KBA Standard Questionnaire

KBA Standard Questionnaire

Survey to inform decisions on whether to revise 'A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas'
Background

A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas (IUCN 2016, hereafter the KBA Standard) provides a set of definitions, criteria and thresholds, and delineation procedures for identifying Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), i.e. sites contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity.

Ten years after its launch, the KBA Committee, representing the KBA Partners, seeks feedback on which elements of the KBA Standard are working as intended and proving practical to apply, and which elements (if any) might need to be revised or refined in the next few years or in the longer term.

Any revisions will respect the intent, principles, and scope of the original KBA Standard (as set out in its Introduction and Preamble), but particular definitions, criteria and thresholds, and delineation procedures may be revised based on experience and/or testing or otherwise refined.

The primary purpose of this survey is to provide the KBA Committee with information on whether users think the KBA Standard needs significant revisions — if so, which parts need revision and are they needed urgently or can they wait for a few more years’ experience.

For all those who have used the KBA Standard in KBA assessments and others broadly familiar with the KBA Standard and its intent, this is your opportunity to help decide these questions. Several questions ask whether you have experience with applying the KBA Standard. We are interested in hearing from you even if your experience included scoping analysis but no site assessments, or site assessments that were never proposed to the KBA Secretariat, or site assessments that were proposed but never confirmed by the KBA Secretariat.

Please feel free to respond in the language of your choice.

We estimate that most respondents will take about 25 minutes to complete the survey, but those with a great deal of experience and feedback to offer may take longer. After completing Questions 1 - 6, we recommend that you focus on those questions where you have most experience and feedback to offer. You may return to previous sections and update your responses at any time until you hit the SUBMIT button.

Your answers will be kept anonymous. Your input is much appreciated — thank you very much!

Overview
Note. Several questions ask whether you think the KBA Standard requires minor or major revisions:
- Examples of minor revisions include clarifications of terms and language
- Examples of major revisions include adjustments to one or more criteria, subcriteria or thresholds (while respecting the intent, principles, and scope of the original KBA Standard)
The KBA Standard is fit-for-purpose (as set out in the Introduction and Preamble)The KBA Standard needs minor revisionsThe KBA Standard needs major revisions
Please comment on your responses to Question 6:

KBA Standard: Introduction and Preamble
Question 7: Rate how well you think the Introduction and Preamble to the KBA Standard set out the intent, principles, and scope of the KBA Standard and the role of KBAs in conservation planning:

1

2

3

4

5

1 is Poor, 5 is Very well
Please use the comment box to identify any clarifications you would propose:
Note. This may include suggestions for additional sections or key points to be included in the Preamble to clarify the intent, principles, or scope of the KBA Standard.
Any revisions to the KBA Standard will respect the intent, principles, and scope of the original KBA Standard, as set out in the Introduction and Preamble to the KBA Standard. Nevertheless, we seek to understand whether any of the key points in these sections require clarification.

KBA Criteria and Thresholds
Criterion A1. Threatened species
The KBA Standard is fit-for-purpose for identifying important sites for the persistence of threatened speciesThe KBA Standard needs minor revisionsThe KBA Standard needs major revisionsNo comment
If you think Criterion A1 needs major revisions, please indicate the urgency:
Please comment on your responses to Question 9:
Note. Follow-up questions focus on the reproductive-units thresholds and assessment parameters; please reserve any comments on these topics for those questions. This Question 9 comment box is the best place to provide comments specific to Criterion A1.

Criterion A2. Threatened ecosystem types
The KBA Standard is fit-for-purpose for identifying important sites for the persistence of threatened ecosystem typesThe KBA Standard needs minor revisionsThe KBA Standard needs major revisionsNo comment
If you think Criterion A2 needs major revisions, please indicate the urgency:
Please comment on your responses to Question 10:

Criterion B1. Individual geographically restricted species
The KBA Standard is fit-for-purpose for identifying important sites for the persistence of individual geographically restricted speciesThe KBA Standard needs minor revisionsThe KBA Standard needs major revisionsNo comment
If you think Criterion B1 needs major revisions, please indicate the urgency:
Please comment on your responses to Question 11:
Note. Follow-up questions focus on the reproductive-units thresholds and assessment parameters; please reserve any comments on these topics for those questions. This is the best place to provide comments specific to Criterion B1.

Criterion B2. Co-occurring geographically restricted species
The KBA Standard is fit-for-purpose for identifying important sites for the persistence of co-occurring geographically restricted speciesThe KBA Standard needs minor revisionsThe KBA Standard needs major revisionsNo comment
If you think Criterion B2 needs major revisions, please indicate the urgency:
Please comment on your responses to Question 12:
Note. A follow-up question focuses on assessment parameters; please reserve any comments on assessment parameters for that question. This is the best place to provide comments specific to Criterion B2.

Criterion B3. Geographically restricted assemblages
The KBA Standard is fit-for-purpose for identifying important sites for the persistence of geographically restricted assemblagesThe KBA Standard needs minor revisionsThe KBA Standard needs major revisionsNo comment
If you think Criterion B3 needs major revisions, please indicate the urgency:
Please comment on your responses to Question 13:
Note. Follow-up questions focus on the reproductive-units thresholds and assessment parameters; please reserve any comments on these topics for those questions. This is the best place to provide comments specific to Criterion B3.

Criterion B4. Geographically restricted ecosystem types
The KBA Standard is fit-for-purpose for identifying important sites for the persistence of geographically restricted ecosystem typesThe KBA Standard needs minor revisionsThe KBA Standard needs major revisionsNo comment
If you think Criterion B4 needs major revisions, please indicate the urgency:
Please comment on your responses to Question 14:

Criterion C. Ecological integrity
The approach set out in the KBA Guidelines (Ver. 1.2) is fit-for-purpose for identifying important sites with globally outstanding ecological integrityThe approach set out in the KBA Guidelines (Ver. 1.2) needs minor revisionsThe approach set out in the KBA Guidelines (Ver. 1.2) needs major revisionsNo comment
If you think Criterion C needs major revisions, please indicate the urgency:
Please comment on your responses to Question 15:

Criterion D1. Demographic aggregations
The KBA Standard is fit-for-purpose for identifying important sites for the persistence of species that form demographic aggregationsThe KBA Standard needs minor revisionsThe KBA Standard needs major revisionsNo comment
If you think Criterion D1 needs major revisions, please indicate the urgency:
Please comment on your responses to Question 16:

Criterion D2. Ecological refugia
The KBA Standard is fit-for-purpose for the species that depend on ecological refugiaThe KBA Standard needs minor revisionsThe KBA Standard needs major revisionsNo comment
If you think Criterion D2 needs major revisions, please indicate the urgency:
Please comment on your responses to Question 17:

Criterion D3. Recruitment sources
The KBA Standard is fit-for-purpose for identifying important sites for species that depend on particular sites for recruitmentThe KBA Standard needs minor revisionsThe KBA Standard needs major revisionsNo comment
If you think Criterion D3 needs major revisions, please indicate the urgency:
Please comment on your responses to Question 18:

Criterion E. Irreplaceability through quantitative analysis
The KBA Standard is fit-for-purpose for identifying sites with very high irreplaceability through quantitative analysisThe KBA Standard needs minor revisionsThe KBA Standard needs major revisionsNo comment
If you think Criterion E needs major revisions, please indicate the urgency:
Please comment on your responses to Question 19:
Note. Follow-up questions focus on the reproductive-units thresholds and assessment parameters; please reserve any comments on these topics for those questions. This is the best place to provide comments specific to Criterion E.

Genetic diversity
The KBA Standard is fit-for-purpose for identifying important sites for the persistence of genetic diversityThe KBA Standard needs minor revisionsThe KBA Standard needs major revisionsNo comment
If you think the approach to genetic diversity needs major revisions, please indicate the urgency:
Please comment on your responses to Question 22:

Delineation
The Delineation Procedures set out in the KBA Standard are fit-for-purpose for delineating KBAsThe Delineation Procedures set out in the KBA Standard need minor revisionsThe Delineation Procedures set out in the KBA Standard need major revisionsNo comment
Please comment on your responses to Question 23:
Note. In responding to this question, please focus on what may need to be revised in the KBA Standard itself rather than the KBA Guidelines.

Additional feedback on the KBA Standard
Question 24: Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your experience with applying the KBA Standard?
Note. Comments are welcome here on any aspect of the KBA Standard not covered in previous questions/responses. In particular, this is a good place to provide comments on the applicability of the KBA Standard in different environments (e.g., subterranean, terrestrial, freshwater, marine), or to different taxonomic groups, or to different ecosystem functional groups etc. It is also a good place to identify any barriers to the KBA assessment process that could be addressed through modifications to the KBA Standard consistent with the intent, principles, and scope of the original KBA Standard.

Adapting the KBA Standard to a Regional context
Question 25: The KBA Standard indicates that sites may be identified as regional KBAs by adapting the KBA Standard to regional levels. This would provide a mechanism for recognising sites of importance for the regional persistence of biodiversity that fall outside the network of global KBAs. The KBA Standard envisioned the inclusion of regional KBAs in the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. Please indicate how you would prioritise development of regional guidelines for applying the KBA Standard:

Not neededNeeded in the longer termNeeded now – should be prioritised and published within the next few years
Applying the KBA criteria to global populations/extents, but lowering the thresholds and potentially applying Criterion A to Near-Threatened speciesApplying the KBA criteria and thresholds to populations/extents within a predefined geographic region (e.g., Europe) and potentially using regional/national threat statusApplying the KBA criteria and thresholds to subspecies or regional populations (e.g., SW Indian Ocean Leatherbacks) and lower level ecosystem types (e.g., Level 6)Other (please summarise in the comment box provided)
Please comment on your responses to Question 25:
Note. You may also use this comment box to propose any additional general approaches for adapting the KBA Standard to the regional scale that you think should be considered.

Wrap up
YesNo
If you answered yes to Question 26, please provide your name, email address or WhatsApp number, and time zone:

First NameLast Name
Email
example@example.com
Number if WhatsApp is a preferred option
Should be Empty:

KBA Standard Questionnaire

Background

About you

Overview

KBA Standard: Introduction and Preamble

Definitions

Question 8: Do you think the definitions of Terms used in the KBA Criteria and Delineation Procedures in the KBA Standard (pp 11-15) provide a clear and practical summary of each concept? Please check the box for any term that you think is unclear or needs to be refined.

KBA Criteria and Thresholds

Criterion A1. Threatened species

Criterion A2. Threatened ecosystem types

Criterion B1. Individual geographically restricted species

Criterion B2. Co-occurring geographically restricted species

Criterion B3. Geographically restricted assemblages

Criterion B4. Geographically restricted ecosystem types

Criterion C. Ecological integrity

Criterion D1. Demographic aggregations

Criterion D2. Ecological refugia

Criterion D3. Recruitment sources

Criterion E. Irreplaceability through quantitative analysis

Reproductive units and assessment parameters

Reproductive units

Assessment parameters (i) to (v)

Genetic diversity

Delineation

Additional feedback on the KBA Standard

Adapting the KBA Standard to a Regional context

Wrap up