|
ABOUT CEPF
OUR STRATEGY
NEWS
WHERE WE WORK
PROJECT DATABASE
APPLY FOR GRANTS
Indo-Burma
Ecosystem profile
Investment priorities
News & Feature Archive
Publications
View other hotspots
|
 |
Ecosystem Profile: Indochina
To maximize CEPF's contribution to the goal of global biodiversity conservation within Indochina over a five-year investment period, it was necessary to refine the full list of globally threatened species, key biodiversity areas, and conservation corridors defined for Indochina into a focused set of priority outcomes for CEPF investment (priority species, sites, and corridors). The purpose of selecting priority sites and corridors is to enable CEPF investment in site-based and landscape-scale conservation actions to focus on geographic areas (particularly sites) of the highest priority, while the purpose of selecting priority species was to enable CEPF investment in species-focused conservation actions to be directed at those globally threatened species whose conservation needs cannot be adequately addressed by site-based and landscape-scale conservation actions alone.
Criteria for selecting priority species from among the full list of globally threatened species in the region included significance of the Indochina population relative to the global population (only Vulnerable species with at least 10 percent of their global population in Indochina, Endangered species with at least 5 percent, and Critically Endangered species with at least 1 percent were considered for selection), need for species-focused conservation action (globally threatened species whose conservation needs cannot be adequately addressed by site-based and landscape-scale conservation actions alone were considered) and need for greatly improved information on status and distribution in Indochina (globally threatened species with an over-riding need for greatly improved information before conservation action can be taken in any meaningful way were considered). The application of the selection criteria to the globally threatened species in Indochina is presented in Appendix 1.
Criteria for selecting priority sites from among the full list of key biodiversity areas in the region included occurrence within a priority corridor (only key biodiversity areas occurring within a priority corridor were considered). The application of the selection criteria to the key biodiversity areas in Indochina is presented in Appendix 2.
A number of criteria were used to select priority corridors from among the full list of conservation corridors in the region, including importance for globally threatened species (only conservation corridors supporting globally significant populations of Critically Endangered and Endangered species were considered), importance for the conservation of landscape species (preference was given to conservation corridors supporting globally significant populations of one or more landscape species), and importance for the conservation of ecological and evolutionary processes (preference was given to conservation corridors supporting unique or exceptional examples of ecological and evolutionary processes). The application of the selection criteria to the conservation corridors in Indochina is presented in Appendix 3.
For all priority outcomes for CEPF investment, the most important selection criteria were urgency for conservation action and opportunity for additional investment. Priority species, sites, and corridors were only selected where current threats, if not mitigated, were predicted to cause their extinction (in the case of species) or the loss of key elements of biodiversity (in the case of sites and corridors) within the next 20 years. In addition, priority species, sites, and corridors were only selected where there were considered to be very great opportunities for CEPF investments in conservation actions by civil society to complement or better target other investments by donors or governments.
Preliminary lists of priority species, sites, and corridors for CEPF investment in Indochina were proposed at the series of expert roundtables attended by more than 120 representatives of national and international conservation organizations, academic institutions, donor agencies, and government institutions in the region. These lists were then synthesized and reviewed, through reference to published and unpublished data and further consultations with in-region stakeholders. A draft ecosystem profile was discussed at a meeting of the CEPF Working Group held in Washington DC in December 2003. During and following this meeting, the ecosystem profiling team received valuable feedback from representatives of the CEPF donor partners. Concerns were raised regarding the geographic scope of the CEPF investment niche. In particular, there was a concern that the number of priority corridors proposed was too great, relative to the amount of funding potentially available, with the associated risk that CEPF investment could be spread too thinly to have a measurable impact.
Taking the feedback from the CEPF Working Group into consideration, the ecosystem profiling team prepared a revised draft. This revised drafted differed from the 19 November 2003 draft in having a much more tightly focused geographic niche, with six priority corridors and 51 priority sites. The revised draft of the ecosystem profile was presented at a meeting between CEPF and World Bank staff held in Medan, Sumatra, in June 2005. At this meeting, additional verbal feedback was provided by World Bank staff, particularly in relation to the CEPF investment niche. Concerns were expressed that opportunities for conservation success in some of the proposed priority corridors (including Hainan Mountains and the Inner Gulf of Thailand) were limited, and that the potential for synergies between future CEPF investments and World Bank sectoral investments would not be fully realized.
In response to this feedback and subsequent discussion with the CEPF donor partners, further revisions were made to the investment strategy. The final investment strategy targets two priority corridors and the 28 priority sites they contain (Figure 3 and Table 8). The two priority corridors cover a total area of 41,547 km2 and include 28 key biodiversity areas, equivalent to 8 percent of the full list for Indochina. All of these key biodiversity areas were selected as priority sites.
Explicit provisions are included for supporting initiatives outside of these geographic priorities, particularly where they present opportunities to engage civil society in major sectoral projects and programs.
*As developed through the stakeholder consultation process, the Mekong River and Major Tributaries Corridor does not include the Mekong Delta Wetlands downstream from Phnom Penh.
| Priority corridor |
Priority sites |
Countries |
Area (km2) |
| Mekong River and Major Tributaries |
Basset Marsh; Boeung Veal Samnap; Mekong Channel near Pakchom; Mekong from Kratie to Lao P.D.R.; Mekong from Phou Xiang Thong to Siphandon; Mekong upstream of Vientiane; Sekong River; Sesan River; Siphandon; Upper Lao Mekong; Upper Xe Khaman
|
Cambodia, Lao P.D.R., S. China and Thailand |
17,070 |
| Northern Highlands Limestone |
Ba Be; Ban Bung; Ban Thi-Xuan Lac; Binh An; Cham Chu; Diding; Dong Phuc; Du Gia; Gulongshan; Kim Hy; Na Chi; Nongxin; Sinh Long; Tat Ke; Tay Con Linh; Thanh Hen Lake; Trung Khanh
|
S. China and Vietnam |
24,477 |
The key biodiversity values of the priority corridors are briefly summarized below:
Priority Corridor 1 - Northern Highlands Limestone. The Northern Highlands Limestone corridor is particularly important for the conservation of primates, as it supports the entire global population of the Critically Endangered Tonkin snub-nosed monkey and the world's largest remaining population of eastern black crested gibbon (Nomascus concolor nasutus), which is widely recognized as a separate Critically Endangered species. The corridor is also of high global importance for plant conservation, supporting high levels of endemism in many groups, such as orchids. The corridor supports the richest assemblages of conifer species in the region, including several globally threatened species, such as Amentotaxus yunnanensis, Cephalotaxus mannii and Cunninghamia konishii. Most notably, the corridor supports two conifer species with known global ranges restricted to a single site: Xanthocyparis vietnamensis and Amentotaxus hatuyenensis. Through a land-use history of commercial logging and shifting cultivation, the natural habitats of the Northern Highlands Limestone corridor (limestone, lowland evergreen and montane evergreen forest) have become fragmented, in places highly, and remaining blocks are often threatened by overexploitation of forest products. Nevertheless, the corridor presents tremendous opportunities to engage civil society groups in biodiversity conservation. Many of the most important populations of threatened and endemic species occur outside of formal protected areas, in sites that lend themselves to community-based conservation approaches. Furthermore, many key biodiversity areas are threatened by incompatible development initiatives, and there is an important role for civil society to play in reconciling conservation and development agendas in the corridor.
Priority Corridor 2 - Mekong River and Major Tributaries. Partly as a result of a limited appreciation of their biodiversity values among decisionmakers, riverine ecosystems have, to date, received less conservation investment than most other ecosystems in Indochina, and are severely under-represented within national protected area systems. The Mekong River and its major tributaries, including the Srepok, Sesan, and Sekong Rivers, represent the best remaining examples of the riverine ecosystems of Indochina. The biodiversity values of these rivers have yet to be fully evaluated, particularly as global threat assessments have only been conducted for a small fraction of the freshwater species that occur in them. However, the corridor is known to be important for a number of giant fish, including the Critically Endangered leaping barb and freshwater sawfish, and the Endangered giant catfish, Mekong freshwater stingray, and Jullien's golden carp. The corridor also supports significant populations of a number of aquatic turtle species, including the Endangered Asian giant softshell turtle (Pelochelys cantorii). Furthermore, the Mekong River and its major tributaries support the fullest riverine bird communities remaining in Indochina, including globally significant congregations of species such as river lapwing (Vanellus duvaucelii) and small pratincole (Glareola lacteal). Because of these values, one section of the corridor has been designated as a Ramsar site. CEPF investment in the Mekong watershed will focus on the Mekong River and its major tributaries as defined by the stakeholder consultation process. Projects funded under Strategic Direction 3 can be implemented within or beyond the defined corridor, but must contribute to the conservation of priority species or sites within the corridor as specified in the ecosystem profile.
A total of 67 globally threatened animal species were selected as priority species, representing 27 percent of the full list of globally threatened animal species in Indochina (Table 9). The priority species include seven primate species endemic to the region, eight carnivore species, and 20 turtle species, reflecting the high threat posed to these groups by overexploitation, often driven by demand from the wildlife trade. The priority species also include seven large and medium-sized waterbird species, which are either dispersed breeders or colonial breeders that disperse widely during the non-breeding season; these species require species-focused conservation action throughout their ranges in order to address overexploitation, disturbance and loss of key habitats. Furthermore, 12 priority species were selected because they have an over-riding need for greatly improved information on their status and distribution before conservation action can be taken for them in any meaningful way; nine of these species are Critically Endangered.
In addition to the priority species listed in Table 9, all 248 globally threatened plant species in Indochina are considered to be priorities for CEPF investment. The priority conservation action for the vast majority of globally threatened plant species in the region is research to establish their conservation status and distribution.
Table 9. Priority Species for CEPF Investment in Indochina
| Priority Species |
Conservation Need(s) Requiring Species-Focused Action |
Over-riding Need for Improved Information |
| MAMMALS |
| Kouprey Bos sauveli |
- |
Yes |
| Wild Water Buffalo Bubalus bubalis |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Asian Golden Cat Catopuma temminckii |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Eld's Deer Cervus eldii |
Control of overexploitation;
active population management
|
- |
| Otter Civet Cynogale bennettii |
- |
Yes |
| Hairy Rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Asian Elephant Elephas maximus |
Mitigation of human-elephant conflict; control of overexploitation |
- |
| Small-toothed Mole Euroscaptor parvidens |
- |
Yes |
| Smooth-coated Otter Lutrogale perspicillata |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Clouded Leopard Neofelis nebulosa |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Black Crested Gibbon Nomascus concolor |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Wroughton's Free-tailed Bat Otomops wroughtoni |
- |
Yes |
| Tiger Panthera tigris |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Vietnam Leaf-nosed Bat Paracoelops megalotis |
- |
Yes |
| Marbled Cat Pardofelis marmorata |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Saola Pseudoryx nghetinhensis |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Red-shanked Douc (+ Grey-shanked) Pygathrix nemaeus |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Black-shanked Douc Pygathrix nigripes |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Lesser One-horned Rhinoceros Rhinoceros sondaicus |
Control of overexploitation;
active population management
|
- |
| Tonkin Snub-nosed Monkey Rhinopithecus avunculus |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Delacour's Leaf Monkey Trachypithecus delacouri |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Francois's Leaf Monkey Trachypithecus francoisi |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| White-headed Leaf Monkey Trachypithecus poliocephalus |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Chapa Pygmy Doormouse Typhlomys chapaensis |
- |
Yes |
| Asian Black Bear Ursus thibetanus |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| BIRDS |
| White-winged Duck Cairina scutulata |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| White-eyed River-martin Eurychelidon sirintarae |
- |
Yes |
| White-eared Night-heron Gorsachius magnificus |
- |
Yes |
| Sarus Crane Grus antigone |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis |
Provision of adequate food supply; control of persecution |
- |
| Slender-billed Vulture Gyps tenuirostris |
Provision of adequate food supply; control of persecution |
- |
| Masked Finfoot Heliopais personata |
Control of disturbance along waterways |
- |
| Greater Adjutant Leptoptilos dubius |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Green Peafowl Pavo muticus |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| White-shouldered Ibis Pseudibis davisoni |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Giant Ibis Thaumatibis gigantean |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| REPTILES |
| Asiatic Softshell Turtle Amyda cartilaginea |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Painted Terrapin Callagur borneoensis |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Red-necked Pond Turtle Chinemys nigricans |
Control of overexploitation |
Yes |
| Chinese Three-keeled Pond Turtle Chinemys reevesii |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Striped Narrow-headed Softshell Turtle Chitra chitra |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Siamese Crocodile Crocodylus siamensis |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Indochinese Box Turtle Cuora galbinifrons |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Chinese Three-striped Box Turtle Cuora trifasciata |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Zhou's Box Turtle Cuora zhoui |
Control of overexploitation |
Yes |
| Black-breasted Leaf Turtle Geoemyda spengleri |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Yellow-headed Temple Turtle Hieremys annandalii |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Asian Giant Tortoise Manouria emys |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Impressed Tortoise Manouria impressa |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Vietnamese Pond Turtle Mauremys annamensis |
Control of overexploitation |
Yes |
| Asian Yellow Pond Turtle Mauremys mutica |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Chinese Stripe-necked Turtle Ocadia sinensis |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Wattle-necked Softshell Turtle Palea steindachneri |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Asian Giant Softshell Turtle Pelochelys cantorii |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| East Asian Giant Softshell Turtle Rafetus swinhoei |
Control of overexploitation |
Yes |
| Beale's Eyed Turtle Sacalia bealei |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Four-eyed Turtle Sacalia quadriocellata |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| FISH |
| Mekong Freshwater Stingray Dasyatis laosensis |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Giant Freshwater Stingray Himantura chaophraya |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Marbled Freshwater Stingray Himantura oxyrhynchus |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| White-edged Freshwater Whipray Himantura signifer |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Giant Catfish Pangasianodon gigas |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Freshwater Sawfish Pristis microdon |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Jullien's Golden Carp Probarbus jullieni |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
| Laotian Shad Tenualosa thibaudeaui |
Control of overexploitation |
- |
Note: * = in addition to the species listed in the table, all 248 globally threatened plant species in Indochina are considered to be priorities for CEPF investment.
In addition to the above priority species, the participants at the expert roundtables identified 12 species and one group of species that, while not assessed as globally threatened, were considered to be of global conservation concern. These species were considered to potentially meet the selection criteria for priority species; in particular, they all require species-focused conservation action. They are, therefore, included on a list of provisional priority species, which could become eligible for CEPF investment if their global threat status is reassessed as globally threatened during the 5-year investment period (Appendix 4).
The CEPF investment strategy for Indochina comprises investment priorities grouped into four strategic directions, which are the results of an extensive process of consultation with civil society and government stakeholders. Draft investment priorities were formulated at the series of expert roundtables. The draft investment priorities were then synthesized by the ecosystem profiling team, reviewed in the context of current conservation investment in the region, and grouped into strategic directions. Finally, the synthesized strategic directions and investment priorities were circulated to in-region stakeholders and members of the CEPF Working Group for further input.
Table 10. Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities for CEPF in Indochina
| CEPF STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS |
CEPF INVESTMENT PRIORITIES |
| 1. Safeguard priority globally threatened species in Indochina by mitigating major threats |
1.1 Identify and secure core populations of 67 globally threatened species from overexploitation and illegal trade
1.2 Implement public awareness campaigns that reinforce existing wildlife trade policies and contribute to the reduction of consumer demand for 67 globally threatened species and their products
1.3 Investigate the status and distribution of globally threatened plant species, and apply the results to planning, management, awareness raising and/or outreach
1.4 Assess the global threat status of selected freshwater taxa and integrate the results into planning processes for the conservation of wetland biodiversity and development plans in the Mekong River and its major tributaries
1.5 Conduct research on 12 globally threatened species for which there is a need for greatly improved information on their status and distribution
1.6 Publish local-language reference materials on globally threatened species
|
| 2. Develop innovative, locally led approaches to site-based conservation at 28 key biodiversity areas |
2.1 Establish innovative local-stakeholder-based conservation management and caretaking initiatives at 28 key biodiversity areas
2.2 Develop regional standards and programs that address overexploitation of biodiversity and pilot at selected sites
|
| 3. Engage key actors in reconciling biodiversity conservation and development objectives, with a particular emphasis on the Northern Limestone Highlands and Mekong River and its major tributaries |
3.1 Support civil society efforts to analyze development policies, plans and programs, evaluate their impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and propose alternative development scenarios and appropriate mitigating measures
3.2 Support initiatives that leverage support for biodiversity conservation from development projects and programs
3.3 Conduct targeted outreach and awareness raising for decisionmakers, journalists, and lawyers
|
| 4. Provide strategic leadership and effective coordination of CEPF investment through a regional implementation team |
4.1 Build a broad constituency of civil society groups working across institutional and political boundaries toward achieving the shared conservation goals described in the ecosystem profile
|
Strategic Direction 1: Safeguard globally threatened species in Indochina by mitigating major threats
Indochina is one of the most important regions in the world for the conservation of globally threatened species. The region supports 492 globally threatened species, including many found nowhere else. For certain taxonomic groups, such as primates, Indo-Burma (of which Indochina is the largest part) supports more globally threatened species than any other hotspot. Indochina is also predicted to support large numbers of additional globally threatened species among taxonomic groups for which comprehensive global threat assessments have yet to be undertaken, such as invertebrates, fish, and plants.
Despite the importance of Indochina for globally threatened species, only a small percentage of total conservation investment in Indochina over the last decade was for species-focused action. In part, this reflects an assumption on the part of governments, donors, and NGOs that conservation of representative examples of natural ecosystems, principally through the establishment of protected areas, will be sufficient to maintain viable populations of all species. While this is true for many species, a significant number require additional action, such as control of overexploitation and trade, or research to establish their status and distribution.
Many civil society organizations active in the region have good capacity to take action for globally threatened species. Such work presents many opportunities for collaboration, both among civil society organizations and between them and government institutions. Where the potential for collaboration exists, there are also many opportunities for capacity building. Projects supported by CEPF should, wherever possible, seek to build the capacity of indigenous civil society and government institutions in species-focused research and action. This strategic direction focuses on the identified priority species. Projects financed under the following investment priorities are not geographically restricted to the priority sites and corridors.
1.1 Identify and secure core populations of 67 globally threatened species from overexploitation and illegal trade by implementing targeted, high-impact projects
Sixty-seven of the 265 globally threatened animal species in Indochina were selected as priority species. The most common conservation action required for these species is identifying and securing core populations from overexploitation. While there are several inter-related factors driving overexploitation of priority species, trade demand from both domestic and international markets is often key. Most governments in the region have enacted legislation to protect wildlife species from overexploitation and trade (the one exception is Cambodia, which has prepared, but not yet enacted, a Wildlife Protection Law). In addition, all countries in the region are contracting parties to CITES. Although there is room for improvement in wildlife protection and trade legislation in all countries, the major obstacles to effective control of overexploitation are lack of political will and lack of capacity (and motivation) among responsible government agencies.
In addition to identifying and securing core populations from overexploitation, a small number of priority species require additional species-focused actions, such as provision of adequate food supply in the case of white-rumped vulture and slender-billed vulture, where collapses of wild ungulate populations coupled with changes in livestock management practices have contributed to massive declines in the species; and active population management in the case of Eld's deer and lesser one-horned rhinoceros, where remnant populations in the region are small, fragmented, and may require active population management, including translocations, in order to maintain their long-term genetic viability.
Civil society organizations are well positioned to implemented targeted, high-impact projects to conserve priority species, particularly as none of the government institutions responsible for biodiversity conservation in the region have significant species-focused programs. One area in which civil society could be very effective is strengthening the capacity of government institutions responsible for controlling overexploitation and trade of priority species, through training, information provision and coordination.
1.2 Implement public awareness campaigns that reinforce existing wildlife trade policies and contribute to the reduction of consumer demand for 67 globally threatened species and their products
Although some of the key markets for priority species threatened by overexploitation and trade lie outside of Indochina, and are, therefore, ineligible for CEPF funding under this investment strategy, a significant proportion are consumed within the region, both close to the point of source and in urban centers. In this regard, Thailand, Vietnam, and southern China are the major consumer markets in the region. While strengthened enforcement of wildlife protection and trade legislation may reduce pressure on wild populations of priority species, at least at specific sites, a significant reduction in consumer demand is needed to secure these populations in the long term.
Pilot civil society initiatives to promote changes in attitudes toward consumption of priority species and their products through public awareness campaigns have met with initial success in Hong Kong and Thailand. Given the rapid expansion of the urban middle class and the unabating spread of trade networks into previously remote areas, extension of such approaches to other parts of the region arguably represents the best opportunity to stem a potentially rapid increase in consumer demand for priority species and their products.
1.3 Investigate the status and distribution of globally threatened plant species, and apply the results to planning, management, awareness raising and/or outreach
Half of the 492 globally threatened species known to occur in Indochina are plants. The majority of these species are high value timber species threatened by overexploitation and habitat loss. Many species are inherently susceptible to these threats, either because they have naturally slow reproductive rates, or because they have very restricted distributions. Outside of Thailand, however, very little is known about the conservation status and distribution of most of these species. This is largely because, while significant resources have been invested in botanical surveys by governments throughout the region, most surveys have been for forestry purposes. For many species, therefore, although data exist, they have never been collated and evaluated from a conservation perspective; for other species, insufficient data are available to assess their status and conservation requirements without additional field surveys.
Actions that could be taken by civil society to investigate the status and distribution of globally threatened plant species include assessments of species' distributions based on reviews of literature and herbarium collections, field surveys to assess population structure and status, and identification of key sites for their conservation.
In order to be eligible for CEPF funding, projects must ensure that the research results are applied to planning, management, awareness raising and/or outreach, for example by promoting the incorporation of key seed source areas into management plans for forest concessions. Great potential exists for using the research results to target other initiatives supported by CEPF, particularly ones under Strategic Directions 2 and 3. Projects under this investment priority must be clearly linked to policy, management, or conservation planning, and will have to demonstrate sustainability beyond the five-year investment period.
1.4 Assess the global threat status of selected freshwater taxa and integrate the results into planning processes for the conservation of wetland biodiversity and development plans in the priority corridors
Freshwater species provide the wetland products that are critical to many of the rural poor throughout Indochina. This dependency has been demonstrated by a recent study on rural livelihoods in Attapu province, Lao P.D.R., where a broad diversity of some 200 species of aquatic plants and animals were being used by villagers (Meusch et al. 2003). As well as supporting rural livelihoods, freshwater species are also among the most threatened in Indochina, as a result of unsustainable fishing practices, and habitat alteration and loss. However, the global threat status of freshwater taxa throughout the region is very poorly known. For example, only 22 species of fish from the Lower Mekong Basin have been assessed for their global threat status according to the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (W. Darwall in litt. 2004); the situation for other freshwater taxa in the region is even worse. This lack of global threat assessments for freshwater species creates a major bottleneck for conservation planning in the region, as resources cannot be targeted at the species requiring the most urgent conservation action, and the needs of freshwater species are not adequately addressed in conservation plans. There is, therefore, a critical need to assess the global threat status of freshwater taxa throughout the region, in order to leverage support for their conservation.
Global threat assessments of selected priority freshwater taxa should be undertaken early on during the five-year CEPF funding period, so that the results can help to target conservation action at priority sites, and be integrated into land-use and development plans within priority corridors. Because of the relatively modest resources that will be made available for this investment priority, only global threat assessments of selected freshwater taxa will be eligible for CEPF support: fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and odonates.
1.5 Conduct research on 12 globally threatened species species for which there is a need for greatly improved information on their status and distribution
Twelve priority species require greatly improved information on their status and distribution before conservation action can be taken in any meaningful way. Therefore, CEPF will support civil society organizations, alone or in partnership with government institutions or local communities, to conduct applied research on the status, ecology, threats, and distribution of these species. As in the case of Investment Priority 1.3, projects must ensure that the research results are applied to planning, management, awareness raising and/or outreach, in order to be eligible for CEPF funding. If populations of any of the 12 species are located during the five-year investment period, they will then become eligible for CEPF funding for conservation action under Investment Priority 1.1.
Given the relatively small amounts of investment required to clarify the status and distribution of these 12 globally threatened species, and the significant opportunities for leveraging additional resources for their conservation, species-focused research can be very cost effective; particularly as it is, in many cases, a one-off investment.
1.6 Publish local-language reference materials on globally threatened species
One of the constraints on conservation action to safeguard globally threatened species in Indochina is lack of access to relevant information. Although essential reference materials, such as field guides, exist for many taxonomic groups, they are often inaccessible to local researchers, protected area staff and conservation planners, either because of their restricted circulation or because they are not published in local languages. Therefore, there is a need to publish local-language reference materials to support conservation action for globally threatened species in Indochina. Such publications would support other CEPF investments under strategic direction 1, particularly action to address wildlife trade, and surveys to fill major gaps in the knowledge base for conservation planning. They could also be expected to contribute to the broader development of civil society in Indochina, through generating interest in biodiversity among the general public.
In recent years, a number of local-language field guides have been published in Indochina, mostly facilitated by the World Bank. However, there is still a need for local-language guides for certain taxonomic groups, particularly, trees, amphibians and freshwater fish, which all include large numbers of globally threatened species. Moreover, there is a need to publish and disseminate other essential reference materials on globally threatened species in addition to field guides, such as checklists, status reviews, and action plans.
Strategic Direction 2: Develop innovative, locally led approaches to site-based conservation at 28 key biodiversity areas
There has been significant government and donor investment in site-based conservation in each country in the region. However, much of the investment to date has been concentrated at protected areas and focused on construction of infrastructure, provision of equipment, and alternative income-generating activities for local communities. An important niche for CEPF funding is to support civil society to strengthen the capacity of enforcement staff to control overexploitation at protected areas. Several civil society organizations are well placed to perform this role because of their skills and experience in this field, and there exist several examples of successful initiatives in the region. The most cost-effective approach may be to develop regional standards and training curricula, based on best practice models already developed. In addition, civil society is well placed to engage local stakeholders in site-based conservation. This often represents a cost-efficient alternative to investment in protected area management, and a great opportunity to empower local communities to manage natural resources in a sustainable manner. Indeed, a number of pilot stakeholder-based conservation initiatives in the region have already met with initial success. Projects financed under the following investment priorities are restricted to the 28 priority sites within the two priority corridors, although 2.2 is likely to have national- and regional-level impacts.
2.1 Establish innovative local-stakeholder-based conservation management and caretaking initiatives
Within Indochina, 37 percent of key biodiversity areas are not included within formal protected areas, and this proportion is as high as 65 percent in Vietnam. Throughout the region, government institutions lack the necessary capacity, resources and political will to effectively manage national protected area systems, let alone sites outside of these systems. At many sites, however, other stakeholders, such as local communities, local authorities, and private sector companies, if informed and empowered, have high potential to support or assume responsibility for their conservation. Moreover, given the constraints imposed by existing protected area regulations in most countries in the region, local-stakeholder-based conservation initiatives can provide greater opportunities for local communities to participate in decisionmaking regarding the use of natural resources than formal protected areas approaches. Consequently, such initiatives can contribute to improved livelihoods for rural communities, especially those with high levels of dependence on natural resources.
Even within protected areas, there are many opportunities to engage local stakeholders in conservation, through, for example, joint patrolling or community co-management. While the vast majority of site-based conservation investment by governments and donors in the region to date has been focused on protected areas, little has been focused on actively involving local stakeholders in conservation activities. Therefore, there exists tremendous potential in the region for innovative, local-stakeholder-based approaches to conservation, both within and outside of protected areas. This is recognized in the Seventh Conference of the Parties to the CBD's Decision on Protected Areas, which "underlines the importance of conservation of biodiversity not only within but also outside protected areas" and suggests that parties "recognize and promote a broad set of protected area governance types... which may include areas conserved by indigenous and local communities."
In recent years, a number of pilot local-stakeholder-based conservation initiatives have been implemented in the region. These include a community-based waterbird colony protection group at Prek Toal in Cambodia (Goes and Hong Chamnan 2002), community-based primate conservation groups in northern Vietnam (e.g. Swan and O'Reilly 2004), and village-protected Fish Conservation Zones in deepwater pools in the Mekong River in southern Lao P.D.R. (Baird 2001). These initiatives have demonstrated that local-stakeholder-based groups can be a very cost-effective means of mobilising additional human resources, which would otherwise not be brought to bear within the context of conventional approaches to conservation. In addition, unlike many major investments by donor agencies in site-based conservation, these initiatives have good prospects for long-term sustainability, because they focus on building local capacity and structures, rather than bringing in capacity and structures from outside.
Despite their cost effectiveness and sustainability, limited donor funding has, to date, prevented these successful pilots from being scaled up significantly. Therefore, extending these approaches to priority sites in Indochina represents a major funding niche for CEPF. Actions that could be taken by civil society organizations with support from CEPF include establishing and building the capacity of local stakeholder-based conservation groups, initiating community patrol groups or joint patrolling with protected area staff, and supporting local stakeholder-based groups to develop local conservation regulations and initiate stewardship programs.
2.2 Develop regional standards and programs that address overexploitation of biodiversity and pilot at selected sites
Overexploitation of wildlife is one of the major threats to biodiversity in Indochina, and represents a particularly severe threat to many globally threatened species. To date, however, despite high levels of conservation investment in protected areas, there has not been sufficient commitment to controlling overexploitation of wildlife. Major beneficiaries of overexploitation are rarely the rural poor, who, as a group, are often negatively affected by these activities, which degrade the ecosystems upon which they depend. Therefore, control of overexploitation at priority sites represents a major funding gap in the region, and a significant niche for CEPF investment.
Given the large number of protected areas in the region where more effective enforcement is a high priority, rather than developing separate training initiatives at individual sites, it is likely to be far more cost effective to develop regional standards and programs for enforcement staff. These standards and programs should build on existing experience and best practice, and target all government staff in a position to enforce protected area management regulations (protected area staff, border guards, police, customs officials, etc). In order to field-test and refine the regional standards and programs, CEPF will support their piloting at priority sites. While circumstances may differ among priority sites, regional standards and programs focusing on a core set of competencies could be tailored to the needs of particular sites. Additional resources could later be leveraged to extend the standards and programs developed through CEPF investment to protected areas throughout the region.
Strategic Direction 3: Engage key actors in reconciling biodiversity conservation and development objectives, with a particular emphasis on the Northern Highlands Limestone Corridor and the Mekong River and its major tributaries
Conservation interventions in the region to date have tended to focus on tackling immediate threats to biodiversity, rather than on addressing underlying causes. While this approach has resulted in a number of successes at particular sites or for particular species, the overall trend has been one of continued degradation and loss of natural habitats, and declines in populations of globally threatened species. The underlying causes have included the relatively low priority given to biodiversity conservation by governments and most donor agencies; pursuit of economic policies inconsistent with biodiversity conservation; and inadequate environmental safeguards in government and donor-funded development projects. Rather than viewing these underlying causes as unassailable obstacles, they should be seen as opportunities for civil society to "mainstream" biodiversity, thereby mitigating potential threats before they occur and leveraging sufficient resources and political support for conservation success. This is in-line with Millennium Development Goal No. 7 of the United Nations, which sets a target for the global community to "integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources".
To date, the major steps taken by governments and donors to mainstream biodiversity into other sectors have been to introduce safeguard policies (including environmental impact assessment), and increase stakeholder consultation during project development. Significant though these steps have been, they have proven insufficient to fully integrate biodiversity into other sectors, and the onus remains on civil society to take a more pro-active role. Civil society organizations are often particularly well placed for such a role, as they have good connections at the grassroots level, a good understanding of the impacts of policies and projects on biodiversity, and access to scientific data to support their arguments. Considering its potential to leverage resources and mitigate threats before they occur, engaging civil society in mainstreaming biodiversity can be extremely cost effective.
There is a need for civil society to engage key actors in reconciling biodiversity conservation and development objectives throughout Indochina. Given the finite amount of resources that will be available under this strategic direction, however, particular emphasis will be placed on supporting initiatives that focus on the priority corridors. Nevertheless, opportunities to support initiatives elsewhere in the region will also be considered, particularly where they present opportunities to engage civil society in major sectoral projects and programs of the World Bank.
3.1 Support civil society efforts to analyze development policies, plans and programs, evaluate their impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and propose alternative development scenarios and appropriate mitigating measures
Many of the major threats to biodiversity within the priority corridors do not originate from local communities but from land-use and development policies, plans and programs initiated at the provincial or national level. As a result, site-based conservation interventions, such as protected area management, are frequently undermined by incompatible development activities, such as human resettlement, infrastructure development and large-scale land-use change. A major factor contributing to this trend is the limited integration of biodiversity considerations into development planning processes, especially in sectors with potentially significant impacts on natural ecosystems (e.g. industry, energy, transport, forestry, agriculture, fisheries, etc.). In essence, managers and planners remain largely unaware of the impacts of development policies, plans and programs on biodiversity, and voices of concern from local communities and NGOs are not being heard.
There are several means by which civil society can promote the integration of biodiversity considerations into development policies, plans and programs, including conducting applied research, such as economic valuation and identification of critical sites for biodiversity; communicating conservation messages to decision makers; providing technical inputs to policy review processes, such as strategic environmental assessment; and monitoring and evaluating the impacts of development policies, plans and programs on biodiversity. CEPF will support activities designed to raise civil society capacity to effectively analyze the impacts of development policies, plans and programss on biodiversity, promote incorporation of biodiversity considerations and encourage incentive mechanisms that favour conservation.
3.2 Support initiatives that leverage support for biodiversity conservation from development projects and programs
Within the region, the majority of national government and donor funding in the natural resources sector is for projects and programs with a principal objective of poverty alleviation. These projects and programs include an ambitious government-donor initiative in Vietnam to restore the nation's forest cover to 1945 levels by 2010, and an equally ambitious program of the Chinese Government to convert slope farmland to forest. While it is not always the principal objective of these projects and programs, they represent great opportunities for civil society to leverage support for biodiversity conservation. For instance, resources available for reforestation, if targeted appropriately, could be used to increase connectivity among key biodiversity areas within Priority Corridors. In addition to the natural resources sector, there also exist opportunities for civil society to leverage support from projects and programs in other sectors or to develop partnerships with large-scale private sector initiatives.
There are various ways in which civil society organisations can leverage support for biodiversity conservation from on-going and planned projects and programs, including development and promotion of corridor-wide plans and strategies for biodiversity conservation.
3.3 Conduct targeted outreach and awareness raising for decisionmakers, journalists, and lawyers
Without the support of key decisionmakers in national and local government institutions and donor agencies, it is very difficult to successfully mainstream biodiversity into other sectors. With support from CEPF, civil society can conduct targeted outreach and awareness raising, not only for decisionmakers directly, but also for environmental journalists, who have a key role in bringing environmental issues to the attention of decisionmakers, and environmental lawyers, who have a key role in drafting legislation and enforcing the observance of Environmental Impact Assessment legislation.
In addition to mainstreaming biodiversity into other sectors, there are many other issues about which civil society may wish to conduct targeted outreach and awareness raising, and these will vary among countries in the region. Particular attention should, however, be given to outreach and awareness raising that help generate support for other initiatives supported by CEPF, such as control of overexploitation and trade of priority species.
Strategic Direction 4: Provide strategic leadership and effective coordination of CEPF investment through a regional implementation team
An independent evaluation of the global CEPF program found that CEPF regional implementation teams are particularly effective with the support of the CEPF grant directors in linking the key elements of comprehensive, vertically integrated portfolios such as large anchor projects, smaller grassroots activities, policy initiatives, governmental collaboration, and sustainable financing. As recommended by the evaluators, the responsibilities of these teams, formerly known as coordination units, have now been standardized to capture the most important aspects of their function.
In every hotspot, CEPF will support a regional implementation team to convert the plans in the ecosystem profile into a cohesive portfolio of grants that exceed in impact the sum of their parts. Each regional implementation team will consist of one or more civil society organizations active in conservation in the region. For example, a team could be a partnership of civil society groups or could be a lead organization with a formal plan to engage others in overseeing implementation, such as through an inclusive advisory committee.
The regional implementation team will be selected by the CEPF Donor Council based on an approved terms of reference, competitive process, and selection criteria available in PDF format at www.cepf.net/xp/cepf/static/pdfs/Final.CEPF.RIT.TOR_Selection.pdf. The team will operate in a transparent and open manner, consistent with the CEPF mission and all provisions of the CEPF Operational Manual. Organizations that are members of the Regional Implementation Team will not be eligible to apply for other CEPF grants within the same hotspot. Applications from formal affiliates of those organizations that have an independent operating board of directors will be accepted, and subject to additional external review.
4.1 Build a broad constituency of civil society groups working across institutional and political boundaries toward achieving the shared conservation goals described in the ecosystem profile
The regional implementation team will provide strategic leadership and local knowledge to build a broad constituency of civil society groups working across institutional and geographic boundaries toward achieving the conservation goals described in the ecosystem profile. The team’s major functions and specific activities will be based on an approved terms of reference. Major functions of the team will be to:
- Act as an extension service to assist civil society groups in designing, implementing, and replicating successful conservation activities.
- Review all grant applications and manage external reviews with technical experts and advisory committees.
- Award grants up to $20,000 and decide jointly with the CEPF Secretariat on all other applications.
- Lead the monitoring and evaluation of individual projects using standard tools, site visits, and meetings with grantees, and assist the CEPF Secretariat in portfolio-level monitoring and evaluation.
- Widely communicate CEPF objectives, opportunities to apply for grants, lessons learned, and results.
- Involve the existing regional program of the RIT, CEPF donor and implementing agency representatives, government officials, and other sectors within the hotspot in implementation.
- Ensure effective coordination with the CEPF Secretariat on all aspects of implementation.
Specific activities and further details are available in the CEPF Regional Implementation Team Terms of Reference and Selection Process.
Contents / Previous / Next
|
|