A call for improving the Key Biodiversity Areas framework

Abstract

Eight percent of all land surface has been designated as "Key Biodiversity Areas" (KBAs). Since these areas were established based on only two percent of all terrestrial species estimated to exist, we ask what would happen if we used all species on Earth to identify additional KBAs. We explore this question at a global scale by using data from 64,110 species of animals and plants to identify how many areas could qualify as KBAs under current criteria. We find that between 26% and 68% of the worlds terrestrial areas can be classified as KBAs, depending on the spatial resolution. The total area from potential KBAs increases drastically as more species are assessed, suggesting that if all species were included, virtually all land surface could eventually meet the biological requirements for becoming a KBA. In addition, KBAs lack a data-driven ranking system, thus assuming that all KBAs are equally worthy protection. KBAs are intended to be areas which are both of biological importance and manageable but the current approach largely sidesteps the biological component. We make an urgent call for stricter criteria in the KBA methodology or alternative methodologies that allow for biologically robust area prioritization, help secure evidence-based investments, and support progress towards the targets under the new Global Biodiversity Framework.