Skip to main content
×
×
Home

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

  • M. A. KIRAGU MWANGI (a1), S. H. M. BUTCHART (a1), F. B. MUNYEKENYE (a2), L. A. BENNUN (a1), M. I. EVANS (a1), L. D. C. FISHPOOL (a1), E. KANYANYA (a3), I. MADINDOU (a4), J. MACHEKELE (a5), P. MATIKU (a2), R. MULWA (a4), A. NGARI (a2), J. SIELE (a6) and A. J. STATTERSFIELD (a1)...
Summary
Summary

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

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Tracking trends in key sites for biodiversity: a case study using Important Bird Areas in Kenya
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Tracking trends in key sites for biodiversity: a case study using Important Bird Areas in Kenya
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Tracking trends in key sites for biodiversity: a case study using Important Bird Areas in Kenya
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*Author for correspondence; e-mail: kiragu.mwangi@birdlife.org
References
Hide All
Becker C. D., Agreda A., Astudillo E., Costantine M. and Torres P. (2005) Community-based monitoring of fog capture and biodiversity at Loma, Ecuador enhance social capital and institutional cooperation. Biodiv. Conserv. 14: 26952707.
Bennun L. and Fishpool L. (2000) The Important Bird Areas programme in Africa: an outline. Ostrich 71: 150153.
Bennun L. and Njoroge P. (1999) Important Bird Areas in Kenya. Nairobi: Nature Kenya.
Bennun L., Matiku P., Mulwa R., Mwangi S. and Buckley P. (2005) Monitoring Important Bird Areas in Africa: towards a sustainable and scaleable system. Biodiv. Conserv. 14: 25752590.
Birdlife International (2006a) Monitoring Important Bird Areas: a global framework. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. Version 1.2.
Birdlife International (2006b) Livelihoods and the environment at Important Bird Areas: listening to local voices. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.
BirdLife International (2008) State of the world’s birds: indicators for our changing world. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.
Brooks T., Balmford A., Burgess N., Hansen L. A., Moore J., Rahbek C., Williams P., Bennun L., Byaruhanga A., Kasoma P., Njoroge P., Pomeroy D. and Wondafrash M. (2001) Conservation priorities for birds and biodiversity: do East African Important Bird Areas represent species diversity in other terrestrial vertebrate groups? Ostrich suppl. 15: 312.
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. and van Dijk P. P (2008) Spatial scale and the conservation of threatened species. Conserv. Lett. 1:3743.
Buchanan G. M., Donald P .F., Fishpool L. D. C., Arinaitwe J. A., Balman M. and Mayaux P. (2009) An assessment of land cover and threats in Important Bird Areas in Africa. Bird Cons. Int. 19:4961.
Central Bureau of Statistics Kenya (2008). http://www.cbs.go.ke/ National population and housing data (downloaded on 12th August 2008 at 3:00 p.m.).
Danielsen F., Burgess N. D. and Balmford A. (2005) Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiv. Conserv. 14: 25072542
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. and Tordoff A. (2004) Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. BioScience 54: 11101118.
Field A. (2005) Discovering statistics using SPSS (Introducing statistical methods series). London: SAGE Publications Limited.
Fishpool L. D. C and Evans M. I., eds. (2001) Important Bird Areas in Africa and associated islands: priority sites for conservation. Newbury and Cambridge, UK: Pisces Publications and BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 11).
Fishpool L. D. C., Heath M. F., Waliczky Z., Wege D. C. and Crosby M. J. (1998) Important Bird Areas—criteria for selecting sites of global conservation significance. Ostrich 69: 428.
Green R. E., Balmford A., Crane P. R., Mace G. M., Reynolds J. D. and Turner R. K. (2005). A framework for improved monitoring of biodiversity: responses to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Conserv. Biol. 19: 5665.
Grimmett R. F. A. and Jones T. A. (1989) Important Bird Areas in Europe. Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation (Technical Publication 9).
Heath M. F. and Evans M. I., eds. (2000) Important Bird Areas in Europe: priority sites for conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series 8).
Langhammer P. F., Bakarr M. I., Bennun L. A., Brooks T. M., Clay R. P., 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., and Tordoff A. W. (2007). Identification and gap analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas: targets for comprehensive protected area systems. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Lengyel S., Deri E., Varga Z., Horvath R., Tothmeresz B., Henry P., Kobler A., Kutnar L., Babij V., Seliskar A., Christia C., Papastergiadou E., Gruber B. and Henle K. (2008) Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices. Biodiv. Conserv. 17: 33273339.
Mace G. M. (2005) Biodiversity—an index of intactness. Nature 434: 3233.
Mace G. M. and Baillie J. E. M. (2007) The 2010 biodiversity indicators: challenges for science and policy. Conserv. Biol. 21: 14061413.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1994) The Kenya National Environment Action Plan (NEAP) Report. Nairobi: Government of Kenya.
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (2000) The Kenya national biodiversity strategy and action plan. Nairobi: Government of Kenya.
Ministry of Finance and Planning (2000) National population policy for sustainable development. Nairobi, Kenya: Government of Kenya (Sessional Paper Number 1).
Musila S. N., Ng’weno F., Matiku P., Mwema M., Kanyanya E., Mulwa R., Musina J., Buckley P. and Njehia S. (2006) Kenya’s Important Bird Areas, status and trends 2005. Nairobi: Nature Kenya.
Otieno N., Ng’weno F., Matiku P., Mwangi S., Bennun L., Musila S., Mulwa R. and Kiragu A. (2005) Kenya’s Important Bird Areas, status and trends 2004. Nairobi: Nature Kenya.
Pain D. J., Fishpool L., Byaruhanga A., Arinaitwe J. and Balmford A. (2005) Biodiversity representation in Uganda’s forest Important Bird Areas. Biol. Conserv. 125: 133138.
Pereira H. M. and Cooper H. D. (2006) Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21: 123129.
Salafsky N., Salzer D., Stattersfield A. J., Hilton-Taylor C., Neugarten R., Butchart S. H. M., Collen B., Cox N., Master L. L., O’Connor S. and Wilkie D. (2008) A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conserv. Biol. 22: 897911.
United Nations (2005) The millennium development goals report 2005. New York: United Nations.
Uychiaoco A. J., Arceo H. O., Green S. J., De La Cruz M. T., Gaite P. A. and Alino P. M. (2005) Monitoring and evaluation of reef protected areas by local fisheries in the Philippines: tightening the adaptive management cycle. Biodiv. Conserv. 14: 27752794.
World Resources Institute (2007) Nature’s benefits in Kenya: an atlas of ecosystem and human well-being. Washington, DC and Nairobi, Kenya: World Resources Institute.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Bird Conservation International
  • ISSN: 0959-2709
  • EISSN: 1474-0001
  • URL: /core/journals/bird-conservation-international
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Mwangi supplementary material
Mwangi supplementary material

 Word (128 KB)
128 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 5
Total number of PDF views: 83 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 219 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 17th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.