Assessing the cost of global biodiversity and conservation knowledge

Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by stan-dards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge productsfor biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decisionmakers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largelyundocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintain-ing four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the WorldDatabase of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary datacollected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160million (range: US$116–204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278–308 person-years) valued at US$14 million (range US$12–16 million), were invested inthese four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financingwas provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnelcosts. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowl-edge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were notpossible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2–6.7 million). We esti-mated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines ofdata coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual mainte-nance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those tomaintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodi-versity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensiveand accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation andsustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustain-able long-term financing for them is critical

Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches

Systematic conservation planning and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are the two most widely used approaches for identifying important sites for biodiversity. However, there is limited advice for conservation policy makers and practitioners on when and how they should be combined. Here we provide such guidance, using insights from the recently developed Global Standard for the Identification of KBAs and the language of decision science to review and clarify their similarities and differences. We argue the two approaches are broadly similar, with both setting transparent environmental objectives and specifying actions. There is however greater contrast in the data used and actions involved, as the KBA approach uses biodiversity data alone and identifies sites for monitoring and vigilance actions at a minimum, whereas systematic conservation planning combines biodiversity and implementation‐relevant data to guide management actions. This difference means there is much scope for combining approaches, so conservation planners should use KBA data in their analyses, setting context‐specific targets for each KBA type, and planners and donors should use systematic conservation planning techniques when prioritizing between KBAs for management action. In doing so, they will benefit conservation policy, practice and research by building on the collaborations formed through the KBA Standard's development

Birds and biogeography of Mount Mecula in Mozambique’s Niassa National Reserve

<p>The montane forests of northern Mozambique’s isolated massifs are inhabited by numerous range-restricted and threatened bird species, but until recently were extremely little-known. We report on a first avifaunal survey of the isolated montane habitats of Mt Mecula (1 442 m), Niassa National Reserve, notable as the only currently protected montane area in northern Mozambique. Mount Mecula’s moist forest is small (approximately 136 ha in total) and patchy, and although known botanically to have some montane affinities, was found to support an avifauna more typical of riparian forests of medium to low altitude. The only montane forest species recorded was Lemon Dove <i>Aplopelia larvata</i>. Other montane elements included Vincent’s Bunting <i>Emberiza</i> (<i>capensis</i>) <i>vincenti</i>, one of six species recorded new to the Niassa National Reserve list. Overall, it appears that despite its intermediate location, Mt Mecula does not represent a biogeographical ‘stepping stone’ for montane forest bird species. This probably owes to its remoteness from the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania to the north and the massifs of other parts of northern Mozambique, to the south and west.</p