 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Click on area to view the workshop form.
Due to lack of data, the freshwater aquatic working group used fish communities as indicators of site integrity. Information used during the exercise was obtained from available literature and personal knowledge of participating experts. The group used biological importance and threat to divide priority areas into two categories: Group A- pristine areas with high biological value and in existing conservation areas under reduced threat; and Group B- areas with medium to high biological value under severe threat.
Group A priority areas were mapped based on actual catchments of all rivers in the region, number of fish species, number of endemic fish species per catchment, and Forest Reserve/Conservation areas in the catchments. Group B sites were selected based on occurrence of catchments in areas of high population growth and urbanization, catchments around the mining and logging concessions, and catchments in areas of conflict or those with influx of refugees. The identified freshwater priority areas were then reconciled with the coastal/marine ecosystems working group. This ensured that any critical areas, left out by the above process, were identified.
Freshwater ecosystems working group: Chris Gordon, Gordon Reid, Caroly Shumway and Melanie Stiassny.
