach’s
flexibility in terms of the available methods it may implement. Furthermore, differences or
precise implementation rigour of methods by different practitioners is not considered. The
exact methodology will change with varying objectives and with the available resources at
hand (Interview Partner L). Thus, in general, the more methods at an approach’s disposal,
the more flexible and versatile the approach is.
70 The ranking methodology and classes are described in chapter 2.2.7, Additional Criteria.
85

4. RESULTS
Table 11: Approach ranking according to their methods for site choice
Group III
Input
Criteria G
Methods for
Site Choice
Subcriteria
Site visits
(C16)
Surveys
(C17)
Additional
methods
(C18)
HCV KBA ERBC FSA REA
Inventories – X – – X
Rapid assessments X X X X X
Indicator species X – X X X
Ground truthing X – X X X
Field surveys X X X X X
Expert surveys – – X X –
Stakeholder surveys X – X – X
Remote sensing X X X X X
Existing data X X X X X
Models – – X – –
Environmental indicators – – X – –
Total 11 7 5 10 7 8
Rank 2 3 1 3 2
Key: X = employed – = not employed
Rank: 1 = 9-11 methods that may be applied
2 = 6-8 methods that may be applied
3 = 2-5 methods that may be applied
Source: Own design
The ERBC approach was placed first, as it is able to make use of all identified methods,
except for inventories. The REA is able to employ 8 different methods for site choice, relying
less on models and environmental indicators. Since this assessment is predominantly
performed in areas with little or no information (Sayre et al. 2000, 33, 81), models and
environmental indicators would be less suitable (Interview Partner J). The FSA and the HCV
concept can both apply 7 different methods. These approaches do not make use of detailed
inventories, models and environmental indicators. The first being resource and time intensive
(CBD 2005, 6) and the latter two requiring additional testing and validation via ground
truthing (Interview Partner J), since they momentarily still present certain weaknesses
(Langhammer et al. 2007, 10). Even though the FSA can apply the same number of methods
as the HCV concept and the REA, it was only ranked third. Firstly, this taxon-based
surrogate scheme assumes that conservation actions for one specific taxon will result in the
successful conservation of other taxa (Noss et al. 1997, 118; Lindenmeyer et al. 2002, 338;
86

4. RESULTS
Lindenmeyer and Fischer 2003, 150). Secondly, the identification of the focal species and
their threats has caused difficulties (Lindenmeyer et al. 2002, 340). Hence, these two main
criticisms 71 have prompted the approach to be ranked third, together with the KBA approach.
The KBA approach has only 5 methods at its disposal and was, therefore, placed third. It
relies very heavily on existing data and remote sensing with site visits only being included
funding permitted (Interview Partner M). Furthermore, the KBA approach does not
incorporate stakeholder opinion or knowledge (eg. through surveys) for site identification
which is known to pose problems for implementation success (Interview Partner M) 72.
Criterion H: Required Resources
One of the most important criteria for comparing the approaches is criterion H
(required resources). Cost, personnel and time are key components for determining the
exact procedure of all approaches.
The sub-criterion, financial resources 73 , was not discussed here, since these estimates are
all fairly similar, especially when taking the size of the site into consideration. For an accurate
assessment hereof, more data on the cost and size of a project would be required.
Table 12 provides a coarse ranking of the sub-criteria: human resources and required time.
Table 12: Approach ranking according to their required resources
Group III
Input
Sub-criteria HCV KBA ERBC FSA REA
human resources
(C20)
moderate moderate highest moderate highest
Criterion H
Rank 2 2 3 2 3
Required
resources
Required time
(C21)
1-6
months
3
years
1.5-2
years
3-4
months
12
months
Rank 1 3 2 1 1
C20 rank: 1 = least human resource requirements
2 = moderate human resource requirements
3 = highest human resource requirements
C21 rank: 1 = 1-12 months
2 = 1-2,5 years
3 = ≥ 3 years
Source: Own design
71 Please refer to Methods for Site Choice, chapter 4.3.1.4, and Appendix A6-4 for a more detailed
explanation.
72 Please refer to Methods for Site Choice, chapter 4.3.1.2 and Appendix A6-2 for more information.
73 An overview of the financial data obtained for the individual approaches can be seen in chapter
4.3.2 and Appendix 7.
87

4. RESULTS
The HCV concept, the KBA approach and the FSA are all fairly similar in their human
resource requirements and have, thus, all been ranked second. In contrast, the ERBC
approach and the REA are far more intensive in their personnel needs which has placed
them third.
The average time needed to complete an assessment lies under or around one year for the
HCV concept, the FSA and the REA. They have, therefore, all been placed first. The ERBC
approach takes between 1.5 and 2 years, whereas the KBA approach requires at least 3
years for completion. Hence, the ERBC approach was ranked second and the KBA approach
third.
Criterion I: Data Requirements
Table 13 (see next page) shows an overview of the approaches’ data sources. Not all
data sources are utilized for each assessment, but instead this list shows the flexibility and
versatility in the approaches’ ability to use different information sources. The more data
sources that can be implemented, the stronger the approach was ranked 74 .
74 Please refer to Appendix A1, Key Question I, for further information.
88

4. RESULTS
Table 13: Approach ranking according to their data sources
Group III Subcriteria
HCV KBA ERBC FSA REA
Input
Criterion I
Data
requirements
Existing
data (C22)
Data
acquisition
(C23)
Macro-scale
databases
Micro-scale
databases
X – X – X
X X – X X
Red list X X X – X
Literature and
experts
Remotely sensed
data
Additional data
sources
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X – X
Site visits X X X X X
Expert surveys X X X X –
Stakeholder
surveys
X X X – –
Data
validation
(C24)
Remote
sensing
(C25)
Site visits X X X X X
Expert surveys X X – X –
Literature/ reviews X X X – X
General overview X – – – X
Delineation X – – X –
Data acquisition X X X – –
Total 15 15 12 11 8 10
Ranking 1 2 2 3 2
Key: X = employed – = not employed
Rank: 1 = 13-15; 2 = 10-12; 3 = 7-9 different data sources
Source: Own design
The HCV concept can make use of all identified sources of data for all four sub-criteria and
was, therefore, placed first. The KBA approach, the ERBC approach and the REA were all
ranked second, whereas the FSA was placed third. Even though the REA does not make
use of stakeholder surveys as a form of data acquisition, it does incorporate a source of
traditional knowledge in the planning stages of the assessment (CBD 2005, iii; Sayre et al.
2000, 13).
89

4. RESULTS
4.4 Summary
In order to determine the overall efficiency of the approaches, all groups and their respective
key questions, criteria and sub-criteria needed to be assessed so that a comparison of the
approaches could be made. As per definition, efficiency 75 is output relative to input. Even
though this thesis was unable to obtain any information on output (Group V. Effectiveness),
it has still assessed: Groups I. (Environmental), II. (Implementation), III. (Input) and IV.
(Supplementary), providing a detailed comparison of the different approaches.
Table 14 provides an overview of the results obtained for the criteria assessed during the
strength-weakness analysis.
Table 14: Overview of classification of criteria for strength-weakness analysis
Group Criteria HCV KBA ERBC FSA REA
I.
Ecology
II.
Implementation
IV.
Supplementary
Source: Own design
A. Addressed
biodiversity levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem types
C. Geographic
scale of
applicability
D. Level of
Approach
E. Implementation
Style
F. Suitability of
intended users
J. Scoping
assessment
K. Consideration of
threats
L. Monitoring
recommendations
M. Management
recommendations
Very
strong
(++)
Weak
(-)
Strong
(+)
Strong
(+)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Average
(0)
Strong
(+)
Average
(0)
Strong
(+)
Average
(0)
Strong
(+)
Weak
(-)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Strong
(+)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Weak
(-)
Average
(0)
Strong
(+)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Weak
(-)
Average
(0)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Strong
(+)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
Very
strong
(++)
75 Please refer to chapter 7, General Terms, for a definition hereof.
90

4. RESULTS
As seen in Figure 25 (see next page), Group I (Ecology) and II (Implementation) resulted in
a higher variation in results for their respective criteria than Group IV (Supplementary). This
group produced negligible differences with only criterion J (scoping assessment) receiving a
weak and average classification for the KBA approach and the FSA, respectively. The
remaining criteria in Group IV were all classified as very strong, hence producing few marked
distinctions between the approaches. Group I and Group II, on the other hand, showed
noticeable differences which enabled a clear division of the approaches.
An overall classification for each group assessed during the strength-weakness analysis was
not obtained, as this would have implied that all key questions are weighted equally in the
final result.
Figure 25 provides an overview of the results obtained for the strength-weakness profiles,
clearly showing differences and similarities between the assessed approaches. These
differences undoubtedly show that the ERBC approach and the REA are the most successful
and comprehensive, in terms of the assessed criteria. They are followed closely by the HCV
concept, then the KBA approach and the FSA.
91

4. RESULTS
Figure 25: Overview of results: strength-weakness profiles
IV. M.
Management
recommendations
IV. L. Monitoring
recommendations
I. A. Addressed
biodiversity levels
++
+
0
-
--
I. B. Addressed
ecosystem types
II. C. Geographic
scale of
applicability
IV. K.
Consideration of
threats
IV. J. Scoping
assessment
II. F. Suitability for
intended users
II. D. Level of
approach
II. E.
Implementation
style
HCV
KBA
ERBC
FSA
REA
Axis labelling: ++ = very strong; + = strong; 0 = average
- = weak; -- = very weak
Source: Own design
Figure 26: Overview of results: additional criteria
III. G. Methods for site
choice
1
2
III. I. Data
requirements
3
III. H. Human
resources
HCV
KBA
ERBC
FSA
REA
III. H. Required time
Axis labelling: 1 = first place; 2= second place; 3 = third place
Source: Own design
92

4. RESULTS
As seen in Figure 26, the criteria and sub-criteria in Group III (Input) resulted in a clear
ranking of the approaches. Overall, the HCV concept received the highest ranking. This was
followed by the ERBC approach and the REA. The FSA and the KBA approach received the
lowest ranking.
Table 15 provides an overview of the ranked criteria and sub-criteria.
Table 15: Ranking overview for Group III criteria and sub-criteria
Criteria Sub-criteria HCV KBA ERBC FSA REA
Criterion G
Methods for site choice
Criterion H
Required resources
Criterion H
Required resources
Criterion I
Data requirements
All sub-criteria
(C16-C19)
Human resources
(C20)
Time requirements
(C21)
All sub-criteria
(C22-C25)
Key: 1= first place; 2=second place; 3= third place;
Source: Own design
2 3 1 3 2
2 2 3 2 3
1 3 2 1 1
1 2 2 3 2
Group III (Input) plays a fundamental role in providing a thorough overview of the
approaches and for the future analysis of the overall efficiency (input vs output).
Furthermore, the analysis of input, especially the criteria: cost, time, personnel and data, is
the beginning of establishing the cost-benefit ratio of a given approach. Establishing this
shall provide a significant contribution to ultimately increase the success of a conservation
activity (Interview Partner J).
93

5. DISCUSSION
5. Discussion
This thesis attempted to provide a deeper understanding of a range of local and regional
conservation approaches compared to the High Conservation Value (HCV) concept. The
Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) approach, the Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC)
approach, the Focal Species Approach (FSA) and the Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA)
were selected due to their global application and the amount of available case studies.
Furthermore, it was envisaged that the sample should collectively cover the full range of
conservation targets with a sample size allowing for extensive conclusions to be drawn.
Together with the HCV concept, the selected approaches may all be used for the
identification of areas important for biodiversity conservation.
Literature research and interviews with experts provided sufficient information on the
approaches. Firstly, the criteria employed for site identification were identified and analysed.
Secondly, a strength-weakness analysis was performed and thirdly, a comparison of the
approaches’ input requirements was made. The latter two assessments were based on a set
of predetermined key questions and criteria which were formulated through argumentative
reasoning 76 . For each approach, a differentiation according to the approach criteria, a
strength-weakness profile and an ordinal ranking for input criteria were established.
The thesis succeeded in accomplishing the task to profoundly compare and analyse different
approaches to identify areas important for biodiversity conservation and judging them based
on an elaborated set of criteria.
However, it has to be clearly stated that a different reasoning and different criteria may have
led to results which vary from the ones presented in this thesis. Additionally, more
substantial data, taking into account further case studies and a broader range of interview
partners, may have resulted in profiles with a different character and a clearer ranking of the
approaches.
In particular, the ranking of the approaches for Group III (Input) was not qualitative, and thus,
no great weight should be given to this ranking system. Due to a lack of data, a ranking of
the approaches based on their required costs was not performed.
76 For the exact definitions, please refer to Appendix A1.
94

5. DISCUSSION
To date no information on Group V (Effectiveness) exists, preventing any form of
assessment on the approach efficiency being determined 77 . Future research in this direction
would provide deeper understanding of the approaches, since data on an approach’s
effectiveness is the beginning of establishing a cost:benefit ratio. A more varied pool of
interview partners, especially including the private sector may aid in assessing this. Any
information on effectiveness could be useful for improving fundraising activities and
convincing decision makers to implement the results obtained during the identification phase.
Since the rationale behind the HCV concept is to find management orientated solutions, to
sustainably manage production landscapes, with the focus on maintaining and enhancing
biodiversity and social values of outstanding significance or critical importance (HCV
Resource Network 2005-07), it addresses both biological and social needs. Due to the
inclusion of human needs, the approach’s implementation success is increased, making it
extremely popular with both the private and public sector (Interview Partner A and C). It was
originally developed for forest ecosystems in the context of forest certification (HCV
Resource Network 2005-07). This conception and design is clearly reflected in the approach
criteria it employs for site identification and also in the obtained strength-weakness profile.
The HCV concept is the most extensive in terms of the broad range of biological and social
approach criteria it employs for site identification. Since it makes use of species, ecosystem
and site specific criteria, it is able to establish an accurate picture of any area under
consideration (Pressey 2004, 1677).
For the strength-weakness analysis, the majority of key questions and criteria were classified
as very strong, indicating a solid foundation underpinning the approach’s design and
methodology. However, certain criteria were assigned a lower classification, due to specific
aspects that are embedded in the approach’s philosophy. Firstly, aquatic ecosystems are not
yet addressed by this approach and its focus so far, has predominantly been on forest
ecosystems (Jennings et al. 2003, 1; Lindhe 2005-07, 1). Secondly, any regional
assessment (eg. for conservation planning purposes) will result in small islands of protected
areas surrounded by large areas of development (Colchester 2005-07, 2). Therefore, from a
biodiversity conservation point of view, alternative approaches, for instance the ERBC
approach, would be better suited in this context. Thirdly, the HCV concept attempts to
identify the smallest possible area required to save the last threatened area or species
77 Please refer to chapter 7, General Terms.
95

5. DISCUSSION
(Interview Partner E). Hence, when designing or expanding any protected area network,
other methods, such as the KBA approach, would be more appropriate.
A positive result was obtained for the ranking of the approach’s input criteria. The HCV
concept employs an extensive range of different methods and data sources for site choice,
as well as requiring moderate human resources and a short time-frame to complete an
assessment.
The overall outcome is reflected in the fact that the HCV concept works well as an effective
umbrella that is flexible and versatile to encompass many different types of assessment,
mapping and monitoring methods (Interview Partner K). It is extremely extensive for the
approach criteria it employs. It received the second strongest strength-weakness profile and
the best ranking for its input requirements. This result not only reinforces, but also
substantiates, the concept’s popularity with international organisations and the private
sector. This wide-spread acceptance should, however, be viewed with caution in a public
sector setting.
The philosophy behind the KBA approach is aimed at providing an umbrella across several
other single taxon based approaches, such as Important Bird Areas (IBA), Important Plant
Areas (IPA) etc., to form a common framework (Interview Partner M), thus targeting all
known biodiversity which would benefit from site scale conservation. It is essentially a data
driven process, predominantly building on existing information, to expand the global
protected area network (Langhammer et al. 2007, xiv).
Since this approach is based on multiple taxa, it is not surprising that it relies purely on
species specific criteria and neither on ecosystem nor site specific criteria for the
identification of sites. Even though species specific criteria are the more manageable and
comprehensible components of biodiversity and they hold more appeal with the general
public (Mace et al. 2006, 18), solely relying on these does not allow for a complete picture to
be produced (Pressey 2004, 1677). Therefore, taken on its own, this approach is fairly
limited in terms of the criteria it uses for site identification.
The process of relying purely on data driven, globally set criteria and thresholds ensures a
repeatable application, throughout time and amongst different practitioners (Langhammer et
al. 2007, 15). In terms of the strength-weakness analysis, this fact led to a lower
classification of certain criteria. These strictly data driven, globally set criteria and thresholds
lack resolution at finer scales which has led to commission and omission errors (Knight et al.
2007, 258), as well as causing problems in prioritising KBA (Interview Partner G). Though
stakeholder participation is supposedly one of the strengths of the KBA approach (Interview
Partner M), evidence suggests that inclusion of stakeholders is encouraged purely for the
96

5. DISCUSSION
refinement of boundaries (Langhammer et al. 2007, 48, 50; Knight et al. 2007, 258) and not
for data acquisition or KBA site identification. Therefore, again leading to commission and
omission errors and decreasing the approach’s implementation success (Knight et al. 2007,
258; Interview Partner M).
Although the approach has a wide variety of data sources, acquisition and validation tools at
its disposal, it was established that the majority of identified KBA were based purely on
existing data, museum specimens and remote sensing, without a field work component
(Interview Partner M). Site visits are a vital part of data acquisition and validation (Hill et al.
2005, 95; Stewart et al. 2008, 20), since these augment and replace missing, unreliable and
outdated information, thereby preventing commission and omission errors. Nevertheless,
these shortcomings may be due to the low human resource requirements of the KBA
identification and subsequent delineation which occurs at a national scale. Upon further
investigation on site size for all approaches, the KBA may prove to assess the largest areas.
This, together with the low human resource needs, may also explain the long time-frame
required for an assessment.
In summary, the approach is predominantly implemented in entire countries and is the least
extensive in the criteria it employs for site identification. Furthermore, it received the weakest
strength-weakness profile (together with the FSA) and was ranked last for its input
requirements, reflecting its weaknesses in delineation and prioritisation (Interview Partner D,
E and G). The results obtained during this thesis were rather disappointing in view of the fact
that this approach receives strong support from leading international organisations.
The ERBC approach is the most comprehensive and representative in terms of capturing
different scales and conservation targets (Interview Partner I and J) and in delineating
important ecological processes and entire ecosystems (Interview Partner I). This is mirrored
in the approach criteria it employs and its strength-weakness profile.
It encompasses a wide rage of different criteria, including species, ecosystem and site
specific criteria, hence producing an accurate picture of the area under consideration.
For the strength-weakness analysis, all key questions and criteria, except one, were
classified as very strong. The only minor shortcoming of the approach is that it is not feasible
to implement in heavily fragmented landscapes (Interview Partner N). However, it should be
noted that this is not the objective of an ERBC approach. Rather, it aims to conserve blocks
of natural habitat large enough to be resilient and responsive to large scale, short and long
term change (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 16). Identifying areas for biodiversity conservation in
fragmented landscapes would be better suited to the FSA, or perhaps the HCV concept.
97

5. DISCUSSION
Overall, the ERBC approach is the second most extensive in terms of the approach criteria it
employs. Together with the REA, it was assigned the strongest strength-weakness profile
and regarding its input requirements it was ranked second. This approach is the most
comprehensive for the methods for site choice and also has only moderate time
requirements. But in terms of human resources, it is the most intensive, relying on an
extremely large team of experts for completion. This, however, may be reflected in the size
of the assessment area (400,000-3.6mill hectares), the complexity of addressing multiple
different scales and conservation targets and in view of this, it is relatively fast.
In summary, this approach is extremely well suited for large, predominantly natural regions
where information and human resources are available. These results correspond well to the
overall opinion that the approach is very effective and comprehensive in conserving
biodiversity (Interview Partner I and J).
The FSA received (together with the KBA approach) the weakest strength-weakness profile.
However, this should be viewed in regard to its objective. Since is essentially a taxon based
surrogate scheme that is used to prevent the further loss of any species in production
landscapes, such as forestry, agriculture or grazing areas, the criteria it employs for site
identification are purely species based. This approach relies on a completely different set of
criteria from those identified during this thesis and therefore, does not cover an extensive
array. Due to this, any statement on its accuracy of site identification cannot be established
based on the arguments built during this thesis.
The approach’s objectives can also explain some of the weaker results obtained for the FSA
strength-weakness profile. Preventing the loss of species in production landscapes means
that any level of biodiversity, other than species and a few terrestrial ecosystem types,
clearly fall outside of its objective. Furthermore, the FSA has, so far, not made use of
international experts or local user groups. For local user groups, the approach may be
difficult to apply, since the identification of the focal species and their threats have posed
problems for the scientific community. Until now, the approach has only been implemented in
the developed world, excluding the need for international experts, since sufficient national
experts were available.
For its input criteria the FSA was ranked third. It faired badly for site identification, as several
shortcomings were identified. This approach attempts to cover the needs of all other biota
within a given landscape, by covering the needs of a selected few. It has been shown that
the effects of habitat change and fragmentation have different consequences for different
species (Robinson et al. 1992, 54; Gascon et al. 1999, 223). Therefore, the assumption of
meeting the requirements of all biota cannot be met (e.g. Noss et al. 1997, 118;
98

5. DISCUSSION
Lindenmayer et al. 2002, 338; Lindenmayer and Fischer 2003, 150). Furthermore, the lack of
available species data sources has caused considerable problems in identifying the focal
community and their major threats (Lindenmayer et al. 2002, 340). The third criticism is that
stakeholder knowledge and opinion were not included in the site identification, thereby
weakening the implementation success of the approach. Additionally, it faired badly for the
data sources at its disposal. It not only utilizes the least data sources, but also does not
make use of stakeholder surveys. In contrast, the human resource requirements are
moderate and time requirements low.
Conclusively, the FSA received the weakest strength-weakness profile, was ranked third for
its input requirements and was not assessed for the criteria it employs. Thus, this thesis has
substantiated the shortcomings already known about this approach. Nevertheless, it is an
approach that is fast, efficient and specifically designed for assessing heavily fragmented,
production landscapes.
The REA is extremely comprehensive and representative in terms of characterising the
landscape and species level of biodiversity (Interview Partner I; Sayre et al. 2000, 33, 81).
This comprehensiveness is represented in the overall results obtained during this thesis.
Even though it only employs a moderate range of approach criteria for site identification,
resulting in a fairly accurate depiction of the area under consideration, the remaining analysis
produced excellent results.
Together with the ERBC approach, the REA was assigned the strongest strength-weakness
profile. The individual criteria were all classified as very strong, except for one. It is unable to
directly or indirectly conserve genetic diversity. However, its objective is to efficiently
characterise two levels of biodiversity of large areas for which relatively little is known (Sayre
et al. 2000, 33, 81). Empirical data, required for assessing genetic diversity, is mostly limited
to a small set of species, most commonly related to agriculture (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment 2005b, 95). Therefore, in light of the REA’s objective, an analysis in terms of
genetic diversity would not be feasible.
The REA makes use of a broad range of methods and data sources for site identification. It
has low time requirements, but extremely intensive human resource requirements. The
comprehensiveness of the assessment in unknown areas and its time requirements, reflect
the amount of human resources needed.
The general view of an REA is supported by the strong results obtained during this thesis. All
in all, this approach employs a moderate amount of approach criteria. Results showed the
strongest strength-weakness profile and it was ranked second for its input requirements.
99

5. DISCUSSION
In summary, the popularity and overall opinion of the HCV concept, the ERBC approach and
REA were substantiated, as well as the controversy behind the FSA. Whereas, the results
obtained for the KBA approach contradicted its popularity with leading international
organisations. This thesis has shown that all of the approaches have differing advantages
and disadvantages (Interview Partner H) and therefore could and should be used to
supplement each other, to develop practical solutions for biodiversity conservation (Interview
Partner C).
100

6. CONCLUSION
6. Conclusion
This thesis has attempted to assess a range of regional and local conservation approaches
used to identify areas important for biodiversity conservation, compared to the HCV concept.
The sample of approaches selected for this assessment, namely the High Conservation
Value (HCV) concept, the Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) approach, the Ecoregion-Based
Conservation (ERBC) approach, the Focal Species Approach (FSA) and the Rapid
Ecological Assessment (REA), facilitated informed conclusions to be drawn by listing
strengths and weaknesses, establishing similarities and differences and identifying their
input requirements. Therefore, a classification and ranking of the approaches was enabled.
Data was obtained through literature research and interviews with experts. This, firstly,
enabled the selected approaches to be described and analysed on the basis of the scale
they address, their objectives 78 and the criteria they employ for site identification. Secondly, a
strength-weakness analysis and a comparison of the approaches’ input requirements, based
on a set of predetermined key questions and criteria, were performed. For this, each key
question was defined through argumentative reasoning 79 . Thus, by classifying the
approaches according to various degrees of weak and strong, a strength-weakness profile
for each approach was established. Additionally, the reasoning allowed for an ordinal ranking
system to be set up for the additional input criteria. This enabled a ranking of the approaches
according to their input needs. The results obtained provide conservation planning
practitioners with an overview of the approach to ultimately be implemented according to
different goals and objectives.
The HCV concept is the most extensive in terms of the criteria it employs for site
identification. It uses an extremely broad array of species and ecosystem specific criteria, as
well as addressing the socio-economic and cultural aspects within the assessment area. The
ERBC approach also utilizes a wide range of species and ecosystem specific criteria.
However, due to the complexity of this approach, it is recommended to perform a socioeconomic
analysis separately. The REA employs a limited range of species and ecosystem
specific criteria, whereas the KBA approach only utilizes species specific criteria for site
identification. Both these approaches also recommend a separate socio-economic and
78 This was extensively covered in chapter 3.4.
79 For the exact definitions, please refer to Appendix A1.
101

6. CONCLUSION
cultural analysis subsequent to their assessments. Lastly, the FSA approach relies solely on
species specific criteria.
In terms of the different approaches’ capabilities to link different scales, the ERBC approach
is the most comprehensive, successfully merging the ecoregional, landscape and site scale.
The HCV concept and the REA easily link the landscape and site scale, whereas the KBA
approach and the FSA work only at the site and landscape scale, respectively.
Both the HCV concept and the FSA were developed for implementation in production
landscapes, while the REA and the KBA approach are implemented in non-production
landscapes. However, the latter is used to ultimately expand and support protected areas,
whereas the REA initially only characterises the landscape for a multitude of different uses.
The ERBC approach, due to the large area it assesses, is implemented in both natural and
production landscapes trying to find a balance between the two, in order to conserve the full
range of biodiversity throughout time.
The results of the strength-weakness analysis and ranking were principally determined by
the individual approach’s objective and the rationale behind its conception.
The HCV concept is best suited to identify sustainable management practices in forest
operations at the site or landscape scale, whereas it is less suited for conservation planning
at a regional scale. So far, it has little assessment exposure to terrestrial ecosystems other
than forests and none to aquatic ecosystems. As it results in management recommendations
and attempts to identify the smallest possible set aside area, it works well and is popular at
the private sector level, however, it is less effective at the public sector level. Its style of
implementation, being a combination of top-down and bottom-up, is extremely successful.
The approach is flexible and versatile in the use of different methods and data sources for
site identification, with moderate human resource requirements and can be completed within
a short time-frame.
As it stands momentarily, the KBA approach has some shortcomings, which may result in
commission and omission errors, as well as cause problems in prioritisation. On the other
hand, it is extremely flexible in the use of methods and data sources for site identification.
Therefore, it can be applied in both data-rich and data-poor countries. This, however, has
also led to weaknesses in the approach methodology. In contrast, it is the only approach
performed at a national level, embedded within national institutions and simultaneously
providing the private sector level with information for responsible development operations.
The KBA approach requires moderate human resources, but it is normally performed within
a lengthy time-frame.
102

6. CONCLUSION
The comprehensiveness and representativeness of the ERBC approach is not only
determined by the use of multiple scales and identification criteria, but is also reflected in the
results of the strength-weakness analysis. It is an extremely powerful approach
encompassing, both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, the private and public sector level
with a bottom-up and top-down concept. Furthermore, this approach provides the most
detailed threat assessment tools specifically identifying highly threatened, but conservable,
priority regions. It is the only one attempting to safeguard the full range of biodiversity
throughout time. However, it is difficult to perform the ERBC assessment in heavily
developed or fragmented regions. It is flexible and versatile in the use of methods and data
sources for site identification, but requires intensive human resources and is normally
completed within a moderate time-frame.
In contrast, the FSA was designed for heavily fragmented production landscapes, but does
not address the persistence of biodiversity over time. Furthermore, it can only be performed
in terrestrial ecosystems. The FSA can be applied at both the private and public sector level
and makes use of a bottom-up and top-down style. It is, however, weak and less flexible in
the use of methods and data sources for site identification, this having caused several
problems. However, it requires moderate human resources and can be completed in a short
time-frame.
The REA is also a comprehensive approach, albeit less due to the scales and identification
criteria it addresses, but rather to the results of the strength-weakness analysis. It is the only
approach best suited for areas of which very little is known. Here, it successfully
characterises the landscape and site scale of biodiversity, being implemented for a multitude
of different purposes. The REA can be implemented by both the private and public sector
and effectively combines the style of top-down and bottom-up. This flexibility originates in its
scientifically sound use of methods and data sources for site identification which, however,
requires intensive human resources, but is completed within a relatively short time-frame.
In conclusion, the ERBC approach is probably the most suited for conserving the full range
of biodiversity in less developed regions, but only when sufficient human resources, data and
time are available. The REA is extremely appropriate for conserving biodiversity in less
developed regions, also requiring sufficient human resources, but lower data and time
requirements. The KBA approach is well suited for national level applications to expand and
strengthen the protected area system, when human resources are not as abundant, yet time
is. This application can rely purely on existing data sources without validation. The HCV
concept is appropriate and flexible in the design of management options and
103

6. CONCLUSION
recommendations for sustainable forest operations, especially when time is of the essence.
Similar to this, the FSA is also used in production landscapes, albeit, in heavily fragmented
areas with moderate human resource requirements and where time is of the essence.
The results obtained during this work did not permit any assessment to be made on the
efficiency of the approaches. This was due to a lack of data on effectiveness and insufficient
information on the cost and size of the approaches’ assessment areas. Further research in
this direction would be desirable to gain a deeper understanding of the approaches. With
additional work, the determined strengths and weaknesses could either be validated or
invalidated and this is, thus, strongly recommended. Building and expanding on this would
be the analysis of approach effectiveness to determine a conclusive outcome on overall
efficiency.
From the interviews it became apparent that none of the approaches conserve biodiversity.
They only indirectly play a role in safeguarding nature’s diversity. Instead they are effective
tools for awareness raising, prioritisation or fundraising in the field of biodiversity
conservation. The advantages and disadvantages identified during this thesis could and
should be considered when implementing or combining approaches, in order to increase the
overall success of biodiversity conservation. In addition, new challenges such as adaptation
to climate change and conservation of ecosystem services in line with sustainable
development need to be considered when allocating resources and prioritising conservation
projects.
104

7. GENERAL TERMS
7. General Terms
Biodiversity: refers to the variability among living organisms from all sources including
terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they
are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems (CBD
1995).
Biodiversity level: refers to the different levels of biodiversity. These can be defined as
diversity within and between species and ecosystem diversity. Diversity within species is
synonymous with genetic diversity and diversity between species with species diversity.
The term ecosystem diversity is limited to the number of different ecosystems, as time
restraints do not permit a more detailed analysis of various ecosystem functions.
Bottom-up: proceeding from the bottom or beginning of a hierarchy or process upwards
(Oxford Dictionary 2006, 163). Thus, it refers to decisions or conservation projects being
enforced locally and then escalating to either a national or international level.
Complementarity: provides a way of selecting reserves or management units, that
combined represent the greatest possible biodiversity within the least possible area
(Dinerstein et al. 2000, 177). The concept of complementarity is a prioritisation exercise that
determines how much each site contributes to conservation by complimenting existing sites.
The priority level of each site is based, not only on its biological composition, but on that of
other sites as well. Thus, conservation investment can be maximised (Langhammer et al.
2007, 7)
Connectivity: refers to the degree by which an individual set-aside area is connected to
another within a network, or to buffer zones, corridors or stepping stones for migratory
species (Hockings et al. 2006, 19).
Data acquisition: refers to the way data has been collected, which methods of data
collection have been used to gather information needed for an identification process.
Data validation: refers to the way acquired and existing data is substantiated.
105

7. GENERAL TERMS
Ecosystem: is a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical
environment (Oxford Dictionary 2006, 454). In this thesis terrestrial refers to dry land,
whereas aquatic refers to water (Oxford Dictionary 2006, 1488, 65).
Ecosystem services: are the benefits humans obtain from ecosystems. These include
provision services, such as food, timber, water and fibre; regulating services, such as
climate, floods, wastes, disease and water quality; supporting services, such as soil
formation, nutrient cycling and photosynthesis and cultural services, such as recreation,
aesthetic enjoyment and spiritual fulfilment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a, 2).
Ecoregion: an area defined in terms of its natural features and environment (Oxford
Dictionary 2006, 454). In this thesis the term ecoregion is defined as a large unit of land or
water (on the scale of up to millions of hectares) containing a geographically distinct
assemblage of natural communities that share a large majority of their species and
ecological dynamics, environmental conditions, such as climate, and interact ecologically to
ensure their long term persistence (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 241) 80 .
Effectiveness: the production of a desired or intended result (Oxford Dictionary 2006, 456).
In this thesis the term effectiveness is defined as the effect an approach has on biodiversity
conservation. This thesis has defined effectiveness as an approach’s desired or intended
outcome. It may be measured through determining whether the value of interest really has
been conserved (Interview Partner O). Ways of determining effectiveness would be to see
whether the target species is persisting, by either looking to see whether the threat has been
abated, or whether it’s habitat is remaining unchanged or increasing in size and naturalness,
for example. Thus, effectiveness can be viewed as output of the approach (Interview Partner
O). For a solid scientific conclusion of effectiveness to be made, it would have to be
measured over time.
Efficiency: is defined as output relative to input. Output has been defined by effectiveness
(see effectiveness). Input are factors such as time, cost and other resources required to
accomplish the objectives (Interview Partner O).
Endemic: any species whose distribution is confined to a given area is said to be endemic to
that area. The range of distribution may vary considerably, spanning an entire continent, or
covering only a few hectares. A small geographic range makes any species vulnerable to
80 However, it should be noted that neither ecoregions, nor landscapes have predetermined minimum
and maximum scale limitations and there is considerable overlap of sizes between them (WWF
Conservation Science Program 2004).
106

7. GENERAL TERMS
extinction (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2009). This thesis has included biome, bioregions and
restricted range species in the definition of endemic.
Expert: a person who is very knowledgeable about, or skilful in, a particular area (Oxford
Dictionary 2006, 501). In this thesis, expert was divided into international and national. An
international expert is defined as a person who has gained expertise on an international
level or within several different countries, whereas a national expert is a person who has
gained expertise only within one country. Skills and knowledge can be obtained from experts
by either including them in an assessment team or by letting them take part in a survey (for
additional information please see surveys).
Financial resources: refers to the cost required for either the identification of areas or the
scoping assessment of the various approaches.
Focal species: serve an umbrella function in terms of encompassing habitats needed by
many other species. They play a vital role in maintaining community structure or processes
and are sensitive to likely changes. The main characteristic of a focal species is that its
status and trend provide insight into the integrity of the ecosystem to which it belongs, thus,
serving as an indicator of ecological sustainability (Millspaugh and Thompson 2008, pg 59).
The term focal species has been used in a broader context to include flagship, indicator and
economically viable species (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 39).
Global: relating to the whole world; worldwide (Oxford Dictionary 2006, 605).
Habitat: is specific type of environment which is often used to describe the requirements of a
certain species or community (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 243).
Human resources: describes the extent of human resources, the skills and level of
education required for identification, ranging from international experts, to general
practitioners, to people with a more general level of education (Interview Partner K).
Indicator species: an organism whose characteristics (presence or absence, population
density, dispersion, reproductive success) have been used as a simple, cost-effective index
to measure numbers, trends or status of other species or the health of an ecosystem. An
indicator species is art of the broader classification of focal species (Millspaugh and
Thompson 2008, 59).
107

7. GENERAL TERMS
Inventories: refers to a complete list of items (Oxford Dictionary 2006, 747). In this thesis it
refers to the process of making a detailed list, report or record of all species and or habitats
within the area under consideration.
Irreplaceability: the irreplaceability of an area was originally defined as the extent to which
geographic or spatial options for conservation will disappear if that particular site is lost
(Pressey et al. 1994, 242). In this thesis it refers to any species being unique to a given area
or site. Thus, species within a given area with lower irreplaceability will be more represented
either regionally or globally (Ferrier et al. 2000, 305). For instance, a site is completely
irreplaceable, if it contains one or more species that occur nowhere else, whereas a site
containing species that are widely distributed is less irreplaceable (or more replaceable), as
many alternatives exist for conserving these species (Langhammer et al. 2007, 7).
Keystone species: a keystone species is a species whose presence is crucial in
maintaining the organisation and diversity of ecological communities. In addition, relative to
the rest of the community, these species are exceptional in importance (Mills et al. 1993,
219).
Landscape: defined as an area that contains a set of species, communities, or ecological
processes that differ from other such units (Moore et al. 2004, 5, 6). The term does not have
an exact scientific definition, but instead is used in flexibly in defining a large land area with
some defining or perceptible characteristics. This may change in different areas due to the
biological, geographical, political, economic and social factors (Stewart and Rayden 2009,
7). For the purpose of the thesis, the landscape scale lies between a site and an ecoregion 81 .
Local: is officially defined as an individual unit; relating or restricted to a particular area
(Oxford Dictionary 2006, 836). For the purpose of this study, the size of local has been
limited to being smaller than provincial, i.e. at a municipal or community level.
Local user groups: a user group is a set of people who have similar interests, goals, or
concerns (Webopedia 2005). In this thesis local user groups have been defined as user
groups residing at the local level which have a direct interest in the use and management of
some aspect of biodiversity. Thus, user groups can be seen as stakeholders (see survey
definition).
81 Please see definitions for site and ecoregion. It should be noted that neither ecoregions, nor
landscapes have predetermined minimum and maximum scale limitations and there is considerable
overlap of sizes between them (WWF Conservation Science Program 2004).
108

7. GENERAL TERMS
Monitoring: defined in this thesis as collecting information on indicators, repeatedly over
time, to discover trends in the status of the set-aside area and the activities and processes of
management (Oxford Dictionary 2006, 922; Hockings et al. 2006, 15).
Management: administration, regulation and maintenance of resources (Oxford Dictionary
2006, 865) where, in this thesis, resources refer to the content of biodiversity and the natural
processes that produce it (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 240).
Persistence: protected areas should promote the long term survival of all elements of
biodiversity they contain by maintaining natural processes, viable populations and by
excluding threats (Margules and Pressey 2000, 243).
Private sector level: the private sector comprises individuals and privately owned
enterprises (Oxford Dictionary 2006, 1142). Thus, the private sector level relates to any
conservation project identified by and within an area owned and/ or used by the private
sector.
Protected area: “an area of land and/ or sea especially dedicated to the protection and
maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and
managed through legal or other effective means,” as defined by the IUCN (1994). This refers
to a legally established land or water area under either public or private ownership that is
regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives (OECD Statistical Portal
1997). This term has been used synonymously with set-aside area, as it refers to either
public or private ownership.
Public sector level: the public sector is controlled by the state (Oxford Dictionary 2006,
1161). In this thesis, the public sector level refers to any conservation project identified by
and within the public sector, ranging from the community or municipal to state.
Rapid Assessment: a quick scientific survey or count that helps measure local biodiversity
to obtain information on a selected area (Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum 2006-2009),
providing a fast, efficient and cost effective method to produce estimates on total biodiversity
(Oliver et al. 1993, 562). Field surveys have been used synonymously with rapid assessment
in this thesis.
Regional: is defined as relating to, or characteristic of, a region (Oxford Dictionary 2006,
1211). For this study, this may range from provincial to continental.
109

7. GENERAL TERMS
Representativeness: the long-term success of in-situ conservation requires that the global
system of protected areas represent, or sample, the full variety of biodiversity, ideally at all
levels of organisation (Margules and Pressey 2000, 243).
Required time: is the amount of time necessary for the identification of biodiversity relevant
areas. This should be determined or estimated during the scoping assessment.
Required resources: is defined here as the cost, data and personnel requirements needed
to complete an assessment. This should be determined or estimated during the scoping
assessment.
Scoping assessment: a scoping assessment is performed in the initial planning stages of a
conservation project with the aim of determining how best to achieve the goals of the project
with minimal expenditure, both financial and time wise, as well as determining the
assessment team requirements (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 50, 57).
Site: is a variably sized, but homogenous unit, that is actually or could potentially, be
managed for conservation (Langhammer et al. 2007, 15) and/ or production. In this thesis
the site-scale is defined as a tract of land up to 200 000 hectares. It should be noted that
certain examples of concessions exits that are large than 1 million hectares (Interview
Partner D). These exceptions would also fall under the site-scale.
Size: of a set aside area will vary according to the conservation targets. However
determining the minimum size required to maintain viable populations of particular species,
to maintain interior species, etc. is of critical importance (Hill et al. 2005, 86).
Species: is a basic unit of classification consisting of a population or series of populations of
closely related and similar organisms (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 257).
Species richness: is a measure of species diversity calculated as the total number of
species in a habitat or community (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 258).
Stakeholder: is defined as any person, group, or organization with a direct or indirect
interest in the use and management of some aspect of biodiversity in a given area, or who
affects, or is affected by, a particular conservation action, ranging from local users, to
government agencies, NGOs, experts and the private sector, including local, regional, and
international levels (USAID 2005) 82 .
82 Please refer to the definition of surveys for additional information.
110

7. GENERAL TERMS
State or naturalness: State refers to the extent a habitat has been modified by humans and
naturalness to the extent a habitat remains unchanged (i.e. in its natural state). Natural
habitats are favoured, since there is a high relation between these and its biodiversity value.
Furthermore, a high proportion of rare species and natural ecological processes are often
associated with natural of near-natural habitats and (Hill et al. 2005, 85).
Surveys: define the collection of spatial and/or temporal data of a species, community or
habitat (Hill et al. 2005, 3). In this thesis surveys have been broadly divided into expert,
stakeholder and field surveys. Expert survey refers to the collection of data, according to
their knowledge or skill within a specific area of interest. Stakeholder survey refers to the
acquiring of data, according to their opinion, knowledge and relative involvement in project.
Field surveys refer to the collection of data through a site visit and have been used
synonymously with rapid assessments. All three categories of surveys are predominantly
used for data acquisition and/ or validation.
Threat: is an indication of impeding or possible danger or harm to either one or all of the
levels of biodiversity (modified from Oxford 2006, 1501). This can either be anthropogenic or
natural in nature. A threat can either be external or internal. An external threat is defined as
a threat occurring outside the area under consideration with an influence on that area,
whereas an internal threat is defined as a threat occurring within the area of interest.
Threat status: refers to a species' risk of becoming globally extinct. This has been classified
into a system ranging from not determined, least concerned to endangered and extinct. The
identified area should contain threatened species which can further be sub-divided into near
threatened, vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered (IUCN 2001, 407).
Threatened: describes any species that is vulnerable towards extinction as defined by the
IUCN red list which further divides this into three categories: endangered, critically
endangered and vulnerable, depending on the degree of extinction threat (Baillie et al. 2004,
2).
Tolerance or sensitivity towards a threat: this refers to a species' ability to rapidly detect,
respond to, or be affected by (sensitivity) a person or thing likely to cause harm or damage
(threat), or a species’ ability, willingness or capacity to endure a threat (tolerance) (modified
from Oxford Dictionary 2006, 1311, 1501, 1515).
111

7. GENERAL TERMS
Top-down: controlled from the highest level; proceeding from the general to the particular
(Oxford Dictionary 2006, 1519). In this thesis it refers to decisions or conservation projects
being enforced from an international level upon a local level, and also from a highest state
level upon a local level (Interview Partner C).
Use of existing data: refers to available data such as scientific publications, museum
specimens, expert knowledge, spatial plans (i.e. land maps for infrastructure and
development, both present and forecasted; hydrological plans, species distribution maps;
etc) and existing remotely sensed data.
Use of remote sensing: remote sensing techniques will include both satellite-based remote
sensing and aerial photography, which can be used for mapping and/ or quantification of
habitats at various resolutions (Hill et al. 2005, 154).
Viability: refers to a species ability to live or exist in a particular area (Oxford Dictionary
2006, 1609).
Vulnerability: exposed to a risk of being attacked or harmed (Oxford Dictionary 2006,
1621). In this thesis, it refers to the likelihood that a site’s biodiversity will be lost in the future
(Pressey and Taffs 2001, 355). It can be viewed as a temporal, rather than a spatial
measure, of irreplaceability, i.e. an area can either be conserved now or not at all. In
contrast, sites with a low vulnerability reserve other options for future protection. It can either
be measured on a site-basis (species will be lost from that particular site) or species-basis
(species will go globally extinct) (Langhammer et al. 2007, 7).
112

REFERENCES
References
Alliance for Zero Extinction (2005): Pinpointing and conserving epicentres of imminent
extinctions; (retrieved 18.08.2009) http://www.zeroextinction.org/
Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum (2006-2009): Invaders Glossary of Terms; (retrieved
17.10.2009) http://www.desertmuseum.org/invaders/invaders_glossary.php?alpha=r
Balmford A., Bennun L., ten Brink B., Cooper D., Côté I. M., Crane P., Dobson A., Dudley N.,
Dutton I., Green R. E., Gregory R. D., Harrison J., Kennedy E. T., Kremen C., Leader-
Williams N., Lovejoy T. E., Mace G., May R., Mayaux P., Morling P., Phillips J.,
Redford K., Ricketts T. H., Rodríguez J. P., Sanjayan M., Schei P. J., van Jaarsfeld A.
S., Walther B. A. (2005): Science and the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2010
target; Science 307: 212-213
Baillie J., Hilton-Taylor C., Stuart S. N. (2004): IUCN red list of threatened species: a global
species assessment; IUCN
Bani L., Baietto M., Bottoni L., Masse R. (2002): The use of focal species in designing a
habitat network for a lowland area of Lombardy, Italy; Conservation Biology; 16(3):826-
831
BirdLife International (2009) Important Bird Areas; (retrieved: 18.08.2009)
http://www.birdlife.org/
Boakes E. H., Mace G. M., McGowan P. J. K., Fuller R. A. (2009): Extreme contagion in
global habitat clearance; Proc. R. Soc. B
Bonn A., Rodrigues A. S. L., Gaston K. J. (2002): Threatened and endemic species: are they
good indicators of patterns of biodiversity on a national scale? Ecology Letters, 5:733-
741
Boyd C., Brooks T. M., Butchart S. H. M., Edgar G. J., da Fonseca G. A. B., Hawkins F.,
Hoffmann M., Sechrest W., Stuart S. N., van Dijk P. P. (2008): Spatial scale and the
conservation of threatened species; Conservation Letters; 1(1):37-43
Brooker L. (2002): The application of focal species knowledge to landscape design in
agricultural lands using the ecological neighbourhood as a template; Landscape and
Urban Planning; 60:185-210
Brooks T. M., Mittermeier R. A., da Fonseca G. A. B., Gerlach J., Hoffmann M., Lamoreux J.
F., Mittermeier C. G., Pilgrim J. D., Rodrigues A. S. L. (2006): Global biodiversity
conservation priorities; Science 313:58-61
Brooks T. M., da Fonseca G. A. B., Rodrigues A. S. L. (2004): Protected areas and species;
Conservation Biology; 18(3):616-618
113

REFERENCES
Bryant D., Nielsen D., Tangley L. (1997): Last frontier forests; World Resources Institute;
Washington, DC
Butchart S. H. M., Stattersfield A. J., Bennun L. A., Shutes S. M., Akçakaya H. R., Baillie J.
E. M., Stuart S. N., Hilton-Taylor C., Mace G. M. (2004): Measuring Global Trends in
the Status of Biodiversity: Red List Indices for Birds; PloS Biology; 2(12):1-11
Conservation International (2008): Key Biodiversity Areas and governments; national
conservation supporting a global strategy to meet international targets; (retrieved
15.11.2009)
http://www.conservation.org/Event%20Documents/KBAs%20and%20governments.pdf
Colchester M. (2005-07): Safeguards and ecosystem conversions; (retrieved 07.06.2009)
http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/comment-consultation
Convention on Biological Diversity (2005): Guidelines for the rapid ecological assessment of
biodiversity in inland water, coastal and marine areas. Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada, CBD Technical Series no. 22 and the
Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar Technical Report
no.1
Convention on Biological Diversity (1995): Multilateral, No 30619; Article 2; Rio de Janeiro;
(retrieved 17.10.2009) http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-un-en.pdf
Dinerstein E., Powell G., Olson D., Wikramanayake E. D., Abell R., Loucks C., Underwood
E., Allnutt T., Wettengel W., Ricketts T., Strand H., O'Connor S., Burgess N. (2000): A
workbook for conducting biological assessments and developing biodiversity visions for
ecoregion-based conservation; Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund;
Washington, D. C.
Dinerstein E., Olson D., Atchley J., Loucks C., Contreras-Balderas S., Abell R., Iñigo E.,
Enkerlin E., Williams C., Castilleja G. (2001): Ecoregion-based conservation in the
Chihuahuan Desert: A biological assessment; The Nature Conservancy, PRONATURA
Noreste, and the Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM)
Dudley N. (Editor) (2008): Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories;
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN
Eken G., Bennun L., Brooks T. M., Darwall W., Fishpool L. D. C., Foster M., Knox D.,
Langhammer P., Matiku P., Radford E., Salaman P., Sechrest W., Smith M. L., Spector
S., Tordoff A. (2004): Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets; Bioscience
54(12):1110-1118
Eken G., Bozdoğan M., Karataş A., Lise Y. (2004): Key biodiversity areas: Identifying the
world's priority sites for conservation – lessons learned from Turkey; Doğa Derneği,
Ankara, Turkey
Encyclopeadia Britannica (2009): Encyclopedia Britannica Online: (retrieved 15.11.2009)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/186799/endemism
114

REFERENCES
Ferrier S., Pressey R. L., Barrett T. W. (2000): A new predictor of the irreplaceability of areas
for achieving a conservation goal, its application to real-world planning; Biological
Conservation; 93(3):303-325
da Fonseca G. A. B., Balmford A., Bibby C., Boitani L., Corsi F., Brooks T. M., Gascon C.,
Olivieri S., Mittermeier R. A., Burgess N., Dinerstein E., Olson D., Hannah L., Lovett J.,
Moyer D., Rahbek C., Stuart S., Williams P. (2000): ... following Africa's lead in setting
priorities; Nature; 405(6785):393-394
Freudenberger D., Harvey J., Drew A. (2004): Predicting the biodiversity benefits of the
Saltshaker Project, Boorowa, NSW, Ecological Management and Restoration; 5(1):5-
14
García-Moreno J., Clay R. P., Ríos-Muñoz C. A. (2007): The importance of birds for
conservation in the Neotropical region; Journal of Orthithology; 148(Suppl 2):321-326
Gascon C., Lovejoy T. E., Bieeregaard R. O., Malcolm J. R., Stouffer P. C., Vasconcelos H.
L., Laurance W. F., Zimmerman B., Tocher M., Borges S. (1999): Matrix habitat and
species richness in tropical forest remnants; Biological Conservation 91(2-3):223–229
Gebremedhin B., Ficetola G. F., Naderi S., Rezaei H.-R., Maudet C., Rioux D., Luikart G.,
Flagstad Ǿ., Thuiller W., Taberlet P (2009): Frontiers in identifying conservation units:
from neutral markers to adaptive genetic variation; Animal Conservation; 12:107-109
Gerlach J. (2008): Setting conservation priorities - A Key Biodiversity Areas analysis for the
Seychelles Islands; The Open Conservation Biology Journal 2:44-53
Gillison A. N., Liswanti N., Arief Rachman I. (1996): Rapid ecological assessment; Kerinci
Seblat National Park Buffer Zone; Preliminary report on plant ecology and overview of
biodiversity assessment; Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR); Working
Paper No. 14
Grabherr G. (2000): Rapid biodiversity assessment for the Alps ecoregion; WWF Alpine
Programme
Groves G., Valutis L., Vosick D., Neely B., Wheaton K., Touval J., Runnels B. (2000):
Designing a Geography of Hope: A practitioner’s handbook for ecoregional
conservation planning; The Nature Conservancy
Hess G. R., Koch F. H., Rubino M. J., Eschelbach K. A., Drew A. C., Favreau J. M. (2006):
Comparing the potential effectiveness of conservation planning approaches in central
North Carolina, USA; Biological Conservation; 128:358-368
Hess G. R., King T. J. (2002): Planning open spaces for wildlife; I. selecting focal species
using a Delphi survey approach; Landscape and Urban Planning; vol. 58(1):25-40
HCV Resource Network (2005-07): High Conservation Value Resource Network; (retrieved
06. 2009 – 01.2010) http://www.hcvnetwork.org/
115

REFERENCES
Hill D. A., Fasham M., Tucker G., Shewry M., Shaw P. (2005): Handbook of biodiversity
methods: survey, evaluation and monitoring; Cambridge University Press
Hockings M., Stolton S., Leverington F. (2006): Evaluating effectiveness: A framework for
assessing management effectiveness of protected areas; 2 nd ed. Issue 14 of Best
Practice protected area guideline series; IUCN
Huggett, A. (2007): A review of the focal species approach in Australia; Land & Water
Canberra; Australia
IUCN (2009): The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species; Version 2009.2; (retrieved
10.01.2010) http://www.iucnredlist.org
IUCN (2001): IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1; IUCN Species Survival
Commission; IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK. ii + 30pp
IUCN - Protected Areas and World heritage Programme (1994): Guidelines for protected
area management categories; (retrieved 15.08.2009) http://www.unepwcmc.org/protected_areas/categories/eng/c2.htm
Jennings S., Nussbaum R., Judd N., Evans T. (2003): The High Conservation Value forest
toolkit; Part 1; ProForest, Cambridge, UK
Khanina L. (1998): Determining keystone species; Conservation Ecology; 2(2):1
Knight A. T., Smith R. J., Cowling R. M., Desmet P. G., Faith D. P., Ferrier S., Gelderblom C.
M., Grantham H., Lombard A. T., Maze K., Nel J. L., Parrish J. D., Pence G. Q. K.,
Possingham H. P., Reyers B., Rouget M., Roux D., Wilson K. A. (2007): Improving Key
Biodiversity Areas approach for effective conservation planning; BioScience;
57(3):256-261
Lambeck R. J. (1997): Focal species: A multi-species umbrella for nature conservation;
Conservation Biology; 11(4):849-856
Langhammer P. F., Bakarr M. I., Bennun L., Brooks T. M., Clay P. C., Darwall W., de Silva
N., Edgar G. J., Eken G., Fishpool L. D. C., da Fonseca G. A. B., Foster M. N., Knox D.
H., Matiku P., Radford E. A., Rodrigues A. S. L., Salaman P., Sechrest W., Tordoff A.
W. (2007): Identification and analysis of key biodiversity areas: Targets for
comprehensive protected areas system; IUCN, Gland
Lombard A. T., Cowling R. M., Pressey R. L., Rebelo A. G. (2003): Effectiveness of land
classes as surrogates for species in conservation planning for the Cape Floristic
Region; Biological Conservation 112:45-62
Lindhe, A. (2005-07): Extension from forests to other ecosystems and across landscapes;
retrieved (07.06.2009) http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/comment-consultation
Lindenmayer D., Burgman M. A. (2005): Practical conservation biology; CSIRO Publishing
116

REFERENCES
Lindenmayer D., Fischer J. (2003): Sound science or social hook—a response to Brooker’s
application of the focal species approach; Landscape and Urban Planning 62(3):149-
158
Lindenmayer D., Manning A. D., Smith D. B., Possingham H. P., Fischer J., Oliver I., Carthy
M. A. M. (2002): A Focal Species Approach and landscape restoration critique;
Conservation Biology; 16(2): 338-345
Mace G. M., Balmford A., Boitani L., Cowlishaw G., Dobson A. P., Faith D. P., Gaston K. J.,
Humphries C. J., Vane-Wright R. I., Williams P. H., Lawton J. H., Margules C. R., May
R. M., Nicholls A. O., Possingham H. P., Rahbek C., van Jaarsveld A. S. (2000): It's
time to work together and stop duplicating conservation efforts ...; Nature; 405(6785):
393
Mace G. M., Possingham H. P., Leader-Williams N. (2006): Prioritizing choices in
conservation; In: D MacDonald and K. Service (Editors); Key Topics in Conservation
Biology, Blackwell Publishing; 17-34
Margules C. R., Pressey R. L. (2000): Systematic conservation planning; Nature; 405:243-
253
Marshall R. M., Turner D., Gondor A., Gori D., Enquist C., Luna G., Paredes Aguilar R.,
Anderson S., Schwartz S., Watts C., Lopez E., Comer P. (2004): An ecological
analysis of conservation priorities in the Apache Highlands; prepared by The Nature
Conservancy of Arizona, Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del
Estado de Sonora; agency and institutional partners
Marshall, R. M., Anderson S., Batcher M., Comer P., Cornelius S., Cox R., Gondor A., Gori
D., Humke J., Paredes Aguilar R., Parra I. E., Schwartz S. (2000): An ecological
analysis of conservation priorities in the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion; prepared by The
Nature Conservancy Arizona Chapter, Sonoran Institute, and Instituto del Medio
Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de Sonora with support from
Department of Defense Legacy Program, agency and institutional partners
Meerman J. C., Holland B., Howe A., Jones H. L., Miller B. W. (2003): Rapid ecological
assessment: Mayflower Bocawina National Park Volume I; prepared for: Friends of
Mayflower under a grant provided by PACT & UNDP/GEF
Mieg H. A., Näf M. (2005): Experteninterviews in den Umwelt- und Planungswissenschaften;
eine Einführung und Anleitung – Skript;
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a): Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity
synthesis; World Resources Institute, Washington DC
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b): Ecosystems and human well-being: current
state and trends; report chapter 4; (retrieved 12.12.2009)
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Condition.aspx
117

REFERENCES
Mills L. S., Soule M. E., Doak D. F. (1993): The keystone-species concept in ecology and
conservation; Bioscience; 43(4):219-225
Millspaugh J. J., Thompson F. R. (ed.) (2008): Models for planning wildlife conservation in
large landscapes; Academic Press; Ch.3:51
Mittermeier R. A., Myers N., Thomsen J. B., Fonseca G. A. B., Olivieri S. (1998): Biodiversity
Hotspots and Major Tropical Wilderness Areas: Approaches to Setting Conservation
Priorities; Conservation Biology; 12(3):516-520
Mittermeier R. A., Mittermeier C. G., Brooks T. M., Pilgrim J. D., Konstant W. R., da Fonseca
G. A. B., Kormos C. (2003): Wilderness and biodiversity conservation; Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America; 100:10309-10313
Moore, J. E., Kitchener, D. J., Salim, A., Pollard, E. H. B., Stanley, S. A. (2004): Ecoregional
Assessment of Biological Diversity conservation in East Kalimantan, Indonesia;
Volume I - Report; The Nature Conservancy Asia/Pacific Region: Indonesia Program
East Kalimantan Portfolio Office
Myers N., Mittermeier R. A., Mittermeier C. G., da Fonseca G. A. B., and Kent J. (2000):
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities; Nature 403:853-858
Noss R. F., O’Connell M. A., Murphy D. D. (1997): The science of conservation planning:
habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act; Island Press, Washington
D.C.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Statistical Portal (1997):
Glossary of statistical terms; (retrieved 30.10.2009)
http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/search.asp
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1993): OECD core set of
indicators for environmental performance reviews, Environmental Monographs No.83,
Paris; (retrieved 20.02.2010)
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Refer/Envindi.htm#psr
Oliver I., Beattie A. J. (1993): A possible methods for rapid assessment of biodiversity;
Conservation Biology; 7(3):562-568
Olson D. M., Dinerstein E. (1998): The Global 200: a representation approach to conserving
the Earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation Biology; 12(3):502-515
Oxford Dictionary (2006): Concise Oxford English Dictionary; 11 th
University Press
ed. Revised; Oxford
PlantLife International (2009): Important plant areas; (retrieved: 18.08.2009)
http://www.plantlife.org.uk/
Pollard E. H. B. (2005): Preliminary High Conservation Value Forest assessment for Ha
Nung state forest enterprise; WWF Greater Mekong
118

REFERENCES
Pressey R. L. (2004): Conservation planning and biodiversity: assembling the best data for
the job; Conservation Biology; 18(6):1677-1681
Pressey R. L., Taffs K. H. (2001): Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes:
priority areas in western New South Wales defined by irreplaceability and vulnerability
to vegetation loss; Biological Conservation; 100:355-376
Pressey R. L., Ferrier S., Hager T. C., Woods C. A., Tully S. L., Weinman K. M. (1996): How
well protected are the forests of north-eastern New South Wales? - Analyses of forest
environments in relation to formal protection measures, land tenure, and vulnerability
to clearing; Forest Ecology and Management; 85(1-3):311-331
Pressey R. L. (1994): Ad Hoc Reservations: Forward or Backward Steps in Developing
Representative Reserve Systems? Conservation Biology; 8(3):662-668
Pressey R. L., Johnson I. R., Wilson P. D. (1994): Shades of irreplaceability: towards a
measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal; Biodiversity and
Conservation; 3(3): 242-262
Pressey R. L., Humphries C. J., Margules C. R., Vane-Wright R. I., Williams P. H. (1993):
Beyond opportunities: Key principles in systematic reserve selection; Trends in
Ecology & Evolution; 8(4):124-128
Proforest (2005-07): Part 2: Defining High Conservation Values at national level: a practical
guide; (retrieved 05.06.2009) http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/global-hcv-toolkits;
Rainforest Alliance SmartWood Program (2005): High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF)
Assessment Report for: Serapung Unit final report; Rainforest Alliance; New York
Rayden T., Kruglianskas I., Stewart C. (2009): An assessment of potential High
Conservation Values within Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique; Testing the
implementation of HCV criteria for biofuels feedstock developments in Southern Africa;
Redford K., Coppolillo P., Sanderson E. W., da Fonseca G. A. B., Dinerstein E., Groves C.,
Mace G., Maginnis S., Mittermeier R. A., Noss R., Olson D., Robinson J. G., Vedder
A., Wirght M., (2003): Mapping the Conservation Landscape; Conservation Biology;
17(1):116-131
Robinson G. R., Holt R. D., Gaines M. S., Hamburg S. P., Johnson M. L., Fitch H. S.,
Martinko E. A. (1992): Diverse and contrasting effects of habitat fragmentation;
Science; 257(5069):524-526
Rodrigues A. S. L., Akçakaya H. R., Andelman S. J., Bakarr M. I., Boitani L., Brooks T. M.,
Chanson J. S., Fishpool L. D. C., da Fonseca G. A. B., Gaston K. J., Hoffmann M.,
Marquet P. A., Pigrim J. D., Pressey R. L., Schipper J., Sechrest W., Stuart S. N.,
Underhill L. G., Waller R. W., Watts M. E. J., Yan X. (2003): Global gap analysis:
towards priority regions for expanding the global protected area network; Bioscience;
54(12):1092-1100
119

REFERENCES
Sanderson E. W., Jaiteh M., Levy M. A., Redford K. H., Wannebo A. V., Woolmer G. (2002):
The human footprint and the last of the wild; BioScience; 52(10):891-904
Sayre R., Rocca E., Sedaghatk Young B., Keel S., Rocca R. L., Shepard S. (2000): Nature
in Focus: Rapid ecological assessment; The Nature Conservancy; Island Press;
Washington D.C
Smith R. J., Veríssimo D., Leader-Williams N., Cowling R. M., Knight A. T. (2009): Let the
locals lead; Nature 462(7271):280-281
Stattersfield A. J., Crosby M. J., Long A. J., Wege D. C. (1998): Endemic Bird Areas of the
World: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation; Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International
Stewart C., George P., Rayden T., Nussbaum R. (2008): Good Practice Guidelines for High
Conservation Value Assessment - A practical guide for practitioners and auditors;
Proforest; Oxford
Stewart C., Rayden T. (2009): Mapping High Conservation Values at large scales for
effective site-level management; public consultation draft 1, HCV Resource Network
Stewart C. (2009): HCV assessment for biofuel feedstock applications - summary of lessons
learned, final report; Proforest; Oxford
The Free Dictionary by Farlex (2009): Ecosystem; (retrieved 15.11.2009)
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Ecosystem
The Royal Society (2003): Measuring Biodiversity Conservation;
The World Resources Institute (2010): The strategy for biodiversity conservation; (retrieved
13.01.2010) http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8517
Turner W., Spector S., Gardiner N., Fladeland M., Sterling E., Steininger M. (2003): Remote
sensing for biodiversity science and conservation; Trends in Ecology & Evolution;
18(6):306-314
USAID (2005): Biodiversity Conservation: A guide for UASIAD staff and partners; US Agency
for International Development; Washington D. C.
USAID-Centre for Development Information and Evaluation (1996): Performance, monitoring
and evaluation tips: conducting key informant interviews; (retrieved 04.08.2009)
http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/usaid_eval/ascii/pnabs541.txt
Warman L. D., Sinclair A. R. E. (2000): A systematic method for identifying priority
conservation areas using wildlife habitat relationships and observed locations of rare
species; In Proceedings, From science to management and back: a science forum for
southern interior ecosystems of British Columbia; Hollstedt C., Sutherland K., Innes T.
(editors); Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership
Webopedia (05.04.2005): What is?com; (retrieved 17.10.09)
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/U/user_group.html
120

REFERENCES
WWF and IUCN (1994–97): Centres of Plant Diversity: a guide and strategy for their
conservation; Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK; World Wide Fund for Nature
and IUCN; 3 volumes
Younge A., Fowkes S. (2003): The Cape Action Plan for the environment: overview of an
ecoregional planning process; Biological Conservation; 112(1-2):15-28
121

APPENDIX
Appendices
A1
Explanations to Key Questions, Criteria and Sub-Criteria
A. Are all levels of biodiversity addressed? Genetic diversity (C1), species diversity (C2),
ecosystem diversity (C3)
In order for the sub-criterion ecosystem diversity to be addressed fully, the approach should identify
areas containing globally, regionally or locally rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems.
For species richness to be addressed completely, the approach should identify areas containing
several globally, regionally or locally rare, threatened, endangered and/or endemic species. Speciesrich
areas without these previously stipulated species will not be sufficient for the sub-criterion to be
met, as these areas are less of a priority for conservation purposes due to the concept of
irreplaceability (Langhammer et al. 2007, 7, 9).
Genetic diversity provides the full range of resources for species to adapt to human impact and
environmental change. Thus, conservation strategies should aim to include genetic diversity
(Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, 28, 29). However, since it is difficult to consider genetic diversity in
conservation strategies (Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, 30), the sub-criterion can still be met
partially and/ or indirectly with the approach still being classified as very strong. The sub-criterion can
be met indirectly through large intact landscapes 83 , as these maintain viable populations or
metapopulations (groups of spatially separated populations) (HCV Resource Network 2005-07).
Populations are the smallest demographic unit within which the exchange of genetic material is more
or less unrestricted. By providing suitable habitat for populations or megapopulations, genetic
variation is conserved (Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, 31). It can also be met partially, for example,
if the approach specifically incorporates some species genetic data and includes this in the
conservation strategy. It is, however, only met partially, as it is assumed that those few species, for
which genetic data exists, will cover the needs to maintain or enhance the genetic diversity of all other
species within the area (Interview Partner J).
B. Are all ecosystem types addressed? Terrestrial (C4), aquatic (C5)
For all ecosystem types to be addressed, the approach has to be designed to be implemented in
different types of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Due to time limitations, this thesis has not
distinguished between fresh and salt water ecosystems. The sub-criteria can be partially addressed if
the approach has been designed to be implemented in a few different ecosystems.
C. At which geographic scale is the approach applicable? Local (C6), regional (C7), global
(C8) 84
Approaches implemented on a larger scale, in many areas of the world, across multiple landscapes,
allow for applicability and allow one to learn how the approaches function in different areas and
countries (Interview Partner K). For the sub-criteria to be addressed, the approach has to be designed
for application at each scale. Thus, to say an approach has been replicated on a global scale, it must
have been performed in several different areas worldwide. The sub-criteria local and regional are
addressed fully, if an approach has been implemented in several different local and regional areas,
83 Please refer to chapter 4.1.1.2, Ecosystem Specific Criteria, for a detailed explanation.
84 Please refer to chapter 7, General Terms, for precise definitions of local, regional and global.
123

espectively. For a conservation strategy to be effective, the wider landscape context should always
be considered (Interview Partner D and K). Thus, the local sub-criterion has been weighted less
important than the other two sub-criteria. The local scale on its own will not be as effective as a local
level analysis taking the regional context into consideration. Furthermore, it has been assumed that
the regional level should always encompass the local level. Therefore, for the approach to be
classified as very strong either all sub-criteria are met fully or only the sub-criteria regional and global
are met fully with the local being partially addressed. In addition, any weakness of the scales will
result in the sub-criteria being only partially addressed.
D. At which level has the approach been implemented? Private sector level (C9), public sector
level (C10)
The sub-criterion private sector level is classified as being addressed fully if the approach has been
designed to be implemented by and/ or within the private sector. If weaknesses in implementation
exist, then this sub-criterion will only be addressed partially. The sub-criterion, public sector level, is
classified as being captured fully, if the approach has been designed to be implemented by and/ or
within the public sector. Again, any weaknesses will classify the sub-criterion as being partially met.
E. Which style of implementation does the approach apply? 85 Top-down (C11), bottom-up (C12)
Ideally, any approach should incorporate both a top-down and bottom-up approach (Interview Partner
C). The sub-criterion top-down has been captured if a conservation project originated at a national or
international level and then focused on a local level. This can refer to two different aspects. Firstly, it
may mean the enforcement of a project by a government or intergovernmental institution on the local
level. However, it can also refer to international indices, criteria, thresholds or data being incorporated
into implementation. One of these aspects is sufficient for the sub-criterion to be addressed fully.
Nevertheless, any identifies weaknesses for one of these aspects result in the sub-criterion being
partially met. In contrast, the sub-criterion bottom-up has been captured if a conservation project
originates at the local level through the involvement of local stakeholders and through the
establishment of user groups. In addition, indices, criteria, thresholds or data determined at a local
level, with the subsequent adoption at a national or international level, is also sufficient for this subcriterion
to have been met fully. Again, if any weakness exists the sub-criterion will only be partially
addressed.
F. For whom is the approach suitable? International experts (C13), national experts (C14), local
user groups (C15)
Ideally an approach employs a wide range of practitioners, confirming the user friendliness and
practicality of the approach, thus ensuring a broader range of implementation (Interview Partner K).
The sub-criteria should determine which users are able to implement an approach. This thesis has
specified that a balance of international and national experts, as well as local user groups, would be
best to ensure wide application and successful implementation (i.e. top down and bottom up). National
experts are essential for the implementation of any approach, as they ensure a high level of rigour and
indicate that the approach is based on best understanding of conservation science (Interview Partner
K). If only a few highly skilled experts (i.e. international experts) are able to use the approach, this
shows it to be not only archaic, as the trend is moving away from relying purely on international
experts, but also complex and generally aligned with high cost. Thus, the sole use of international
experts results in limited impact and utility and less effectiveness (Interview Partner K). The inclusion
of local user groups in the process encourages ownership and therefore also implementation success
at the local level (Interview Partner M). However, this purely bottom-up approach may lack credibility
at a regional or global scale (Interview Partner O). An approach is classified as strong, if an even
A1
85 For a more accurate result, criterion E should have rather been divided into two criteria, separating
the governance aspect of top-down and bottom-up from the data aspect.
124

APPENDIX
spread of national and international experts work together with local user groups. In contrast, it is
classified as weak if national experts are not included in the identification phase.
G. Which methods were employed for site choice? Site visits (C15), surveys (C16), additional
methods (C17)
In order to determine the appropriate site for conservation action, biodiversity needs to be evaluated
(Hill et al. 2005, 65). The exact methodology implemented will change according to the goal and the
available resources. For instance, if an approach aims to gain political support, stakeholder and expert
surveys would be sufficient. These methodologies require less time and finance than, for example,
detailed inventories as part of site visits. In contrast, for university support, long term inventories would
be required. Furthermore, resources, such as personnel, cost, time and available data, will all dictate
the choice of methodology for site identification (Interview Partner L). For an approach to have
implementation success, stakeholder involvement, for example through surveys, is essential
(Interview Partner M). Expert surveys have been included in this sub-criterion, since it is assumed that
experts with knowledge of a given area will have a direct or indirect interest in the use and
management of some aspect of its biodiversity (see General Terms). Where time is of an essence, a
rapid assessment may be the preferred choice, however, high financial resources may be required
(Interview Partner I). Since the available resources and the objective of the approach will dictate the
choice of methodology for site identification (CBD 2005, 11), this thesis has firstly established a list of
differences between, and strengths and weaknesses of approaches in their choice of methods, but
does not establish precise implementation rigour thereof. Secondly, it has determined that a broad
range of applicable methods, endows flexibility and versatility onto the approach.
H. Which resources are required for identification of important areas for biodiversity
conservation? Financial resources (C18), human resources (C19), required time (C20)
Ideally, the required financial and human resources and the time needed for project implementation
should be kept to a minimum, without compromising the quality of the outcome. However the financial
resources available will dictate the amount of time and the personnel one has at one's disposal.
Additionally, available experts will alter the cost and time required for any project. For example, in the
absence of national experts, international experts will be needed, thus, further increasing personnel
costs. Moreover, other aspects such as the goal and size of the project, available data, use of remote
sensing imagery and so on, will alter all three sub-criteria (Stewart 2009, 11). Therefore, this thesis
aims to identify and list the differences in financial, human and time resources that may be required by
the different approaches, in order to provide an overview of these sub-criteria.
I. Which data is required for the identification of important areas? Use of existing data (C21),
data acquisition (C22), data validation (C23), use of remote sensing (C24)
Data requirements will foremost depend on the objective of the approach (Interview Partner L). In
addition, the methodology of data acquisition and validation will depend on the urgency of the project,
the availability and validity of existing data, the available resources (i.e. time, money and personnel)
and the size of the project (Stewart 2009, 11, 12). Furthermore, the latter two factors (resources and
project size) will also dictate the use and extent of remote sensing technology (Hill et al. 2005, 155,
156, 167). Therefore, this thesis aims to identify all sources that an approach may utilize and will not
evaluate the exact procedure of implementing and obtaining data.
125

J. Is a scoping assessment possible? Required resources (C26), required time (C27)
A scoping assessment aims to identify existing data, data gaps needing to be filled (Stewart et al.
2008, 8, 11), the assessment team required, the cost of the assessment (Dinerstein et al. 2000, 55;
Groves et al. 2000, 2-1) and where, when and with whom field surveys are going to take place
(Stewart et al. 2008, 15, 19). Thus, the sub-criteria have been addressed fully if the approach has
been designed so that the required resources (data, personnel and cost) and the time needed to
complete implementation are identified during the scoping assessment. The required resources subcriterion
has been partially addressed if two of the three aspects (eg. cost and data or personnel and
data) have been addressed.
K. Which threats are considered? What is their severity? Internal (C28), external (C29)
Understanding threats, both internal and external, to a given area is critical in identifying biodiversity
relevant areas to be set-aside (Stewart et al. 2008, 31). These threats should then be ranked
according to their severity. Thus, allowing conservation areas to be prioritised with regard to their
ecological cost (Interview Partner J).
L. Is guidance for appropriate monitoring steps provided? Monitoring recommendations (C30)
The approach is considered strong if monitoring recommendations are made at the end of the
identification stage. These recommendations may include monitoring activities such as social and
biological surveys, as well as direct and indirect observation of indicators which should involve
detailed data collection over the long term. Data should be analysed, reported and acted upon
(Stewart et al. 2008, 37-39). This will determine whether the goals or the objectives of management
have been, or are being, met.
A1
M. Is guidance for appropriate management steps provided? Management recommendations
(C31)
The approach is considered strong if management recommendations are made at the end of the
identification stage. These should include the goals or objectives of the conservation project and ways
of achieving them. The management recommendations may include proposals to maintain, restore or
enhance values, depending on what is required (Stewart et al. 2008, 31).
N. How many different species are conserved? What is their status? Amount (C32), threat
status (C33), irreplaceability (C34), sensitivity or tolerance to a threat (C35)
To answer such questions and to evaluate the achievements of the approach’s objectives, monitoring
information based on reliable science would be highly desirable. However, due to the limited
resources allocated to biodiversity conservation, this key question has not been addressed by any
project using one of the chosen approaches for site identification (Interview Partners D, E and O). The
eventual results of any approach will be entirely dependent on the goal and the region of
implementation (Interview Partner E). Furthermore the effectiveness (see General Terms) of an
approach needs to be taken to the landscape level, in order to establish global results in terms of
biodiversity (Interview Partner K). Thus, considering the number of species is not really an appropriate
measure of effectiveness, one should rather look at the project’s objective and from there determine
whether the values are still present and whether management changes have been implemented
(Interview Partner G and O). Specifically chosen indicators could be used to measure the
effectiveness of an approach. These include threat abatement, increase in suitable habitat and/ or
restoration of natural habitat (Interview Partner O). As this is extremely difficult to assess and has not
been done by any of the approaches (Interview Partner O), this thesis will not be able to discuss this
point any further.
126

APPENDIX
O. How large is the protected area (PA)? Is this area connected to other PAs? Size (C36), state
or naturalness (37), connectivity to other PAs (C38), representativeness (C39)
The design of PAs is dependent on size, shape and boundaries. Information from the assessment of
reserve design can be used to identify ways to improve management effectiveness (Hockings et al.
2006, 14). Thus, by understanding reserve design, biodiversity conservation can be optimised. The
size of a PA will determine the viability or likelihood of long-term survival of many species, especially
those that require large home ranges. Additionally, the shape of any PA is important, as a set-aside
area with a lower boundary to area ratio is less exposed to edge effects. However, the integrity of a
reserve and its insulation from outside influences depends not only on its size and shape, but also on
the nature of the boundaries. PAs should not be seen as isolated entities, but rather be part of the
broader conservation landscape (Hill et al. 2005, 85), as conservation goals will not be achieved
through a single set-aside area or a single population. Rather, populations scattered across
landscapes and connected by movement will be optimal. Maintaining connectivity is one of the most
critical aspects of multiple species conservation (Millspaugh and Thompson 2008, 64). Since this is
extremely difficult to measure and has not been done by any of the assessed approaches (Interview
Partners D, E and O), this measure of effectiveness will not be addressed further in this thesis.
127

A2
A2
Semi-structured Interview Guideline
0 Background information:
1. Detailed information to the interview can be found in the separate thesis outline.
2. Depending on your area of expertise, certain questions will not be relevant and, therefore, will not
have to be answered.
3. The approaches relevant to the interview are as follows:
HCV: High Conservation Value
KBA: Key Biodiversity Areas
ERBC: Ecoregion-based Conservation
FSA: Focal Species Approach
REA: Rapid Ecological Assessment
I
Professional background & relation to topic
• Name:
• Do you have any questions to the purpose of this interview?
• What is your current position?
Since when have you worked for the organisation?
What is your area of expertise?
• Have you ever been involved in the process of identifying areas important for biodiversity
conservation?
• If yes, in which regions have you worked so far?
II
Approaches & their characteristics
• Which approaches used to identify areas relevant to biodiversity conservation do you know?
• Can you describe any strengths or weaknesses for these approaches?
Note: please consider the approaches relevant to this thesis
• Are there other approaches that, in your opinion, may be important for identifying areas of high
biodiversity?
• With regard to the criteria, can you think of any other criteria which may be important for comparing
methods used to identify biodiversity relevant areas?
• How would you measure the efficiency of the approaches?
eg. cost; time required; benefit:cost ratio; any other
• Do you have any recommendations/ ideas on how to improve the efficiency of the approaches?
128

APPENDIX
III
Approaches & their requirements
Note: The following questions predominantly serve to estimate the efficiency of the approaches
HCV; KBA; ERBC; Focal; REA. If you only have knowledge on one or some of the approaches,
please answer the relating questions. Estimated values will be sufficient.
A. Time:
• How much time is required for implementing the approaches?
eg. HCV; KBA; ERBC; Focal; REA or any others
If possible, please state whether these figures are for the entire process or the identification
phase only.
• Should efforts rather concentrate on existing biodiversity conservation initiates?
• Can the required time be reduced without compromising the efficiency? Do you have any ideas
on this?
B. Cost:
• How much does the implementation of the approaches cost?
If possible, please state whether these figures are for the entire process or the identification
phase only.
• How could this amount be reduced without compromising the efficiency? Do you have any ideas
on this?
C. Human Resources:
• Which human resources are required for implementing the approaches?
eg. international experts; national experts; local experts; non-specialist users with or without
training
If possible, please state whether these figures are for the entire process or the identification
phase only.
• How could the required human resources best be decreased? Do you have any ideas on this?
D. Data requirements:
• How is data collection designed (easy/ complex)?
eg. use of existing data; data acquisition; validation; use of remote sensing
• Can the required data easily be used by non-specialist users?
• How (easy/ complex) can the collected data be understood?
E. Purpose of the approach:
• How efficient is the approach for the conservation of biodiversity?
For species:
How many species on average are conserved?
Can these estimations be used for a global comparison?
For protected areas:
What is the ideal reserve size? How would you best protect the naturalness of the identified
area?
129

A2
F. Certification:
• How do market based initiatives fare in biodiversity conservation?
eg. efficiency; in comparison to governance approaches
• Are market based initiates efficient in biodiversity conservation?
• How do they compare to classical protected areas?
IV
Summary, evaluation & outlook
• How meaningful can approaches for identifying valuable biodiversity regions be for biodiversity
conservation at all?
• Should efforts rather concentrate on existing biodiversity conservation initiates?
eg. improving reserve design; improving connectivity; the "SLOSS debate": whether a Single
Large or Several Small reserves are best for conservation?
• Are there any current debates going on in your organisation on this topic?
• What is your personal opinion?
• Are there any further points you would wish to add?
• Could you recommend any further experts whom I could ask for an interview?
eg. companies from the private sector
130

APPENDIX
A3
List of Interview Partners
Table 16: List of all interview partners and their organisations/ companies
Name
Organisation
1. Dr. Brooks, Tom Conservation International
2. Hayward, Jeff The Rainforest Alliance
3. Dr. Hess, George
4. Killeen, Timothey Conservation International
5. Laporte, Jérôme TEREA Consulting
6. Liedecker, Heiko Leading Standards Consulting
7. Marshall, Rob The Nature Conservancy
8. Moore, Jim The Nature Conservancy
9. Nolte, Christoph University of Greifswald
10. Pollard, Edward Wildlife Conservation Society
11. Rayden, Tim Proforest
12. Dr. Stewart, Christopher HCV Resource Network
13. Vicariu, Kim Wildlands Network
14. Wensing, Daan IUCN National Committee, NT
Source: Own design
NC State University; Department of Forestry & Environmental
Resources
131

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER A
A4
Interview Reports
A4-1 Interview Partner A
II
Approaches & their characteristics
• Which approaches used to identify biodiversity relevant areas do you know?
I am a practitioner in natural resource management and not a biologist with expert knowledge on
specific species or taxa who, for instance, has been trained in implementing KBA. I analyse
various approaches with respect to their relevance and how they can be implemented.
The issue is presented to me somewhat differently. On the one hand, we already support large
protected areas. The decision whether they are important from a biodiversity aspect has,
therefore, already been made. On the other hand, the question, which areas should be protected
for biodiversity conservation, arises in two different categories.
The first category is again biodiversity in protected areas. When the 'Programme of Work' by the
CBD was approved in 2004, a gap analysis formed an important element of the program. In other
words, we dealt with the question of whether a representative system of protected areas exist or
not, if not then proposals where developed to close these “gaps”. This analysis mostly follows the
IUCN or TNC guidelines. Many NGOs, including Conservation International, Birdlife International,
IUCN und UNEP with their Bird Conservation Monitoring Set-Up have developed the Integrated
Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT). We are not much involved in the methodologies behind a
GAP analysis, as they are implemented for national protected area systems.
In the past, focus was on biodiversity within protected areas. However, the second category,
previously neglected, is biodiversity conservation outside of protected areas. This predominantly
applies to forestry and agriculture with respect to issues of land-use. Here, a backlog still exists
where areas important for biodiversity conservation still need to be identified in order to
additionally conserve biodiversity. In this category of sustainable forestry and/ or agriculture, as
well as land-use classification systems, one needs to deal with criteria on a management level,
as is the case of the HCV concept.
KBA are identified on a national level. When working on a management level one is far closer to
the object of interest thus, additional classifications may be required.
The ERBC is far more a macro-level approach.
I have never heard of FSA. We have never worked with this approach.
REAs are extremely elaborate and complex. They are called rapid, even though, the criteria are
very difficult to analyse. A tool becomes complex when it follows a multidisciplinary approach,
especially at a management level. For example, people responsible for management plans in the
ministry of forestry have a certain amount of biological know-how. However, due to the pressure
under which these management plans are produced, it is difficult to look into the various criteria
required for an REA.
• Will this problem be the same for the HCV concept?
Yes, but a few of the HCV criteria are relatively easy to address. For instance, areas fundamental
in meeting the needs of local communities are easily identified by speaking to the people. For
this, one need not be a biologist.
These areas which are important in terms of biodiversity are also either under specific protection
or are of special interest. In the case of timber production, these areas are often also areas of
conflict. At the same time, one is still forced to map areas due to their fragility, such as wetlands
(as logging is too difficult/ damaging in these ecosystems), areas with steep slopes (as
technology is unable to log and erosion risks are high) and certain requirements regarding entire
water courses (to protect corridors along river banks). Thus, leading to the exclusion of areas
132

APPENDIX
which can quite possibly reach a size of 20% of a concession. Of course, for all methods
identification requires the input of biologists and specialists. Ideally enough orientation would be
available, so that in a normal management situation the experts employed would be sufficient to
exclude areas from production.
Land-use planning may also require the input of biologists. This is the case in Germany, but not
necessarily a requirement in other countries. The use of biologists in land-use planning or spatial
planning will depend on the authorities of the country in question and the specific regulations.
Additionally, the question arises whether specific specialists are available or not. The approach
here is about practicality.
The important aspect is to be sure of the objectives for which the method is being implemented.
Is the goal to identify areas under legal protection (i.e. national parks, this would involve
extensive areas)? Or is the goal to conserve biodiversity in areas under sustainable use, such as
forestry or agriculture? The HCV concept has arisen from the HCV forest concept (HCVF). The
focus was on sustainable forestry and the general phrasing of 'Value' emerged, as one wanted to
expand this method for use in other areas under alternate land-usage, particularly with regard to
guidelines for agricultural land-use changes. Thus, the HCV concept is important with regards to
sustainable palm oil certification.
We have had the most contact to the HCV concept in this context. The principles that succeed,
such as water protection management, limiting landscape conversions and, most importantly, the
debate between different local interest groups. With this in view, one should ask: Which special
biodiversity aspects should be considered? If areas with special values have not already been
identified, at least at a national level, this is very unlikely to occur on a lower level where the
focus is more on ecosystem services than biodiversity itself.
• But this has already been done on a macro scale.
One must always look to see whether these approaches have indeed been conducted. For
example, one could then discover that 20% of the country's territory had already been set aside
for conservation and legally gazetted. Possibly, a GAP analysis had been performed with the
outcome that specific ecosystem types were under represented. Therefore, further establishment
of protected areas would be required. This however, does not necessarily mean that these
additional processes were actually implemented (i.e. the establishment of further protected
areas). This means that the high percentage of protected area in a given country would have to
be increased further, which given the pressure from an increasing population and demand for
agricultural lands, would be impossible to realise. Thus, the question arises how far one
integrates the GAP analysis recommendations into an agriculture setting, without setting aside
still more strictly protected areas, according to the IUCN designation.
It may be of interest to produce a process diagram of the different, useful implementation options
for the various approaches. A country that has already set aside 20% of its territory, according to
specific conservation categories, need not have identified these according to biodiversity values
but for other reasons.
Certain components of protected area systems are important at the global level, for example,
Biospheres and World Heritage Sites. In contrast, many protected areas were established as
they were the last remaining large intact ecosystems and this was only because they were
subjected to the least settlement pressure or threat. This could result in a relatively large area
being set aside, despite methods for identifying and evaluating biodiversity having had nothing to
do with the identification.
A biologist addresses the question differently. They focus on a specific outcome and the
corresponding methodology. From my point of view, each of these methods is qualified. I would
look to see which method has an acceptable level of input and the best result, possibly which
method includes most experience with it or whether useful results have already been obtained.
One very rarely finds a situation where one can start from scratch. For example, one has a
handful of methods or instruments to choose from. Here one would be able to decide which
133

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER A
method would deliver the best outcome. But rather, one arrives at a situation where something
already exists and someone in the area or close by is already working on it. This person may
already be in the process of mapping the area and working with a particular method, because
they work for a specific organisation. And as I am glad that someone is already doing the work, I
certainly will not start discussing their choice of methodology.
As an example, some organisations which work well from a science point of view are:
Conservation International regarding issues related to protected areas. They work with the KBA
approach. If they have worked with this approach and submitted their results or outcomes, then I
would definitely not tell them that they should rather have performed a REA.
One is able to rank the methods according to scientific criteria with an end result that one of the
methods is best. However, different criteria play an important role in which method should
ultimately be implemented for various biodiversity aspects.
This thesis is of interest from the aspect that the differences between various approaches are
being investigated and what they can achieve and where they can be used. Thus, resulting in a
ranking of the approaches with practitioners then being able to say why they chose a specific
method, as the advantages and disadvantages are openly known. Possibly, one can also
determine what cannot be achieved by these methods. However, it is often not possible to
choose completely free a method.
National GAP analyses (funded through the adoption of the CBD 'Programme of Work') were
performed in many countries by TNC. Thus, the location of existing protected areas was
established and where additional areas, required for representation and minimal connectivity,
should be. Connectivity plays an extremely important role in conservation planning. Alternative
possibilities, other than the strict IUCN protected area categories (I-IV), allow for areas to remain
intact, for instance, the sustainable use of an area. However, in line with a national protected
area system, connectivity is of utmost importance. Particularly in view of adaptation to climate
change, key protected areas exist which, under careful consideration, should be linked both
horizontally and vertically. Again, further areas with a specific function (watershed protection)
should also be set aside. These additional areas, need not necessarily have high biodiversity
values, but have rather been selected due to their high level of intactness, thus enabling the
formation of corridors for the movement of specific species.
• Do the achievements of these methods relate to their efficiency?
Yes, what the method achieves and which results one can obtain within a specific time frame are
related. How great is the effort that one must put in to get a specific outcome?
The outcome of methods can also be ranked. I would look at both, the outcome weighed against
the costs and effort.
134

APPENDIX
A4-2 Interview Partner B
II
Approaches & their characteristics
• How would you measure the efficiency of approaches used to identify biodiversity relevant
areas?
Different organisations use many different approaches. The implementation of these approaches
is extremely interesting. However, in terms of their efficiency, no reliable data exists in the
literature. It is easy to identify areas based on species, but then the approach might be hindered
in the implementation phase. Organisations shy away from spending money for day to day
management. In other words, incentives are only available to spend money on information
management and not on management strategies. The areas of interest for biodiversity are
predominantly already known. It is far more important to manage these areas more efficiently (in
terms of monitoring, law enforcement and so on). Unfortunately this is rarely the case. The
efficient management of protected areas often leads to conflicts (especially due to stakeholders).
Furthermore, identification and mapping is far easier to perform and to market.
• How efficient is the evaluation?
One looks at: how much did the project cost, how many hours of work were put into the project
and what did these cost?
The end results of our evaluation: we focused on the social aspect of the management
effectiveness and partially on the results which were not measured.
Ideally, the results, for example, number of species or the goal of the approach, should be
coupled to the management plan. In contrast, the Natura2000 report gave measurements on
biological aspects, whereas effectiveness of protected area management was not considered.
III Approaches & their requirements
• F. Certification: Are market based initiatives efficient for biodiversity conservation? For
example, in comparison to government based approaches.
Many people act only due to initiatives and/ or laws. Strict nature conservation does not work,
especially if people have to suffer or when there is no or little state support for conservation
initiatives (i.e. international donors).
135

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER C
A4-3 Interview Partner C
II
Approaches & their characteristics
Which approaches do you know?
There are many landscape approaches; KBA; IBAT; HCV; ERBC; AZE; Hotspots and many
more.
Have you worked with any of these?
Yes, the HCV concept, with regard to conservation mapping.
Could you list any strengths or weaknesses of the HCV concept?
The strengths of this concept are: multi-stakeholder; it has support from both conservation and
social NGOs; there is experience with it. It was developed in cooperation with the private sector
and there is strong support for the concept from the public sector.
The weaknesses: It can be a time consuming process and, as with all conservation mapping, it is
very difficult to get all stakeholders involved in order to get their points across, thus, enabling
them to be incorporated correctly into the process. For the time being, there is not much
experience in applying the concept to commodities, such as soy or sugarcane. Most experience
with the concept has been made with forests.
• Which criteria would be important for you, if you were to compare these approaches?
Looking at the list you sent me: Point 1 is obviously very important. We focus on biodiversity
conservation, although in an equitable manner.
I would put an exclamation mark behind the business-management level point. We call this farm
level and I think it is key if we want to involve companies and/ or producers. I'm thinking in terms
of applying this concept specifically to commodity crops, such as soy, sugarcane, etc. Timber is
also important, but my experience is with commodity crops. If one can't implement at the
business-management level, then conservation planning will remain a bit vague and abstract.
How is the approach implemented? There will always be a combination of bottom-up and topdown.
Regarding the HCV concept, one of its strongest aspects is that all stakeholders are
involved. So the decision on which areas can and cannot be used comes from within each
country. This is and always will be the only way to success. There is also a difference whether
the top-down decisions come from within the country or some place else.
Intended users should definitely also include governments and an international level, for
example, CBD which uses conservation planning. It should go all the way from international to
farm level and back.
Point 6: Which methods were employed for site choice? All of the criteria listed are important.
You should also look at trends. For instance, the site we selected is right in an agricultural frontier
zone. And this you can only determine when you look at the trends. For example, is there a lot of
deforestation going on? Are there new plantations being established? Etc. That really determines
the exact location of the site. We do not look to see whether it is a hotspot of biodiversity, or
anything similar. All we want to see is whether there is conflict in the area. An area with conflict is
where you want conservation planning to kick in. One can also implement conservation planning
in an area where nothing is happening, but one gets the most "Bang for your Buck" within a
conflict zone. Additionally, one needs to find a balance between regional development and
conservation planning.
Obviously financial and human resources play a big role. By human resources one means
institutions that can actually carry out the work, but also institutions that have the right contact
with the people in the area. People: meaning local communities, indigenous people, but also
farmers. Institutional framework is a very important aspect with NGOs. We can do all the
mapping we want, but you should have someone willing to use the map. Otherwise it will be just
another map in a draw. Therefore it is very important for the people who want to use the map to
be involved from the beginning.
136

APPENDIX
Scoping assessments are possible. But they will just give you pointers. So, if you really want to
implement the concept, then it will not be sufficient.
Monitoring and management is part of the HCV concept. In the end, any conservation planning
concept is meant to conserve biodiversity. In the case of HCV, it is biodiversity conservation,
social aspects, etc. The map is only the beginning. You have to manage the area and you have
to monitor the area.
• How would you best measure efficiency? Would you say the uptake of the HCV concept by
governments, institutions and companies is one measure of efficiency?
That would be one way. Companies can adopt the concept, but that does not mean anything will
change. It has to be applied. For a concept to be effective, the identified area, values must
indeed be maintained or enhanced. That is the efficiency you want to achieve. Yes, we definitely
lobby with governments, institutions or companies to get the concept accepted. This being a very
important and big step. It is about trying to find one another. But in the field, you need to measure
what the real outcome is.
• So you would go back and do field surveys, inventories, etc?
If you go back in 5 years time and all the values are gone, then you did not achieve anything.
• Do you think 5 years would be a realistic time frame to go back and measure efficiency in
this way?
Again it depends on the context of your mapping. Are you producing the map to feed into a
bigger process or are you mapping at farm-level? At farm level it would be a fairly easy process,
to go back in 5 years and see if the areas, you previously identified, are still there. But if you feed
them into a larger process, then it becomes more difficult. So you should probably look at a more
general scheme. Conservation is not really a clear-cut solution, there is not really one solution.
III
Approaches & their requirement
• A. Time: You mentioned that the HCV may be a time consuming process. Could you give me
an estimate of how long the approach takes to implement?
This depends on the country or the region one works in. For instance, is there a lot of data readily
available? What is the size of the area you are looking at? The project we worked on was 10 mill
hectares large which takes quiet some time. But if you look at a smaller area you can complete
the project faster. All in all, to map those 10 million hectares it took about 3 months. That is not a
lot of time. But the thing with the HCV concept is that you always start at a higher resolution
(getting data and determining which stakeholders should be involved) and then you zoom in. The
first phase will take some time, but as soon as that has been done, it becomes easier or it takes
less time to zoom in on a finer level. First you must start by gathering existing data which,
depending on the region, may be easy. But then you need to validate the data by going into the
field.
It also went quickly as there was a lot of data already available at the beginning of the project. In
addition, the entire area was not mapped in much detail. This would have required far more time.
Field sampling for both environmental and social data was performed, but not for the entire 10
million hectares.
HCV has to deal with both social and environmental issues. The social issues cannot be
determined from existing data sets, satellite images, etc. One has to talk to people which will take
some time.
• B. Cost: What was the cost involved?
The costs per hectare, I think are not too high. But with every mapping exercise one needs
financing to execute it.
• Could you give me a rough estimate of how much the 10 million hectare project you worked
on cost?
137

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER C
It cost around 100,000€.
• C. Human Resources: Would you say the HCV concept is human resource intensive?
Yes. One needs knowledge; People trained in GIS, people that understand the socio-economic
context, etc. So human resources are key to the end result.
• D. Data requirements: Can non-expert users fulfil the data requirements?
Again it depends on the project area. Some regions or countries have a lot of data publicly
available. Some other areas do not. HCV combines all of the existing tools. So one uses IBAT,
KBA, Hotspots, Ecoregions, etc. Most of this data is available. This is the starting point and then
you dig deeper which may be more difficult. But the project team consists of local individuals,
know the area, know which data sets are and are not available. So they also know where to
obtain missing data. The project team is key. If you have the right experts, there is no problem.
• Can data be collected by non-expert users?
Yes, to a certain extent. Excellent initiatives around the globe exist where, for example,
community members are given a GPS and map their own conservation areas or where they can
just key in specific species they see. They can also indicate the use of the area. This is very
valuable information.
• Is this used a lot in implementing the HCV concept?
For The HCV concept, I have not heard of it yet. But I have heard it being used in general for
conservation planning. Not for any of the methods spoken about so far.
• E. Purpose of the approach: How efficient is the concept in conserving biodiversity?
We have only been involved with HCV over the past two years. Our first project is just about to
finish. So we have not been back to measure the effectiveness of the project. But it is definitely
part of the plan. There are several levels of effectiveness. Promoting the HCV concept to
companies and governments
Most people have a vague idea about conservation planning. But if one carries out a project and
shows them what it is about, what it can actually achieve, then one can also change opinions.
Our project achieved just that. It generated support with companies and politicians for HCV.
• F. Certification: Do you think market based initiatives are more effective than governance
based approaches?
No, it is definitely the combination of the two. The distinction is a bit different. There are obviously
protected areas at a federal level, state level, local level, etc. that already exist. If one takes
certification schemes which are voluntary, such as RSPO, RTRS, BSI, etc they have criteria
which need to be met. For example, the farmer cannot use a certain percentage of his land or
must protect certain species, etc and also taking the landscape level into account. That land is
not legally protected, but the way forward would be to have this voluntary protection embedded in
legislation. Or maybe, one could link it to, for example, to economic and ecological zoning, like
what is happening in Brazil. As this will enforce methodology. A voluntary scheme can easily
come up with sets of criteria, but with enforcement in place there will be a big difference, in the
end obtaining more results which is what we are striving for.
IV
Summary, evaluation & outlook
• Are there any current debates going on in your organisation on the HCV concept?
Definitely. Together with other NGOs, institutions, we are talking about how to integrate different
conservation planning approaches. The world is changing fast, nature is being lost. So we need
to come up with practical solutions. Conservation planning must be in a context which allows for
regional development and balances different stakes. Conserving biodiversity is never an isolated
issue. The three P's: people, planet, profit.
138

APPENDIX
A3-4 Interview Partner D
II
Approaches & their characteristics
• Which approaches do you know?
I work extensively with the HCV approach which is a flexible framework that incorporates the use
of a range of other methodologies. So I have had contact with some of the other methodologies,
including KBA, FSA, REA.
• Could you list any strengths or weaknesses of the methods you know?
The HCV framework addresses biodiversity, as well as social aspects which are missing in the
other approaches. This allows conservation planning strategies to include human needs - if these
are not taken into account, conservation efforts will run into severe difficulties.
It is also a flexible framework which can adopt appropriate existing initiatives and does not have a
specific methodology that practitioners must follow. This may also be a weakness, as the strength
of HCV also depends on the strength of the initiative it adopts, on the use of the precautionary
principle, and on the recognition by users of gaps in understanding and knowledge.
KBA approach: HCV1 is very similar or nearly identical to the KBA criteria. Both being about
conservation of biodiversity.
KBA concept has a lot of positive things going for it, including strong support for the initiative by
leading NGOs (eg. IUCN, Birdlife International). It also has a mapping partner who has enabled
local and or national level maps (KBA) for most of the globe to be produced.
KBA maps are not always accurate. They are supposed to be relatively accurate for the local or
provincial level priority areas, but in fact many less well described areas have insufficient data for
good KBA mapping. Some KBA are based too much on well known taxa e.g. birds. This lack of
detail causes difficulties for conservation planning. They sometimes do not reflect the truth on the
ground, but rather just represent points on maps, lacking the detail needed for conservation
planning. Thus, for conservation planning strategies in some areas, notably many tropical areas,
KBA maps are not sufficient. One needs to go to another level of investigation.
REA: This is a set of standardized tools and is usually applied at a finer level. This approach can
be adopted as an HCV assessment, but only addresses certain aspects. It does not address the
full range of potential conservation values.
Other assessment/prioritisation tools address certain aspects of HCV and can be used by HCV,
but they are not necessarily equivalent.
• Which criteria would be important for you, if you were to compare these approaches?
Looking at the list of criteria: Applications have been more concerned with species diversity than
genetic diversity. This is not excluded by the methodology. It is rather that genetic diversity tends
to have a lower profile. We are also now focusing more on ecosystem diversity. A lot of the tools
developed specifically for HCV, address forests, their classifications and forest based values.
HCV has also already been applied to grasslands and even coastal and marine areas. There is no
reason why this flexible approach should not apply to other ecosystems. It is simply that some
things are harder to measure for grasslands or aquatic systems. For instance, addressing the
issue of high biodiversity grasslands is trickier than high biodiversity forests. Due to long standing
interference of grasslands by humans (eg. burning), the management of them may be more
critical. The HCV concept focuses on maintaining biodiversity and social values in a production
landscape. Therefore, it has tended to be used at a site-management level, helping land
managers to properly plan conservation strategies within their sites. That is predominantly where
most of the methodologies have been implemented, at a site-level. There is however another
139

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER D
scale as well: mapping and understanding where values are at landscape level. We have started
to work seriously on the landscape level, because one needs to make management decisions in
the context of the wider landscape in order to help link up site-level decisions to landscape-level
conservation priorities.
Important criteria to compare approaches are:
Who is the approach aimed at? What is the intention of the approach? Should this be for an
academic audience or is it aimed at practical implementation by business and land use planners?
What is the purpose of the approach? Is the aim of the approach to identify gaps in the protected
area reserves to broaden the protected areas network? Or is the intention to address
conservation within production units/ production landscapes?
Does the approach effectively include the range of stakeholders?
Is the approach transparent?
Does it have a defensible scientific basis?
Is it proving genuinely effective in conserving biodiversity?
• How would you measure the efficiency of approaches used to identify biodiversity relevant
areas?
One can get simple indicators: e.g. the number of projects using the approach, but this is an
indicator of ‘volume’ not quality. A better set of indicators would include a range of demonstrable
conservation gains that have been reported from conservation projects using the specific
approach. So one would do a survey of literature, and of conservation practitioners, to determine
which approaches have played a key part in the decision making process. What is actually being
used at what level?
• Would you not take the time required or the cost of implementation into account when
measuring efficiency?
Those do have an influence. It is very difficult to say which is better without knowing ultimate goal
of process. If one took a comparable REA, using REA and HCV on the same site, it would
probably cost more and take longer to do an HCV assessment because one needs to consult with
local stakeholders, thus making it a more comprehensive assessment. There are various aspects
of the HCV approach which are not necessarily part of a REA. But then the outcomes may well be
different, as the social element is ignored. So perhaps resulting in a less effective tool.
III
Approaches & their requirements
• Time: Could you give me an estimate of how long the approach takes to implement?
It depends where one are starting from. If one is starting from a blank slate, one has quite a bit of
work to do. Managers need to know what HCVs exist in their area i.e. it helps enormously to have a
checklist of important ecosystems, species and social values which can be checked within their site,
and guidance on what to do if such HCVs are present. The ideal way to generate such a list is to
determine at a national or regional level what the HCVs are, based on stakeholder participation. One
way of doing this from scratch is to convene an expert workshop trying to establish what the basic
HCVs are, but a stronger approach is to get a number of credible organisations to agree on national
thresholds. The advantage of this is that once one has the framework, then one can operate
anywhere within the country. This is somewhat different to some of the other approaches.
140

APPENDIX
If one needs to still define national thresholds, a large scale process with many stakeholders process
can take up to 2 years, as the stakeholder consultation process is time consuming. For certification
purposes and where no national interpretation exists, a manager can still take decisions for their site
based on appropriate expert judgement and consultation, and will need to be able to defend these
robustly to an auditor. The more complex the system or the higher the stress on the system the wider
the stakeholder consultation must be, thus resulting in more time needed to define thresholds and
guidance on appropriate management.
After thresholds have been defined, the time it takes to implement the HCV concept will depend on
the size of the operation, the complexity of the area/ site / region: eg For small scale or low impact
operations the whole thing should only take a few days. For management units/ FMU few 100 -
10.000 hectares, depending on the location, field surveys may take 5 -10 days (might want to visit
several times a year) and then one still has to do a social assessment. So a full assessment could
take between 6 months - 1 year (including e.g. seasonally based visits)
• B. Cost: Could you give me an estimate of how much it costs to implement the HCV approach?
A site based HCV assessment in developing countries for medium- sized operations could cost
between £7,000 and £10,000 (without defining national thresholds). Costs for small or low impact
operations could be a fraction of this.
In developing countries, if national experts are present, the cost can be decreased.
In developed countries, the cost can be asked for this is less, e.g. if social values are less important
or not present.
The minimum cost for medium to large forestry operations will be around $5,000 or more.
• C. Human resources: Which type experts are required to perform an assessment? Are nonexpert
users able to perform an assessment?
National experts know the data very well and international experts have built up knowledge in their
respective field of expertise. Low-impact operations do not need national experts (e.g. local
institutions may provide appropriate staff/expertise).
If company has credible, qualified staff, the assessment can be performed internally by non-expert
users, if not the company must hire someone, especially for high impact operations.
Yes there are circumstances where it is appropriate for a company to perform an assessment
internally, but a consultation will always need to be performed, in order to ask experts for their
opinion and to verify the data.
• D. Data requirements: Is the required data easy to collect? How do national experts or nonexperts
cope with data requirements?
Every case is different.
Because HCV is not an exclusive methodology (data requirements are also not exclusive), one can
bring in national experts who work well with the data framework. Normally one can build up lots of
data through desk based analysis and in brief field visits. What will be necessary is to then verify the
data. However some things do require gathering large amounts of new data, especially if proposed
operations are of a potentially high impact.
• E. Purpose of the approach: How efficient is the concept in conserving biodiversity?
This still needs to be measured and analysed in peer reviewed comparative studies.
Proxy data exist on the usefulness of certification where a large number of FSC companies were
surveyed and the conservation outcome was looked at. What came out of the certification process?
In some areas one might be able to say: x amount of land is being sustainably managed for
conservation purpose, and management plans of certified operations should list conservation targets
141

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER D
(e.g. species, habitats etc), indicators and monitoring processes. This is what can be determined
otherwise the question cannot be answered.
This does need to be looked at by building up a matrix, but it is very complex question
• F. Certification: Do you think market based initiatives are more effective than governance
based approaches?
Do you mean government based e.g. protected areas?
Market based initiatives need to be governed. The HCV approach comes embedded within a
certification system which is a voluntary set of rules (that companies have agreed to abide by). Those
rules can be as/ more effective than legal frameworks. The certification systems often go beyond
basic legal requirements. From this point market based approaches can be a stronger system than
legal compliance.
There may be conflicts with the law and a voluntary approach. So I think we need a combination of
both. We need the support of a legal framework for voluntary approaches to be effective. If legal
framework is not supportive, then voluntary approaches become a deal great more difficult. One of
the big advantages of certification processes is that they bring together a range of stakeholders to
discuss problems that have not been thought of/ discussed in a way that many other approaches
have not done. This is because they are linked to economic drivers.
There are some limitations to the market-based approaches. They have to be supported by legal
framework to work well. They work much better if land-use planning allows conservation measures
such as voluntary set aside areas or reduced off take in some areas of leased land. In some cases
that does not work well, because government takes away voluntary set asides or taxes companies
based on areas rather than volumes of production, making it very difficult for companies to apply
conservation measures effectively.
IV
Summary, evaluation & outlook
• How meaningful can approaches used for the identification of biodiversity relevant areas be for
biodiversity conservation?
There are two main ways for conserving biodiversity. The first is to protect representative samples of
habitats and their constituents in a network of protected areas. That is a very important part of
conservation and is the historical approach. The second part is conserving biodiversity in nonprotected
areas (i.e. mixed use and production areas). This is an increasingly important part of
modern conservation efforts.
A lot of the protected areas networks were set up quiet a long time ago and are not fully
representative, over-representing areas that are unproductive or sparsely inhabited. Therefore they
do not really protect the national range of biodiversity. Thus, it is very important to conserve
biodiversity in production land.
One can either protect those values by setting up more (i.e. voluntary) protected areas or one finds
ways of managing production land to conserve those values. There is not one way of doing it.
142

APPENDIX
A4-5 Interview Partner E
II
Approaches & their characteristics
Which approaches do you know?
There are many. These can be classified in terms of their objectives:
"Where approaches" - aimed at highlighting areas important for biodiversity.
Eg. - large scale prioritising approaches: Priority Ecoregions, Biodiversity Hotspots
- large scale prioritising approaches: IBA, KBA, AZE
These say nothing about management options. The process of delineation does not consider existing
land use, or how to work with land users to deliver the conservation objective.
"How approaches" - figure out how best to manage areas to promote or maintain biodiversity.
Eg. frameworks such as the HCV framework: HCV framework is the only approach that explicitly
links the where part to the how part. Because the land user is the one carrying out the HCV
assessment, the obligation is on the land user to come up with the 'how' (to maintain or enhance the
conservation value).
Any of the above approaches are useful in identifying the importance of the areas. The key question
is what one does with the information to steer management on the ground to inform land-use
decisions. That is a different kind of question.
• This thesis has been limited to the assessment of site based approaches.
• Could you list any strengths or weaknesses of the approaches you know? Do you know
anything about the KBA approach?
The KBA approach aims to identify sites that contain high concentrations of threatened or endemic
species. It uses, more or less, the same criteria as IBA, both being species based and both relying
on the presence or potential presence of threatened, endangered or migratory species. The
delineation of sites that are going to be called KBA is based on existing species data. In the absence
of these distribution maps, one must fall back on expert opinion, taxonomists or ecologists who say
that a species may be found in a particular region. For example, in Africa where it has been applied
and where there is very little actual data, such as species distribution and abundance maps, the
designation of those sites becomes a bit of a guessing game. It is always expert led, but it still
becomes very difficult to delineate the actual boundaries for a KBA, because any suitable habitat
could be designated equally.
• So that would be one of its major weaknesses?
It is similar for all of these approaches. One tries to use hard scientific data to indicate a place on the
map that is thought to be important. But very often the data does not support the precise delineation
of an area. So one has a choice, whether to try and define an area or whether to talk about a more
vague wider area that is of general importance without trying to delineate the boundary. One of the
main weaknesses of the KBA approach is that it tries to delineate the boundary without the data to
support that.
• And in comparison to the HCV framework? Is this a weakness of the HCV approach?
Yes it is. In the sense that if one only talks about the delineation stage or if one uses the data to
identify an area, then it is exactly the same problem, because it is based on the same criteria. The
advantage of the HCV approach is that one is explicitly trying to get to a land-management solution,
so it is usually being used by the land-owner or user to try and decide where they can and cannot
carry out activities. So it is a different type of process: yes one is limited by the data to begin with. But
one also has to go further through this process to say what is known about the threats to these
species, what is known about population viability in these areas, what is known about the extent of
143

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER E
plans compromising population viability and how plantation activities can be designed around the
needs of specific species. So this boundary delineation context is in the context of active land-use.
• Which criteria would be important for you, if you were to compare these approaches?
If one focuses purely on biodiversity at the species level, it is good to integrate elements of several
different criteria. It is important to recognise the aspect of concentrations which both the IBA and
KBA have and which is repeated in the HCV criteria. Where several threatened species are found in
one place. Other important approaches explicitly bring in questions of population viability, such as
more traditional conservation planning tools talk about how to maintain the population viability of
those species. Both concepts should be dealt with, ideally.
Try to make an explicit link between those criteria (concentrations of threatened specie) and the
more traditional conservation planning approaches (representation of habitats in protected areas and
the irreplaceability of habitats and ecosystems). The HCV approach applied on its own does not deal
with the concept of representativeness. Within the FSC standard there are elements contained in
Principle 6 which requires one to establish representative samples of different ecosystems. So under
the FSC system both of those issues are addressed in different standards. However, if one takes the
HCV criteria out of the FSC standard and apply them on their own, then one looses the need to
establish representative conservation areas. So on its own it is not such a robust framework for
conservation management.
• How often has it been used on its own?
There is some interest in using it as a conservation planning tool. (WWF has tried this in Indonesia
and PNG and IUCN have recently tried it in Brazil.) For example at a government level, HCV areas
will be identified at the national level and then allow plantation development in everything else. There
is some interest in using this, because the criteria are well-known and are generally supported by
industry. (Which means the results could be more acceptable to all parties) because HCV on its own
may give a smaller area than traditional conservation planning approaches. Traditional conservation
planning is asking what kind of landscape is wanted. It is an aspirational process. The process asks,
how the landscape can be designed to maximise biodiversity conservation. The HCV or KBA
approaches ask where the small areas are which contain concentrations of species which are
already threatened. At least these must be saved. For example, if one uses the AZE process as the
basis for a national level conservation plan, one would end up with only small areas being conserved.
The same case would occur if one used HCV or KBA on its own.
• So do think that is a weakness?
It is a weakness if the approach is used as a conservation tool in the traditional sense. It needs to be
widely understood that the HCV criteria work quite well as a land management tool within the context
of private sector land use. But for national scale conservation planning protected area design a more
traditional conservation planning approaches is needed. One needs to ask different types of
questions: what is the best possible landscape design for the maximum amount of biodiversity
conservation? Not, what is the smallest area one can possibly set aside to maintain the last
threatened species?
A tool like the HCV framework works well in the private sector to compliment existing systematic
conservation planning at a national level.
• How would you best measure efficiency?
Uptake: the same measure used for certification; demand for certification. People are interested in
using that approach.
Actual areas that become designated as HCV areas in a certified land management scheme.
Although in forestry, there sometimes is not much difference in how the HCV area is being used and
how it would have been used previously. In some cases logging may be compatible with maintaining
144

APPENDIX
HCV. Thus making it harder to measure how much of the world has been designated as HCV,
because this would not be the same as a protected area.
The most important measure of effectiveness is the degree to which the criteria and the approach is
understood by those who pursue certification. This is the major problem at the moment. For example,
in Indonesia one is obliged by law to set aside a percentage of land for conservation. People have
used the HCV criteria to determine where that percentage should be put. That is not an appropriate
use of the concept. The concept is basically saying: any of this area could be high conservation area
from 0 -100%. One has to assess the area against the criteria to determine which parts of the
concession one can use and which parts not. A true interpretation of the criteria would very often
result in a much larger areas being set aside for conservation. But due to a lack of an understanding
of the concept the eventual set aside area is actually too small.
• For it to be an effective HCV area?
Yes, to be effective in conserving or maintaining the values present.
• This lack of understanding is found in non-expert users, forestry operators?
Yes, but crucially the problem is also for the certifying agencies. If they do not understand that some
of these areas would definitely be designated HCV areas, if they do not understand how to evaluate
the HCV criteria, then the system is not sufficiently strong. One major problem at the moment is the
lack of understanding of the certification agencies which are holding back the effective use of the
HCV concept and delivering good conservation.
• How would you deal with this problem?
It has to be through training. In an ideal world the certification system (FSC or RSPO) would be able
to support better training for the certification bodies and also the accreditation system which they use
to check on the competence of the auditors would be stronger on that issue. They would demand
higher levels of competence and skills form the auditors.
III
Approaches & their requirements
• A. Time: As an estimate, how much time is required for implementation?
It depends on the context one is operating in. For example in the concession in Central Africa, the
HCV identification process will be part of the detailed management planning process which is
required by governments prior to logging. Normally this takes a couple of years (up to 2 years) to
survey the forest in detail and to prepare the management plan.
However, it is also possible to complete an HCV report within a couple of weeks in the field. As long
as the forest data already exists, thus using the inventory data one could write an HCV management
plan fairly quickly (a couple of weeks) by carrying out rapid field work, consulting with experts and
regional maps. It is possible to do an assessment in this way as well.
Many companies also first write the management plan and then decide to go the route of certification.
So they the hire a consultant or expert to do another assessment of the forest for a specific HCV plan
which is then completed in 2-4 weeks on sites and weeks to months compiling data and writing the
report.
Reasonable time frame: 3 months
145

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER E
• B. Cost: How much does the HCV process cost?
It depends on how much field work is necessary. For example in Central Africa where a management
plan is already compiled and there is no need for extensive field work, the cost can be reduced to
US$10 000 - $15 0000 (similar to an EIA).
If a detailed assessment is required then the cost can rise to US$30 000 - $40 000 where more time
in the field is needed with more experts required to be involved in the assessment and more detailed
local consultation is required.
• D. Data requirements: Can non-expert users fulfil the data requirements?
Usually yes, because the people implementing the results will always be non-experts (forest
managers, palm oil managers), so the results will always have to be formulated in a way that nonexperts
can understand them. However, expert input is always going to be necessary, so the
assessment can be led by a non-expert, but they would need to involve an expert ecologist, socioeconomist,
botanist in order to effectively evaluate the biodiversity and social aspects of the area to
come up with appropriate management measures.
• E. Purpose of the approach: How efficient is the concept in conserving biodiversity?
There are no studies that looked at the efficiency of the approach. There are no studies that have
looked at the results of the approach. The eventual result of any assessment will be entirely
dependant on the situation. For example in a Central African forestry concession: most of the area is
still available for logging. Whereas in a palm oil context, the areas set aside could be quite big. In
forestry the actual set aside areas might only be 5-10% of the total forest area. Whereas in a
potential palm oil plantation, HCV is unlikely to be conserved in such a small area set aside.
How long has the HCV approach been implemented?
Since about 2002, so there is not a great deal of experience with implementing the approach and
there are no studies that have looked at the effectiveness, yet.
• Is the HCV network looking in to this at all?
Yes, they are thinking about ways to measure and how to compile data to look at effectiveness. But
one would need to look at different contexts, such as plantation forestry in South Africa, palm oil in
South East Asia and tropical forest logging in Central Africa and Brazil and then compare the way the
approach is used in each case.
• F. Certification: Do you think market based initiatives are more effective than governance
based approaches?
It really depends on the perspective from where one is coming. KBA approach has been used very
often to try and stimulate the formation of a protected area. A lot of traditional conservation planning
is done in that way: to identify priority sites for the creation of new protected areas. That is one type
of question: What is the optimal location and size for a protected area network to maximise
biodiversity conservation?
Whereas the HCV approach is usually applied in the context of productive landscape where the landuse
objective is commercial. So one might get some more conservation areas within the commercial
land, but will not result in the creation of new government protected areas.
• How do market based initiatives compare to governance approaches?
They are quite complimentary. It is not really a question of which is better. The reach and the
influence of a market based approach is potentially bigger, but it is limited by the willingness of the
market to promote that type of approach and the willingness of the private sector to adopt that sort of
approach. It always comes back to how much influence you have or how much leverage you have of
the private sector land owner to deliver your set of objectives. It is potentially a very powerful tool for
this voluntary initiative.
146

APPENDIX
• Is there demand for certification?
Certainly there is, although it has taken many years to establish. In the case of palm oil the growth in
interest for certified projects was much quicker. There the issue was more obvious. It is easier to
market. With forestry it is less clear cut, a reason why it was slower to grow. Certified products are
helping to drive the uptake of something like HCV.
This demand is difficult to quantify. Certified forestry now accounts for about ¼ of the world's
industrial timber trade. That is quite a substantial portion, predominantly driven by Europe and the
United States.
IV
Summary, evaluation & outlook
• How meaningful can approaches used for identification of biodiversity relevant areas be for
biodiversity conservation?
It can be meaningful particularly the market based approaches have done an enormous amount to
raise awareness amongst land users and producers that there are benefits from engaging with
conservation. However, making those approaches really meaningful, it may be necessary to link
them to some kind of payment mechanism, such as carbon or biodiversity credits where there would
also be a direct financial incentive for the companies to go done that road.
Having an approach sitting very firmly in certification schemes, and thus, targeting productive users
of land, has been very effective in doing conservation.
• So you think efforts should rather not concentrate on existing biodiversity initiatives, but
instead of identify new areas?
All of the research that goes on, on protected area design is extremely important. But there is not
enough effort placed on how you change land management practices in areas outside of protected
area. I don't think we are going to achieve sufficient conservation efforts through the establishment of
protected areas. Too much of the research on protected areas focuses on the 'where' and not
enough is done on 'how' the protected area should be managed and 'how' the land around the
protected area should be managed to maintain the biodiversity or the conservation value.
147

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER F
A4-6 Interview Partner F
II
Approaches & their characteristics
• Which approaches used to identify areas relevant to biodiversity conservation do you know?
The conventional forest management plan and the HCV toolkit made by Proforest in Libreville.
• Can you describe any strengths or weaknesses for these approaches?
Conventional forest management plan: good identification of study area. However, if the company
does not want certification (especially FSC), then it might only look at timber harvesting with almost
no ecological aspect.
HCV toolkit: The titles for each HCV are good, but the guidelines to identify them are very vague.
This is a weakness (if one is not serious about the work, then one just does the minimum) and a
strength (if one is serious, then one has more freedom to develop one's own technique).
• Are there other approaches that, in your opinion, may be important for identifying areas of high
biodiversity?
Certified companies are obliged to make both reports and many points are very redundant. The laws
cannot easily be changed, so it might be interesting to develop HCV toolkits on a real scientific basis.
One could keep the six points, but develop methods to identify them.
• Can you think of any other criteria which may be important for comparing methods used to
identify biodiversity relevant areas?
A conventional forest management plan and the HCV assessment are complimentary, thus, they do
not need to be compared. It would be good to produce a single report integrating the HCV
assessment. This would need for the laws to be changed in Central Africa.
III
Approaches & their requirements
• A. Time: How much time is required for implementing the approaches?
When working in timber logging, a management plan based on socio-economic surveys (from 2 - 6
months depending on the area) and management inventories (botanic, animal, social) on about 1%
of the concession (2-3 years of work with 1 - 2 teams) has already been produced. Most of the
conservation measures have already been made in the management plan (field work + writing = 2-3
years). So the HCV assessment itself takes only 2 weeks.
When working in other areas (eg. palm oil), the required time will depend on inventories in the field.
Although these inventories are not requested by the toolkit.
• Should efforts rather concentrate on existing biodiversity conservation initiates?
I believe, one should start with what is already known (biodiversity conservation initiates), however a
real systematic inventory should also be completed.
• Can the required time be reduced without compromising the efficiency? Do you have any ideas
on this?
No
• B. Cost: How much does the implementation of the approaches cost?
Not easy to say: management plan vs HCV. It depends on what has already been done. For
instance, have inventories and analyses been performed by the logging company or must
consultants still complete these.
148

APPENDIX
• C. Human Resources: Which human resources are required for implementing the approaches?
Again: Not easy to say: management plan vs HCV. The same reasons as above (see cost).
One needs at least one international expert for the report, one team for inventories and another team
for the socio-economic assessment.
• D. Data requirements: How is data collection designed (easy/ complex)?
The data collected in the field remains the same. This is fixed by legislation, although elements can
always be added if needed. The use of existing data (bibliography and satellite images if available)
depends on the assessment team. Thus, for the team it is not really complex.
• Can the required data easily be used by non-specialist users?
Not really
• E. Purpose of the approach: How efficient is the conservation of biodiversity?
This is impossible to answer: the idea is to identify everything that might be sensitive and to propose
measures that will keep all the different species and forest types. For your information, on average, a
logging company (in Central Africa) will only cut one tree per hectare and per 25 years. So the risks
of species extinction in that particular area are low.
We work on huge areas (generally more than 200,000 ha for logging concessions), so the first thing
is to identify really sensitive areas (swamps, mountainous forest, high slopes) where no logging will
occur. It is rare that we conserve less than 5% of the concession. Next we determine the measures
specific for every species (low regeneration commercial tree species, endemic species, hunting
rules) which are fixed for the entire rotation.
Every forest type is different, every situation is different. For example, if one develops a oil plantation
in a degraded forest, one would only protect the swamps and the buffer areas of national parks,
rivers, streams, etc
• F. Certification: How do market based initiatives fare in biodiversity conservation?
• Are market based initiatives efficient in biodiversity conservation?
Yes
• How do they compare to classical protected areas?
In our context, private companies often have more means and motivation in conservation than
government. More and more often, timber logging concessions are considered as links to the
national parks.
IV Summary, evaluation & outlook
• How meaningful can approaches used to identify valuable biodiversity regions be for
biodiversity conservation?
It is important to identify all the HCV. For biodiversity in itself and to have a better control over what
the companies are doing. So one has a better idea of what is threatened by logging, especially
regarding a species based management.
• Should efforts rather concentrate on existing biodiversity conservation initiatives?
The efforts should go to every sector. National parks, concessions, etc. It is really important to
consider logging concessions as links because they cover almost all the central African territory that
is not protected.
• Are there any current debates going on in your organisation on this topic?
Every new HCV assessment is a new debate. The context is always different.
149

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER G
A4-7 Interview Partner G
II
Approaches & their characteristics
Which approaches do you know?
I have been most actively involved with HCV, ERBC approaches, a little bit on KBA, not directly
involved in focal species or REAs.
Last of the Wild areas are identified by looking for the areas least impacted by human development.
It’s a GIS based system using data on roads, rail, settlements etc, and then looking for the areas that
have the lowest impact from them (Sanderson et al. 2002. Bioscience Vol. 52 No. 10, P891).
But I have also helped with species specific priority-setting exercises, range-wide stuff.
Could you list any strengths and weaknesses of approaches you know?
They all address slightly different aspects. A broad issue is that there are so many different ways of
looking at this. Every NGO wants to do it in their own way, so that they have something they can sell
to donors or market as being there approach.
ERBC: The biggest flaw, I have felt, for ERBC was the definition of an ecoregion which is extremely
problematic. There were difficulties in finding a coherent and replicable definition of an ecoregion.
Thus, making it very difficult to set priorities within an ecoregion.
KBA: I think is an interesting process. The way it has been explained to me - The problem is that it
takes an area defined by existing land use boundaries and then looks to see what is in the area. It is
not necessarily highlighting anything different, but one looks at a national park and then looks at what
is in it. Rather than taking an objective view of a whole country or landscape and then drawing
boundaries based on the values. It is looking at pre-existing value in pre-existing boundaries and
seeing what exist within those. This seems to weaken the concept for me. I think it would be useful if
one looked at a blank slate and said: where these values are found, where these attributes of KBA
are held and then drew boundaries.
• Are biodiversity values likely to be found in areas where major land use changes have
occurred?
Yes, even in South East Asia where huge development has occurred, vast areas outside of protected
areas exist. These values are either dropped from the KBA system. Alternatively, if one simply looks
at biodiversity, one has to try and agree on boundaries. But in a country like Cambodia there are no
obvious, easy units to divide the country up into. This however, does not mean that no areas exist
that absolutely qualify as KBA. In fact just the contrary is true. The problem is that these areas do not
qualify, as they do not have a divide around them. It is the wrong way round.
Another problem is that the objectives or thresholds are set at a global level and can not be changed
to make them more relevant for Cambodia or South East Asia where at the moment every large
mammal is on the Red List. Therefore a few individuals of some red listed, but tolerant species (eg
samba, sunbear) to be present and it officially counts as KBA. Those species could be present in any
forest block in South East Asia and therefore to follow the thresholds exactly, as is required, any
significant forest block is KBA. Thus, following the criteria, priorities will not be identified as
everything is KBA. This problem is the same for HCV except the other way round.
The one I have worked with most closely is HCV. I view HCV as slightly different to the other
approaches. I find it interesting to get a sense of how people from the outside view HCV, placing it in
the same category as the other approaches.
The most important, in my opinion, about HCV is not only defining areas (not drawing boundaries
around HCV areas), but rather what the values are and how they are managed. It is a much more
management orientated process, producing management plans or recommendations for the
150

APPENDIX
identified values. This makes it a slightly stronger system and a reason why it is far more popular
with the private sector than the other approaches. It helps managers find ways to manage their land
without affecting the biodiversity or environmental and social values. Identifying areas and drawing a
circle on a map is just the beginning of the process.
• Which criteria would you use to compare the various approaches?
In the end, it is easiest to look at species. But it has to be done sensibly and not just to identify the
areas with the largest number of species. Proxies such as forest cover and forest condition can be
used in large areas with little to no available data. This can be extremely useful and valuable.
In a lot of cases, it is a case of what can be practically done, rather than what is scientifically best. It
would be great to do huge extensive inventories of everything living in an area. It is more practical to
first identify areas that appear to be relatively undisturbed and then from there start identifying target
species. During the whole process considering threat: which is the area with a large number of
species and are those species under threat. Otherwise incredibly important species will be
overlooked.
Target species, habitat quality, etc.
Whether or not these places get some form of formal protection. However, more often than not this
tends to a decision of politics.
• How would you best measure efficiency?
Cost is definitely an important issue and man power needed to do an assessment. The ecoregional
projects took and enormous amount of time and an enormous amount of money to complete the
identification of priority areas. Again this is only the beginning of the process. A form of protection
needs to be implemented.
As for trying to think: are any of these processes quicker and cheaper than others? The HCV process
can be quick and dirty or can be very laborious and intensive. It depends a great deal on the people
performing the assessment. I think this can be the case for all of them. It depends on the available
time and resources. However, there are always ways of implementing any process faster and or
cheaper. It boils down to the quality of outcome required.
• That would then reduce the efficiency or the quality of the outcome?
Yes, it would. They are all fairly intensive processes. I don't think any process is any more or less
efficient or better than the others.
III
Approaches & their requirements
• A. Time: How much time is required for the implementation?
The HCV work covers a lot more than the other approaches. This needs to be considered when
comparing time and cost. The full HCV process requires a soil scientist, an ecologist, a hydrologist,
an anthropologist and a social scientist. Thus, they take much longer and are more expensive, but
one ends up with a more comprehensive output.
• So you would say HCV takes longer than ERBC?
I would not be able to say. It probably depends on the sort of scale looked at. ERBC looks at a
landscape or even greater than landscape scale which will take a very long time, whereas an HCV
assessment might only be a couple of thousand hectares of forest. The resolution of information is
also very different. They are two very different things. ERBC can be very time-consuming. An
ecoregional plan takes about two years to complete.
151

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER G
• C. Human Resources: How many people are required to perform the approaches?
One does not necessarily need so many people for ERBC. Also HCV work can be done with 3-4
people: 1 soil scientist, 1 biologist and 1 social scientist.
• The less people one needs in a team, the more information is already available?
Not necessarily, the amount of people in a team is simply a reflection of the resources available. How
much one has to spend on a project?
• Would you say: to decrease the amount of people, you would decrease the quality of the
assessment?
It depends on who the people are and how much time and resources they have been given. It
depends on how familiar they are with the framework they are following. Again, the quality of the
output depends on the quality of the people.
• But have all of the people you worked with been international experts? Or have you also
worked with national experts?
It is usually a combination of both. Particularly with the HCV concept looking at the social sciences
and the biological aspects, as much as possible I always prefer to work with local people.
One should try and work together with land managers so they can understand the process with the
HCV concept or even the KBA approach. But the process is always led by an international expert.
• And non-experts can they also be integrated into the team?
There should always be a consultation process where the results are discussed with local
stakeholders. Other than that there is no situation were non-expert users are part of the process.
• E. Purpose of the approach: How efficient is biodiversity conservation? Have you ever gone
back and tried to determine the amount of species that have been conserved?
No, the number of species is not really the measure of interest. A more appropriate measure would
be: what were the goals of the area? If one simply looks at a list of species, one would go to a forest
in Borneo and target a lowland dipterocarp forest (if the aim is to maximise a list of species). Thus,
ignoring peat swamp and heath forest, as these are species poor. The only true measure of success
to see whether a block of forest is still present. And to see whether any management changes have
been implemented (i.e. has management acted on the made recommendations
Those are the appropriate measures to look at. I have had relatively more success with the HCV
concept (in terms of: has there been a change on the ground) than with anything else. This is
because it is far more management driven.
One does not just say which areas are important and must, therefore, be set aside as a strict
conservation area. But one rather says which areas are important and this is how you can manage
them.
If my understanding of the KBA is correct, that point is undermined. One already has protected areas
and then one determines whether these are important.
• F. Certification: How do you think market based initiatives fare in biodiversity conservation?
Personally, I am a big supporter of them. I know this is an area where people have very strong
opinions and in my opinion, they are very valuable.
These days many individuals or organisations prefer to work with logging companies than with the
government, as logging companies sometimes do a better job in protecting the forest than
governments. These companies have the financial resources and the desire to protect, as they are
protecting their own resources.
The critical factor of working with industry is that it needs to part of a broader integrated management
plan. Sustainably managed areas have to complement existing protected area systems. There
should be sustainably managed areas and adjacent to this, large regions of protected areas.
152

APPENDIX
• Do you think market based initiatives are more effective than governance based approaches?
In an ideal world, if the protected areas were managed well, they would be a much better way for
protecting biodiversity. Not to say that the managed areas do not have biodiversity values. Protected
areas are better off surrounded by well-managed areas, instead of heavily disturbed forest. And
managed areas are certainly going to work much more efficiently if they are adjacent to protected
areas where there are sources of seed, animals and services.
In reality, in Indonesia in the late 90's certified logging concessions were a far more efficient way of
conserving biodiversity than protected areas, because the protected area system had failed. That
situation is now changing, protected areas are getting stronger again. This is one of the reasons why
conservation organisations are now working very closely with logging concessions. This is leading to
the idea of working with other industries, like mining.
IV
Summary, evaluation & outlook
• How meaningful can approaches used for identification of biodiversity relevant areas be for
biodiversity conservation?
The HCV concept uses a lot of information obtained by the other approaches. HCV areas are
identified by looking at KBA, results of REAs, etc. so all of these are very useful. The approaches are
incredibly useful in fund raising, raising awareness for priority areas, internal prioritization exercises.
Do they directly affect conservation success? Indirectly yes, as they can be used to raise money,
raise awareness and possibly affect political decisions as well. So they are needed, because
otherwise we wouldn't know where to go. But the importance of the process can be overstated.
• So then what does directly affect the success of conservation?
The qualities and abilities of people. The degree of political support and the will of the countries,
provinces, states; the politicians involved. Conservation boils down to politics; in terms of how good
people are at actually doing things and then the government authorities and their willingness to
actually do what is needed. Occasionally those policies are influenced by outside institutions, but not
in many situations. Actually in many situations government departments have reacted negatively to
an outsider. Not to say that one should not do it, but one has to be careful how it is set up.
• So in your experience governance protected areas have been a success?
I would not say that. There are still many situations where the paper parks statement is very true.
Where they have failed is because of the failure of government institutions and the organisations
working on the ground, it is not because of the failure of identifying the importance.
• Do you have any further points you would like to add?
Like I said earlier on: I personally have a slightly different view of the HCV concept compared to the
other approaches. People working with the HCV concept think that the main purpose of working with
it is identifying areas, working with a polygon. I do not see that as having any value at all. What is
much more important to us is: these are the values, this is where they are and this is what we can do
to actually maintain those values. It is a management led process rather than a circle on a map which
makes it a very powerful tool.
153

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER H
A4-8 Interview Partner H
II
Approaches & their characteristics
Which approaches for identifying biodiversity relevant areas do you know?
I am familiar with several of the mentioned approaches, but not all of them. I am familiar with KBA
and ERBC. I have been involved in several ecoregional processes in South America in the late 90s.
The HCV concept is a very important concept that we are now dealing with. Industry standards seem
to be very fond of the HCV concept. I am also very familiar with the REA.
Could you list any strengths and weaknesses of the HCV concept?
All of them have strengths and weaknesses, because nature is complex and these are instruments
designed by humans to simplify what is inherently complex, in order to facilitate decision-making. So
all of them are going to have weaknesses, but they also all have benefits. But the benefits do not
necessarily all go in the same direction. Benefits will differ, for example the criteria adopted by the
approaches, such as species based vs habitat based. There is no one tool that solves everybody's
problems. So the approaches are considered to be tools that can be used together or independently,
depending on the purpose.
ERBC I have very much been involved in the use of that.
REA has many favourable attributes.
FSA: it tends to be a large species. It has not been embraced by large corporations or banks. It is not
particularly adapted to spatial planning and is not easily replicable, as it does not have large data
bases, like the KBA data base. The FSA is ad hoc, especially with the landscape.
HCV has clearly defined criteria that any consultant or biologist can use to apply to a specific
landscape.
• Which criteria would be important for you, if you were to compare these approaches?
The approaches are all taking place in political environments. So one looks for the tool that fits one's
needs, in order to pursue a specific conservation agenda. If one has a park or a landscape and one
would like to create a protected area or if one wants to deal with an environmental impact from a
highway or a gas line, then one chooses an instrument depending on the arguments it can deliver to
create a conservation strategy. Ideally, one would use a combination of them all. However, from a
strictly scientific point of view, none of them are appropriate in my opinion.
• Why would you say that?
Because they are preconceived and when one does research one wants to explore attributes most
appropriate for any given situation.
Each one of them has weaknesses. ERBC are artificial polygons drawn onto a map, nature does not
conform to polygons. Nature is about gradients. It goes from wet-dry, high-low and cold-warm. So
dividing nature into ecoregions is an entirely artificial classification. One does not want to be
constrained by an artificial classification when looking at nature.
KBA, for instance, are based on data bases. All KBA are based on observations and/or collections.
Some scientist saw this species there. What about 95% of the planet that has not been seen by a
biologist. Should one base a future conservation strategy on what someone saw years ago? In my
opinion, KBA are not good for conservation planning or for research looking far into the future. What
they are very good at, is for policy applications.
• So do you know any other methods that are good as conservation planning tools?
One should always look at it from the first principles. One has to understand biodiversity, the
distribution of biodiversity, endemism (the KBA approach is good about that) and the threat to
species. These have been worked into KBA, but KBA are limited by the fact that they are based on
154

APPENDIX
past observations. It would be better to look at patterns of biodiversity and patterns of physical and
climatic attributes that can be correlated to biodiversity. For example, high rainfall areas are most
diverse, mountain tops are most diverse. If one is considering climate change, one has to make sure
a gradient that species can respond to, is available. So I would use a methodology based on the first
principles of science and biodiversity patterns, in order to create a coherent framework using all of
the scientific tools. Thus, being able to come up with a rational plan for a specific landscape.
Conservation and the final analysis are at a landscape scale. All these global tools have their
limitations.
The HCV concept is the most adaptable and this is probably why it is being adopted by so many
corporations.
• How would you best measure efficiency?
For KBA or data bases, one plugs the information into a GIS system and an answer is produced. For
ERBC one goes through a process which is perhaps not as efficient.
III
Approaches & their requirements
• A. Time: Could you give me an estimate of how long one of these approaches takes to
implement?
It depends on the scale. KBA are a global data base and they are still not complete. In addition, they
are predominantly just birds, frogs and insects. What about plants? It would take centuries to build up
a KBA data base on plants. Although in a place like Europe which is data rich, important plant areas
exist. So, it will work in Europe. But that took 200 years to compile the particular data base on plant
species. Can we wait 200 years for the Amazon? I think not.
It depends on the taxa which is one of the limitations of the KBA approach. It is biased, as the
strategy is based on the available data. Theoretically, ERBC deals with insects, as they deal with
assemblages of species. REAs allow one to address insects, assuming one can find experts to
identify insects.
So again there are always trade-offs, using the tool most appropriate.
In the final analysis, it is not based on data criteria, but rather on political criteria.
• B. Cost: Could you mention something about the cost to implement some of the approaches?
KBA are free. One plugs all the data into the computer and out comes the result. This is a big
advantage.
The HCV concept take time, one has to go into the field and talk to people. So that is a little different.
The FSA, personally, I think, is a waste of time.
The REA is the approach to generate the best data for an area. If you really want to identify the
potential impacts, you take the time and do a field survey. The REA is probably the most appropriate
for looking at biodiversity. Although one might want to combine a REA with something like the HCV
concept, in order to look at aspects like water, carbon, etc.
• C. Human Resources: Which approach would be the most labour intensive?
That would clearly be a REA.
• D. Data requirements: Would the data requirements also be most intensive for a REA?
One creates data with a REA. Whereas for the KBA approach and ERBC approach this has already
been done.
155

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER H
• E. Purpose of the approach: How efficient are the approaches in conserving biodiversity?
One can take any one of these approaches and use it for one's own benefit. HCV are probably the
most useful. They are also the most easy to implement. One can use the HCV criteria for basically
any landscape. One can place HCV areas anywhere one wants to. I think that is what is going on
with the concept which can either be a limitation or an advantage, depending on which way one looks
at is and which goals one has.
KBA are good at conserving species, but they are not good at looking at where there might be
potential KBA. The KBA methodology has a modelling component to show where they should exist.
So they are probably trying to improve that. The best available thing is expert knowledge, someone
who knows the area, who knows the plants, animals and they will tell you what to do.
• F. Certification: Do you think market based initiatives are more effective than governance
based approaches?
HCV is a methodology, but not a market based approach. It is being used by private enterprises, but
I would not classify it as a market based approach.
IV
Summary, evaluation & outlook
• How meaningful are these approaches for identifying new areas important for biodiversity
conservation?
Very important. The 90s was the decade of biodiversity and this coming decade is the decade of
ecosystem services. I think biodiversity will take a back seat to that, even though many areas with
little available data still exist. It is certainly not going to be a priority.
156

APPENDIX
A4-9 Interview Partner I
II
Approaches & their characteristics
• Which approaches do you know?
The approaches that I am most familiar with are the ERBC approach, FSA and REA and I know
a little about the KBA approach. I’m not really familiar with the HCV concept.
• For the approaches that you know: can you mention any strengths or weaknesses?
KBA approach and FSA: they both assume a condition of stationarity which implies that the
future will be indistinguishable from the past. So with habitats and systems changing rapidly due
to climate change, those identified values may no longer be present over a short time period. So
these approaches are not very representative. Under climate change they run a high risk of not
meeting their goals. However, they both only require a modest investment of resources (a
positive on that side).
• As compared to the REA or ERBC?
Yes, but one last comment on the KBA approach and the FSA is that if they capture ecological
processes, it is by chance and not by design.
ERBC: in my view, is the most comprehensive and most representative in terms of trying to
capture and maximize the different scales and different conservation targets of biodiversity. It is
probably the most representative approach as it looks at several different scales: the species
level, the natural community level and then the biophysical level. So one does not place all ones
eggs in one basket. It probably does the best job of delineating important ecological processes
and whole ecosystems.
The downside is that it is quite resource intensive: data wise, personnel wise and expertise wise.
It often results in large networks of ecosystems difficult to prioritize.
• Is it correct that a GAP analysis is performed to prioritise large networks?
That is one way to do it. Even if one has prioritised, one still ends up with large portions of the
landscapes where it is difficult to determine where to start first. A GAP analysis gives one an idea
of where official protection may be lacking, but it will not identify areas most feasible for
conservation. For instance, which areas have the right enabling conditions? Where stakeholders
are motivated to make the necessary changes, where one has funding and political support to
make those changes. So one still will need to do a feasibility analysis, once a GAP analysis has
been performed, thus, adding to the time and cost.
REA: this really depends on what is meant by rapid. Several REAs have been performed to fill in
data gaps for ERBC planning efforts. They were very successful, they were rapid and much less
costly relative to the overall ERBC approach, but they were used to augment an already fairly
rich data source. For example, in the Apache Highlands, considerable data for about 60% of the
ecoregion existed and for the remaining 40% absolutely no data existed. Thus, an REA was
conducted to develop better data. This assessment took approximately 14 months which is much
longer than what anyone would consider a typical rapid assessment. When compared to the
overall end result, the REA was only a small portion of resources. One advantage of the REA
was that, at the end of the process, a much better and overall knowledge of the area was
obtained. Thus, it proved to be a very good data source for planning and indicated a way to
develop stakeholders and a constituency around the area. So in the traditional sense a REA is
going to be best for large countries or continental areas with very little available data and where
one does not want to rely on modelling exercises. That is its traditional use - very good and very
appropriate. We have a small scale example of that, where we knew nothing about an area and
157

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER I
so we used it to supplement what otherwise would have been considered a very rich data
source.
REAs are excellent to build awareness and to build a constituency about an area which is
probably fairly important, but with few people knowing much about it.
• With regard to the criteria that I have used to perform the strength - weakness analysis, can
you think of any criteria that you would use to compare the various approaches?
One question that should be asked: what is the goal of the planning exercise? Is it a university
exercise or is it going to play a role in implementation? The answer should then be used to guide
the values, and the amount of resources that will go into it.
For example; the intended users’ sub-criterion: here there will be large differences, depending on
the setting. For instance, in a university setting, one may place more effort in translation,
whereas if one performs the approach for implementation time for translation will be available as
one works with it for the entire time.
Many of the intended users do not have the facility or the technical know-how to understand the
bulk of the work. Thus, the translation of results is extremely important and will dictate whether or
not the plan ultimately gets implemented. The ability of others to understand and to view the
outcome is crucial.
• How would you best measure efficiency?
This will be cost and time against the goal. So it will really depend on the goal, with cost and time
being primary factors. Methods are not as important or much less important if one does not
produce a result in a time that matters.
III
Approaches & their requirements
• A. Time: As an estimate, how much time is required for the implementation?
The Sinoran Desert took 24 months.
The Apache Highlands took 18 months.
• In comparison to that, how long does the FSA normally take?
As an estimate it could be completed in about a quarter of the time. However, they are normally
much smaller in size.
The ecoregions can be 10s of millions of acres. A FSA has never been performed at that scale. It
will be done at a fraction of the time and cost, as one deals with a much smaller universe of
conservation targets and criteria. Whereas ERBC normally deals with many data sources for the
models.
• B. Cost: How much does ERBC cost?
The Sinoran Desert cost 300,000 US$ in 2000.
The Apache Highlands cost ~250,000 US$ in 2004 (less time and this was the second
assessment performed).
• C. Human Resources: What human resources are required for the ERBC approach?
It is very resource intensive, both for data, expertise and money to pay for people's time and in
some cases data. For example, the cost of a project will increase if one wants to ensure that the
project is a binational effort, as if often the case with ERBC. Any binational effort will obviously
improve the quality of the outcome.
158

APPENDIX
• So as a general statement could one say that by decreasing the cost, one would
compromise or sacrifice the quality of the outcome?
This would depend on whether one is in a university context or a conservation context. In a
university context, it may or may not sacrifice the outcome. But in a conservation context where
the goal is to identify and then implement the results, it definitely would.
• E. Purpose of the approach: How could one best compare the outcome of approaches?
That is an extremely challenging question to answer, because typically when ERBC planning
exercise started, they were intended to guide the work for 10-20 years. However, implementation
is still ongoing. For example, the Sinoran Desert plan was completed around 2000 and then one
started working with local jurisdiction or county to raise money to buy that land. And in 2004 a
public funding election for conservation raised for 174 mill US$. This money was all spent by July
09. Over 140,000 acres have been purchased for conservation which seems a lot. But if one
compares this to the 29 mill acres identified for conservation, it is only about 30%. Maybe 10 mill
acres was already conserved in a suitable fashion, so we still had 2/3 of the way has already
been gone.
• If one goes to another part of the world...
There is not enough money to buy everything needed for conservation, as land is so expensive
in the US.
The question on efficiency has nothing to with how the plan was obtained. It has everything to do
with implementation which requires a totally different set of expertise than the people who
actually do the science behind the planning.
• So more governance based expertise?
Right, it is governance based, it is politics, it is working with communities, it is working with
agencies that may have conflicting missions. Efficiency should be based on science.
IV
Summary, evaluation & outlook
• How meaningful can approaches used for the identification of biodiversity relevant areas be
for biodiversity conservation?
It can be very valuable, because firstly efficiency and the cost-benefit ratio are critical. Again, if
one cannot produce something in the time required, then it will be of little use. One either wastes
resources or one does not achieve the goals.
Secondly, if one of your conclusions shows there is a difference between implementation and the
criteria required for evaluation. So, how well it does in comparison to the science part of it -
officially can it identify important conservation areas? That would be a very important
contribution. This is not very well understood, as these methods originated from the academic
industry or combinations thereof. Scientifically it is intensive and we have come so far. It is
remarkable what can be done now, but what is needed to implement these results requires other
technologies, other expertise and science. In addition, people who understand how to work in
other environments such as governance are also required. So it requires much more
collaboration occurring over much longer time scales than the actual scientific planning does and
the more and more the scientific community can understand how their work fits into that picture,
the better off for everyone.
159

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER J
A4-10 Interview Partner J
II
Approaches & their characteristics
• Which approaches do you know?
I am somewhat familiar with HCV which is used quite a bit in Indonesia. I have done REAs and quite
a few ecoregional assessments.
• For the approaches that you know: can you mention any strengths or weaknesses?
ERBC and REA have two purposes or desired outcomes. REA, as the name implies, is pretty
superficial, rapid and wholly dependent on the team composition chosen for the assessment; the
amount of time available to conduct the assessment and the available or required technology. For
instance photo traps in conjunction with actual trappings or in contrast, visual sightings and call
identifications. The degree to which technology can assist assessments really influences the
outcome value.
As far as ERBC, among all the approaches you have looked at, ERBC tends to be the most
comprehensive and the most useful in terms of follow up conservation implementation. The
weaknesses primarily are the degree of superficiality, the repetitiveness, the cost and amount of
resources required to conduct an assessment.
• Which criteria would you use to compare the various approaches?
As a conservation practitioner one should ask: what is the ultimate goal of these assessments? Why
one is chosen over another often depends on the purpose of the outcome. Is it to protect new areas,
improve protection in existing areas or is it simply to refine existing conservation programmes. Is it to
prioritize the work of an organization in a newly identified area or region of the world in which the
organization wants to work? This is very dependent on the desired outcome. How is that information
used for actual conservation? Just the identification alone is not enough. What the next step is, the
far more important than the identification process. Does one start lobbying for new protected areas to
be designated? Does one start lobbying for more funding to be dedicated to these areas for
appropriate management actions or restoration programmes to be implemented?
Example Indonesia: HCV assessments have been used to identify appropriate industries to work with
in order to manage forest in a more sustainable way for the target species. Whether those are
Orangutans, bird guilds or aquatic species like the Irrawaddy dolphin. These can be very effective
tools in helping an organisation refine what it wants to do, where to focus resources, where to make
the investment. To get the biggest bank for the buck, as is said.
• How would you best measure efficiency?
Efficiency again, if one looks at time and cost/ expenses, the usefulness of the result will depend on
aim of the assessment. So efficiency is very dependent on why one implements the assessment and
the desired outcome. But in general, ERBC tends to be the most effective in identifying priority areas
for conservation and to get the full representation at every level, genetic level, species level, natural
community level of ecological and biodiversity representation in the planning area. It is also a very
good lead-in for the next phase of conservation planning which is much more specific for each of the
priority areas that are identified.
A REA is very useful in areas that are under urgent threat. For example, areas that have been
included in a forest plan for cutting within the next ten years, or to make sure that something
ecologically or biologically unique is not lost, either at a regional or global scale within areas destined
to be degraded or converted. Those can be really effective, quick and dirty assessments to find out
whether or not something is going to be lost by the impending activity in that area.
160

APPENDIX
HCV designation - the jury is still out to whether or not these are effective long-term. The light in
which this method is being used depends very strongly on the industry it has been adopted by (eg.
mining, timber, etc.). This will reflect in the efficiency of the approach. The implementing
organisation's relationship with the relevant industry and whether these industries are being forced to
adopt the HCV concept will also affect the efficiency. Additionally, the companies resources they
have available to implement the concept and the appropriate management scenarios for sustaining
biodiversity identified in the HCV areas.
The focal species approach can be efficient, if the right focal species is chosen. There is a huge
assumption that by focusing on those few focal species, one sweeps up all other and unknown
species under one umbrella.
It is usually a good choice to select an approach that looks at the whole watershed. As this captures
many different levels of ecological process and function, in contrast to the focal species approach
where individual species contained within the landscapes are captured.
• Is this scale similar to the ERBC approach?
ERBC captures it at a higher scale. One has multiple watersheds, multiple landscapes which are all
weighed against each other. In the cases of several watersheds and similar biodiversity components,
species and natural communities, one can rank these based on their existing level of degradation, or
on their perceived viability due to other threats on the landscape. Thus, ERBC is at a very
appropriate scale for capturing multiple examples of what is assumed or projected to be viable
natural communities and, or habitats required to maintain species over the long term. In my view, this
is the most efficient and effective way for performing an analysis, if one has the luxury of time. If one
does not, due to threats looming on the horizon that either are already affecting the landscape or are
poised to do so in the next year or two, then one would chose something much more rapid.
• And also if you have the luxury of enough financial resources?
Right exactly
• May I just go back to what you said about that ERBC covers all levels of biodiversity? I have
struggled to find any literature on actually capturing the genetic level. The way I have
understood it, is that this is captured indirectly through due to the protection of large
landscapes which conserves genetic diversity.
One of the things we do in ERBC (which is done in none of the other approaches) is that we divide
the ecoregion into 4-6 subregions based geographically on an already published distribution. For
instance, in the Mojave Desert both desert tortoise genetic information which had already been
gathered and Joshua Tree Woodland information were utilized to divide the ecoregion into 6
subregions (which are roughly based on the compass points). Then one sets the same goals for
each of these subregions. For instance, if one wants to capture 30% of all populations of desert
tortoise in the Mojave ecoregion, the same goal exists for the 6 subregions. So genetic diversity for
that specific species is captured and at the same time one assumes that the genetic diversity of other
species is also captured. The assumption rests on the diverse nature of the ecoregion comparing
North to South and East to West and the Central portion. So those peripheral differences at the
genetic level are captured. When one starts talking about the interface of one ecoregion to another,
then one starts talking about having difference in soil type, climatic differences, elevation, latitude,
longitude, things like that. Thus, one feels fairly confident that genetic diversity of individual species is
captured. However, genetic diversity of the natural communities occurring throughout the ecoregion
is captured by capturing the full representation across the ecoregion.
161

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER J
III
Approaches & their requirements
• B. Cost: How much do the approaches cost?
REA: is totally dependent on how much land is being assessed, how many people are involved and
the amount of required technology. So, as far as I know, there is no ball park figure. It could cost 10s
of 1000s of US$ or it could be millions of US$, depending on how many resources are available. It
also depends on the size of the assessment area, thus, making it difficult to pin point.
ERBC, one has a fairly good idea of how long they take and how much they cost. In the US, they
take about 2 years, using standard methodology and cost about 200,000 US$. International they
have run from 150,000-350,000 US$. With an example in China which cost almost 2mill US$ and
took 3 years. This always depends on the size of the assessed area and the amount of required
people.
• E. Purpose of the approach: How efficient do you think these approaches are in conserving
biodiversity?
I don't think any of them conserve biodiversity. All they do is identify it. The next step is: how is the
information used to conserve biodiversity. That is the difficult part, identifying is the easiest step in
the whole conservation process. It depends on how an individual conservation organisation, a
government or a natural resource office is conducting the assessment. What is done with the
information afterwards will or will not conserve biodiversity. For instance, legally designating
protected areas or funnelling more money to improve management of already protected areas as
these areas were often set aside for reasons other than biodiversity, such as aesthetic purposes,
historical, cultural reasons. They would therefore, not take into account what is necessary for
viability, function and process on the landscape-scale. So none of the approaches are effective or
efficient at conservation implementation, as this is not their goal. Their goal is to identify areas for
subsequent implementation and conservation action. Depending on what the outcome should be
used for, one sets specific goals prior to the assessment. For instance, in Mongolia: the GAP
assessment - another system often used to identify new areas for protected status usually within the
political unit (sometimes within the ecological unit), usually at the state or national level. Here one
looks at the entire suit of existing protected areas and sees what they capture and what they are
missing. Hence the name GAP. Then one uses the information to identify new areas to add to the
existing conservation system. This is happening Mongolia with grasslands. The GAP assessment
has just been completed and a full ERBC is planned to identify where those new protected areas
should be and also the type of protected area. This also being an important question. Six different
levels of IUCN categories exist, thus depending on the desired outcome the designation according to
the IUCN categories will differ (i.e. national park or national recreation). This again will dictate the
amount of management required, ranging from only fencing an area and saying this is off-limits to
development to actively restoring habitats and species management.
• May I just move back to this GAP assessment quickly? The way I understood it, is that it is
used, in KBA and ERBC approaches, after identifying KBA or ecoregions and then the GAP
analysis was performed?
Not necessarily. KBA as a tool can be synonymous with a GAP assessment. One identifies national
biodiversity sites based on their importance in maintaining their population of species which can be
integrated into a GAP assessment. It is not necessarily tied to ERBC. Ideally one does them
simultaneously providing on has the correct team and resources. For instance, in Borneo a
biodiversity assessment (similar to the definition of a KBA) of the whole island was performed using
ERB methodology and from that a GAP assessment was produced. Part of the assessment was to
determine whether the existing level of protection was sufficient. Were the species and natural
162

APPENDIX
community types conserved by the existing protected area types? What more needs to be
incorporated into the existing system of protection? What is missing entirely from the existing system
of protected areas? So GAP and ERBC can go hand-in-hand, but they are not interchangeable. GAP
assessment does something very different to an ERB assessment and one can perform an ERBC
assessment without a GAP assessment. But often, as threats and current levels of protection are
analysed, a GAP is incorporated into an ERBC assessment. However, GAP can be done separately.
They are typically based on things other than ecological defined areas. They are more politically
based, state, local county, national level, not based on ecologically defined areas.
• May I just ask one question about threats? How do you define the threat thresholds?
It is done on a threat by threat basis. One can use satellite imagery to identify things like road
networks, human population density, forest fire history, use national records on mining leases/
permits, the degree to which these leases have been put into action (i.e. work has begun or when it
is scheduled to begin). All of this information goes into a threat assessment. It is very important in
ERBC to choose areas that maybe threatened, but are not threatened to the point that they are not
viable in the long term. So one would not choose to work in an area that has an irreversible threat.
Nothing can be done about that. Additionally, one probably would not choose to invest resources in
an area which might be biologically diverse, but if it is not threatened, it would not benefit much from
further resource allocation. Thus, ERBC identifies areas that may be highly threatened, but where
something can be done to reduce that threat. Or to restore areas that have been degraded by a
threat, such as logging, fire damage, road building (which can be removed). The levels of threat are
determined on the degree to which the threat is isolated to a specific footprint or whether the adverse
effects of the footprint go beyond the footprint. For instance, cities and towns have a discrete
footprint in the landscape, but the effects of those cities and towns go for miles and miles beyond that
footprint. It is like a spider's web going out from the heart of the city or town, in terms of the habitat
degradation. This degradation can be ranked qualitatively, low, medium, high, from the source of that
threat whether this is human habitation, coal mine or gas field. Thus, zones of threat degree or zones
of degradation emanating out from the centre of each source of threat are established. In this way
landscapes within an ecoregion can be ranked in order to pinpoint the area with lowest ecological
cost to work in.
• F. Certification: In your opinion, how do market based initiatives fare in biodiversity
conservation?
They sound good, and they look good on paper. Much like HCV designations, I think that the jury is
still out on whether or not they actually result in long-term conservation, as markets fluctuate.
Additionally, the success of such initiatives depends a lot on the level of governance, the system of
law enforcement existing in the area of interest. Also the degree to which one can suppress the
human desire to cheat with enough incentive to off-set this, will determine how effective the marketbased
approach will be. If there is a short cut or a way for the black market to exist, then it will
happen. Unless the legal system is strong enough and disincentives exist to prevent short-cutting.
Thus, the success differs case by case, depending on the country or state or region in which these
approaches are implemented. Again they sound good and they are really popular right now, but I
think it is really going to be dependent on the legal system to enforce them.
163

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER J
IV
Summary, evaluation & outlook
• How meaningful can approaches used for identification of biodiversity relevant areas be for
biodiversity conservation?
• Do you think efforts should rather concentrate on existing biodiversity initiatives rather than
identifying new areas?
No, because in the past, like the designation of the protected areas, these initiatives or existing
conservation programmes may have begun at a time when not enough information was available, or
areas were designated for purposes other than biodiversity conservation. So whenever one can use
new technologies and new methods of analysis and assessment, one should. Just to make sure that
one is working at the right place and one is conserving all levels of biodiversity, species, genetic and
the larger community level. In addition, new challenges which are being wrestled with within our
organisation. For example, adaptation to climate change is probably one of the areas that we are
struggling most with right now, in terms of how do we incorporate projected levels and projected
directions into our current work and how do we utilize that information when we recommend new
areas for protection. There is no single answer to that. The climate change debate is going on in
addition to the issue of ecosystem services and consideration of sustainable human prosperity.
Ultimately a lot of people in conservation are beginning to realise that sustainable human prosperity
is going to dictate whether an area succeeds or fails in the long term. If local communities are not
benefiting from protected area close by, then ultimately support for that protected area is going to fail
and locals will exploit resources within the protected area. Thus, one needs to take sustainable
human prosperity and satisfactory living standards in and around the protected areas into account, if
we have any hope of sustaining them over the long term.
• And then sustainable human prosperity is going to be challenged by climate change.
Oh yes, this is a moving target, for example, how migratory corridors or the ability of species or
natural communities to fluctuate or essentially move across the landscape along a very long
timeframe. If designated protected areas and designated development zones exist, it may be that
those development zones have now cut off the ability of species or natural communities to move in
response to a change in climatic conditions. If the areas they are located in currently are not going to
be appropriate habitats for them 20-100 years in the future then how they are going to get to these
newly appropriate areas is going to be a whole new challenge in the future.
• And because all of these climate change predictions are all based on models, and the longer
you look into the future?
The decisions made based on models are really critical and if the reliability of data has a very low
confidence levels then, then the decision based on climate models can either be catastrophic or well
formed and prescient in terms of their ability to accommodate whatever the path of the climate
change is going to be. This adds a whole new level of insecurity to the conservation planning
process. This is being considered in our work in Mongolia with grasslands. We are trying to wrestle
with what are the projected models for climate change for that ecosystem type and can we
accommodate the projected changes in terms of how and where we designate protected zones. How
does one make this case to governments who typically decide on very short time frames and only on
visible, detectable data and not what is supposedly going to happen 10/20 years down the road. This
is going to be very difficult.
• Do you have any further points you would like to add?
One aspect that we are toying with is looking at the usefulness of habitat models and using satellite
imagery for distinguishing land cover and form. So looking at soil type, slope, aspect, vegetative
cover and then tying that to specific species habitat needs and developing models, so that we can
164

APPENDIX
more rapidly identify areas that we presume to have really high diversity, because of either macro or
micro habitat composition of landscapes. This is wholly dependent on the scale of the available
digital information from satellite imagery and the detail of habitat requirements of species and
communities. This must be followed up by ground truthing in a certain subset of these areas to verify
the satellite imagery and land form composition. This can prove to be a really efficient way of doing
rapid assessments. At the moment, REAs performed through inventories by the right number of
biologists and ecologists to evaluate whether an area is truly diverse or not and whether or not there
are viable populations of specific species within the landscape. This could be done by using satellite
imagery, if the right data were available to plug into the models. These models will need to be verified
on the ground.
• How far are you away from implementing these models?
I would say at least two years maybe a little longer. There is a high level of discomfort relying solely
on these models, because if one gets it wrong, some of the decisions as a result of a wrong
representation could be very significant. If one said the area is not diverse due to the available
information or the models do not identify it as such and this is used, for instance, to convert a forest
into an oil palm plantation. Then it turns out that in reality it held a very important population of rare
plants or endemic fish species or invertebrates. This is the type of outcome we are worried about by
using solely remote sensed data combined with habitat species models.
• Surely that will always need to be verified through ground truthing?
Yes, ground truthing should be proportionate to the confidence level of the data you use. So if one
has a very high degree of comfort in the species habitat models, for example if one feels that it is
based on either very long-term or very intensive on the ground studies of these species or habitats
and one feels the information is highly correlated with specific land forms, then one might not need to
do that much ground truthing. But if the opposite is true, then one should invest in a greater degree of
ground truthing, as confidence levels are so much lower. So I would really tie that to a really honest
assessment of how one feels about the data one is using to identify these areas remotely.
165

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER K
A4-11 Interview Partner K
II
Approaches & their characteristics
Which approaches do you know?
I am familiar with them all from a practitioner's general level of awareness. Other than the HCV
approach, I have not managed, nor evaluated projects using the other approaches, nor have I
evaluated any project that implemented one of those approaches. However, the HCV concept is a
type of umbrella approach. It is really set up to guide land-managers or planners to use any and all
appropriate conservation tools. The HCV concept was not set up to supplant a Hotspot, Ecoregion
identification process, or the Five-S process.
REA is extremely important in doing the preliminary assessment work that an HCV approach would
require. Very quickly identifying what are the potential HCVs. This would be one reason for
implementing an REA.
Could you list any strengths and weaknesses of the HCV concept?
The perennial weakness of any approach, is the lack of data and the extent to which biodiversity is
understood in the world, particular in the tropics and the least developed countries of the tropics. The
knowledge base needed to use effective tools, is often a challenging element. So the HCV approach
requires a lot of reliance on experts, literature, best available data. In essence, it comes down to a
situation where many taxa are just not well inventoried or understood. Their population dynamics is
not well understood, their extent, their range and so on. So one gets into situations dealing with
proxies for biodiversity which typically rely on habitat and extent of viable habitat. In a lot of places in
the world the dynamics of land-use change is so rapid that experimental, monitoring or basic
inventory work around biodiversity is barely able to catch up or keep pace. So in some cases, these
approaches are limited by the amount of information, especially spatially explicit information. It is
often a challenge to have good mapping and high resolution imagery that can present different types
of habitat units.
The other challenging element or weakness within HCV is that it really does need to rely on a
precautionary approach (often a weakness of conservation in general) following the precautionary
principle which effectively leads to a lot of subjectiveness and caution which can also be a good
thing. The precautionary principle is a good conservation rule.
The strengths of the HCV approach are that it is flexible and malleable to encompass many different
types of conservation assessments, mapping and monitoring approaches. So it works well as an
effective umbrella.
It is also good, as it identifies values, and whether those values are high or not depends on a number
of different criteria. These criteria are designed to really capture the issues of landscape level and
species level biodiversity. Often cultural diversity, human needs and environmental services are not
included in biodiversity studies. So HCV is holistic in that it recognises regions of high concentrations
of rare, endemic or endangered species. These may also be regions that have a fundamental human
survival component, either cultural survival or basic subsistence and environmental protection for
things like water quality and so on.
The common denominator: one starts from an area with the aim to conserve biodiversity. Here the
understanding of biodiversity can be a limiting factor. Certainly, there are systems or places where a
lot of knowledge and understanding has been gathered which helps manage the resource.
Approaches to manage biodiversity need to be adaptive in their management strategy. They need to
deal with the fact that some information may be lacking which in turn should not prevent action from
being taken, especially if one knows enough about general trends and needs, in terms of habitat and
so forth.
166

APPENDIX
• Which criteria would be important for you, if you were to compare these approaches?
Some of the most important aspects of any type of conservation endeavour are that it can actually be
implemented; receive follow-up and follow-through for a reasonable amount of resources and
capacity to use those resources. Thus, the approaches need to be practical. I would evaluate the
extent of practicality of the approach, the extent the user can work with it. There is always a certain
reliance on experts to interpret the approaches, so the amount to which the approach can be used by
a combination of experts and more general practitioners and people with more general levels of
education is important. These are aspects of effectiveness which the approach needs to be built
upon, so not just the assessment itself, but also the assessment of threats to biodiversity, the
management responses to those threats or management preparation to unidentified threats, and
then monitoring. An effective approach is going to have a balance between assessment and
identification, management and planning, monitoring and evaluation and research. Those things
need to be implemented over time, so the cost of any of these approaches should be considered in
terms of how long they can be effective.
There are a number of other criteria, in terms of how relevant the approach is, how scale dependent
or driven the approaches are. Do the approaches allow one to look at a very discrete ecosystem unit
or management unit and do they also consider the wider landscape? If one evaluates the landscape,
then the finer scales should not be lost. The system has to be scale dependent.
The approaches also need a temporal component. Historical land-use, species abundance,
populations or interactions, processes that change over time, processes of decline or increase in
abundance, all need to be considered.
Approaches need to lend themselves to a level of spatial representation. So that the approach either
considers, evaluates or produces the spatially representative information and units.
• Some of the first criteria you mentioned were practicality, manageablity and useability. Would
you say these are all measures of efficiency? Or how would you best measure efficiency?
I was hoping that those would be the type of criteria that would drive an effective approach, because
if the approach is not user friendly or if it is too demanding or too archaic and complex, then it can
only be used by a few experts at extremely high costs. Thus, resulting in limited impacts and utility
and less effectiveness. Approaches implemented on a larger scale, in many parts of the world,
across multiple landscapes, allow for applicability and allow one to learn from how the approaches
function in different countries and places.
One does not want it to be so practical and user friendly that it throws ecological and wildlife science
out the window, one still needs a high level of rigour and it has to be based on best understanding of
conservation science.
• But all of these points will be fairly difficult to measure in actual figures?
Yes, but that is the challenge with many things. One should say: if one cannot measure it, one
cannot manage it; if you cannot measure it you cannot really tell if it is being effective or not; if it is
having an impact or not. So obviously, the challenge around these general criteria is to come up with
some actual indicators to measure effectiveness and practicality. These would have to be boiled
down to, for example, level of effort needed to conduct a biodiversity assessment in a landscape of
10 000; 100 000; 1 million hectares at various costs and various times. One could set up some sort
of matrix: one would like the following approach to cost less than 100 000 or less than 1 million or
less than 10 million and to be functioning for 1 year and less or between 1 and 5 years or between 5
and 10 years. So one could try and incorporate measurable elements.
167

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER K
III
Approaches & their requirements
• A. Time: Could you give me an estimate of how long the HCV approach takes to be
implemented?
Field work: 7-14 days.
Entire assessment: 2-4 weeks prior to and after field work for preparation, analysis, documentation
and communication with other colleagues.
• B. Cost: Could you give me an estimate of how much such an assessment would cost?
I could suggest to you that for a large scale area, somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 hectares,
an HCV assessment will probably cost between 25,000 and 100,000 US$ depending on human
resources required, consultants that are used, and data availability.
This estimate will vary when performing the assessment with three to four local conservation biology
technicians or researchers, rather than with international ones, because the pay scales are usually
higher for international consultants.
• C. Human Resources: How often have you been able to use non-expert users for an HCV
assessment?
Local assessors are used often. It is more frequent to mix teams, so one might have one senior
consultant with 20-30 years of international experience, then a couple of people with less
international experience and more local experience. If the company, for which the assessment is
being conducted, is high profile, with high visibility and lot of controversy around the operation, then a
high level of professionals on the assessment team will be required. But many countries have very
good biologists and ecologists who are doing a lot of research. There are really good resources at
the local level that are available. If one looks at the HCV Network there are a number of HCV
assessments being conducted by local professionals in various parts of the world
• This will depend on the industry for which the assessment is being performed?
Exactly, with high risk operations (paper mills for example) one really needs someone who can stand
their ground and is able to assert their judgements. This person should not to bow to some sort of
pressure which may be the case with someone more junior or less experienced.
• E. Purpose of the approach: How efficient is the HCV concept in conserving biodiversity?
It is certainly having an impact on FSC certified forests. Various impact studies have looked at which
types of changes are needed to take place in order for forest management units to get certified
compared to the common level of practice. These studies show that about 60% of the evaluated
certifications improved with respect to conservation planning, conservation management, the
conserved area and so forth.
It is worth doing more impact analysis, looking at which percentage of forest or area is conserved
due to the changes made.
What this means globally in terms of biodiversity, is a lot harder to determine. As one has to go
beyond the boundaries of certified forests and look at where it lies in a particular watershed or a
particular landscape. For instance, a certified forest in Indonesia offers refuge to a great deal of
biodiversity values when the surrounding landscape units are being fragmented, converter or
degraded. Thus, this forest becomes more significant and important as the surrounding area is
fragmented. However, it also becomes harder and harder to support populations ranging from
protected area to production area across the landscape. So the effectiveness of all these approaches
really needs to be taken to the landscape scale. HCV Network has for the past few years been
working on tools for evaluation at the landscape level.
168

APPENDIX
• F. Certification: Do you think market based initiatives are more effective than governance
based approaches?
Both are needed. The market based approaches can have impacts on landscapes with a mosaic of
land-uses; agricultural production, managed forest either on an industrial scale or more on a
community scale. The market can have a significant influence with certain players that have a very
deep supply chain and affect a large portion of the landscape. If one is able to convince large
companies to change their practices to incorporate conservation, then the area of conserved HCV
forest would probably be far more. However, the effectiveness of holding those companies to
respecting and completing legitimate HCV assessments and actually implementing the assessments
to protect natural habitats is not particularly effective. But the Indonesian government has not been
any more effective because they have created, through licensing and land-use planning,
opportunities for these large companies to open up new concessions in regions of natural forest with
rich biodiversity. Both market based and government initiatives are required for the field of
conservation planning. HCV and some of the other approaches are fairly useful in terms of land-use
or landscape level planning. It could help to allocate land-uses in a way that places biodiversity
conservation in a much higher level of priority than it has been. The market is only going to be
effective where supply chains exist and with companies wanting their products being produced in a
more sustainable way. Much influence already exists in the production in coffee, cocoa, tea, bananas
and other crops. Here the companies managing the plantations or purchasing the crop from the
grower were concerned with sustainability standards. So they have actually set targets for their
producers and their production units to be met in terms of certification which has caused an increase
in the level of available certified products. The overall result is that certified farms are better for the
environment. They contain more conservation units. They retain more biological legacies in terms of
remnant vegetation, remnant forest cover, remnant riparian zones. They also impact workers and
their families. Market based approaches result in more forest area being conserved within the
productive landscape than otherwise would have been. But this is still just reaching out to a small
section of the total global economic trade and there are a lot of commodity crops and commodity
products that have yet to be influenced by the market in way that really makes a difference. This is
the challenge. If these market initiatives are going to be successful, then they must address some of
these major commodity crops which lead to the conversion of ecosystems; deforestation and so on.
It is not necessarily that certified products have to have a higher price. But there does need to be a
demand and this needs to be influential enough to be significant and therefore make an impact.
The other element is that these certification programmes and standards can be an opportunity for
government led programmes and government regulations to be more robust and to take the lead
from these standards and incorporate the requirements into new legislation or new programmes.
IV
Summary, evaluation & outlook
• How meaningful can approaches used for identification of biodiversity relevant areas be for
biodiversity conservation at all?
I do not really know the extent to which we have mapped out the high biodiversity regions of the
world. My general sense of the issue is that we probably have a fairly good idea of the relative
importance of ecosystems around the globe. More challenging is to determine where the resources
should go, how they should be allocated and what should be done with them. We have enough
coverage on a global level in terms of what we know. So it is a different issue, I think.
169

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER K
• Are there any further points you would like to add?
My sense is that all of these approaches can be effective tools for biodiversity conservation. The real
challenges go back to issues related to poverty and land-use planning, forest governance and the will
of countries to respect conservation plans and prioritize within their own development agendas. The
urgency due to climate change is an even greater challenge. We are losing habitat which causes
climate change and as climate change gets more severe, the species within those habitats and the
habitats themselves are threatened with extinction or the need to move. So the urgency lies not only
in working towards saving areas of biological significance, but also in confronting the challenges of
predicting how these areas will adapt to climate change. That is very challenging, so coming up with
emergency funding programmes to address climate change is of utmost importance. While some
conservation biologists may say that this climate issue has taken away funding of resources that
would have otherwise been allocated to them we should recognize that if we do not solve this greater
planetary problem, then biodiversity will not have much chance in surviving.
The financial resources being discussed need to be allocated to projects looking for a whole suit of
solutions to promote sustainable development. These are more likely to be community based types
of management structures or more integrated types of agriculture. There are a lot of different projects
that can be financed with the resources generated for solving climate change.
Moving to a decarbonised or low carbon economy can help to stimulate innovation and not just in
terms of machines, buildings and energy production, but also in changing management structures for
agricultural landscapes, forests and so on.
This is a long term challenge. A green economy will not be created overnight. Innovation that is more
sustainable will not be implemented over night either, so it is something that should be worked on
over the span of the next 20-50 years.
170

APPENDIX
A4-12 Interview Partner L
II
Approaches & their characteristics
Which approaches do you know?
Environmental impact assessments, the HCV approach and many variations thereof. One can also
just map fauna and flora.
In the framework of FSC many of these approaches were used and often also modified.
• How would you best measure the efficiency of these approaches?
That really depends on the region of interest and the level of biodiversity one is interested in. The
method implemented depends completely on the region of interest. So the region dictates whether an
EIA, an HCV, a GAP analysis or a mapping exercise is chosen. In addition, the choice of approach
also depends on the amount of available data. With regard to this aspect, it is better to choose one of
the existing approaches.
• Would you reduce the measurement of efficiency to a few individual factors? Such as cost,
time or size of a set-aside area.
Of course. The size of a set-aside area depends on many different factors, but cost, efficiency and
available time are always driving factors of any approach. Of course, mapping can be an excellent
choice, as it provides better data. It is however, extremely intensive. If time and resources (money
and personnel) are insufficient for a field survey, then a panel of experts can also be used. These
should preferably be local, with some knowledge of the study area. Thus, the inventory could be
based on expert knowledge. These criteria are always the driving factors.
When comparing an EIA, HCV and mapping, all three can be performed with an extremely long field
survey and very intensive research. However, all of the approaches can also be based on expert
knowledge, which will take far less time. A workshop or survey of local experts can be completed
within a few months, depending on the location of the area and its access. For instance, in Europe
this would not pose a problem and the approach could be implemented very quickly. In less
accessible areas local experts can help speed up the process using indirect indicators, such as the
trade of plant and animal products at local markets. This always provides a fairly good overview of
what actually exists in any area. So the available resources will always dictate the method of
implementation of any approach.
The approaches will not be any better or worse due to differences in implementation. Many years in
the field collecting data does not necessarily guarantee a more efficient outcome.
The goal of the project will determine which approach is chosen. For instance, in the case of trying to
gather political support, the HCV concept would possibly be a good choice, as it already has much
political support. However, in the case of trying to obtain university support, intensive field surveys
over several years using students, in order to meet the high scientific requirements, would be a better
option. Expert surveys and estimates will never be sufficiently scientific for universities. If aiming to
work with industry or the finance sector, for example, then an EIA (or SEIA as it is called these days)
would be the appropriate choice.
So which approach is used really depends on the goal of the project. The methodology implemented
will also change according to the goal. When aiming for political consensus or political education,
then stakeholder participation should really be included in the process. Therefore, it is always
important to first look at the context.
In addition to the HCV concept, FSC has always used other approaches, even though the FSC
developed the HCV concept. The rationale behind this was that the context dictates the choice of
approach. The approach should always be chosen to obtain the required results.
171

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER L
First one should establish what the required results are, for whom they are needed, which results
have more credibility and then one should find out which resources are available. Then only can an
approach be constructed to fit these needs. Never commit oneself to a single approach. In reality,
one approach is not better than another. If the financial resources for mapping are not available, then
there is no point in starting the exercise, as it would be a complete waste of money. It is also not
useful to try and perform scientific statistics using data from an HCV assessment with numerous
stakeholder contributions.
• How efficient are market based initiatives for biodiversity conservation?
They are extremely effective where they take hold, because they place a value on biodiversity. As
soon as a value is assigned, people support and implement conservation.
For example, if the Berchtesgaden National Park lost it protection status, a small to medium size
revolution would probably ensue, as people live exceptionally well off the park. Thus, there is no
interest to give up this protection in any way, as it has a value to the local communities. The same
applies to the Bavarian Forest.
We have seen the same in other areas as well, even with different financial advantages such as
timber production which does not necessarily mean that biodiversity is harmed or compromised. In
timber production, the area can definitely be used in such a way that conservation of biodiversity
becomes attractive. Very few societies can afford to protect biodiversity solely for ethical reasons
without financial advantage.
For instance, in the Congo Basin, DRC the basic needs of the inhabitants, if not satisfied, will prevent
the conservation of biodiversity. Only through human needs, has a necessity arisen to protect
biodiversity. Thus, human needs must first be addressed and then only can biodiversity conservation
be tackled.
For FSC certification, Congo Basin concessions have invested millions for the establishment of
management plans. They have set aside over 30% for the conservation of biodiversity and/ or social
aspects. Without a market advantage, no concession would do this. Due to certification the cost of a
management plan doubles, perhaps even triples. This is paid for by the concessions themselves.
After they have received certification, these concessions receive twice the price for their timber. So it
is definitely worth their while. These examples exist in Africa, Latin America, Russia and, to a lesser
extent, in Asia, because the FSC system is not as widespread in South East Asia. Similar results can
probably be obtained in Indonesia and Malaysia.
• How often are new certificates issued under FSC?
A certificate is always valid for 5 years. At the beginning a large audit is performed and then every
year a smaller less intensive audit must be undertaken. Thus, concessions are checked on an annual
basis. After 5 years another large audit is performed. The audits are implemented by independent
accredited organisations.
• I have heard that these auditing company personnel are not necessarily well trained which
often results in problems from an ecological point of view i.e. these audits should be more
stringent.
That really depends on the viewpoint. Talking to a fundamental conservationist, this argument will
always arise. However, talking to a sociologist, the social aspect will be placed above ecology in
terms of its importance. If the social aspects are addressed, then conservation is not required
anymore, as people's needs are addressed. In contrast, industry will comment that they only play this
game as their product receives a higher price, but the ecological and social aspects are in reality
totally absurd. Thus, the three different perspectives will produce three very different opinions. The
HCV concept tries to balance these three opinions in order to find a denominator. Obviously, the
common denominator will not be the optimum for anyone of the three interest groups. If one looks at
172

APPENDIX
all FSC certificates (worldwide 14,000-15,000) and looks where any problems, complaints or
critiques arose, then this will be considerably less than 5%. Therefore, this is a fairly good system
where all three aspects are addressed. Again, the context always needs to be looked at. From a
forester's stand point an HCV forest will always need some improvements, but improvements could
also be made for the economic or social aspect as well. Biodiversity conservation needs to be
economically viable, if not, it will be dependent on donations from developed countries. Every local
population is very pragmatic, with short term thoughts on short term advantages. This short term
material way of thinking is even more distinct, when it is primarily about food, health and education. If
someone says there is a more efficient way of meeting these needs which is perhaps less long term,
but more efficient, by helping cut down a forest, then that person will not be turned away. So, if better
opportunities in addressing these needs can be found without devastating the forest, then
biodiversity can also be conserved.
III
Approaches & their requirements
• F. Certification: How would you assess market based initiatives in comparison to classical
protected areas?
This again depends on the context. But market based initiatives are at least just as effective as
classical protected areas. Market based initiatives do not necessarily mean only timber production; it
can also mean tourist initiatives, such as in the Berchtesgaden National Park where more money is
earned these days through tourism, than previously through forestry and mountain farming. The large
national parks in the USA or in Southern Africa (Kruger National Park) earn a lot of money through
tourism. From my point of view, economic use must always go hand in hand with good conservation
strategies.
• So you would not separate the two, but instead, for a protected area to exist, economic
initiatives must be present?
Yes, to be effective in conserving or maintaining the present values.
Without market based initiatives, people tend to lose interest very quickly. Look at the protected
areas in Germany, those supported by economic initiatives such as national parks, national reserves
and biosphere reserves are predominantly very successful. In contrast, the nature sanctuaries with
total protection have been completely forgotten. They have not often been mapped nationally, as this
has rather been left to the individual states. Public awareness needs to be raised and this is best
done through the economy.
IV
Summary, evaluation & outlook
• How meaningful can approaches used for identification of biodiversity relevant areas be for
conservation?
Extremely meaningful, we have no idea what will happen if we risk biodiversity. It is as if one burnt
the Washington congressional library down, without having read it. The last 100 years have shown
the importance of biodiversity. Biodiversity is extremely important and it can be assumed that there is
still much to be learnt about biodiversity and how to utilise it further. The destruction of biodiversity
would be extremely irresponsible towards future generations. Therefore, identification is very
meaningful and necessary. The next question is where are the incentives for society to prioritise this
issue and to sustain it permanently.
173

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER M
A4-13 Interview Partner M
II
Approaches & their characteristics
• Which approaches do you know?
The KBA approach - the whole philosophy behind this approach is based upon providing a unified
umbrella across numerous, more specific taxon based approaches to identify important sites for
biodiversity conservation. So, the drive behind the development of the KBA approach has come from
asking how to bring together data from IBA, IPA, as well as important mammal, amphibian, marine
and freshwater areas to form a common framework.
• Could you describe any strengths or weaknesses for the KBA approach?
The beauty of the KBA approach is that it links a bottom-up ownership and process identification by
people with global standards and criteria. The identification of all KBA is implemented at national,
sub-national and regional levels. The resulting template of site-level conservation targets therefore,
has national, regional and local relevance and ownership together with global approval and
validation.
The spatial units of the KBA approach are land-management units. Thus, they are areas that actually
are or can be suitably managed for conservation on the ground through either the management of
protected areas or other appropriate measures. Therefore, they have high conservation relevance. In
this light, the KBA approach can be differentiated from, for example, the academic development of
systematic conservation planning. The latter focuses, in theory, on the identification of grid cells and
spatial units of cells across a grid. This brings analytic rigour, however, lacks relevance for
conservation on the ground. These techniques and approaches come together through the use of the
same kind algorithms developed by systematic conservation planning for prioritising important sites.
This can be applied to support the prioritisation of KBA. So the approaches come together at the
level of prioritisation. In terms of the underlining spatial units, one of the great strengths of the KBA
approach is that it provides conservation relevance.
A further strength which draws from this link between local relevance and global approval, is that
whole spectrum of society is involved. For example, the KBA approach is very powerful when looking
at the site level through the establishment of local groups and civil societies for mobilising local pride
and ownership.
The approach is very powerful in informing local and national governments for support of national
GAP analysis commitments.
It also resonates well with the private sector as many corporations are concerned with protecting
themselves from public relations risks. The KBA approach provides very powerful and upfront
information, a powerful watch list of sites where investment could be made by the private sector. For
example, where extractive industries could under extreme caution start development.
Finally, the approach is powerful and resonates well with institutional industries. Both the private
sector and intergovernmental agencies have over the last few years been successful developing and
making standardised tools available to everyone. The best example is called the IBAT tool.
One caveat is that it is important not to give the impression that KBA are the only solution to
biodiversity conservation. KBA are one tool in a toolbox of approaches necessary for conservation.
They should always be complimented with conservation activities focusing at other scales where
biodiversity threats also exist. For example, site-based conservation approaches should be
complimented by species-based conservation approaches that tackle species specific threats to
biodiversity, such as hunting and disease. They should also be complimented by landscape or seescape
level approaches, broad regional approaches, corridor approaches, ecoregion approaches to
ensure the conservation of broad-scale ecological processes. This should result not just in the
174

APPENDIX
representation of biodiversity, but also in its persistence. So the site-level KBA approach does not
claim to solve all conservation problems.
Another point which is important to highlight is the opening rational of biodiversity conservation. The
predominant threat to most biodiversity is the destruction of habitat. Given that is the case, the logical
response and the first line in biodiversity conservation, therefore, needs to be the safeguarding of
biodiversity relevant places by preventing habitat destruction. In terms of conservation tactics this
has been implemented for many centuries as the approach of protected areas. The actual
government mechanism protecting an area can and should vary. For example, national parks could
be appropriate in one place, but for another place it may be far more appropriate for an important site
to lie in the hands of a local group. The important thing is that the site is managed in such a way that
is consistent with maintaining biodiversity.
• As an estimate, how large are the KBA sites?
Maximum and minimum sizes are generally not specified. Obviously for any given region an average
emerges as site identification progresses. However the delineation of KBA is driven by what is
manageable for conservation on the ground within a given social and political context. This means
that there is no maximum or minimum threshold on site size. It means that the size of KBA vary
across 7 order of magnitude. There are some examples of tiny KBA all the way through to extremely
large KBA such as of the huge protected areas in Africa and in the Artic. Thus, there is no single
threshold for maximum and minimum size and the average size varies quiet widely depending on the
environmental and social context. So to give an example, in some heavily developed regions, for
instance in Europe or in hotspot type regions in the tropics high levels of habitat land conversion or
high levels of agricultural input, the KBA will tend to be quiet small. Some of them may be very small,
as they are guided by where the remaining fragments of natural habitat persist. This often is where
there are some kind of existing protected areas. At the other end of the scale wilderness type regions
exist. For example, in the woodlands of central Southern Africa, the Amazon or the Arctic where
human development has been much less intense, the delineation of KBA will tend to be at a much
broader extent and be guided by potential manageability, especially aligning with either the mayor
existing protected areas or tribal lands.
So there is no single size.
• How would you best measure the efficiency of the KBA approach?
There is a lot of work, fairly far progressed, being done with regard to monitoring the effectiveness of
conservation across KBA.
Because KBA are initially identified and in general conserved bottom-up, very often from the local
and certainly from the national level, the question of efficiency is not really relevant. There is no
single global stamp stating which site will provide the ‘biggest bang for buck’. Given that the primary
focus in implementation is bottom-up, efficiency at the level of the entire system is much less of a
concern. It is, however, still a concern as KBA are used by some organisations involved in global
mapping. This also includes the private sector and intergovernmental organisations. It is probably
accurate to say that organisations with a global mandate are a relatively small portion of the
constituency of the KBA approach. The fact that the identification of KBA follows global standard
criteria means that it is possible to compare them across the entire framework. So, in theory, other
organisations could compare the effectiveness relative to cost, for example, in investments in
conservation in the Philippines relative to those in Mexico. But the units become sites, rather than
hectares, so the units of conservation are the KBA themselves as opposed to areal measurements.
In terms of monitoring the effectiveness of intervention, there are fairly extensive sets of effort
underway within the Birdlife International partnerships. These are probably the most advanced in
monitoring biodiversity and biodiversity conservation within KBA. The important points: firstly,
175

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER M
monitoring may follow a broad framework of pressure-response and benefit. Secondly, and probably
the norm, the framework develops measures of trends for the biodiversity for which the site is
important. For instance, measures of what is happening to biodiversity threats, in particular in the
range of habitat destruction. Thirdly, where do things stand in terms of the implication of conservation
of a site, protected area status, education initiatives around the site, etc. And finally, what is the flow
of benefits of conservation of the site and the biodiversity for which it is important at different scales.
For instance, these flows of benefits range from the transfer of protected area entrance fees into
local communities, to avoiding carbon emissions from deforestation, therefore contributing to
mitigating climate change.
This is important, as the speed at which these indicators move varies widely across the four
categories. So, some benefits start to flow very quickly, and some are flowing already, as
conservation activities get implemented. However, other conservation actions require considerably
longer to start influencing threat mitigation. It takes even longer for those mitigated threats to
translate into biodiversity conservation. Thus, one can think of these as cons relative to each other,
with the benefits pieces moving quickly and the biodiversity pieces moving slowly.
The other important advantage of the monitoring framework is that it can be implemented at different
scales. So depending on for whom and in whose interest the monitoring is being implemented
(whether it is a national government or the World Bank), different levels of precision require
emphasis. For example, some sites may have particularly heavy investments from a national
government or an intergovernmental agency for monitoring actual species on the ground or for socioeconomic
surveys within the wider landscape. At the other end of the scale, where data is much
sparser, but with some data through the use of remote sensing, although much coarser in resolution,
the progress of biodiversity conservation at those sites can nevertheless be informing.
III
Approaches & their requirements
• A. Time: How much time is required for the identification of KBA?
As with the question of size, this varies widely. Primarily, based on local capacity. The approach is
bottom-up and therefore, while it is important that the process be nested within and owned by local
and national institutions, it takes longer than it would, if it were purely top-down. This is the basis of
the sustainability of conservation efforts, there being approval at local level.
On average, across the regions, where we have supported KBA identification over the last decade, 3
years is about average. Some cases may be faster. The general opinion is that this is probably faster
than it should be, because the most effective processes have been those involving extensive field
surveys prior to identification. This is something Birdlife International has been very effective in
supporting. As we have moved from identification of important sites for birds to important sites for
biodiversity, generally, very often because of the particular structure through which the identification
of KBA has been funded, we have not had the luxury of incorporating these field work components.
So the identification process has been solely based on literature, museum specimens and remotely
sensed data which in my opinion is a weakness. The ideal time is rather longer. Associated with this,
there is no expectation that the process be completed with the support of KBA identification. It should
rather be an iterative process that continues on into the future. Especially when looking at the points
discussed earlier about the importance of KBA being sites that should be managed for biodiversity
conservation, the identification of sites should be flexible into the future, as land-use patterns change
as habitat destruction progresses and as underlying data and datasets change. At the moment work
is being performed in close collaboration with the IUCN on local freshwater and global marine
assessments. The large data sets that emerge from the IUCN will aid in the identification of many
176

APPENDIX
new KBA in aquatic biomes where not many important sites have been identified to date. While the
process can reach a persistent baseline within a couple of years, it will run on at a low level into the
future.
• B. Cost: As an estimate, how much does the identification process cost?
This question is difficult to answer. There are a lot of different components to the KBA process. The
core underpinning of the KBA approach lies in decades or even centuries of collecting biodiversity
data. This being further assessed through the process of extinction risk and evaluation by the
concept of the IUCN of threatened species. This, in itself, is a substantial process. Then the next
step; the identification of baseline KBA themselves which has been the focus of this conversation.
There is prioritisation which is the process of not just identifying the full set of KBA, but also which
sites should be targets for the most urgent conservation actions. Finally, and critically there is the
implementation of conservation at the sites and subsequent monitoring which will inevitably be the
most resource intensive in the entire process.
So, we are relatively hesitant to focus on the identification phase to the exclusion of that full cycle.
There is no point in identification, if it does not support implementation.
The KBA identification phase for about 10 regions has on average cost approximately 1000
US$/KBA. Therefore, for a country or region containing 50 KBA, the cost would be in the order of
50,000$. To put this in perspective, Birdlife International has identified and estimates the
identification of about 10,000 IBA worldwide. The anticipation for KBA on land (i.e. incorporating data
from other terrestrial taxa) is that the total number of KBA will be about double that, likely about
20,000. As the process is not yet completed, it is difficult to be precise. There will definitely be many
more sites in the marine and freshwater environments, but presently we do not have an estimate of
this.
International organisations support the identification process through fundraising. They also support
the scientific process through access to literature, such as biodiversity databases, remote sensing
data, etc. However, it is absolutely key for the process to be embedded within national institutions. In
most cases these are civil society institutions, so there is often considerable CI involvement, through
local branches rather than the global institution.
• C. Human Resources: Can non-specialist users aid in the identification process?
Again it depends very much on local capacity. The typical way in which KBA processes have
proceeded over the last decade or so is that they have been convened, within countries, by teams of
about 3-6 people for data compilation and organisation. That data is then fed into expert review
workshops for validation and correction. So, it is fair to say that a relatively small number of
professionals are involved in organising and managing the process, but then a much broader
community comes to the table for reviewing and participation.
But the expert review would not be through paid consultancies. We try quite hard to avoid one size
fits all solutions. The single aspect which we strive to maintain is the global standards criteria
underlining all KBA. In contrast, the actual process for KBA identification and conservation will vary
enormously around the world. So there is no desire to impose a single approach on factors such as
cost, human resource requirements etc.
• These species based thresholds which are globally set can pose problems in biodiverse areas,
as entire countries should be designated KBA according to the strict global standards and
criteria.
That is a fair concern. It is fair to say that the exact level at which thresholds have been set (even the
structure of the criteria) is a work in progress. But it is correct that it is important that the global
thresholds be set so that the approach has appropriate relevance within a national context. This
works in both directions, both in biodiverse rich areas (such as Indonesia) where it is important that
177

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER M
the approach highlights sites that are particularly important and not to identify the entire country,
especially since this is already known. In biodiverse poorer regions (for example Germany) it is
important for national relevance that the approach is also sensitive enough to identify those sites that
have significance. There is a balancing act that requires continuous attention at the levels of
thresholds within the global criteria. Given the fact that the process has been underway for 30 years
now and in particular focused on the incorporation of biodiversity beyond birds for 10 years, it is fair
to say that considerable progress in converging appropriate criteria and thresholds has been made.
This is, however, not yet complete.
The congregation criteria identify sites not at the species level, but rather the concentration of large
numbers of a given species at a given time. This applies to migratory species. It has become clear
that the application of this criterion, in particular in the marine environment, is problematic at the
moment. Very large concentrations of some marine species (eg. the green turtle) exist, but in terms
of the global population this congregation is still fairly small. There are some continuing areas of
testing and refinement necessary for some aspects of this criterion.
IV
Summary, evaluation & outlook
• How meaningful can approaches used for identification of biodiversity relevant areas be for
conservation?
Try to avoid the term efficiency. In general, efficiency is a fairly misleading concept in conservation
terms. It is obviously important when looking from the perspective of an individual organisation, but it
leaves the impression that there is a single global conservation power trying to maximise its ‘bang for
the buck’ or its ‘dollar here relative to a dollar there’. This is obviously not the case.
I think that highlighting important sites that are not currently on the conservation agenda is actually
one of the important strengths of the KBA approach. Given the focus on conservation practicality, the
approach is designed to reinforce existing conservation implementation. So, current national park
systems and protected areas will very often feature within KBA identification, but the approach
highlights important sites which are beyond existing protected area systems. In general, across
regions where KBA have been identified, we have found that perhaps half or more KBA are not
currently protected areas or targeted with site safeguard approaches. So, drawing attention to these
overlooked priority sites is a very important characteristic of the approach.
• Do you have any further points you would like to add?
Another important point is the relationship between KBA and AZE. KBA is an umbrella approach for
more specific approaches in identifying important bird areas, important plant areas etc. Sites
identified by AZE also fit under this. AZE is effectively the application of prioritisation among sites
with the application of irreplaceability and vulnerability concepts of systematic conservation planning
across KBA areas. The aim of AZE is to fast track the identification of those ‘tip of the iceberg’ most
important sites, to determine the extreme values under both the vulnerability and irreplaceability
criteria. AZE, as IBA and so on, form an important subset of KBA. However, AZE is a different
dimension of the subset, as it has the highest priority in the global field. This has been quite exciting
as a lot of attention is being paid to AZE, both nationally and globally. A number of countries have
adopted AZE to develop national alliances for zero extinction and to implement these in safeguarding
the most important KBA. They have also been accelerating quite a lot globally. As we touched on
earlier, the KBA are not yet comprehensively identified globally, in contrast to AZE. Therefore, AZE
has been adopted as a global indicator within the context of the CBD and other mechanisms.
178

APPENDIX
Furthermore, the question of wrapping up the loose ends around some of the yet to be finalised
criteria remains. In particular, the criteria for habitats and biomes. There is less of an issue around
the species level criteria. There are criteria for habitats and biomes, which are very poorly expressed
and implemented at the moment, but they have been applied quite widely for both birds and plants.
So it is important to not ignore them. There are still questions about the consolidation of the global
criteria, clearly not unexpected, in the development of processes towards the emergence of a global
standard. In any domain this takes a long time to address the final details. A good example is the
development of the IUCN red list of threatened species which has a 50 year history (early 1960), but
it is only within the last 20 years that consistent global standards have emerged. Through the 1990's
there was a lengthy consultative process to converge the final details of the global standards for the
red list. We see the process for global standards for KBA as being similar. Over the last couple of
months IUCN has convened a global process to work over the coming 4 years in order to consolidate
these global standards and criteria; to coordinate all data sets, uniting expertise in setting
conservation targets and priorities from the practitioners in the conservation centres,
intergovernmental agencies and academia, to solidify the specifics of these global standards.
Especially for the aspects of the uncertain criteria on habitats and biomes and their thresholds. This
process will be underway over the coming 4 years through a joint task force convened by the species
survival commission and the IUCN world commission on protected areas. In my opinion your specific
thesis and contribution will in turn provide some quite important information feeding into the task
force, as we move through this process over the coming years.
179

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER N
A4-13 Interview Partner N
II
Approaches & their characteristics
• Which approaches do you use?
We are creating Wildlands Network Designs (WND). Each of those designs individually represents a
different ecoregion. For example, in Arizona we have created the Sky Islands WND which
encompasses parts of two states and Mexico. These are fairly large ecoregions. In addition, four
other WNDs that are linked on a North-South axis stretching from Northern Mexico to Alaska, have
been created. This entire region is referred to as the ‘spine of the continent’.
• So, if I have understood you correctly, it is taking ecoregions and trying to link them?
Exactly. Ecoregions or important habitats within ecoregions are only valuable if they can connect with
other viable habitats or other ecoregions. This is based on the need for protecting/restoring large
predators and other wide-ranging species which can include other species besides predators. But we
are attempting to restore and protect historical migratory routes into the distant future.
• Do you work with already identified ecoregions or do you also identify new ecoregions?
It is a mix. There are several different existing ways that ecoregions have been identified. We use
these, but we also start from scratch and attempt to determine whether the pre-existing boundaries
are in fact the ones that conform to our approach.
• Could you describe any strengths and weaknesses of the approaches you have used?
We have been using different types of methodologies, experimenting with these to optimise them.
The strengths are that not only GIS based science is involved, but also people who understand and
know these regions on the ground (i.e. ground truthing), in addition to the most advanced science
available. So the combination makes it strong.
A weakness would be that we are never quite certain that the methodology is the best for every
situation. For example, we completed a "best science workshop" to try and determine this: what is
the best method to create WND? The results are currently being written up. It was very difficult to get
people to agree on one specific approach.
• With regard to the criteria that I have used to perform the strengths - weakness analysis, can
you think of any criteria that you would use to compare the various approaches?
I would like to comment on your criteria.
You have really covered the whole scope. So I would like to comment on the concepts that I am
familiar. For the creation of WNDs two different types land are dealt with: 1. land that is managed by
federal, state, and local agencies or governments, 2. privately owned land which is often more
important. So within one of the WND there is a total mix of different land-uses, public and private.
Private land is more complex, as there are different kinds of entities involved, large and small scale.
Private land is essentially individual or corporate owners. Thus, different approaches in working with
these different entities exist. With the public lands an assessment is performed to identify which
lands are already protected and their level of protection. This assessment additionally identifies lands
in need of protection to form part of the habitat linkage for wildlife. For instance, campaigning for a
new wilderness designation on public lands, or lobbying the US forest service to implement
management changes on protected lands. This is one way to influence federal lands. In the same
way there is also state, county and city level government. Here, again, various approaches exist to
encourage the improvement or implementation of protection for specifically identified areas.
Again different kinds of approaches exist for private land owners who predominantly own large
ranches for agricultural operations. Here different communication methods may be useful. The most
important of which is to encourage them to consider land protection via conservation easement.
180

APPENDIX
This is a very important conservation tool. For example, a farmer owns 100 acres of land. Its
undeveloped value would be 1 mill. The same land developed to its maximum extent, would have a
value of 10 mill. The value of a conservation easement is determined by identifying the difference
between the two values (in this example 9 mill.). A land trust is an organisation which purchases this
easement and monitors its requirements to ensure that the terms of the easement are followed by
the land owner. The owner continues to hold the deed and is allowed to manage the land in a
traditional manner. However, the land owner must avoid actions determined in the easement that
would harm ecological values of the land, such as subdividing for a housing project. In the case of
cattle ranching, such a restriction might be no grazing in riparian zones. This is the most important
way in which private land owners contribute to conservation.
Another method would be to try and convince private landowners to change their management
practices through incentives. This is less effective, but can sometimes works, if clear information is
presented.
• How do you measure the efficiency of the approaches you use?
This would clearly be through monitoring. Public lands could be monitored. For example, foresters
can be checked to make sure that management changes are being implemented (removal fences). In
the case of private land, the land trust would be responsible for monitoring the land to make sure the
owner was not developing. Obviously monitoring is a long term process and sometimes the changes
are not very visible in the short term, especially the long term changes aimed for.
• But do you monitor the biodiversity values at all?
Absolutely. A field team is required to perform any monitoring exercises.
III
Approaches & their requirements
• A. Time: As an estimate, how much time is required for the creation of a WND?
Generally speaking it takes about 2-3 years to complete the necessary research and then to publish
the results.
Implementation is a whole different ball game. This may take a whole generation to complete, as
these are long term projects.
The Sky Islands WND was the first to be completed and was published in 2000. The implementation
process has been going on for 10 years, associated with this, is a long list of success stories.
However, this is an extremely slow process, thus one success story per year may well be the norm.
For example, the implementation of a habitat protection programme in the surrounding areas of a
large city. WNDs are used as guidelines to identify where the habitat linkages should go. This is used
to purchase important areas which may involve many 1000 of acres. Other examples, the
designation of new protected lands within an WND, such as the creation of a national conservation
area; or the adoption of a conservation easement package by a private land owner
• B. Cost: How much does the identification of a WND cost?
It may cost 100,000 US$ up to 1 mil US$, depending on the size of the project.
• C. Human resources: For identifying a WND, which human resources are required? Is it only
possible to use experts or can non-expert users be part of the identification process?
The required human resources are very diverse and wide-spread. We rely on scientist at the base
level to identify and map these areas. Once this has occurred, other experts, for instance
communication experts and land-trust personnel, become very important for the implementation
process. Wide spread, extremely intensive use of human resources is required.
181

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER N
• E. Purpose of the approach: Does anyone within your organisation monitor biodiversity to
determine the efficiency?
Yes, monitoring is part of the process. We are a non-profit organisation, thus, fund-raising is a major
way of obtaining revenue for conservation activities. When a large grant form a foundation has been
given, reporting to the foundation is required. So, monitoring is important. Another reason for
monitoring is to make sure the habitat is being protected.
Many partner organisations in the Sky Island region work together to implement habitat protection.
They all monitor, in their own way. Thus, there is always general monitoring occurring.
• F. Certification: In your opinion, how do market based initiatives fare in biodiversity
conservation?
There is not a very strong certification process available presently for habitat protection. Harvesting
of private forest lands is a different story, here certification processes are available. However, at the
level of pure habitat protection, not many certification schemes exist.
IV
Summary, evaluation & outlook
• How meaningful can approaches used for identification of biodiversity relevant areas be for
conservation? Or do you think efforts should rather concentrate on existing biodiversity
initiatives rather than identifying new areas?
That could be one of the most important aspects of future work. The reason for that is, the areas
protected now, may not be the areas needed to be protected in the future due to climate change. We
are working developing GIS mapping based tools, called range-shift tools. Essentially, they make
projections based on temperature increases, on where the wildlife will go. This is a model and thus
the projections are not certain, especially since it is difficult to predict where the temperature changes
are going to take place.
• Using these range-shift tools, are you going back to the existing WNDs and modifying them?
No, the existing WNDs have not been modified yet to reflect climate change, But once climate
change tools are perfected, WNDs will need to be modified.
• Are there any other current debates going on within your organisation?
Are you familiar with the conflict going on along the US-Mexican border? We have a problem with
wide scale illegal immigration. So our government has decided to build a wall bisecting very
important wildlife migratory routes. I spend a lot of time lobbying the federal agencies to open wildlife
corridors. A lot of our work is based on stopping habitat fragmentation. This border wall is a true
nightmare as it opens us up to heavy criticism for not wanting to protect our own country from
terrorist and other illegal entrees. We have a set of recommendations for border security operations
that both allow for wildlife connectivity and protect our security at the same time.
• Do you have any further points you would like to add?
Other countries around the world are now starting to implement the WND. For example, in Australia,
conservation organisations with the help of the government have begun to look at the concept. We
are really excited that this is going outside of the boundaries of the US, Canada and Mexico in
influencing the way other countries are doing conservation work.
• Do you think one would be able to implement something similar in Europe with it being so
heavily developed?
It will be much more difficult. However, there is an effort underway in Romania to create some of
these wildlife corridor protection projects. But overall, the more developed the land is, the more
difficult it will be to create large landscape scale habitat corridors. There is a limit.
182

APPENDIX
A4-14 Interview Partner O
II
Approaches & their characteristics
• Which approaches do you know?
The most familiar one is the FSA and something perhaps similar the HCV approach in the sense
that it looks at different types of ecosystems or forest systems. The FSA has been compared to
processes that follow biodiversity indices such as large forested patches and wetlands-like areas.
These were compared through determining how many Heritage Areas overlapped when looking
at the maps generated by the various approaches.
In essence inventories were performed to determine the occurrence of significant ecosystems
unique to an area defined at the level of local, regional and national. For example, a cluster of
White Pine trees not usually found in the area will be given Natural Heritage Site status as it is
unique to that region.
I have no experience with a REA. ERBC, I have not actually conducted an assessment myself.
KBA is something similar to what was mentioned above.
• Could you describe any strengths or weaknesses of the FSA?
One strength is that species with available data are chosen, thus, species occurrence based on
habitat type can actually be mapped. To determine the focal species, information from about 40
experts in species conservation was collected and a Delphi Survey was performed. The focal
species turned out to be species with known habitat requirements and species occurrence maps
were drawn.
The downside is that there is not lot of data that demonstrates the co-occurrence of these
species. There is, however, some indication that the co-occurrence of species depends on the
scale at which one examines them.
The other advantage is that the selected focal species are often species people are familiar with.
So it is much easier to have conversations with planners, for example, about those species.
• What criteria would be important for you to compare the different approaches?
If considering areas with high development pressure, other criteria may be more important. In
these areas changes occur very quickly, thus, it is often difficult to use an approach that takes a
long time to try and direct those changes in a way that is less harmful to biodiversity. On these
criteria the availability of data to actually work with is fairly important, so this should be placed
high up on the list.
Are all levels of biodiversity assessed? This is probably not as much as a driving factor when
developing plans for smaller areas. This is especially true if one is not working with a global plan
where one tries to make sure that one has representation of all global ecosystem types. So
certain criteria might not be as critical as they would be for someone using a different approach.
The relevance and priority of the criteria depend very much on the objective of the project.
It is difficult to perform top-down approaches in the US, particularly in the South Eastern US
where there is a very strong feeling of property rights. It is very difficult to prescribe measures to
protect biodiversity. So a bottom-up approach, such as convincing land-owners that it is the right
thing to do, is the most practical way to achieve anything in a reasonable amount of time.
All of these criteria are good. The importance of each criterion depends on what is trying to be
accomplished.
What about how long it takes? If the aim is to work with a developer to make their project as
friendly to wildlife as possible, two questions will arise: how much does it cost and how long will it
take? If either one of those are too large, it will not happen.
• How would you best measure the efficiency of the approaches in general? What would you
see as important for an approach to be efficient?
Efficiency is input vs output: the ultimate measure would be to see whether the plan is successful
in conserving whatever was aimed at being conserved. This is incredibly difficult to evaluate at
183

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER O
any large scale, as much data on species occurrences is lacking. Even in wealthy countries such
as the USA or places in Europe with the available resources, much basic information on species
occurrence and population status is lacking. Thus, this type of output is extremely difficult to
measure. This is one of the things we are struggling with, how to determine the success of land
conservancies.
So one should try and look for other ways to determine output, while obtaining outcome data on
whether the targeted species are actually persisting. These would include aspects such as
whether threats to the species are being reduced. For example, if one concentrates on species
that require forests, has one successfully reduced the threats to those habitats, is one protecting
the habitat, is the rate or decline decreasing or halted? Is the amount of habitat increasing? Are
the things that are threatening the species and system of interest being abated? These are
measures of the outcome. This could be on the output side.
On the input side, aspects such as money, time and other resources required to accomplish the
objectives. Then efficiency could be looked at.
Not many people are actually addressing this. All land trusts in the US report to conserve such
features as water quality, wildlife, etc. When they report on their activities and accomplishments,
they tend to all report on the how many acres have been protected and how many dollars have
been raised. They may rarely talk about whether or not their actions are actually conserving
whatever they are trying to safeguard other than the fact that they protected 3000 acres of forest,
for example. That is as far as it goes with most of the land conservancies. This does not apply to
larger organisations such as TNC which are beginning to address the ecological effects of their
actions. This applies to smaller, more local conservancies. So they do not really determine that
they have protected an area so that species such as the oven bird will persist and is persisting.
They are not getting to that step of assuring the outcome of the results. That is extremely difficult,
time consuming and cost intensive. These resources many of these conservancies do not have.
There is a not completely unreasonable argument that given what is being faced in many places,
the appropriate thing to do right now is to purchase and protect as much land as possible and to
worry about the questions of efficiency later. These questions are starting to be tackled, partly
because, the funding organisations are starting to ask these questions: a lot of money is being
spent, a lot of land is being bought and is anything happening? So this is definitely coming, this
whole issue of accountability is going to become increasingly important.
III
Approaches & their requirement
• A. Time: How much time is required for the identification of areas using the FSA?
To create the map, it took almost 1 year, as we were new to the approach. But it can be done in
1-2 months, once the focal species are known. To identify the focal species, it might take one
further month.
So for someone to work on the approach full-time, it could probably be done in about 6 months.
• Are you talking about an area with a lot of available species data?
Yes or at least, data available on habitats of local species. Even in places where data is not that
good in terms of species inventories, the people working in conservation in those areas have a
fairly good sense of what they could use as focal species. There is probably some data for those
species about their habitat requirements, what their home ranges are and so on. These being the
key requirements for performing a FSA. So even though the overall situation might be poor in
species data, someone might be able to pull together a focal species plan with limited amount of
data. Then the question becomes how well does it actually work when implemented?
• For the identification stage what is size-scale at which one works?
In general, they would be regional or smaller area maps. 100's of 1000's of km 2 , somewhere in
that region. Continental focal maps would tend to be at a coarser scale. FSA are usually
184

APPENDIX
performed at a smaller spatial scale, as species, very specific habitat types and home ranges are
dealt with. Could a species map for the barred owl for the entire US be drawn? It probably could,
but would anyone? I am not so sure. It may be useful to help identify biodiversity hotspots, as
these usually come from species data and not from focal species
• B. Cost: as an estimate, how much does the identification process cost?
This was done with graduate students. So there is a distinction between how much it cost us and
how much it would cost to pay a consultant.
One way to come up with an estimate is to think about the 3 months time frame.
For the area we assessed, it would be in the order of 10's of 1000's of US$ for consultants. That
is fairly rough estimate.
• C. Human Resources: What are the human resource requirements for identifying areas
using the FSA?
All our work was performed using graduate students working on wildlife degrees. So they had a
good biological background. They were learning about wildlife and they knew how to use GIS and
how to do library research on the habitat needs of the selected focal species. So the whole
process could be done with graduate students. If it is done this way, it is going to be less costly,
but it will also take longer. Because graduate students are typically learning as they are doing it.
If professional consultants worked full-time on the assessment, it could be done in 3-4 months.
To select the focal species, those individuals would have to develop a network to identify the
species using perhaps a Delphi Survey or another approach. This is a fairly simple requirement,
as the information just needs to be obtained from a variety of people. Then they would have to
have the expertise to evaluate the information and to determine the wildlife habitat needs for the
focal species, translate that into something that can be mapped onto a geographic information
system, collect the data required for mapping. Thus, they would have to either find out or know
where the satellite or land map data is available. Then they would have to put it all together to
create the maps.
• Would it be possible for non-expert users to be part of the identification process? Nonexperts
in conservation or wildlife.
Someone who did not know a lot about wildlife could probably perform the survey in identifying
the focal species. To some degree an intelligent human being with geographical skills, able to do
literature research and who knows how to talk to people might be capable of doing this. But there
is something additional obtained, if a person who knows something about wildlife performs the
analysis. The skilled person is more likely to recognise the types of follow-up questions, to
understand the nuances that may be necessary to get at the required data.
• So basically, the quality of the outcome would be compromised if a non-expert user tried to
identify areas using the FSA?
Firstly, the product will be better if an expert performs the assessment, such as a wildlife
professional with GIS background or a strong graduate with a mentor who understands the
approach and has a network of university affiliates. The second issue relates to the credibility of
the product. Once the product has been made available, if it should be implemented, it would be
helpful with regard to credibility if the information had expertise backing it.
• How effective do you think the FSA is in conserving biodiversity?
I do not know if anybody knows this. It seems like it is doing a reasonably good job, but it also
seems that it is not a whole lot better than many of the more simple approaches which require a
lot less time and effort. The simple plans that we assessed, are much easier to create, they
require fewer resources and they really did fairly well, even compared to the more complex focal
species plans. I have not seen any scientific empirical studies over any period of time that
evaluates the outcome of the application plan, such as a FSA plan. Also in part, because the
plans are created and not implemented for a variety of reasons. The correlation between
indicator species and other species is very dependent on the exact scale and the extent of region
under consideration. Then one always ends up in the conversation on what else could be done. If
185

A4-INTERVIEW PARTNER O
this cannot be done, what can be done? This is a reasonable question, but it is almost a
rationalisation for doing something, rather than admitting that this was done due to the best
professional judgement on an approach that was believed to work. Whether it really does work, is
unknown.
IV
Summary, evaluation & outlook
• How meaningful can approaches used for the identification of biodiversity relevant areas be
for conservation? What in your opinion is more important, identifying new areas for
conservation or improving conservation of existing areas?
In a sense you are asking me, where would I put my resources, if I were in the position to
decide? I would do some of each.
Relative resources: It takes far more resources to actually implement a plan and manage an area
for conservation than it does to create maps. So, it seems, if I had the resources I would want to
continue mapping out areas that are unknown. But in the case of the paper park’s issue which is
particularly true in more developing countries where the pressure from people in poverty and
distress is grave. To say that this is a preserve and that it is therefore protected is unreasonable.
So some management needs to be implemented at some point in that area, as it may be a
preserve in name, but not in reality. I do not think it is appropriate to completely ignore this. I
would tend to put a lot of emphasis on the actual implementation in the areas that are already
known. Whether that requires further refinement with FSA or other approaches is an open
question. It may be more important to engage the communities who live possibly in or adjacent to
the reserve to find ways to work with them to protect those areas. Then one could always have a
couple of people within one's organisation (assuming one has an organisation) who could
continue to look at unchartered territory to see if there where things worth pursuing elsewhere.
Unless one has a notion, as with the land conservancies where they decided that right now one
just has to, at least in name, protect as much as possible. The argument being that if one does
not do it now, then it will never be protected. With the goal of coming back in about 5 years to
really start managing it. If one is in that mind frame, it would seem reasonable to go ahead and
protect as much as possible. Assuming that the protected can wait until management actually
starts. Otherwise resources will be wasted if the protected land is not managed.
• Do you have any further points you would like to add?
I think we are starting to address the type of question just asked previously. Implementing these
plans is an important step. At least in areas where there is pressure from suburban development,
implementing these plans is very difficult. It is very easy to draw maps and say these are
ecologically important areas. It is extremely difficult when a corporation comes in and says we
would like to develop the area. That is extremely difficult to push back against, especially in the
current climate in the US. We have to find ways to do this. Many of the land-use decisions are
made by local planning government who often do not focus on conservation issues. They are tied
up in a lot of other land-use activities. As important as it is to identify areas important for
conservation, it is just as important to persuade agencies and people who make land-use
decisions that conservation is important. This may be more important, as a fight may arise with a
new project proposal. One ends up in the position of the nay-sayers which is counterproductive.
186

APPENDIX
A5
Strength-Weakness Analyses: Detailed Assessment Results
A5-1 Strength-Weakness Profile: High Conservation Value (HCV) Concept
Table 17: Overview of data obtained for HCV strength-weakness profile
Criteria Strength Weakness
A. Addressed
biodiversity
levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem
types
C. Geographic
scale of
applicability
D. Level of
approach
E. Implementation
style
F. Suitability for
different users
J. Possibility of
scoping
assessment
• Species richness is addressed in
HCV1 and HCV2 1
• Ecosystem diversity is addressed in
HCV3 1
• Genetic variation is conserved in
HCV2 2
• Designed for the use in forest
ecosystems
• Grasslands have included in HCV
identification process
• Global implementation 3
• Regional scale implementation 4,5
• Local scale implementation 3
• Local level always considers
regional level 5,6
• Designed for implementation at the
private sector level 3
• In some cases has been applied to
the public sector level 7
• Generic HCV definitions are purely
top-down, as they rely on
internationally defined criteria 3
• Generic definitions then placed in a
regional or national context, with
stakeholder participation, providing a
bottom-up approach 9
• Combination of top-down and
bottom-up 9
• Combination of international and
national experts 7,9,10 , especially for
high impact operations 9
• For low impact operations local user
groups can perform assessment with
validation by expert 9
• Stakeholder participation important
part of entire process 11
• During preparation, existing data and
required data, existing and likely
HCVs and the likely impact of the
operation should be identified, as
part of a pilot study 11
• This enables the identification of the
assessment team and the
stakeholder consultation needs 11
• No information found in literature
or from interviews
• Grasslands were not specifically
targeted for identification 1
• Has neither been designed for
other terrestrial nor aquatic
ecosystems
• Regional level assessments for
conservation planning purposes
(eg. Brazil, Indonesia 3 ), outside of
FSC, result in small islands of
protected areas 7,8
• Within the public sector level it
attempts to identify the smallest
possible area 7
• No information found in literature
or from interviews
• No information found in literature
or from interviews
• Pilot study not sufficient to identify
existing or likely HCVs
187

A5-1
Criteria Strength Weakness
J. Continued -
Possibility of
scoping
assessment
K. Consideration of
threats
L. Monitoring
recommenddations
M. Management
recommenddations
Source: Own design
• During planning, time requirements
and the budget of the assessment
are identified 11
• Rapid assessment (site survey ~2
days 12 ) is performed at the beginning
to determine that HCVs are not
present which minimises cost and
time of an assessment 12,13
• Threat assessment is divided into
low impact and high impact 11
• Both internal and external threats are
easily identified using tools such as
the 5-S Framework, Participatory
Conservation Planning (PCP) and
the Threat Reduction Assessment 11
• Potential impacts are ranked
according to their severity, high,
medium and low 11
• Stakeholder participation
encouraged in threat identification 11
• Aims to develop a monitoring plan to
which should detect changes in the
status of an HCV and allow prompt
action 11
• General guidance on monitoring is
provided 14
• Normally occurs through specifically
identified indicators 14
• Indicators include counts, water
quality assessments and social
aspects such as income derived
from non-timber products 14
• Basic ideas and processes for
management strategies are
outlined 14
• Concept is about helping managers
find a way to manage their land
without affecting the biodiversity or
environmental and social values 14
• No further information found in
literature or from interviews
• No information found in literature
or from interviews
• No information found in literature
or from interviews
• No information found in literature
or from interviews
1 Jennings S., Nussbaum R., Judd N., Evans T. (2003): High Conservation Value Forest Toolkit;
Edition 1; Proforest; Oxford
2 Stafford Smith M., Ash A. (2006): High Conservation Value in the Rangelands; Report of a workshop
for the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Desert Knowledge
Cooperative Research Centre, Alice Springs
3
High Conservation Value Resource Network (2005 - 07): (retrieved: 29. May 2009)
http://www.hcvnetwork.org/;
4 Rayden T., Kruglianskas I., Stewart C. (2009): An assessment of potential High Conservation Values
within Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique; Proforest; Oxford
188

APPENDIX
5 Punde S (2007): Prioritising areas for Forest Conservation in the Konkan region of the Western
Ghats hotspot (India) - a pilot study; Applied Environmental Research Foundation (AERF)
6
Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH (2008): Early Experience in
Implementing Biofuel Certification; Workshop for Policymakers and Practitioners; Federal Ministry for
Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ); Brussels
7 Interview Partner E
8 Lindhe, A. (2005-07): Extension from forests to other ecosystems and across landscapes; (retrieved
07.06.2009) http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/comment-consultation
9 Interview Partner D
10 Interview Partner G
11 Stewart C., George P., Rayden T., Nussbaum, R. (2008): Good practice guidelines for High
Conservation Value assessment - a practical guide for practioners and auditors; Proforest; Oxford
12 Proforest (2005-07)b: Part2: Defining High Conservation Values at national level: a practical guide;
(retrieved 05.06.2009) http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/global-hcv-toolkits;
13 Pollard E. H. B. (2005): Preliminary High Conservation Value Forest assessment for Ha Nung state
forest enterprise; WWF Greater Mekong
14 Proforest (2005-07)c: Part3: Identifying and managing High Conservation Values Forests: a guide
http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/global-hcv-
for forest managers; (retrieved 05.06.2009)
toolkits;
189

A5-2 Strength-Weakness Profile: Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Approach
Table 18: Overview of data obtained for the KBA strength-weakness profile
Criteria Strength Weakness
A. Addressed
biodiversity
levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem
types
C. Geographical
scale of
applicability
D. Level of
approach
E. Implementation
style
• Species level addressed through the
species based criteria 1
• KBA networks are large 1 and,
therefore, able to conserve genetic
diversity drift
• Can be applied across all
•
biogeographic regions 1,2
• Case studies for terrestrial and
3,4 ,5,6 ,7
aquatic ecosystems exist
• National level identification with sitescale
implementation 10
• Provides a powerful watch list for the
private sector to identify sites not
suitable for development 11
• Designed for use at the public sector
level
• Criteria and thresholds globally set 2
• Local stakeholder participation
sometimes included in identification
and delineation 11
• No rare, threatened or
endangered ecosystems were
identified
A5-2
Urgent need to increase available
data on aquatic biodiversity to
improve KBA criteria 1,2,8
• Due to global thresholds,
identification at a regional or local
level, may result in significant
omission and or commission
errors 9
• Global thresholds have provided
problems in priority setting 10
• Not designed for implementation
at the private sector level
• Global thresholds have provided
problems in priority setting at a
local and regional scale 10
• Local stakeholder inclusion
normally only for the refinement of
delinetaion 3, 9
F. Suitability for
different users
J. Possibility of
scoping
assessment
K. Consideration
of threats
• International and national experts
vital for identification 1,2,12
• Where possible chose national over
international experts
• Stakeholder participation required for
delineation of sites 11
• No information found in literature or
from interviews
• Internal threats: habitat loss and
degradation, illegal logging, land
conversions, drainage and pollution
of wetlands, etc 13
• External threats: urban development,
demographic growth, invasive
species, illegal trade of species, etc 13
• Major future threat under
consideration is climate change 13
• Threats have been ranked high,
moderate and low 4
190
• Participation only encouraged
after KBA status has been given 9
• Identification process embedded
within national institutions 11 , any
scoping assessment will be left up
to them
• Identification and delineation is an
iterative process 11 , making it
difficult to design a scoping
assessment
• No information found in literature
or from interviews

APPENDIX
Criteria Strength Weakness
L. Monitoring
recommenddations
M. Management
recommenddations
Source: Own design
• Monitoring recommendations are
given by the KBA process 2
• Examples of monitoring are
provided: site level monitoring
provides information on the accuracy
and current status of KBA;
monitoring is important at sites
containing rare, threatened or
engendered species whose threat is
external 2
• Monitoring initiatives using remote
sensing are underway and are fast,
and cost effective 2
• General management
recommendations are provided in the
form of examples: management is
key for the habitat restoration of
habitat; or depleted populations
should be supplemented with captive
or artificially breed species 2
• Exact management strategies are
left to the country or region 2
• Finer scale monitoring must
supplement any monitoring by
remote sensing 2
• No information found in literature
or from interviews
1 Eken G., Bennun L., Brooks T. M., Darwall W., Fishpool L. D. C., Foster M., Knox D., Langhammer
P., Matiku P., Radford E., Salaman P., Sechrest W., Smith M. L., Spector S., Tordoff A. (2004): Key
biodiversity areas as site conservation targets; Bioscience; 54(12):1110-1118
2 Langhammer P. F., Bakarr M. I., Bennun L., Brooks T. M., Clay P. C., Darwall W., De Silva N., Edgar
G. J., Eken G., Fishpool L. D. C., da Fonseca G. A. B., Foster M. N., Knox D. H., Matiku P., Radford
E. A., Rodrigues A. S. L., Salaman P., Sechrest W., Tordoff A. W. (2007): Identification and analysis
of Key Biodiversity Areas: Targets for comprehensive protected areas system; IUCN, Gland
3 Eken G., Bozdoğan M., Karataş A., Lise Y. (2004): Key Biodiversity Areas: Identifying the world's
priority sites for conservation – lessons learned from Turkey; Doğa Derneği, Ankara, Turkey
4 Gerlach J. (2008): Setting conservation priorities - A Key Biodiversity Areas analysis for the
Seychelles Islands; The Open Conservation Biology Journal 2:44-53
5 Erdmann T. K. (2008): Ecoregional conservation and development in Madagascar; USAid (retrieved
18. 08. 2009) http://www.usaid.gov/mg/so6_docs/ecoregional_approach.pdf
6 CSIR (2007): Delineating key biodiversity areas for the New Guinea Wilderness; (retrieved
18.10.2009) http://www.csiro.au/science/PNGMilneBay.html
7 Edgar G. J., Langhammer P. F., Allen G., Brooks T. M., Brodie J., Crosse W., De Silva N., Fishpool
L. D. C., Foster M. N., Knox D. H., McCosker J. E., McManus R., Millar A. J. K., Mugo R. (2008):
Key Biodiversity Areas as globally significant target sites for the conservation of marine biological
diversity; Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems; 18:969-983
191

A5-2
8 IBAT - Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool for Business (2008): Key Biodiversity Areas; Critical
biodiversity information to support corporate decision-making; (retrieved 19.08.2009)
http://www.ibatforbusiness.org/userfiles/docs/kbaandbusiness.pdf
9 Knight A. T., Smith R. J., Cowling R. M., Desmet P. G., Faith D. P., Ferrier S., Gelderblom C. M.,
Grantham H., Lombard A. T., Maze K., Nel J. L., Parrish J. D., Pence G. Q. K., Possingham H. P.,
Reyers B., Rouget M., Roux D., Wilson K. A. (2007): Improving Key Biodiversity Areas approach for
effective conservation planning; BioScience; 57(3):256-261
10 Interview Partner G
11 Interview Partner M
12 Bird Conservation Nepal (2009): Developing civil society networks to conserve Key Biodiversity
Areas in Nepal; focusing on the Kanchenjunga-Singalila Complex; CEPF final project completion
report (retrieved 19.08.2009) http://www.cepf.net/Documents/Final_BCN_civil_society_networks.pdf
13 García-Moreno J., Clay R. P., Ríos-Muñoz C. A. (2007): The importance of birds for conservation in
the Neotropical region; Journal of Orthithology; 148(Suppl 2):321-326
192

APPENDIX
A5-3 Strength-Weakness Profile: Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) Approach
Table 19: Overview of data obtained for ERBC strength-weakness profile
Criteria Strength Weakness
A. Addressed
biodiversity
levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem
types
C. Geographical
scale of
applicability
D. Level of
approach
• Genetic diversity of species with
available genetic data has been
selectively captured within an ERBC
assessment 1
• Conservation of genetic diversity
through representation and replication
of conservation targets within each
subdivision of the ecoregion 1,12
• Species richness is captured at two
levels: 1. Coarse level – protects plant
communities and ecological
processes; 2. Fine level – identifies
threatened, rare or endemic species
with a special need for conservation 2
• The Global 200 analysis identifies the
most prominent biological features of
each priority ecoregion 3
• This large scale analysis lays the
groundwork for finer-scale analyses
within the ecoregion to priority sites,
including rare ecosystems 4
• Conservation of large natural habitats
indirectly conserves genetic diversity
• Both terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems have been assessd 3
• Workbook for terrestrial ecosystems
exists 4
• Workbook for freshwater ecosystems
exists 5
• Was designed for global application 3,6
• Implemented on a regional level with
different case studies applied at
various geographical scales, ranging
from single watersheds to entire
continents 6
• Implementation at the local level is
represented through analytical work
conducted within an ecoregion 4
• In theory can be implemented at the
private sector level - eg. in large-scale
logging concessions, such as in
Central Africa, only one tree per
hectare, per 25 years is cut 7
• Designed for implementation at an
ecoregional scale: probably has both
the private and public sector levels
incorporated into the conservation
strategy outcome, resulting in a mosaic
of conservation priority sites and sites
where land-use may take place 8
• Designed for implementation at the
public sector level 9
193
• Assume that other species’
genetic diversity is also
captured 1
• No information found in literature
or from interviews
• Entire assessment is always
carried out at a greater level
than local, thus local can only be
addressed partially 4
• Implementation by the private
sector level may be difficult to
achieve, especially in highly
fragmented areas, as one of the
goals is to conserve blocks of
large natural habitat 10
• Conservation within these
production sites (private sector)
would have to be dealt with at a
management level 11
• May result in too much
additional pressure being placed
on a country or region with an
already large percentage of
protected areas 11

A5-3
Criteria Strength Weakness
E. Implementation
style
F. Suitability for
different users
J. Possibility of
scoping
assessment
K. Consideration
of threats
L. Monitoring
recommendations
M. Management
recommendations
Source: Own design
• Identification of ecoregions by a global
biodiversity assessment is top-down 3
• Identifying priority sites with
ecoregions is bottom-up as local
experts and stakeholders are
consulted 10
• Requires an entire team of experts,
ideally local, national and international
experts 4
• Indigenous people (i.e. local user
groups) and other stakeholders should
also always be part of the identification
process 4
• During preparation the assessment
team should be formed, designing and
preparing for expert workshops and
gathering essential data 4
• The time required to complete an
ERBC assessment takes
approximately 2 years 1,11
• Financial cost is considered when
choosing an assessment team and
whilst obtaining available data 4
• Makes use of the 5-S Framework tool
for threat assessment 4
• Levels of threat are ranked
qualitatively: low, medium, high, from
the source 1
• Zones of threat degree, both internal
and external, are established 1
• Identifies highly threatened priority
areas but where threats can be
abated 1
• Major future threat under consideration
• No information found in literature
or from interviews
• No information found in literature
or from interviews
• No information found in literature
or from interviews
• No information found in
literature or from interviews
is climate change 1
• Monitoring is an important component • No information found in literature
of the long term biodiversity vision or from interviews
plan 4
• Includes recommendations: monitoring
of keystone species and the species
dependent on them, monitoring of
migratory species, etc 4
• May also be involved in the
implementation of additional
conservation strategies 8,12
• Part of the biodiversity vision plan is
the development of management
practices 4
• No information found in literature
or from interviews
1 Interview Partner J
2 Marshall R. M., Turner D., Gondor A., Gori D., Enquist C., Luna G., Paredes Aguilar R., Anderson
S., Schwartz S., Watts C., Lopez E., Comer P. (2004): An ecological analysis of conservation
194

APPENDIX
priorities in the Apache Highlands; prepared by The Nature Conservancy of Arizona, Instituto del
Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de Sonora; agency and institutional partners
3 Olson D. M., Dinerstein E. (1998): The Global 200: a representation approach to conserving the
Earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation Biology; Vol. 12(3):502-515
4 Dinerstein E., Powell G., Olson D., Wikramanayake E. D., Abell R., Loucks C., Underwood E., Allnutt
T., Wettengel W., Ricketts T., Strand H., O'Connor S., Burgess N. (2000): A workbook for
conducting biological assessments and developing biodiversity visions for ecoregion-based
conservation; World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D. C.
5 Abell R. M., Thieme M., Dinerstein E., Olson D. (2002): A sourcebook for conducting biological
assessments and developing biodiversity visions for ecoregion conservation; Volume II: Freshwater
ecoregions; World Wildlife Fund; Washington D. C.
6 Conservation Online (2009)a: Conservation by design Gateway: Links to completed Ecoregional
Assessments; (retrieved10.10.2009)
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/era/reports/index_html
7 Interview Partner F
8 Moore J. E., Kitchener D. J., Salim A., Pollard E. H. B., Stanley S. A. (2004): Ecoregional
assessment of biological diversity conservation in East Kalimantan, Indonesia; Volume I - Report;
The Nature Conservancy Asia/Pacific Region: Indonesia Program East Kalimantan Portfolio Office
9 Interview Partner A
10 Dinerstein E., Olson D., Atchley J., Loucks C., Contreras-Balderas S., Abell R., Iñigo E., Enkerlin E.,
Williams C., Castilleja G. (2002): Ecoregion-based conservation in the Chihuahuan Desert; a
biological assessment; a collaborative effort by World Wildlife Fund, Comisíon National para el
Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), The Nature Conservancy, PRONATURA
Noreste, and the Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM)
11 Interview Partner I
12 Marshall R. M., Anderson S., Batcher M., Comer P., Cornelius S., Cox R., Gondor A., Gori D.,
Humke J., Paredes Aguilar R., Parra I. E., Schwartz S. (2000): An Ecological Analysis of
Conservation Priorities in the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion; Prepared by The Nature Conservancy
Arizona Chapter, Sonoran Institute, and Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del
Estado de Sonora with support from Department of Defence Legacy Program, Agency and
Institutional partners
195

A5-4 Strength-Weakness Profile: Focal Species Approach (FSA)
Table 20: Overview of data obtained for the FSA strength-weakness profile
Criteria Strength Weakness
A. Addressed
biodiversity
levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem
types
C. Geographical
scale of
applicability
D. Level of
approach
E. Implementation
style
F. Suitability for
different users
J. Possibility of
scoping
assessment
K. Consideration
of threats
• Designed for implementation in
heavily developed landscapes,
primarily agriculture 1,2
• Relies solely on locally
threatened or endangered
species
• Designed for implementation in
any terrestrial ecosystem –
heavily developed
• Has been implemented at a
2,4 ,5
global scale
• Has been implemented at a local
A5-5
• Criteria used by this approach do
not rely on globally or regionally
rare, threatened, endangered and/
or endemic species nor
ecosystems
• Focuses on a specific set of
species and assumes that by
covering the needs of these 'focal
species', the needs of all other
species are covered 1,3
• Genetic diversity has not been
addressed
• Has not been designed for
implementation in aquatic
ecosystems
• No information found in literature
or from interviews on a regional
assessment
• Provides a workable, useful and
owned land 4
scientifically sound method of or from interviews
addressing conservation in
agricultural lands, privately
owned 7,8
• Implementation within regions of
both privately and publicly
• No information on the use of
• Implementation typically through
data is taken into consideration 1
partnerships between
government, community-based
organisations 2 and industry, land
owners and the general public 5
global and/ or national species
status databases was found
• To determine the focal
community, only local or regional
• Designed for use by experts • International experts not included
experts 2,5
• The identification of focal species in the identification process
and their key threats requires • Local user groups not included in
input from local or national
the identification process
• No information found in literature • No information found in literature
or from interviews
or from interviews
• First step in identifying the focal
community is the identification of
threats, both external and
internal 1
• Threats divided into four
categories: areal-limited,
dispersal-limited, resourcelimited,
and ecological processlimited
• Interaction of threatening
processes not considered 10
196

APPENDIX
Criteria Strength Weakness
K. Continued -
Consideration
of threats
L. Monitoring
recommenddations
M. Management
recommenddations
Source: Own design
• No information found in literature
• No information found in literature
• Threatened species assigned to
threat categories and the most
vulnerable species will be termed
the focal species 1
• All focal species are the focal
community which is used to
determine the characteristics of a
landscape that must exist if the
needs of all other biota are to be
met 2
• These threats include habitat
fragmentation, agriculture, forest
fires, degradation of habitat
structure and complexity, patch
size, erosion, declining water
quality, tree dieback, dry land
salinity 9
• Monitoring recommendations are
process is critically mportant 1
made and include the extent of or from interviews
and barriers to on-ground
implementation of the FSA, costs
and benefits of implementation,
areas for improvement, and
whether the designs achieved
their stated objectives 2
• Monitoring is required for the
approach to be of value for long
term landscape restoration 2
• Establishment of a monitoring
• Aims to identify management
strategies 2
interventions needed for the
or from interviews 10
maintenance of species and
habitats within a degraded
landscape 2
• Guide the design and
implementation of revegetation
and vegetation management
1 Lambeck R. J. (1997): Focal Species: A Multi-Species Umbrella for Nature Conservation;
Conservation Biology;11(4): 849-856
2 Huggett A. (2007): A review of the focal species approach in Australia; Land & Water Australia,
Canberra
3 Lindenmayer D. B., Manning A. D., Smith P. L., Possingham H. P., Fischer J., Oliver I., McCarthy M.
A. (2002):The Focal Species approach and landscape restoration: a critique; Conservation Biology;
16(2):338-345
4 Bani L., Baietto M., Bottoni L., Masse R. (2002): The use of focal species in designing a habitat
network for a lowland area of Lombardy, Italy; Conservation Biology; 16(3):826-831
197

A5-5
5 Hess G. R., King T. J. (2002): Planning open spaces for wildlife; I. selecting focal species using a
Delphi survey approach; Landscape and Urban Planning; 58(1):25-40
6 Freudenberger D. (2001): Bush for the birds: Biodiversity enhancement guidelines for the Saltshaker
Project, Boorowa, NSW; Consultancy report to Greening Australia ACT & SE NSW, Inc.; CSIRO
Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra
7 Brooker L. (2002): The application of focal species knowledge to landscape design in agricultural
lands using the ecological neighbourhood as a template; Landscape and Urban Planning; 60(4):185-
210
8 Freudenberger D. (1999): Guidelines for Enhancing Grassy Woodlands for the Vegetation
Investment Project; CSIRO Wildlife & Ecology; Canberra
9 Roberge J. M., Angelstam P. (2004): Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation
tool; Conservation Biology; 18(1):76-85
198

APPENDIX
A5-5 Strength-Weakness Profile: Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA)
Table 21: Overview of data obtained for REA strength-weakness profile
Criteria Strength Weakness
A. Addressed
biodiversity
levels
B. Addressed
ecosystem
types
C. Geographical
scale of
applicability
D. Level of
approach
E. Implementation
style
F. Suitability for
different users
J. Possibility of
scoping
assessment
• Performed at the species level and
is extremely relevant to this level of
biodiversity 1
• Has been implemented in a wide
range of ecosystems, from
grasslands, forests to various
aquatic systems 2
• Can be adapted to any ecosystem •
type 1,2
• Both terrestrial and aquatic REA
3,4 ,5
case studies exist
• Implementation at both regional 4
and local scale 7,8 throughout the
world 2
• Resulted in the establishment of
protected areas, development of
management plans and zonation,
design of biological corridors and
development of threat abatement
programmes 2
• Has been implemented at private
and public sector level 3,4
• An excellent approach for obtaining
data on large areas with very little
available data, benefitting research
programmes, enabling planning and
aiding in the identification of
stakeholders and constituencies 2, 6
• Determines ecological information
actually present in the area of
interest and identifies conservation
targets 2
• Implemented by national authorities
and local user groups 2
• Designed for use by preferably,
local or national experts 2
• Local users groups are able to
contribute to the identification
stage 7,8
• International experts have also
taken part in REAs 7,8
• Scoping assessment is performed
during the initial planning stages 2
• Cost, timing, team composition and
objectives are identified 2
• Objectives include the scale, and
therefore, level of landscape
classification and the number of
assessed taxonomic groups 2
• Genetic diversity is not addressed
• Further analysis of ecosystems
requires guidance for
understanding their functioning 1
No information found in literature or
from interviews
• No information found in literature or
from interviews
• No information found in literature or
from interviews
• It does not rely on global and
national species data
• It does not rely on global
ecosystem data
• No information found in literature or
from interviews
• No information found in literature or
from interviews
199

A5-5
Criteria Strength Weakness
K. Consideration
of threats
L. Monitoring
recommenddations
M. Management
recommenddations
Source: Own design
• Assessment of existing and
potential threats to species and
vegetation types in and adjacent to
study area 2
• Often divided into low, medium or
high risk 2
• Monitoring needs will be part of the
management recommendations 2
• Valuable data can be accumulated
through monitoring which may give
an indication of the effectiveness of
conservation management 7
• Management recommendations are
formulated to promote long term
viability of biodiversity 2
• Include aspects such as how to
zone a site for mixed uses, active
management actions, consideration
of watershed issues and monitoring
needs 2
• Exact recommendations are made
case by case 7
• No information found in literature or
from interviews
• No information found in literature or
from interviews
• No information found in literature or
from interviews
1 Convention on Biological Diversity (2005): Guidelines for the rapid ecological assessment of
biodiversity in inland water, coastal and marine areas. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, Montreal, Canada, CBD Technical Series no. 22 and the Secretariat of the Ramsar
Convention, Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar Technical Report no.1
2 Sayre R., Rocca E., Sedaghatk G., Young B., Keel S., Rocca R. L., Shepard S. (1999): Nature in
Focus: Rapid ecological assessment; The Nature Conservancy; Island Press; Washington D C
3 Gillison A. N., Liswanti N., Arief Rachman I. (1996): Rapid ecological assessment; Kerinci Seblat
National Park Buffer Zone; Preliminary report on plant ecology and overview of biodiversity
assessment; Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR); Working Paper No. 14;
4 Grabherr G. (2000): Rapid biodiversity assessment for the Alps ecoregion; WWF Alpine Programme
5 Smith S. D. A. (2005): Rapid assessment of invertebrate biodiversity on rocky shores: where there’s
a whelk there’s a way; Biodiversity and Conservation; 14:3565–3576
6 Interview Partner I
7 Meerman J. C., Holland B., Howe A., Jones H. L., Miller B. W. (2003): Rapid ecological assessment:
Mayflower Bocawina National Park Volume I; prepared for: Friends of Mayflower under a grant
provided by PACT & UNDP/GEF
8 Meerman J. C. (2004): Rapid ecological assessment: Columbia River Forest Reserve: Past
Hurricane Iris; commissioned by Ya`axché Conservation Trust and Toledo Institute for Development
and Environment
200

APPENDIX
A6
Methods for Site Choice: Detailed Assessment Results
Criteria G: Which methods were employed for site choice? Site visits (C16), surveys (C17),
additional methods (C18)
A6-1 High Conservation Value (HCV) Concept
Table 22: Overview of methods employed by the HCV concept for site choice
General
• Due to its flexibility HCV uses a wide range of different methods
Remark
Subcriteria
methods
Employed
Inventories • No examples found in literature
Site Visits
(C16)
Rapid
assessment
Indicator
species
Ground
truthing
• Species recordings by the assessment team and/ or stakeholders 2
• Use of bird indicators is useful to determine habitat quality 1
• Used in high biodiversity areas, to indicate endemic, rare or
threatened species 1
• Ground truthing of maps 1
Surveys
(C17)
Additional
Methods
(C18)
Source: own design
Stakeholder
surveys
Other
methods
• Important part of site identification 2
• Used for gathering data on species sightings 3
• Used to determine socio-economic situation, also in the wider
landscape 4
• Used to assess current management strategies or environmental
considerations within an operating area 3
• Remote sensing 1
• Literature reviews 1,3
1 Rayden T., Kruglianskas I., Stewart C. (2009): An assessment of potential High Conservation Values
within Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique; Testing the implementation of HCV criteria for biofuels
feedstock developments in Southern Africa; Proforest, Oxford; GTZ, Eschborn
2 Stewart, C., George, P., Rayden, T., Nussbaum, R. (2008): Good Practice Guidelines for High
Conservation Value Assessment - A practical Guide for Practioners and Auditors; Proforest; Oxford
3
Rainforest Alliance SmartWood Program (2005): High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF)
Assessment Report for: Serapung Unit final report; Rainforest Alliance; New York
4 Stewart C. (2009)b: An assessment of potential High Conservation Values in Northern Krabi
Province, Thailand, final report; Proforest; Oxford
201

A6
A6-2 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Approach
Table 23: Overview of methods employed by the KBA approach for site choice
Subcriteria
methods
Employed
Inventories • Taxa for which inventories can be made include plants, birds,
mammals, herpetofauna, freshwater fish, butterflies and
dragonflies 1 , etc
• Inventories should be made for as many species as possible from
the entire taxonomic spectrum 2
Site Visits
(C16)
Additional
Methods
(C18)
Source: own design
Stakeholder
surveys
Rapid
assessment
Indicator
species
Other
methods
• Refinement of delineated KBA occurs by stakeholder involvement 3
• Extensive field surveys prior to identification have been part of the
most successful processes 2
• Sites are identified using site-occurrence data for species of
conservation significance, following the aspects of vulnerability and
irreplaceability 3
• No examples found in literature
• Identification has often solely been based on literature, museum
specimens and remotely sensed data 2
1 Eken G., Bozdoğan M., Karataş A., Lise Y. (2004): Key Biodiversity Areas: Identifying the world's
priority sites for conservation – lessons learned from Turkey; Doğa Derneği, Ankara, Turkey
2 Langhammer P. F., Bakarr M. I., Bennun L., Brooks T. M., Clay P. C., Darwall W., De Silva N., Edgar
G. J., Eken G., Fishpool L. D. C., da Fonseca G. A. B., Foster M. N., Knox D. H., Matiku P., Radford
E. A., Rodrigues A. S. L., Salaman P., Sechrest W., Tordoff A. W. (2007): Identification and analysis
of Key Biodiversity Areas: Targets for comprehensive protected areas system; IUCN, Gland
3 Eken G., Bennun L., Brooks T. M., Darwall W., Fishpool L. D. C., Foster M., Knox D., Langhammer
P., Matiku P., Radford E., Salaman P., Sechrest W., Smith M. L., Spector S., Tordoff A. (2004): Key
biodiversity areas as site conservation targets; Bioscience; 54(12):1110-1118
202

APPENDIX
A6-3 Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) Approach
Table 24: Overview of methods employed by the ERBC approach for site choice
• Global ecoregion map - ecoregions nested within biogeographical
biomes & realms 2
• Delineation first at a coarse and then at a fine scale 1
• Coarse scale is represented by ecological groups or assemblages of
General
plant species in repeated patterns across the ecoregion 2
Remark
• Delineation resolution is then increased until sub-regions are drawn
• Finer resolution: species for which distributional and population data
are available through data and expert sources 3
• Both rare & common species selected from representative taxa 3
Subcriteria
methods
Employed
Inventories • Used as part of an REA 3
Site Visits
(C16)
Additional
Methods
(C18)
Source: own design
Stakeholder
surveys
Expert
surveys
Rapid
assessment
Indicator
species
Other
methods
• Stakeholder surveys within a workshop setting 4
• Expert surveys within a workshop setting 4
• Used to aid delineation of sites 6 and as part of an REA 3
• Used as part of an REA 3
• Determine minimum habitat requirements of focal species, as proxies
to cover requirements of all other species 4
• Indicators, predictive models 4, 5
• Threat assessments for identifying priority sites 5
• Remotely sensed data 6
1 Olson D. M., Dinerstein E., Wikramanayake E. D., Burgess N. D., Powell G. V. N., Underwood E. C.,
D’Amico J. A. J., Itoua I., Strand H. E., Morrison J. C., Loucks C. J., Allnutt T. F., Ricketts T. H.,
Kura Y., Lamoreux J. F., Wettengel W. W., Hedao P., Kassem K. R. (2001): Terrestrial ecoregions
of the world: A new map of life on earth; BioScience; 51(11):933-938
2 Marshall R. M., Anderson S., Batcher M., Comer P., Cornelius S., Cox R., Gondor A., Gori D.,
Humke J., Paredes Aguilar R., Parra I. E., Schwartz S. (2000): An ecological analysis of
conservation priorities in the Sonoran Desert ecoregion; prepared by TNC Arizona Chapter, Sonoran
Institute, and Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de Sonora with
support from Department of Defense Legacy Program, Agency and Institutional partners
3 Interview Partner I
4 Dinerstein E., Powell G., Olson D., Wikramanayake E. D., Abell R., Loucks C., Underwood E., Allnutt
T., Wettengel W., Ricketts T., Strand H., O'Connor S., Burgess N. (2000): A workbook for
conducting biological assessments and developing biodiversity visions for ecoregion-based
conservation; Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund; Washington, D.C.
5 Interview Partner J
6 Dinerstein E., Olson D., Atchley J., Loucks C., Contreras-Balderas S., Abell R., Iñigo E., Enkerlin E.,
Williams C., Castilleja G. (2001): Ecoregion-based conservation in the Chihuahuan Desert: A
biological assessment; TNC, PRONATURA Noreste, and the Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios
Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM)
203

A6
A6-4 Focal Species Approach (FSA)
Table 25: Overview of methods employed by the FSA for site choice
• First, the focal community must be identified based on the threats
present to the area of interest 4
General
• Statistical models have been used to identify focal species
Remark
following inventories 2,5
• Mostly birds have been used as focal species 3
Subcriteria
methods
Employed
Inventories • Inventories of mammals and bird species 3
Site Visits
(C16)
Surveys
(C17)
Additional
Methods
(C18)
Source: own design
Rapid
assessment
Indicator
species
Expert
surveys
Other
methods
• To validate existing data sets through visual and audio sightings
and thus, determine focal species 1
• Vegetation surveys of remnant patches to validate delineation 4
• Determining of habitat quality in remnant patches 2,4
• Focal species 2,4,5
• Focal species identified by expert surveys 3
• Ranking of threats by expert survey 1
• Expert surveys used to determine habitat requirements of focal
species to estimate viable population sizes 1
• Satellite imagery to map patches and assess patch connectivity 4,5
1 Brooker L. (2002): The application of focal species knowledge to landscape design in agricultural
lands using the ecological neighbourhood as a template; Urban and Landscape Planning; 60(4):185-
210
2 Bani L., Baietto M., Bottoni L., Masse R. (2002): The use of focal species in designing a habitat
network for a lowland area of Lombardy, Italy; Conservation Biology; 16(3):826-831
3 Hess G. R., King T. J. (2002): Planning open spaces for wildlife; I. selecting focal species using a
Delphi survey approach; Landscape and Urban Planning; 58(1):25-40
4
Lambeck R. J. (1997): Focal species: A multi-species umbrella for nature conservation;
Conservation Biology; 11(4):849-856
5 Huggett, A. (2007): A review of the focal species approach in Australia; Land & Water Australia,
Canberra
204

APPENDIX
A6-5 Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA)
Table 26: Overview of methods employed by the REA for site choice
General
• Initially delineate vegetation or land use-land cover classes through
Remark
remote sensing 2
• Overflight of study area to provide a general familiarity and to
collect valuable data on vegetation types 2
Subcriteria
methods
Employed
Inventories • Inventories of flora and fauna specimens 2
Site Visits
(C16)
Surveys
(C17)
Additional
Methods
(C18)
Source: own design
Rapid
assessment
Indicator
species
Stakeholder
surveys
Other
methods
• Vegetation surveys and fauna sampling of the most visible, easily
surveyed and well known taxa 2
• Use of indicator taxa to identify species richness 2
• Stakeholder surveys for gaining information on traditional
knowledge 1
• Used to conduct socio-economic assessment around and within
the study area 2
• Aerial photography, satellite imagery 2,3
1 Convention on Biological Diversity (2005): Guidelines for the rapid ecological assessment of
biodiversity in inland water, coastal and marine areas. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, Montreal, Canada, CBD Technical Series no. 22 and the Secretariat of the Ramsar
Convention, Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar Technical Report no.1
2 Sayre R., Rocca E., Sedaghatk Young B., Keel S., Rocca R. L., Shepard S. (2000): Nature in Focus:
Rapid ecological assessment; The Nature Conservancy; Island Press; Washington D. C.
3 Gillison A. N., Liswanti N., Arief Rachman I. (1996): Rapid ecological assessment; Kerinci Seblat
National Park Buffer Zone; Preliminary report on plant ecology and overview of biodiversity
assessment; Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR); Working Paper No. 14
205

A7
A7
Required Resources: Detailed Assessment Results
Criterion H: Which resources are required for identification? Financial resources (C19), human
resources (C220), required time (C21)
A7-1 High Conservation Value (HCV) Concept
Table 27: Overview of resources required for the HCV concept 107
HCV
Financial
Resources (€) 108 Human Resources Time Required Site size
(C20)
(C21)
(ha)
(C19)
Interview • 100,000 • n.d. • 3 months • 10 million
Partner C
Interview
Partner D
Interview
Partner E
Interview
Partner F
Interview
Partner G
• 7,500-11,000
(medium - large
sized operations)
• Minimum cost:
5,600
• 20,000-25,000
(extensive field
work)
• 6,500-10,000
(valid data
available)
• n.d.
• n.d.
• High impact
operations:
combination of
international and
national experts;
• Low impact
operations: nonexpert
users,
experts required
for validation
• Experts always
required
• Combination of
international and
national experts
• Combination of
international and
national experts
• 2 teams: 1 socioeconomic
and 1
inventory team
• Combination of
international and
national experts
• If possible use
national experts
• Minimum team:
3-4
• Few days
• 6-12 months
(including
seasonally based
visits)
• Within
management
plan: 2-3 years
• Individual
assessment: 3
months
• Within
management
plan: 2-3 years
• Field work: 2
weeks
• n.d.
• Small scale, low
impact operations
• 100-10,000
(average FMU)
• n.d.
• > 200,000
(Central Africa)
• n.d.
107 All information was obtained through expert interviews.
108 Converted currency: XE (1995-2009): The Universal Currency Converter; (retrieved 18.10.2009)
http://www.xe.com/
1 US$ = 0.67 €; 1 € = 1.49 US$
1 GB£ = 1.13 €; 1 € = 0.89 GB£
206

APPENDIX
HCV
(continued)
Interview
Partner K
Minimum
and
maximum
values
Financial
Resources (€) 109
(C19)
• 35,000-65,000
• 5,600 - 65,000
Human Resources
(C20)
• 1 senior
consultant
• (20-30years
international
experience)
• several
consultants with
national expertise
• Combination of
international and
national experts
• Minimum team:
Time Required
(C21)
• Field work: 7-14
days;
• Individual
assessment: 1-2
months
• Field work: 7-13
days;
• 1-6 months
Site size
(ha)
• Large scale area:
20,000-100,000
~ 100-200,000
3-4
Key: n.d. = not determined; ha = hectares; FMU = forest management unit
Source: Own design
109 Converted currency: XE (1995-2009): The Universal Currency Converter; (retrieved 18.10.2009)
http://www.xe.com/
1 US$ = 0.67 €; 1 € = 1.49 US$
1 GB£ = 1.13 €; 1 € = 0.89 GB£
207

A7
A7-2 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Approach and
A7-3 Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) Approach
Table 28: Overview of resources required for the KBA and ERBC approach 110
KBA
Interview
Partner M
ERBC
Interview
Partner I
Interview
Partner J
Interview
Partner G
Minimum
and
maximum
values
Financial
Resources 111
(€) (C19)
• Average of 650/
KBA
• Country/ regions
with 50 KBA =
~ 32,500
Financial
Resources 76
(€ ) (C19)
• 170,000-200,000
(USA)
• ~ 135,000 (USA)
• ~ 100,000-
235,000
(internationally)
• Eg. 1,300,000
(China)
• n.d.
• 100,000-235,000
(excluding
example from
China)
Human Resources
(C20)
In general:
• For data collection
and compilations:
teams of 3-6
experts
• Data validation
through expert
review (normally
workshop form)
Human Resources
(C20)
• Very expert
intensive
• International and
national experts
• n.d.
• Few international
and/ national
experts
• Few to many
international and
national experts
Key: n.d. = not determined; ha = hectares
Source: Own design
Time required
(C21)
• National
identification:
~ 3 years
Time required
(C21)
Site size (ha)
• n.d.
Site size (ha)
• 1,5-2 years (USA) • 400,000-
3,600,000
• ~ 2 years (USA)
• Eg. Almost 3
years (China)*
• ~ 2 years
• 1,5-2 years
(excluding
example from
China)
• n.d.
• n.d.
• 400,000-
3,600,000
110 All information was obtained through expert interviews.
111 Converted currency: XE (1995-2009): The Universal Currency Converter; (retrieved 18.10.2009)
http://www.xe.com/
1 US$ = 0.67 €; 1 € = 1.49 US$
1 GB£ = 1.13 €; 1 € = 0.89 GB£
208

APPENDIX
A7-4 Focal Species Approach (FSA) and
A7-5 Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA)
Table 29: Overview of resources required for the FSA 112 and REA 113
Financial
FSA Resources 114 Human Resources
(€)
(C20)
(C19)
• ~ 6,500-60,000
Interview
Partner O
• University
students
• National experts
• Non-experts:
decrease quality
and credibility of
outcome
Time required
(C21)
• Identification of
focal species: 3-4
months
• Focal species
already available:
1-2 months
Site size (ha)
• ~ 1,000s -
100,000s
REA
Interview
Partner I
Interview
Partner J
Sayre et
al. 2000
Minimum
and
maximum
values
Financial
Resources 79 (€)
(C19)
• n.d.
• ~ 6,500 - 60,000
• Maybe even
670,000
• Terrestrial REA:
50,000 - 170,000
• 50,000-170,000
Human Resources
(C20)
• Very expert
intensive
Time required
(C21)
• ~ 14 months
• n.d.
• n.d. • n.d. • n.d.
• Experts required
• Numbers can vary
greatly
• Common to have
multidisciplinary,
multi-institutional
teams
• In general: very
expert intensive
• Very expert
intensive
• International and
national experts
Key: n.d. = not determined; ha = hectares
Source: Own design
• ~ 12 months
• 12 months
• n.d.
• n.d.
Site size (ha)
112 All information was obtained through expert interviews.
113 All information was obtained through expert interviews and literature research.
114 Converted currency: XE (1995-2009): The Universal Currency Converter; (retrieved 18.10.2009)
http://www.xe.com/
1 US$ = 0.67 €; 1 € = 1.49 US$
1 GB£ = 1.13 €; 1 € = 0.89 GB£
209

A8
A8
Data Requirements: Detailed Assessment Results
Criterion I: Which data is required for the identification of important areas? Use of existing
data (C22), data acquisition (C23), data validation (C24), use of remote sensing (C25)
A8-1 High Conservation Value (HCV) Concept
Table 30: List of data required by the HCV concept
Criterion I
Data
Requirements
Source: Own design
Use of existing
data (C22)
Data
acquisition
(C23)
Data validation
(C24)
Use of remote
sensing (C25)
• Use as much existing data as possible from a wide range
of different sources (macro- and micro scale maps and
data sources) 1
• Remote sensing for landscape level assessments 1
• Expert surveys 1
• Stakeholder surveys 1
• Field surveys 1
• Documentary evidence 1
• Depends on availability, quality and amount of existing
data
• Expert surveys 1
• Field surveys 1
• Ground truthing 1
• Used in data acquisition 1
• Used for macro-scale mapping 2
• Essential in establishing broad framework for site scale
decisions 3
• Aids in determining appropriate limits to landscape scale
assessment 3
• Both aerial photography and satellite imagery 3
1 Stewart C., George P., Rayden T., Nussbaum R. (2008): Good practice guidelines for High
Conservation Value assessment - a practical guide for practitioners and auditors; Proforest; Oxford
2 Stewart C., Rayden T. (2009): Mapping High Conservation Values at large scales for effective sitelevel
management; public consultation draft 1, HCV Resource Network
3 Stewart C., Rayden T. (2009): Mapping High Conservation Values at large scales for effective sitelevel
management; public consultation draft 1, HCV Resource Network
210

APPENDIX
A8-2 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Approach
Table 31: List of data required by the KBA approach
• IUCN red list provides essential information on
conservation status; critically endangered, endangered or
vulnerable 1
• Supplement IUCN lists with secondary databases, such
Use of existing
as IBA, IPA, AZE 1
data (C22)
• Consults primary literature and experts 1
• Uses historical and contemporary survey data on
distribution and population trends 1
• Museum specimens 2
• Remote sensing 2
• Field surveys 1
Criterion I Data
• Inventories 1
acquisition
• Museum specimens 1,2
(C23)
• Refinement of delineated KBA through stakeholder
surveys 3
Data
Requirements
Source: Own design
Data validation
(C24)
Use of remote
sensing (C25)
• Existing IBA, IPA and AZE sites must be confirmed
through field surveys 1
• Changes in global threat status and taxonomy must also
be verified through field surveys 1
• Species identification must be tracked back to sources in
museum collections or herbariums 1
• Peer reviewing by experts 2
• Aids in the identification of KBA 2
• Not ideal for capturing environmental viability of aquatic
systems 1
• Used for monitoring activities, however must be validated
by ground truthing 1
• Both aerial photography and satellite imagery 1
1 Langhammer P. F., Bakarr M. I., Bennun L., Brooks T. M., Clay P. C., Darwall W., De Silva N., Edgar
G. J., Eken G., Fishpool L. D. C., da Fonseca G. A. B., Foster M. N., Knox D., Matiku P., Radford E.
A., Rodrigues A. S. L., Salaman P., Sechrest W., Tordoff A. W. (2007): Identification and analysis of
Key Biodiversity Areas: Targets for comprehensive protected areas system; IUCN, Gland
2 Interview Partner M
3 Eken G., Bennun L., Brooks T. M., Darwall W., Fishpool L. D. C., Foster M., Knox D., Langhammer
P., Matiku P., Radford E., Salaman P., Sechrest W., Smith M. L., Spector S., Tordoff A. (2004): Key
Biodiversity Areas as site conservation targets; Bioscience 54(12):1110-1118
211

A8
A8-3 Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) Approach
Table 32: List of data required by the ERBC approach
Criterion I
Data
Requirements
Source: Own design
Use of existing
data (C22)
Data
acquisition
(C23)
Data validation
(C24)
Use of remote
sensing (C25)
• Use as much existing data as possible 1
• Employs information from Global 200 ecoregion assessment 2
• Determine and validate existing data during planning phase 2
• Review scientific data, previous biodiversity action plans,
conservation strategies and priority planning exercises 2
• Biological assessments to record the distribution of species,
communities and habitats, ecological processes and current
and future threats 1
• Field surveys help delineation 3 and fill in information gaps 2
• Remote sensing 3
• Expert workshops made up of experts and stakeholders 2,4
• All acquired data is digitised into GIS 4
• Determine biophysical data sets to determine how well the
area networks identified for conservation represent the
biophysical diversity of the ecoregion 4
• Field surveys 3
• Ground truthing 3
• Used to assess current conditions 3
• Used to monitor habitat quality trends, especially in
inaccessible areas 2
• Satellite imagery used to assess the effects of threats 3,5
• Both aerial photography and satellite imagery 3
A8-4 Focal species Approach (FSA)
1 Groves G., Valutis L., Vosick D., Neely B., Wheaton K., Touval J., Runnels B. (2000): Designing a
Geography of Hope: A practitioner’s handbook for ecoregional conservation planning; TNC
2 Dinerstein E., Powell G., Olson D., Wikramanayake E. D., Abell R., Loucks C., Underwood E., Allnutt
T., Wettengel W., Ricketts T., Strand H., O'Connor S., Burgess N. (2000): A workbook for
conducting biological assessments and developing biodiversity visions for ecoregion-based
conservation; Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife for Fund; Washington, D.C.
3 Dinerstein E., Olson D., Atchley J., Loucks C., Contreras-Balderas S., Abell R., Iñigo E., Enkerlin E.,
Williams C., Castilleja G. (2001): Ecoregion-based conservation in the Chihuahuan Desert: A
biological assessment; TNC, PRONATURA Noreste, and the Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios
Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM)
4 Marshall R. M., Anderson S., Batcher M., Comer P., Cornelius S., Cox R., Gondor A., Gori D.,
Humke J., Paredes Aguilar R., Parra I. E., Schwartz S. (2000): An Ecological Analysis of
Conservation Priorities in the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion; Prepared by TNC Arizona Chapter,
Sonoran Institute, and Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de
Sonora with support from Department of Defense Legacy Program, Agency and Institutional
partners.
5 Lassen B., Savoia S. (2005): European Alpine Programme: Ecoregion conservation plan for the
Alps; World Wildlife Fund
212

APPENDIX
Table 33: List of data required by the FSA
Criterion I
Data
Requirements
Source: Own design
Use of existing
data (C22)
Data
acquisition
(C23)
Data validation
(C24)
Use of remote
sensing (C25)
• Use of existing data sets to determine focal species
occurrence 2
• Use of national, regional or local digital data sources 1,2
• Literature reviews to determine focal species habitat
requirements and estimated range of distribution 2
• Literature reviews to estimate viable population sizes 2
• Expert surveys to determine habitat requirements and range
of distribution of focal species 2
• Expert surveys to estimate viable population sizes 2
• Field surveys 1,4
• Remote sensing to identify remnant patches 1,3
• Field surveys to validate species occurrences 1
• Vegetation surveys to validate delineation of remnant
patches 2
• Ground truthing of mapping results
• Used to delineate remnant patches, aerial photography or
satellite imagery 1,4
1 Brooker L. (2002): The application of focal species knowledge to landscape design in agricultural
lands using the ecological neighbourhood as a template; Landscape and Urban Planning; 60(4):
185-210
2 Hess G. R., King T. J. (2002): Planning open spaces for wildlife; I. selecting focal species using a
Delphi survey approach; Landscape and Urban Planning; 58(1):25-40
3 Watson J., Freudenberger D., Paull D. (2001): An assessment of the Focal Species Approach for
conserving birds in variegated landscapes in southeastern Australia; Conservation Biology; 15(5):
1364-1373
4
Lambeck R. J. (1997): Focal species: A multi-species umbrella for nature conservation;
Conservation Biology; 11(4):849-856
213

A8
A8-5 Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA)
Table 34: List of data required by the REA
Criterion I
Data
Requirements
Source: Own design
Use of
existing data
(C22)
Data
acquisition
(C23)
Data
validation
(C24)
Use of remote
sensing (C25)
• Collect and review as much available data as possible 2
• Identify previous studies, management plans, global, national
and regional data sets 2
• Organise species information into groups or units 2
• Use existing GIS systems, remote sensing information
system 1,2
• Published and unpublished data 1,2
• Traditional knowledge and information given by local or
indigenous people 1,2
• Remote sensing 2
• Vegetation surveys 2
• Fauna sampling 2
• Inventories of flora and fauna specimens 2
• Vegetation surveys to validate delineation of vegetation
classes 2
• Sampling and inventories to validate existing data 2
• Ground truthing 2
• All results should contain an overall estimate of confidence 1
• Both aerial photography and satellite imagery for the initial
landscape characterisation 2
1 Convention Biological Diversity (2006): Guidelines for the rapid ecological assessment of biodiversity
in inland water, coastal and marine areas. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Montreal, Canada, CBD Technical Series no. 22 and the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention,
Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar Technical Report no.1
2 Sayre R., Rocca E., Sedaghatk Young B., Keel S., Rocca R. L., Shepard S. (2000): Nature in Focus:
Rapid ecological assessment; The Nature Conservancy; Island Press; Washington D. C.
214

APPENDIX