Bird Conservation International

Cambridge Journals Online - CUP Full-Text Page
Bird Conservation International (2010), 20:215-230 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © BirdLife International 2010
doi:10.1017/S0959270910000456

Research Articles

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


M. A. KIRAGU MWANGIa1 c1, S. H. M. BUTCHARTa1, F. B. MUNYEKENYEa2, L. A. BENNUNa1, M. I. EVANSa1, L. D. C. FISHPOOLa1, E. KANYANYAa4, I. MADINDOUa3, J. MACHEKELEa5, P. MATIKUa2, R. MULWAa3, A. NGARIa2, J. SIELEa6 and A. J. STATTERSFIELDa1

a1 BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 ONA, UK.
a2 NatureKenya, National Museums of Kenya, Museum Hill. PO Box 44486, 00100 GPO, Nairobi, Kenya.
a3 Zoology Department, National Museums of Kenya, Museum Hill. PO Box 40658, 00100 GPO, Nairobi, Kenya.
a4 USAID, American Embassy Complex, United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, PO 629, Village Market, Nairobi, Kenya.
a5 Interim Independent Electoral Commission, Constituency Election Coordinator, Ganze Constituency, PO Box 425-80100 Malindi, Kenya.
a6 PO Box 572, 30300, Kapsabet, Kenya.
Article author query
mwangi mak [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
butchart shm [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
munyekenye fb [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
bennun la [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
evans mi [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
fishpool ldc [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
kanyanya e [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
madindou i [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
machekele j [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
matiku p [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
mulwa r [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
ngari a [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
siele j [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
stattersfield aj [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]

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.

(Received August 15 2008)

(Accepted March 15 2010)

Correspondence:

c1 Author for correspondence; e-mail: kiragu.mwangi@birdlife.org