See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270584153 Synergies between World Heritage Sites and Key Biodiversity Areas Article · January 2010 CITATIONS READS 3 104 11 authors, including: Russell A Mittermeier Bastian Bertzky Conservation International European Commission 227 PUBLICATIONS 31,277 CITATIONS 85 PUBLICATIONS 4,043 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Thomas Brooks Naamal De Silva International Union for Conservation of Nature George Washington University 248 PUBLICATIONS 22,669 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 1,492 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Research supporting the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems View project BIOPAMA.org (Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management Programme) View project All content following this page was uploaded by Bastian Bertzky on 09 January 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. In Focus World Heritage sites and Key Biodiversity Areas Synergies between World Heritage sites and Key Biodiversity Areas Co-authors: Matthew N. Foster1, Russell A. Mittermeier1, Tim Badman2, Charles Besancon3, Bastian Bomhard3, Thomas M. Brooks4,5,6, Naamal De Silva1, Lincoln Fishpool7, Michael Parr8, Elizabeth Radford9, Will Turner1 The authors would also like to thank Kellee Koenig1, Josephine M. Langley2, Paul Matiku10, Earnest Mwongela10, Conrad Savy1, and Beth Newman9 for their contribution. International organizations that are seriously concerned with the SUHVHUYDWLRQRIELRGLYHUVLW\ZRUOGZLGH¿QGWKHPVHOYHVFRQIURQWHGZLWK WKHHQRUPRXVWDVNRILGHQWLI\LQJDQGHVWDEOLVKLQJDKLHUDUFK\RIVLWHVLQ QHHGRIWKHLUDWWHQWLRQ,QWKLVUHVSHFWWKH\KDYHEHFRPHLQFUHDVLQJO\ DZDUHRYHUWKH\HDUVRIWKHZRUNGRQHLQWKHIUDPHZRUNRIWKH:RUOG Heritage Convention, whose interests are convergent with their own. And while the goals of the Convention are broader than those of the ELRGLYHUVLW\ FRQVHUYDWLRQ FRPPXQLW\ WKH\ WRR H[SOLFLWO\ UHFRJQL]H YDOXHVIRUHFRV\VWHPVDQGWKUHDWHQHGKDELWDWVDQGVSHFLHV Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya). © Travis Ferland 4 World Heritage No. 56 In Focus 1Conservation International 2International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) 3United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) 4NatureServe 5World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of the Philippines 6School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania 7BirdLife International 8American Bird Conservancy 9Plantlife International 10Nature Kenya 5 World Heritage No. 56 In Focus World Heritage sites and Key Biodiversity Areas The uKhahlamba / Drakensberg Park (South Africa). © Alun Williams ne of the ten World A set of common actions would simultaneously meet both Heritage criteria World Heritage and biodiversity conservation objectives. in the Operational Guidelines (criterion x), acknowledges the outstanding universal value of certain sites Identifying regions and sites A number of methods based on a variety because they ‘contain the most important Biodiversity, and the threats confronting of factors allow the selection of priority and significant natural habitats for in- it, vary widely around the world. This being regions for conservation. The biodiversity situ conservation of biological diversity, the case, we as a conservation community hotspots approach, introduced by Norman Oincluding those containing threatened must be at pains to identify the regions and Myers in 1988, is one such method. It species of outstanding universal value sites in need of immediate action to reduce uses the criteria of irreplaceability and from the point of view of science or the loss of biodiversity. vulnerability of taxa to determine which conservation’. Criterion (ix) further This is just as true in the case of the biogeographic regions most urgently need recognizes sites that are ‘outstanding World Heritage Convention when it comes the attention of conservationists. examples representing significant on- to identifying and protecting natural and Specifically, according to this method, going ecological and biological processes cultural sites, biodiversity sites included. in order for a region to be recognized as in the evolution and development of And so it appears, in principle, that a set a biodiversity hotspot, it must hold over terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine of common actions would simultaneously 1,500 species of endemic plants (this being ecosystems and communities of plants and meet both World Heritage and biodiversity a measure of irreplaceability) and it must animals’. conservation objectives. have lost over 70 per cent of its natural To date, 124 World Heritage sites have This potential for collaboration has yet habitat as a result of anthropogenic change been recognized under criterion (x) of to be fully realized in practice, but we can (this being a measure of vulnerability). the Convention, of which 82 are also nonetheless explore it further by taking a To date, 34 such biodiversity hotspots recognized under criterion (ix), so it appears closer look at the overlap of World Heritage have been identified. And while their obvious that the identification of areas of sites and areas of biodiversity conservation endemic population includes more than significance in terms of high biodiversity and priority, and by considering how the 50 per cent of the world’s plant species, that of sites important to the maintenance designation of sites that are important for they cover a mere 16 per cent of the Earth’s of cultural and natural heritage have a both cultural values and biodiversity can be land surface. We can usefully overlay the number of points in common. beneficial to all concerned. biodiversity hotspots with the set of World 6 World Heritage No. 56 In Focus biodiversitybiodiversity hotspot naturalNatural sitesite mixedMixed site site Wilderness Areas Figure 1: Natural and mixed World Heritage sites and biodiversity hotspots. © Conservation International Heritage sites (cultural, natural and mixed) that similar criteria could be usefully applied designated or approved at global level to determine whether the identification and to other taxa. This led to the emergence through the intergovernmental World listing of these sites has followed similar of Plantlife International’s Important Plant Heritage Committee. Key Biodiversity biogeographic patterns. Areas (IPAs), IUCN’s Important Freshwater Areas, in a striking parallel, are identified If we examine all World Heritage sites Areas, and other such approaches. nationally using locally available data. Such taken together, we see that 381 out of 878 In 2004, an umbrella approach – Key local knowledge serves to identify sites that (43 per cent) fall within the 34 biodiversity Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) – was proposed meet globally standardized criteria, and hotspots referred to above, and if we include that would allow the identification of these are approved at global level to ensure just those identified for natural criteria the important areas for multiple taxonomic consistent application of the selected results show that 93 out of 201 natural groups even as a partnership of over 60 criteria. and mixed sites (46 per cent) fall within the non-governmental organizations joined hotspots (Figure 1). These hotspots harbour forces in the Alliance for Zero Extinction Key Biodiversity Areas are sites of global nearly three times the share of World (AZE) and went on to identify the highest significance for biodiversity conservation. Heritage sites than might be expected given priority subset of Key Biodiversity Areas IBAs, IPAs and AZE sites each form a the slim 16 per cent of terrestrial area that around the world – those which hold the subset of KBAs based on more specific they cover. [NB: The dataset used for these last remaining population of a Critically criteria. figures is from 2008, when there were 878 Endangered (CR) or Endangered (EN) sites on the World Heritage List.] species, classified as such on the IUCN Red It remains however that a finer scale of List of Threatened Species. data on biodiversity yields an even better Key Biodiversity Areas thus provided parallel to site-level priorities identified the overarching term for sites of global through the World Heritage Convention. significance for biodiversity conservation, Over the past three decades, several with Important Bird Areas representing approaches for identifying sites of global the avian subset, Important Plant Areas importance for biodiversity conservation the plant subset, and the Alliance for Zero have emerged, the first being the concept Extinction sites signalling the highest priority of Important Bird Areas (IBAs), developed Key Biodiversity Areas overall (Figure 2). by BirdLife International. Specialists in other World Heritage sites are nominated taxonomic groups quickly began to sense through national and local efforts, and Figure 2. © Conservation International 7 World Heritage No. 56 In Focus World Heritage sites and Key Biodiversity Areas Comparing criteria Under the World Heritage Convention, countries may propose areas for inscription on the World Heritage List by referring to either cultural or natural criteria – or both. While the coincidence between cultural World Heritage sites and Key Biodiversity Areas is of interest given the manifold benefits that such sites provide, the more obvious comparison involves the 201 natural World Heritage sites currently (March 2010) listed under