University of Tasmania
Browse

Changes in Key Biodiversity Area networks following national comprehensive assessments

journal contribution
posted on 2025-10-13, 22:21 authored by Andrew J Plumptre, Zoltan Waliczky, Daniele Baisero, Olivia Crowe, Jeannot Kivono, Cecilia Tobar, Maria Gabriela Toscano, Natalia Boulad, Hugo Costa, Camila Davila, Sophie Dirou, Eleuterio Duarte, Karolina Fierro, Carolina Castellanos‐Castro, Hanna Haddad, Stephen Holness, Fiona Maisels, Daniel Marnewick, Menard Mbende, Maitha Abdulla Al Mheiri, Dissondet Moundzoho, Simon Nampindo, Grace Nangendo, Steeve Ngama, Catherine Numa, Diego Peñaranda, Samridhi Rijal, Manuel Sánchez‐Nivicela, Andrew Skowno, Thomas Starnes, Nicolas Texier, Lize von Staden, Anne Bowser, Thomas BrooksThomas Brooks, Gill Bunting, Stuart HM Butchart, Neil Cox, Wendy Elliot, Jo Gilbert, Penny Langhammer, Olivier Langrand, Rachel Neugarten, Madhu Rao, Jon Paul Rodriguez, Gina della Togna, Amy Upgren, Stephen Woodley
Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are sites of significance for the global persistence of biodiversity. Based on the Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA Standard), published in 2016, sites are currently being assessed for KBA designation in a growing number of countries across the world. For these assessments, the KBA criteria are applied to all species and ecosystems with available data. We reviewed the first comprehensive assessments of 11 countries and compared the KBA network before and after assessments. The mean (SD) number of KBAs per country increased by 69.6% (102.1), and the mean total extent of KBAs per country increased by 164.2% (150.7). More than half of the KBAs in 2024 had >50% of their area outside the 2019 KBAs, indicating a substantial increase in KBA extent (54.0% [18.8] of KBAs). The mean proportion of each KBA covered by protected or conserved areas decreased from 56.2% (20.2) to 44.5% (15.5), owing to the incorporation of unprotected sites in the KBA network. On average, 41.1% (14.0) of sites in each country (mean 44.5 [46.4] sites per country) and 47.2% (20.5) of new KBA area after the assessment were completely unprotected, indicating that many of the new sites were not recognized in national protected area networks as significant for biodiversity before the assessment. Making a comprehensive assessment of KBAs increased the combined coverage of protected and conserved area networks from 25.4% (10.6) to 32.0% (13.1) in each country and thus contributed to reducing biodiversity loss. Therefore, comprehensive assessments of KBAs led to a substantially increased number and extent of recognized sites of importance for biodiversity published in the World Database of KBAs. Where such assessments have not been made, many important areas for biodiversity may be overlooked. We therefore encourage other nations to update their KBA networks to inform efforts to meet the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

History

Sub-type

  • Article

Publication title

Conservation Biology

Medium

Print-Electronic

Article number

e70151

Pagination

e70151

eISSN

1523-1739

ISSN

0888-8892

Department/School

Ecology and Biodiversity

Publisher

Wiley

Publication status

  • Published online

Place of publication

United States

Event Venue

KBA Secretariat, c/o BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

Rights statement

© 2025 The Society for Conservation Biology. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (CC BY)

UN Sustainable Development Goals

15 Life on Land

Usage metrics

    College of Sciences and Engineering

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC