Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

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)...
Abstract
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 coreplatform@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.

      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
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

C. D. Becker , A. Agreda , E. Astudillo , M. Costantine and P. Torres (2005) Community-based monitoring of fog capture and biodiversity at Loma, Ecuador enhance social capital and institutional cooperation. Biodiv. Conserv. 14: 26952707.

L. Bennun and L. Fishpool (2000) The Important Bird Areas programme in Africa: an outline. Ostrich 71: 150153.

L. Bennun , P. Matiku , R. Mulwa , S. Mwangi and P. Buckley (2005) Monitoring Important Bird Areas in Africa: towards a sustainable and scaleable system. Biodiv. Conserv. 14: 25752590.

C. Boyd , T. M. Brooks , S. H. M. Butchart , G. J. Edgar , G. A. B. da Fonseca , F. Hawkins , M. Hoffmann , W. Sechrest , S. N. Stuart and P. P van Dijk (2008) Spatial scale and the conservation of threatened species. Conserv. Lett. 1:3743.

F. Danielsen , N. D. Burgess and A. Balmford (2005) Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiv. Conserv. 14: 25072542

G. Eken , L. Bennun , T. M. Brooks , W. Darwall , L. D. C. Fishpool , M. Foster , D. Knox , P. Langhammer , P. Matiku , E. Radford , P. Salaman , W. Sechrest , M. L. Smith , S. Spector and A. Tordoff (2004) Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. BioScience 54: 11101118.

R. E. Green , A. Balmford , P. R. Crane , G. M. Mace , J. D. Reynolds and R. K Turner . (2005). A framework for improved monitoring of biodiversity: responses to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Conserv. Biol. 19: 5665.

S. Lengyel , E. Deri , Z. Varga , R. Horvath , B. Tothmeresz , P. Henry , A. Kobler , L. Kutnar , V. Babij , A. Seliskar , C. Christia , E. Papastergiadou , B. Gruber and K. Henle (2008) Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices. Biodiv. Conserv. 17: 33273339.

G. M Mace . (2005) Biodiversity—an index of intactness. Nature 434: 3233.

G. M. Mace and J. E. M Baillie . (2007) The 2010 biodiversity indicators: challenges for science and policy. Conserv. Biol. 21: 14061413.

D. J. Pain , L. Fishpool , A. Byaruhanga , J. Arinaitwe and A. Balmford (2005) Biodiversity representation in Uganda’s forest Important Bird Areas. Biol. Conserv. 125: 133138.

H. M. Pereira and H. D Cooper . (2006) Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21: 123129.

N. Salafsky , D. Salzer , A. J. Stattersfield , C. Hilton-Taylor , R. Neugarten , S. H. M. Butchart , B. Collen , N. Cox , L. L. Master , S. O’Connor and D. Wilkie (2008) A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conserv. Biol. 22: 897911.

A. J. Uychiaoco , H. O. Arceo , S. J. Green , M. T. De La Cruz , P. A. Gaite and P. M Alino . (2005) Monitoring and evaluation of reef protected areas by local fisheries in the Philippines: tightening the adaptive management cycle. Biodiv. Conserv. 14: 27752794.


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