Engaging Partners in the KBA process for the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot

1. Engaging Partners in the KBA process for the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot

2. KBA definition – what does it involve? • Database structure/design (action-oriented) • GIS equipment and lab • Technical expertise • Data collation (papers, books, internet, expert contacts) & data entry/shape-files • Products (lists, summary tables, analyses, maps, reports, publications) • Decisions with stakeholders (workshops)

3. Context of partnerships for KBA definition • KBA definition was to be done as a CEPF Cycle 4 Ecosystem Profile (only one part of the process) • Technical Team of CBC (two staff) in 2003 • Species Specialist based in New Zealand and a Technical Director based in Samoa • No GIS capacity – No IT connectivity – No database • 20 odd island countries coverage across an ocean continent four times the size of the USA • CABS first iteration of the KBA process was a 4-page word document ______________________________________ • Pacific Island countries agencies have strong tradition of regional partnership in conservation ______________________________________ • Design of the proposal for Ecosystem Profile and KBA definition entirely on the basis of partnerships

4. Main partners involved in KBA delineation process How do you get partners to engage in a CI-lead process? – You need to build trust. • Give them part ownership of the process: 1) Develop a strong partnership with a regional institution mandated for nature conservation (SPREP) – legitimacy of the initiative – co-leader 2) Set-up a Regional Task Force (advisory group) and invite all regional key data-rich agencies to full participation • Ensure a decentralised and localised process for KBA definition (bottom-up approach) 1) Sub-divide the hotspots in four sub-regions with biogeographic and logistic links 2) Have the process led by a qualified and trusted local partner in each sub-region

5. Hotspot Sub-regions map and roundtables on biodiversity CEPF Ecosystem Profile Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot Hawaii Northern Marianas Guam Marshall Islands F.S.Micronesia Palau Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot Kiribati (Gilbert Is.) Kiribati (Line Is.) Nauru Kiribati (Phoenix Is.) Tuvalu Tokelau Wallis & Futuna French Polynesia Samoa Fiji Am.Samoa Niue Pitcairn Island Cook Islands Tonga Easter Island

6. Key partnerships involved in KBA delineation process Strategic Partnerships • CEPF: co-lead the process in liaison with SPREP and in support of CI team • SPREP: co-lead Ecosystem Profile by liaising with Pacific Islands governments and providing GIS lab and equipment Technical/Science Partnerships • Regional Task Force: Bishop Museum, WWF, Birdlife International, TNC, University of the South Pacific, SOP-Manu (Tahiti), WCS and ISSG • CABS: in support of CI team for outcome definition – analysis, KBA definition Tasks • Provide data and GIS layers • Direct liaison with Profile Coordinator • Review draft KBA definition and investment strategy • Validate the process – 2 expert Roundtables

7. Key partnerships involved in KBA delineation process Sub-regional Partnerships • Micronesia: University of Guam and TNC • Fiji Islands: Wildlife Conservation Society • Western Polynesia: Pacific Environment Consultants • French Polynesia: Te Ora Fenua and Delegation a la Recherche Tasks • Liaise with sub-regional organisations and agencies at local level (each country of the sub-region) • Identify key local stakeholders, organise and facilitate sub-regional workshops and roundtables • Compile a sub-regional Ecosystem Profile including a preliminary cut at KBA identification

8. Process for Profile and KBA definition Expert Roundtable Sub-Regional profiles Polynesia- Micronesia Hotspot Ecosystem Profile 2003-2004 Draft of EP report (Oct 15) Final Report Partners Task force members SPREP Bishop Museum WCS TNC WWF SPC CABS Partners Fiji – WCS Micronesia – TNC West Polynesia – Pacific Env.Consultants French Polynesia- Te Ora Fenua LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS Partners Task force members SPREP Bishop Museum WCS TNC WWF SPC CABS

9. Main local stakeholders involved in KBA definition process Regional Intergovernmental • SPREP (provided data, office space and participated in the sub regional workshop in W. Polynesia) • SOPAC (provided GIS data) • USP (participated in the sub regional workshop in Fiji) • SPC- Forestry (participated in the sub-regional workshop in Fiji) Academic and Research Institutions • Bishop Museum (provided data and participated in the “expert” workshops) • IRD-French Polynesia • Institut Malardie (Tahiti) • CRIOBE and R.Gump Research Centre (Tahiti)

10. Main partners involved in KBA definition process Main local stakeholders involved in KBA definition process Government Agencies • Division of Environment and Conservation staff and other officials (Forestry, research) of all island countries eligible to CEPF (important for follow-up to GEF focal points) Local NGOs • O le Siosiomaga Society (Samoa- participated in the sub regional workshop in West Polynesia) • Te Ora Fanua (provided data and organised the sub-regional workshop in French Polynesia) • Palau Conservation Society (participated in the sub regional workshop in Micronesia) • Conservation Society of Pohnpei (FSM- participated in the sub regional workshop in Micronesia) • National Trust for Fiji (participated in the sub regional workshop in Fiji)

11. Main partners involved in KBA delineation process Main local stakeholders involved in KBA definition process Private Sector • Pacific Environment Consultants Ltd (organised the sub-regional workshop in W. Polynesia) • Prof. Harley Manner (organised the sub-regional workshop in Micronesia) • Dr. Dick Watling (Ornithologist- participated in the sub regional workshop in Fiji) Tasks • Input into sub-regional rountables and expert meetings • Assist in validation of data on species and sites, threats and gaps, and KBA definition • Participate in elaboration of sub-regional ecosystem profiles – directly of interest to them

12. Response of partners to the KBA process • Generally very positive response: • More than 25 partner organisations were involved in the process • More than 100 specialists and stakeholders had input into the process • Appreciation for the “scientific” approach being followed • Expressed that CEPF would fill a large gap in terrestrial conservation effort and implementation of NBSAP strategies • All organisations and stakeholders have endorsed the Ecosystem Profile for the Hotspot • Main concerns were that: • the IUCN RL for the region is very deficient and needs to be updated with the latest information. • there are major data gaps (thematic and geographical) that make it very difficult to comprehensively identify KBAs across the region • CI’s approach doesn’t take into account national priorities in this larger hotspot and global scale analysis.

13. Lessons learned over the partnerships to the KBA process • Three-tier level partnership is essential - give part-ownership of the process to key partners – it is a system that help build trust/working relationship for the long-term • Data-sharing, data usage and intellectual property agreements should be designed and signed from the onset • More time and budget are required for consultations and development of relationship with partners and understanding of local conservation politics • In absence of CEPF implementation funding, delays in follow-up phase have a strong negative impact on key partnerships • Partnerships for KBA definition need to work both ways – return CI input and support important for partners – even if it doesn’t follow the KBA process

14. Key partnerships involved in KBA delineation process

15. Fa’afetai, Vinaka, Merci In conclusion…