biodiversity baseline assessment in the southern

Prepared by: Chanthavy Vongkhamheng, PhD Senior Conservation Scientist, Consultant

Vientiane, Lao PDR 2014

The ADB Lao Biodiversity Conservation Corridors

BIODIVERSITY BASELINE ASSESSMENT IN THE

SOUTHERN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

CORRIDORS LINKING XE SAP–DONG AMPHAM–XE PIANE–DONG HOUA SAO

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS


1

GREATER MEKONG SUBREGION (GMS) BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION CORRIDORS PROJECT

A Biodiversity Baseline Assessment in the Southern Corridors Linking Xesap – Dong Ampham – Xe Piane – Dong Houa Sao National Protected Areas

Final Report v2.0

12th December, 2014

Prepared by:

Chanthavy Vongkhamheng1, Khampasert Kong Ay2 & Vichit Lamxay3

1 Biodiversity assessment team leader (Lao Wildlife Conservation Association) 2 National GIS specialist (Lao GIS Limited) 3 National Botanist (National University of Laos, Faculty of Science)

Presented to:

ADB-funded GMS Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Project

Department of Forest Resources Management (DFRM)

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE)

Vientiane, Lao PDR

2

Contents

1. Introduction 9

1.1 Background 9

1.2 Objectives of the study 9

1.3 Biodiversity and priority biodiversity area 10

2. Overall Approach 10

3. Site Summaries 12

4. Methodology 14

4.1 Land cover/use analysis 15

4.2 Habitat suitability model for key landscape species 17

4.3 Wildlife Occupancy Survey 18

4.3.1 Questionnaire-based occupancy survey 18

4.3.2 Selection of key landscape species 20

4.4 Flora 20

4.4.1 Species diversity survey 20

4.4.2 Forest inventory 21

4.4.3 Forest and Vegetation Classification 21

5. Results 22

5.1 Land cover in biodiversity conservation corridors 22

5.2 Habitat Suitability 25

5.3 Plants 27

5.3.1 Sampling 27

5.3.2 Plant diversity 27

5.3.3 Dominant trees 29

5.3.4 Forest/vegetation types 31

5.3.5 Threats 31


3

5.4 Wildlife 35

5.4.1 Wildlife species and their occupancy rate across the entire BCC landscape 35

5.4.2 Wildlife Occupancy at BCC1, Sekong province 36

5.4.3 Wildlife Occupancy at BCC2, Attapeu province 36

5.4.4 Wildlife Occupancy at BCC3, Champasak province 37

5.4.5 Major threats to wildlife in BCC landscape 40

6. Discussion and Recommendations 42

6.1. Biodiversity values of BCC Landscape 42

6.1.1 Vegetation/Forest cover 42

6.1.2 Habitat suitability model 43

6.1.3 Flora species 45

6.1.5 Threats to wildlife and habitats 46

6.2 Priority/Critical Biodiversity Areas in BCCs 48

6.2.1 BCC1 connecting Xe Sap-Dong Ampham, Sekong province 48

6.2.2 BCC2 connecting Dong Ampham-Xe Piane, Attapeu province 50

6.2.3 Dong Hua Sao – Xe Piane (BCC3), Champasak province 51

6.3 Recommendations 52

REFERENCES: 53

ANNEXES;

Annex 1: Plants

Annex 1_Cheklist of plants

Annex 1a_Checklist of plants by BCC

Annex 1b,c, & d_Species at BCC1, BCC2, & BCC3

Annex 2_IUCN Red List

Annex 2a_Red List of Trees

Annex 3_List of dominant trees

Annex 4_Dominant tree family

Annex 4a,b&c_Dominant plants at BCC1,BCC2& BCC3

Annex 2: Summary report of forest cover analysis

Annex 3: Wildlife survey protocol

Annex 3: Summary of botanical report

Annex 4: BCC’ National protected area profile

Abbreviations

ADB – Asian Development Bank

BCC – Biodiversity Conservation Corridor

BCC1 – Biodiversity Conservation Corridor linking Xesap with Dong Ampham NPAs,

Sekong province

BCC2 – Biodiversity Conservation Corridor linking Dong Ampham and Xe Piane

NPAs, Attapeu province

BCC3 – Biodiversity Conservation Corridor linking Xe Piane and Dong Houa Sao

NPAs, Champasak province

NPA(s) – National Protected Area(s)

6

Acknowledgement

The survey was entirely funded by the ADB-funded Biodiversity Conservation Corridor. We are

particularly grateful to the staff of the provincial BCC offices in Pakse, Sekong, and Attapeu,

particularly Mr. Khamphay Luanglath, Thongsavanh Siriphokham, Vongthong Gnotleuxay for their

assistance and support in conducting the field work. The staff at central office, Dr. Jeffrey Weber, BCC

project supervisor, for giving valuable comments on our survey protocols and report. Mr. Bouaphan

Phanthavong, project national coordinator, Mr. Outhai Vongsa, the National coordinator assistant, and

other staff who allow us to serve for this important project.


7

Executive summary

This report presents results of biodiversity assessment, conducted between February – July,

2014, in the Biodiversity Conservation Corridors (BCC) of approximate 3,109 km2 in area

linking the Xe Sap National Protected Area (NPA) in Sekong with Dong Ampham NPA in

Attapeu, and Xe Piane and Dong Houa Sao NPAs in Champasak province of the southern Lao

PDR. The main purpose of the biodiversity assessment was to identify the range of flora and

fauna present in each corridor, upon which the critical habitat or potential critical habitat for

species should be specified for focused management interventions to secure viable population

of fauna and flora, and their connectivity to larger ecosystems.

The Geographic Information System (GIS) based quantitative analysis of land cover and land use using 2014’ Landsat and Quickbird imageries is first presented. Overall, the biodiversity conservation corridor is still dominated by natural forests (including upper/lower mixed deciduous, dry dipterocarp, and bamboo forests), which represents approximately 76.73% of the total land area (n=3,109 km2). Among those corridors, the Dong Ampham-Xe Piane corridor (hereafter BCC2) in Attapeu province has the highest forest cover (93%, n=1,694 km2) followed by the Xe Piane-Dong Houa Sao corridor (hereafter BCC3) in Champasak province (60%, n=315), and the Xe Sap-Dong Ampham corridor (hereafter BCC1) in Sekong province (57%, n=1,100 km2). Of those forests, upper mixed deciduous forest is relatively highest (52%, n=3,109 km2) and dominates mostly BCC1 (57%, n=1,100 km2) and BCC2 (59%, n=1,694 km2), while lower mixed deciduous forest dominates only BCC2 and BCC3, representing approximately 3% and 11% of each corridor footprint, respectively. Bamboo forest dominates only BCC2 with about 30% of its total area (n=1,694 km2). Unstocked forest dominates the BCC1 (about 40% of its footprint, n=1,100 km2), and a small portion in BCC3 (approximate 14% of its footprint, 315 km2) (see Table 3). The habitat suitability model for Douc Langur (Pygathryx nemaeus) is subsequently presented

to provide spatially explicit estimates of habitat suitability (or to display its current remaining

suitable habitats) – i.e., habitat with high quality (food, shelters, water) that support high

carrying capacity, high rates of growth, survival or reproduction for the species. Because the

species inhabit forest habitats (i.e., montane and lowland semi/evergreen forest,

evergreen/mixed deciduous forest) over a wide range of elevations (i.e., from sea level up to

1,600 m.), its presence of species truly indicates the existing healthy forest habitats, which are

home to several co-existing species. The model was then validated by the subsequent wildlife

survey using village-based questionnaire to confirm presence of species in those suitable

habitats. The habitat was first categorized into different degree of certainty such as most

suitability, suitability, not suitable. Results showed that 54.07% of the entire BCC landscape

(n=3,109 km2) remains important habitats for Douc, mostly at BCC1 and BCC2. Of those

32.39% (n= 1,007) and 21.68% (n=647 km2) are categorized as the most and suitable habitats,

respectively. The most suitable habitat dominates BCC2 (~ 87.1% of its footprint, n=1,694

km2) and BCC1 (~12.9% of its footprint (n=1,100 km2), whereas the suitable habitat remains

approximately 62.6% (n=405 km2) and 41% (n=266 km2) at BCC1 and BCC2, respectively.

The BCC3 contains largely “not suitable habitat” (99% of total land area, n=315 Km2).

Consistence with results from questionnaire survey, it was evident that 107 grid cells of the

total 329 15-km2 grid cells across the BCC landscape were reported of presence of Douc given

8

the detection probability over 0.51 (and 94 of those were reported of presence of Douc over

0.75) in both BCC1 and BCC2.

A total of 204 plant sampling plots across the entire BCC were completed. Of which 69, 65, and

70 plant sampling plots were assessed at BCC1, BCC2, and BCC3, respectively. At least 746

species of 139 families were identified across the entire BCC landscape (Table 7). Of those, 621

species are of 106 families of Angiosperm-dicotyledons, 96 species are of 17 families of

Angiosperm-monocotyledons, 17species are of 10 families of Pteridophytes, 10 species are of

five families of Gymnosperm, and two species of one family of Bryophytes. Of conservation

concerns, 88 plant species were evaluated in IUCN’ Red List, 55 plant species are of “Trees”,

26 plant species are of “Herbs”, and other seven species are of climbers, shrubs and bamboo. At

least 558, 689, and 672 plant species are recorded in BCC1, BCC2 and BCC3, respectively.

Potential threats to plants included clearance of land for agriculture, logging, mining, road

construction associated with mining and logging projects, and forest fires.

Wildlife occupancy estimates, using village-based questionnaire associated with modern

occupancy statistic model, focused mainly large mammals (also large birds) because they are

easily recognized by local villagers. Many of them are now globally threatened with

endangered, vulnerable and near threatened on the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2012). The estimates

of species occupancy – a proportion of the area being occupied by species, was calculated for

each species applying the computer-based program “PRESENCE”, and mapped the probability

of species occurrence and distribution using ArcGIS10. Muntjac, wild pig, civets, and sambar

deer were reportedly widely occurred across the entire BCC landscape, representing the

occupancy rates of 0.96, 0.95, 0.86 and 0.63, respectively. Of those endangered species that

were reportedly occurred in BCC included gibbon, douc langur, medium-sized cats, langurs,

elephant, and green peafowl, representing the occupancy rates of Ψ =0.57, 0.46, 0.44, 0.28, 0.05

and 0.03, respectively. Other threatened species with “vulnerable” were bears, gaur, macaques,

serow, and crested Argus with occupancy rates of Ψ = 0.37, 0.28, 0.05, 0.15 and 0.05,

respectively. Overall, fauna species diversity occurred in BCCs are similar to those recorded

inside NPAs, but of the BCC1 and BCC2 were relatively higher than the BCC3. Direct hunting

was largely reported by villagers as a major threat to the wildlife (88.64%, n=792), whereas

logging, and harvest of NTFPs were also important (61.15 and 60.6%, respectively).

Given the combined above data on existing forest cover, plant species diversity, presence of key

wildlife, and current level of disturbance by human, the critical or priority area for biodiversity

conservation was identified. Recommendations for focused conservation interventions at each

corridor are provided, mainly about law enforcement activities. Both BCC1 and BCC2, anti-

poaching of wildlife and controls of natural habitat encroachment by BCC target villages are

necessary whereas the BCC3, the rehabilitation of habitats (& control of illegal logging) is

important.

1 Of four village informants, 0.5 is reported of species presence by two informants (n=4 informants), 0.75 is reported of

species presence by three informants, and 1 is reported of species presence by four people in each 15-km2 grid cell.

Therefore, over 0.5 is considered as high probability of species occurrence.


9

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The ADB-funded Biodiversity Conservation Corridor (BCC) project in southern Lao PDR attempts to maintain and consolidate forest ecosystem connectivity between Xe Sap National Protected Area (NPA) in Sekong with Dong Ampham NPA in Attapeu and Xe Piane and Dong Houa Sao NPAs in Champasak province. The primary purpose of BCC is to establish sustainable management regimes for restoring and ecological connectivity and integrity between those key national biodiversity conservation areas, which in turn those could support for the long-term provision of natural goods and ecosystem services necessary for sustaining well-being for the people.

This biodiversity assessment aims to examine the current status of fauna and flora as well as land cover and use pattern across the BCC landscape of the far southern Lao PDR. The expected results from this assessment will provide:

1) Baseline data for designing strategic management actions for regeneration and rehabilitation of native vegetation in the corridor and to secure maintenance of natural habitats.

2) Professional guidance on selection of target sites (i.e., biodiversity priority areas or critical biodiversity areas) for future investment in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of lands for local livelihood development.

3) Baseline information for monitoring or measuring the progressive management and investment activities toward the goal of the BCC project.

1.2 Objectives of the study

The specific objectives of this assessment are to;

(i) identify the range of flora and fauna present in each corridor;

(ii) classify the rarity of species in both flora and fauna;

(iii) specify areas that either are critical habitat or could become critical habitat, particularly for rare species of flora and fauna;

(iv) identify enhancements that could be made to critical habitat; and

(v) Prioritize critical habitat areas for their connectivity to larger ecosystems that anchor the biodiversity corridors.

10

1.3 Biodiversity and priority biodiversity area

Biodiversity refers to variability of living organisms in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and

the ecological complexes of which they are apart. It is the gene, species (fauna and flora),

ecosystems, landscapes, as well as ecological processes that allow these elements of biodiversity

to persist. The rich biodiversity underpin the diverse ecosystems that deliver the ecosystem

services that are of benefit to people, including the provision of basic services and goods such as

clean air, water, food, medicines and fiber, as well as more complex services that regulate and

mitigate our climate, protect us from natural disaster. So, protecting natural habitats in priority

areas is essential to halt the loss of biodiversity. Safeguarding sites important for biodiversity

conservation provides substantial benefits to human well-being (Larsen et al. 2012).

Biodiversity conservation corridors are areas of suitable habitat that provide functional linkage between biodiversity conservation areas, and they serve three main functions:

(i) conserving habitats for species movement and for the maintenance of viable populations,

(ii) conserving and enhancing ecosystem services, and

(iii) promoting and enhancing community welfare through the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.

Results from this study provide baseline information necessary in identifying biodiversity priority areas or critical biodiversity areas (CBA) – key features in the landscape that are important for conserving a representative sample of ecosystems and species for maintaining ecological process, or for provision of ecosystem services. The loss or degradation of biodiversity in these biodiversity priority areas would result in loss or degradation of ecosystem services, and thus has significant implications for people and economic activities. As a result, biodiversity priority areas should therefore not only inform and influence spatial land use policies and plans, but it also informs decision-making on investment of resources by the project in effective and efficient manner.

2. Overall Approach

The BCC project contracted a team of national specialists, which comprises a lead conservation

biologist with experience in biodiversity/wildlife assessment, monitoring and protected area

management to be accountable for all aspects of project design, implementation, monitoring and

reporting. The leader has worked with GIS and botanical specialists to support and complete the

work required under TORs. The process of conducting the biodiversity assessment is described

below;

1. Reviews of BCC existing information – reviews relevant project documents and gather

existing information about BCC including biological/social data, satellite images, and all spatial

data. At this stage, the team conducted preliminary GIS-based quantitative analysis of and land

cover/land use analysis using very recent Landsat and Quickbird images (2014). This offered

insight into current forest cover or habitat types, land use pattern, human resettlements and

accessibility to the areas across the BCC landscape, upon which the field sampling designs for

fauna and flora assessments were based.


11

2. Design of survey protocols – the team leader worked with two experts to develop survey

protocols for each respective topic. The specific methodology the team employed was

comprehensively outlined for each topic, such as; (i) questionnaire-based survey for

assessment of abundance and distribution of wildlife (e.g., large mammals) using local

expert opinion associated with modern statistic occupancy model, (ii) GIS remote

sensing-based analyses of land cover and land-use, land suitability for habitat

rehabilitation and maintenance of key wildlife species, and (iii) Botanic sampling for

assessment of species composition and richness. All protocols were summarized in the

first report and submitted to BCC project for their reviews and comments. After

reviewing by and receiving all comments from relevant experts, the protocols were

finalized and adopted for further application.

3. Ground surveys – After completion of field protocols, the team leaders provided firstly

technical training for field assistants in each respective topic to ensure consistency in

data collection in the field. The field work included;

(i) village questionnaire survey – five survey teams (each consisted of consultant’

assistants, provincial BCC’ staff, and district coordinator) used motorbikes to traverse

across the BCC and conducted interviews of four villagers in/nearby target grid cell

about wildlife, habitat, and threats,

(ii) Plant sampling – teams constructed circular sampling plots with a radius of 17.85 meters

(or 0.1 ha) in random manner at different types of habitats to collect information on

plant species and its abundance.

(iii)Ground-truth validation of land cover/use and habitat analyses across the BCC landscape

– when visiting villages by wildlife survey teams, prior to asking the about the wildlife,

a village map was first sketched given prominent features such as rivers, mountain

names, and land use types. Following the mapping, walks were made in the surrounding

forests to better understand about the area and compare actual ground observation

against the forest cover mapping generated from GIS-based quantitative analyses.

4. Data processing and analysis – A Microsoft Access-database was first developed to store

fauna and flora data. A spatial database of wildlife and plants in BCC was then created.

The data analysis was done in both quantitative and qualitative approaches, and

presented geographically in a Geographic Information System (GIS) database and

outputted as maps at a local or regional scale.

5. Final report – the report presents the results of work completed in TOR describing

baseline data on wildlife, plants, land cover/use, biodiversity priority areas, and

recommendations, upon which decision making should be made by the project to further

develop the scientific indicators for measuring a progress or achievement of

interventions. The teams had engaged with the government agencies that most relevant

to the project. This includes the Department of Forest Resources Management (DFRM),

the Provincial Offices of Natural Resources and Environment (PONRE), particularly the

Provincial Forest Resources Management (PFRM) of Champasak, Sekong and Attapeu

provinces, and relevant district offices. Prior to conducting field surveys, the teams

12

(made up of provincial staff and consultants) were first provided basic trainings as necessary for

staff on technical skills in field survey of related topics. Practical exercises were made to

ensure that all team members felt confident in protocols and standardized data collection.

3. Site Summaries

Basic information for each corridor site was gathered from reviews of project documents and field

reports of previous works occurred in the BCCs, and summarized below (table 1).

Table 1a: A Summary of corridor information

Corridors

Description Corridor

Area (km2)

No. target Villages (villages)

Human population (female)

BC

C1:

Xe

Sap

-Don

g

Am

ph

am

NP

As

Situated in Sanxay in Attapeu Province and Dakcheung, Kaleum and the western border of Lamarm in Sekong Province. One dam project is situated at the border of Dong Ampham (Se Kaman 2) and other dam proposals are under evaluated. R9 is a major trans-boundary road that intersects the corridor and there are several minor roads connecting to Vietnam. Wildlife in Xe Sap NPA: Mammals: 32 species; Birds: 157 species

1,101 21 villages: Dak Cheung (14), Kaleum (7).

5,683 (2,631)

BC

C2:

Don

g A

mp

ham

– X

e P

ian

e

Situated in four districts in Attapeu (Sanamxay, Phouvong, Samakkhixay, and Xaysetha) in the northern border of the Tri-Border forests, this is a critical watershed for several dam projects, including Nam Kong 2, Nam Kong 3, and Xe Xou. Highway 18 intersects Xe Pian and runs through the bottom section of Dong Ampham. Wildlife records in Dong Ampham NPA: Mammals: 84 species; Birds: 280 species Fish: 300-400 species

1,694 22 villages: Sanamxai (18), Phouvong (4)

11,014 (5,564)

BC

C3:

Don

g H

ou

a S

ao –

Xe

Pia

ne

Located within Pathoumphon district of Champasak Province and Sanamxay District in Attapeu, this critical landscape area lies in the northern tip of the Tri-Border forests. This corridor is intersected by Highway 18 and several smaller roads Wildlife records in Xe Piane NPA: Mammals: 62 species.; Birds: 334 species., Reptile: 44 species. Wildlife records in Dong Huasao Mammals: >20 species; Birds: 300 species

315 21 villages: Pathoumphone district

15,298 (7,527)


13

Table 1b: A Summary of National Protected Areas (details in Annex 4)

NPA Description

Xe

Pia

n

Area: 2,173 km2, lies in Champasak and Attapeu. Biodiversity values in Xe Pian place it among the top 3 protected areas in the Lao PDR and among the top 10 in Southeast Asia/Indochina. At least 29 different habitat types have been identified within the area in the elevation range 150–844 meters. There is a relatively high abundance of wetlands, including perennial and seasonal ponds, peat swamps, and perennial streams. 62 species of mammals, including at least 13 globally and 12 regionally threatened species.

The tiger, Asian elephant, and banteng are classified as acutely threatened and as national conservation priorities

334 species of birds in the NBCA, including 7 not found in any other protected area in the Lao PDR. Xe Pian includes significant wetland habitat important for large water birds, such as giant and black ibis, sarus crane, masked finfoot, lesser adjutant, and woolly-necked stork

44 species of reptiles and 21 species of amphibians. Freshwater crocodiles have been reported along the northern boundary and two species of freshwater turtles are found in the wetland areas

Dong H

oua

Sao

Area: 1,100 km2, lies in the province of Champasak. At least 20 species of mammals, and 300 species of birds recorded (incomplete list)

Dong A

mpha

m

Area: 2,000 km2 , lies in Attapeu province There are 84 species of mammals, at least 30 of global conservation significance, including o six primates, with two threatened taxa (Douc langur and buff-cheeked gibbon) which may

be of global importance; o four rare cats (fishing cat, golden cat, clouded leopard, and tiger) o eight ungulates, including gaur, large antlered muntjac and a small dark, and a small

population of Asian elephants. There are 280 species of birds, 37 species of conservation importance. For example, Siamese fireback, masked finfoot, red-collared and pale-headed woodpeckers, bar-bellied and blue-rumped pittas, and grey-faced tit babbler; two vulture species, woolly-necked stork, Rufous- winged buzzard and white-rumped falcon, great hornbills

Xe

Sap

Area: 136,897 hectares, located in Sekong and Salavan province.

At least 32 mammal species include globally threatened gibbon species, Douc langur, Malayan Sun Bear, recently discovered Large-antlered muntjac, and a small as yet unidentified muntjac species

At least 157, including 32 key species are present in the area, including three globally threatened bird species: crested argus (Rheinardia ocellata), black-hooded laughing thrush (Garrulax milleti) and probably yellow-billed nuthatch (Sitta solangiae), and a further three globally near-threatened species.

14

Biodiversity

Conservation

Corridors.

BCC1 linking

Xe Sap with

Dong

Ampham

NPAs, BCC2

links Dong

Ampham with

Xe Piane

NPAs, and

BCC3 links

Xe Piane with

Dong Houa

Sao NPAs.

FIGURE 1:

Habitats in

BCC1

landscape,

Sekong

province.

PHOTOS:


15

Basic

procedures in

forest cover

analysis using

ArcGIS

analysis

FIGURE 2:

4. Methodology

The biodiversity assessment was taken place between February and July, 2014 and

applied several techniques as described below;

4.1 Land cover/use analysis

The assessment aims to develop better understanding on current land cover and land

use patterns across the BCC landscape, upon which decisions are made by the project for

spatial land-use planning, focused management interventions and monitoring progress of

project performance towards the set up goal. The methodology we used the Geographic

Information System (GIS) based quantitative analysis of land cover and land use using

2014’ Landsat and Quickbird imageries. For details in processing data analysis was

provided in Annex 2 (Annex 2, figure 2). Of key tools used for processing data included;

- ERDAS Imagine version 9.1

- ArcGIS Desktop version 10

- Microsoft Excel 2007

- Google Earth

Land cover classification was based on the national standards developed by the Forest

Inventory Division (under the Department of Forestry)

16

Table 2: Land cover classification definition

No. Classes Color displaying

1 Rice paddy

(RP)

Areas permanently being used for rice cultivation. Old paddy that has been abandoned and

not been in use for more than one year should not be classified as Rice Paddy

2 Upland

crop field

Upland-agricultural area might be shifting cultivation of upland rice, or more permanent

cultivation of maize, or vegetable (including rock).

3 Ray (RA)

Ray is an area where the forest has been cut and burnt for temporary cultivation of rice and

other crops. The area should be classified as Ray from the time of clear-cut until one year

after it has been abandoned. Areas being prepared for clear-cut but not yet clear-cut and

areas that have been abandoned for more than 1 year should not be classified as Ray

4 Bamboo

(B)

If an area is covered with bamboo and the over storey has a crown cover less than 5% it

should be classified as Bamboo. Abandoned ray is often recovered by bamboo. Some

species of bamboo may last for many years. Bamboo brakes may vary in height from 2 m

to 25 m depending on their species. If the Bamboo represents less than 80% of the total

vegetation cover of the under storey I the vegetation type should not be classified as

Bamboo.

5 Unstocked

forest area

Unstocked Forest Areas are previously forested areas in which the crown density has been

reduced to less than 20 % because of logging, shifting cultivation or other heavy

disturbance. If the area is left to grow undisturbed it becomes forest again. Abandoned ray

and disturbed stands with a crown density less than 20% should be classified as Unstocked

Forest Areas. Old ray in which seedlings, sapling and trees cover more than 20% of the

area should be classified as some type of Current Forest

6

Dry

Dipterocar

p Forest

(DD)

The Dry Dipterocarp Forest occurs in open stands. The tree diameter is comparably small

and the height of the stand varies from 8 to 25 m. The crowns do not spread out widely.

This type of forest is normally found in places with shallow soil, where the hard pan

emerges above the ground, and on satirized soil. On the most poor and shallow soils the

trees are crooked and do not exceed 10 m in height: If the crown cover is less than 20 %

and the stand is undisturbed the vegetation type should be classified as Savannah. Many

species being characteristical for the Dry Dipterocarp forests are fire resistant and have a

thick bark. Mai Sabeng (Dipterocarpus intricatus), Mai Chick (Shorea obtusa), Mai Sat

(Dipterocarpus obtusifolius), Mai Suak (Terminalia tomentosa) and Mai Hang (Shorea

siamensis) are such species.

7

Mixed

Deciduous

Forest (DF)

Mixed Deciduous Forest occurs when deciduous tree species represent more than 50% of

the stand. The forest storeys are not as dense as those of evergreen types, and most of the

seedlings and saplings are deciduous trees. Most often bamboo occurs in this type of forest.

DF includes both upper and lower deciduous forest types, and this definition is based on

relative altitude;

6.1. Upper Mixed Deciduous Forest (UDE) - occurs at an altitude above 200 m.

6.2 Lower Mixed Deciduous Forest (LDE) – occurs at an altitude below 200 m.

In moist areas there might be a lot of climbers, and it could be difficult to distinguish this

forest type from the Dry Evergreen type. In dry regions the difference can be clearly seen.

The type appears quite open with a considerable amount of bamboo and undergrowth

8 Urban (U)

Urban Areas include all areas being used for permanent settlements such as villages, towns,

public gardens etc. It also includes roads having a width of more than 5 m and areas under

electric high power lines. Any type of land under high power lines, except Rice Paddy,

should be classified as Urban Areas

9 Road Road is a main road that can see in Google earth map


17

Figure 3: Process of developing and operating habitat suitability model using GIS (above & below)

4.2 Habitat suitability model for key landscape species

Habitat suitability model (HSM) is a tool for predicting the suitability of habitat for a given species

based on known affinities with environmental parameters. This technique was chosen for this project to

provide insight into the remaining land areas of potential habitats necessary to support key species

across the entire BCC area. In this study, the Douc Langur (Pygathryx nemaeus) was selected as

representative for modeling the habitat suitability. The species is endemic to Indochina, specifically

occurs only in Lao PDR. It was categorized as Endangered on the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2013). The

species is found only in forested habitats (with less disturbed condition) including montane and lowland

semi/evergreen forest, mixed evergreen/deciduous forest in a range of elevation up to 1,600 m above

sea level. Therefore, presence of species truly indicates the remaining healthy forest habitats, which are

home to several co-existing species.

Models are simple mathematical expression for calculating a unitless index of habitat quality as a

function of combined bio-physical factors (e.g., forest cover, water, elevation, distance to human

settlement, access, etc.). Using GIS, these index values can be mapped and analyzed to portray areas of

potential distribution of a species. High quality habitat may provide high carrying capacity and support

high rates of growth, survival or reproduction

for a given species, whereas low-quality or

unsuitable habitat may have little or no

carrying capacity. However, the model results

is just to depict potentially suitable habitat for

a given species and not actual distribution.

Therefore, model results associated with

presence/absence surveys using questionnaire-

base survey and also botanical samplings

provided us to validate its reliability and

accuracy of actual distribution of species. A

detailed procedure of data analysis was given

in Annex 2 (see figure 2, Annex 2 for details).

B

Temperature

Rainfall

Distance to village

Distance to road

Distance to river

Elevation

Vegetation

GIS Input

Datasets

Maxent3.3 Arcgis10.2 Classification Habitat Suitability model

A

18

A map of four

15 km2 grid

cells used for

questionnaire

survey

FIGURE 4a:

4.3 Wildlife Occupancy Survey

The primary purpose of wildlife assessment was to (i) identify key species (most are of global

conservation concerns) that are currently present as well as their spatial distribution across the

entire BCC, and (ii) also determine major threats to the species. Results provide baseline

information for informed decision-making by the BCC project to target its investment in

conservation efforts, and thus secure the survival of species, and ecological functions in the

landscape. In addition, it provides baseline for monitoring the progress or success of the project

against the set-up goals. The assessment was achieved by applying the following methodology;

4.3.1 Questionnaire-based occupancy survey

Given the sizable extent of BCC landscape, approximately 3,109 km2, and the limited knowledge

of wildlife species across the entire landscape, the local expert opinion associated with modern

occupancy statistical model was employed to assess occurrence and distribution of wildlife

species throughout the BCC landscape. Upon which, subsequent assessment of actual presence

and population abundance and distribution of target species on ground can be designed and

targeted using scientific sampling approaches such as camera trapping and others. The sampling

design and data collection protocols were detailed in Annex 3.

A grid-cell size of 15 km2 was used as the sampling unit given the biological basis in that the

largest home range size of target species (e.g., large ungulates – gaur) is expected to be c. 15 km2

or smaller. For each grid cell, four local experts were independently interviewed to collect

information presence/absence of target species, and treat each as a replicate. Selection of

interviewees (i.e., local experts) was those villagers who know both wildlife and the area very

well of that target grid cell. Data was stored in Microsoft Access database, and data analysis was

operated in computer-based program, namely “PRESENCE”, to generate information on

occupancy – a

proportion of

area occupied by

species, and

important factors

(e.g., threats)

affecting species

occupancy and

distribution in

the BCC

landscape. Data

were then

mapped using

ArcGIS9.10 to

spatially explicit

estimate of

probability of species occurrence and distribution across the entire BCC landscape.


19

An example

map of

BCC1 being

divided into

15 km2 grid

cells given

unique ID

number, and

a map of

four 15-km2

grid cells

was

produced

figure 4a.

FIGURE 4b:

Teams

conducting

village

questionnair

e (above),

they first

draw a

village map

to build

mutual

understandin

g about

target area

(left) before

conducting

individual

interviews

(right).

PHOTOS:

20

4.3.2 Selection of key landscape species

The primary considerations for selecting key wildlife species (or group of species) to be assessed

their occurrence and abundance status in the BCC landscape were those large mammals that (i)

they are easily recognized by local villagers, and (ii) they have been recorded from earlier

wildlife surveys in those proximate national protected areas (see National Protected Area Profile)

as well as in those production forest areas lied within the landscape. Many of them are recently

listed as globally threatened species according to the IUCN Red List (2013) while some are

common in other NPAs but uncertain in those corridors (see table 2).

Table 2. Target wildlife species for assessment of its occupancy in BCC landscape

Common Name Scientific Name Global*

Sunda Pangolin Manis javanicus EN

Douc Langur Pygathrix nemaeus EN

Northern Buff-cheeked Crested Gibbon Nomascus annamensis EN

Asiatic black/Sun Bear Ursus thibetanus/malayanus VU

Oriental/Small-Clawed Otter Aonyx cinerea VU

Dhole Cuon alpinus EN

Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus EN

Medium Cat (golden/clouded leopard Pardofelis temminckii/nebulosa NT

Tiger Panthera tigris EN

Leopard Panther pardus EN

Pig Tailed Macaque M. leonine VU

Hog Badger Arctonyx collaris NT

Asian Elephant Elephas maximus EN

Civets

Gaur Bos gaurus VU

Sambar deer Cervus unicolor VU

Large-antlered Muntjac large‐antlered muntjac EN

Southern Serow Capricornis milneedwardsi VU

Common red muntjac Muntiacus muntjak

Wild pig Sus scrofa

4.4 Flora

The primary objective of this study was to investigate species diversity, distribution, abundance, and status of plants and determine ecological characteristic of forest types. The methodology we have employed was outlined in detail in the protocol (see Annex 4) and the survey has focused on;

4.4.1 Species diversity survey

The floristic survey was focused on species of global conservation status (IUCN 2012) of vascular plants. The intensive survey was conducted on random sampling plots covered in all vegetation types, including unique zones such as limestone forests where they mostly host endemic species. For those of both known and unknown plants species were collected at least 6


21

FIGURE 5:

The

temporary

sampling

plot for

plant

duplicates of leave with flowers or fruits for further analysis in the laboratory. Basic necessary information, i.e. morphology, habit, color of flowers and ecology, geo-referenced location, taking of photos etc, was recorded for reference in species identification.

4.4.2 Forest inventory

Random sampling plots were constructed throughout the BCC landscape given

consideration to the forest types, land use, and geographic conditions. The sampling

plots were set in the dominant areas or good representative forest types. The sampling

plot consisted of three types of temporary plots as shown in figure 5 (see Annex 4 for

details);

- A circular sampling plot with a radius of 17.85 meters (0.1 ha)

- Square plots of 5x5 meters (25 sq. m or

0.0025 ha), and

- Square plots of 2x2 meters (4 sq. km or

0.0004 ha).

4.4.3 Forest and Vegetation Classification

The classification of forest types for this study

was based on the classification used by the Forest

Inventory and Planning Division, Department of

Forestry of Lao PDR that has been used since

1982, and the preliminary national forest record (see table 2).

Photo: Ficus tree at BCC2, and Rambutant at BCC3

22

5. Results

5.1 Land cover in biodiversity conservation corridors

Landsat imageries of the year 2014 (Lansat8, February 2014, 30 m resolution) were classified

using ERDAS application to produce land cover maps with 10 land cover classes, namely dry

dipterocarp, lower/upper mixed deciduous, unstock forest, bamboo, cropland, rice paddy, road,

residential area, and water bodies (see details in Annex 2).

The biodiversity conservation corridor is generally dominated by natural forests. The overall

forest cover (i.e., a sum of lower/upper mixed deciduous, dry dipterocarp, and bamboo forests)

across the entire BCC corridors in 2014 is approximately 76.72% of the total land area (n=3,109

km2). Among those corridors, the BCC2 has the highest forest cover (92.75% of total land area,

n=1,694 km2) followed by the BCC3 (60.17%, n=315), and BCC1 (56.51%, n=1,100 km2). Of

those forest land cover types, upper mixed deciduous forest remains relatively high in BCC1

(56.51%, n=1,100 km2) and BCC2 (59.40%, n=1,694 km2) (see Table 3), while lower mixed

deciduous forest occurs only at BCC2 and BCC3, representing approximately 2.65% and 11.45%

of the each corridor footprint (n=43.7 and 30.9 km2, respectively). Bamboo forest is only

represented in only BCC2 with about 32% of the area (n=1,694 km2). Forest cover mapping is

provided in figure below (see Figure 2a,b,c).

Table 3. Summary of land covers in 2014 at biodiversity conservation corridors

Types of Forest/land uses Area (Km2)

Total (km2) % of

Total BCC1 BCC2 BCC3

Upper Mixed Deciduous 621.58 1006.26 10.08 1637.92 52.75

Lower Mixed Deciduous - 44.83 36.07 80.90 2.61

Dry Dipterocarp - 13.79 143.38 157.17 5.06

Bamboo forest - 506.35 - 506.35 16.31

Unstocked forest 438.10 0 43.93 482.03 15.52

Crop land 26.26 107.55 12.51 146.32 4.71

Rice paddy 2.33 6.32 51.27 59.92 1.93

Road 2.49 1.92 7.75 12.16 0.39

Residential area 0.26 - 3.01 3.27 0.11

Water 9.57 6.67 2.9 19.14 0.62

Total 1,100 1,694 315 3,109 100%

Note: BCC1 –Xe Sap-Dong Ampham NPAs; BCC2 –Dong Ampham – Xe Piane; and BCC3 – Dong Houa Sao–Xe Piane


23

Land cover

in BCC1

connecting

the Xe Sap

with Dong

Ampham

NPAs

(above), b.

BCC2

connecting

Dong

Ampham

with Xe

Piane NPAs

(see legend

for detail).

FIGURE 2a&b:

a

b

24

Land cover

in BCC3

connecting

Dong

Houasao

with Xe

Piane NPAs

(see legend

for details).

FIGURE 2c:

C

Photos: Dipterocarp forests (BCC2) Bamboo forest (BCC2)


25

5.2 Habitat Suitability

Habitat suitability model for the Douc was first developed given the combined bio-

physical and anthropogenic factors to depict potential suitable habitat across the entire

BCC landscape. The model was then validated by the subsequent wildlife survey using

village-based questionnaire to confirm presence of species in those potential suitable

habitats. The habitat was classified into three categories, such as most suitable, suitable,

not suitable (Table 4, figure 3a,b,c). Of those 32% and 21.68% of the total corridor

landscape (n=3,109) were most suitable and suitable habitats for Douc, respectively

(table 4).

Table 4: Summary of habitat suitability for Douc

Figure 3a: A map depicts potential habitat suitability for the Douc in BCC1, Sekong province. Black is most suitable, grey is suitable, and light is not suitable (see legend)

Corridors Degree of suitability

Most Suitable Not suitable Total area (km2)

BCC1 (Km2) 130 405 565 1,100

BCC2 (Km2) 877 266 551 1,693

BCC3 (Km2) 0 3 312 315

Area (km2) 1,007 647 1428 3,109

Percentage (%) 32.39 21.68 45.93

26

Figure 3b: A map depicts habitat suitability for the Douc in BCC2 in Attapeu provinces

Figure 3c: A map depicts habitat suitability for the Douc in BCC3, Champasak province.


27

5.3 Plants

5.3.1 Sampling

We completed 204 plant sampling plots in 14 key locations across the BCC landscape

(see table 6, figure 8). Of those, 69 sampling plots were assessed at BCC1 at four key

sites, namely Jateu area and Panon area (Kaleuam district), Dakdom-Dakliang area and

Dong ampham area (Dakcheung district). 65 sampling plots were in BCC2 at other four

locations, namely Poungkeo area (Xanamxay district), Vonglakhone area, Lamong area

and Namsouan area (Phouvong district), and 70 sampling plots in BCC3 at six sites, such

as Nabone, Nakok-nalane, LaoGna, Sanote-Thongpha, NangAng, Kala-Thongsai, and

Phalai-Tavang areas (in Pathoumphone district).

Table 6. Plant sampling plots in BCC landscape

Forest types Number of sampling plots

BCC1 BCC2 BCC3

Upper Mixed Deciduous Forest (UMDF) 57 30 0

Lower Mixed Deciduous Forest (LMDF) - 8 32

Dipterocarp Forest (DiF) - 4 23

Bamboo Forest (BF) - 21 7

Bamboo Forest-Woody Trees (BF-WT) - 0 7

Karts Forest (KF) - 2 1

Degraded/unstocked Forest (DF) 8 0 0

Grass Land (GL) 3 0 0

TOTAL 69 65 70

5.3.2 Plant diversity

746 species of 139 families were identified across the entire BCC landscape (see table 7).

Of those, 621 species are of 106 families of Angiosperm-dicotyledons, 96 species are of

17 families of Angiosperm-monocotyledons, 17species are of 10 families of

Pteridophytes, 10 species are of five families of Gymnosperm, and two species of one

family of Bryophytes. Number of plant species recorded in each corridor was presented

(see Annex 1, 1a,b,c,d – List of plant species).

Table 7. Summary of plant species recorded across the entire BCC

landscape

Plant groups Total Fam. Total Sp. BCC1 BCC2 BCC3

BRYOPHYTES - MOSSES 1 2 2 2 2

PTERIDOPHYTES 10 19 18 19 18

GYMNOSPERMS 5 10 10 3 1

ANGIOSPERM-DICOTYLEDONS 106 621 445 570 556

ANGIOSPERM-MONOCOTYLEDONS 17 96 83 95 95

TOTAL 139 746 558 689 672

28

FIGURE 4:

Plant species

classified in

IUCN Red List

against plant

habits. The

number in bar

indicates

number of plant

species in each

IUCN category.

(see legend).

Plant habits (plant life-form)

Of those 746 plant species, they were classified into different plant habits or plant life-forms

(table 8). 397 plant species were classified as Trees, followed by herbs (n=147), climbers

(n=125), Shrubs (n=22), ferns (n=19), epiphytes (n=16), and others (see table 8).

Table 8. Number of species in different habits

Plant habits Number of Species Total species

BCC1 BCC2 BCC3

Tree 269 353 343 397

Herbs 119 142 140 147

Climber 96 112 111 125

Shrubs 23 28 25 22

Epiphytic 16 16 16 16

Fern 18 19 18 19

Parasitic 6 6 6 6

Bamboo 4 6 6 7

Palm 5 5 5 5

Mosses 2 2 2 2

Total 558 689 672 746

IUCN Red list species

Of particular conservation significance, 88 species were evaluated and listed on the IUCN Red

List.

Of those 63% (n=55) were of Trees, 30% (n=26) were of herbs, and 7% were of others (see

figure 11).

Plant species’ Red List provided in Annex 2&2a.


29

5.3.3 Dominant trees

Dominant families

Of those vascular plants, especially the “Trees”, at least 141, 148, and 182 tree species

were recorded in BCC1, BCC2, and BCC3, respectively (see Figure 13). The corridors

were relatively dominated by families of Euphorbiaceae, Rubiaceae, Leguminosae, and

Meliaceae (table 9). The detailed species list of vascular plants was

provided in Annex 3, and Annex 4 for list of dominant families.

Table 9. Dominant families of trees recorded in BCCs

Family BCC1 BCC2 BCC3 Grand Total

EUPHORBIACEAE 10 12 11 33

RUBIACEAE 14 6 12 32

LEGUMINOSAE-PAPILIONOIDEAE 2 8 12 22

MELIACEAE 7 6 9 22

DIPTEROCARPACEAE 10 11 21

MORACEAE 7 7 5 19

GRAMINEAE 8 6 4 18

LAURACEAE 10 3 4 17

GUTTIFERAE 3 6 7 16

COMBRETACEAE 3 5 7 15

SAPINDACEAE 4 4 7 15

STERCULIACEAE 2 4 7 13

ANACARDIACEAE 3 5 4 12

LEGUMINOSAE-MIMOSOIDEAE 4 3 5 12

MYRTACEAE 3 5 3 11

APOCYNACEAE 3 4 3 10

EBENACEAE 2 4 4 10

FAGACEAE 6 3 1 10

FIGURE 5:

Number of

families and

species of

vascular plants

recorded in BCC

landscape. The

red bar indicates

number of

species, and the

blue is

otherwise.

30

Photo: Tree dipterocarpus

Dominant species

Most abundance/common species of Trees and their number of

species records in BCC were summarized below (see table 10). The

BCC1 was dominated by Kor Nam (Castanopsis sp.) in Fagaceae

family, the BCC2 was dominated by Peuy Dok Khao

(Lagerstroenia calyculata) in Lythraceae family, and the BCC 3

was dominated by Mak Chong Ban (Scaphium macropodum

Beumee ex) in Sterculiaceae family. The detailed list of dominant

tree species was provided in the Annex 3 (see Annex 3,a,b,c,d) and

IUCN Red List of threatened species was provided in Annex 2a).

Table 10: Some top list of tree species recorded in each BCC

Sc. Name Scientific name # Species Records*

Total BCC1 BCC2 BCC3

Mak Chong Bane Scaphium macropodum Beumée ex K.Heyne - 47 227 274

Kor Nam Castanopsis sp. 167 - - 167

Peuay Dok Khao Lagerstroemia calyculata Kurz - 86 49 135

Sa Khai Betula alnoides Buch.-Ham. ex D.Don 129 - - 129

Lek Mesua ferrea L. - - 127 127

Lam ngai Pa Sapindus sp. 123 - - 123

Ka Bok Irvingia malayana Oliv. - 80 41 121

Cham Pi Pa Magnolia champaca (L.) Baill. ex Pierre 113 - - 113

Hing deng Dacrydium elatum (Roxb.) Wall. ex Hook 94 - - 94

Khai So Schima wallichii Korth. 92 - - 92

Kor Guercus spp. 91 - - 91

Va Dong Acmena acuminatissima (Blume) Merr. & L.M.Perry

75 - - 75

Khi Mou Calleya atropurpurea Benth. - 74 - 74

Kor Deuay Castanopsis acuminatissima (Blume) A.DC. 69 - - 69

Hing Podocarpus neriifolius D.Don 68 - - 68

Sa Phang, A Lang Peltophorum dasyrachis (Miq.) Kurz - 64 - 64

Ngiou Dok Khao Bombax anceps Pierre var. anceps - - 58 58

Hing Khao Dacrycarpus imbricatus (Blume) de Laub. 57 - - 57

Tin Nok Vitex peduncularis Wall. ex Schauer - 57 - 57

Ket Khe Balakata baccata (Roxb.) Esser 51 - - 51

Dang Dam Diospyros apiculata Hiern - 48 - 48

Keng Seng Cananga latifolia (Hook.f. & Thomson) Finet & Gagnep.

- - 45 45

Chouang Hom Castanopsis argyrophilla King ex Hook.f. 41 - - 41

Kad Lin Cinnamomum iners Reinw. ex Blume 41 - - 41

Koe Douoy Cratoxylum formosum (Jack) Dyer 41 - - 41

Tiou Walsura sp. - 41 - 41

Nom Ngan Barringtonia acutangula (L.) Gaertn. - 40 - 40

Note: * list of dominant trees of over 40 records for each species in three corridors


31

5.3.4 Forest/vegetation types

According to altitude (e.g. riverine, slope/hill montane), dominant species of trees, types

of plant communities (the composition of plant species), and whether the majority of

canopy tree species are deciduous or evergreen, eight types of vegetation in three

corridors were classified, in which 204 sampling plots were assessed (see table 6). They

include; the Upper Mixed Deciduous Forest, Lower Mixed Deciduous Forest, Dry

Dipterocarp Forest, Bamboo Forest, Bamboo Forest-Woody trees Forest, Karts Forest,

Degraded (or unstock) Forest and Grass land. The deciduous mixed forest is

characterized by deciduous trees species as “Mai deng” (Xylia xylocarpa), “Mai dou”

(Pterocarpus macrocarpus), “ Mai seuak” (Terminalia alata, “Mai Peuay”

(Lagerstroemia calyculata), and others (table 10, Annex 3). The upper mixed deciduous

forest dominates BCC1 and BCC2, whereas dipterocarp forest denominates mostly the

BCC3.

Photo: Upper mixed deciduous forest in BCC1, Sekong.

5.3.5 Threats

Overall threats to plant diversity in BCC landscape were likely to be caused by clearing

land for agriculture, logging, mining and road construction associated with those

activities. They were summarized in table 11 (see Table 11).

32

Table 11 Summary of current threats occurring in BCC landscape

Threats Description

BCC1 BCC2 BCC3

Clear land for

cash crop

planation

Clear land for agriculture

along streams and on the

mountains near the

village

Clear land for agriculture

purpose along streams and on

the mountains near the village

Clear land for cash crop

planation and economic species

(Casava and rubber tree)

plantation near the villages

Logging "Mai sakai" Betula

allogated, also "Mai

Longleng" Fokeinia and

"Mai Hing" Podocarpa-

ceous, and “Mai Pek”

pinus (legal/illegal)

"Mai Kangoung" & "Mai Pa

dong" Dalbergia spp. "Mai

Dou" Pterocarpus, "Mai

Ngang" Dipterocar-paceous &

"Mai Manpa" Fagraea fragrans

species (legal/illegal)

"Mai Kangoung" & "Mai Pa

dong" Dalbergia spp. "Mai Dou"

Pterocarpus species "Mai Ngang"

Dipterocarpaceous species &

"Mai Manpa" Fagraea fragrans

species (legal/illegal) for trade

and house constructions

Mining Large gold mining

project in Dong Ampham

area resulted in forest lost

Illegal Gold mining project

along river

None

Forest fire None Scattered fires set by people for

clearing land and for providing

grazing and probably facilitate

hunting

Scattered fire set by people for

clearing land and for providing

grazing and probably facilitate

hunting

Truck/road

construction

for mining

and logging

purpose

Camping and road

construction for Pinus,

Podocapus and Betula

logging purpose in

Panon-Tangtanon

Mining road

constructions associated

with removal of forest for

logging extraction in

Dong Ampham area

Road construction associated

with mining and logging

resulted in removal of forest in

all four sampling areas.

Road construction associated

with logging extraction in

Laonga-Sanod-Thongpha,

Nangang-Kala-Thongsai, Nakok-

Nalane, Tawang-Phalai, Nabone

Areas


33

A

B

34

Figure 6. Maps show plant sampling plots (dots) in different vegetation types (colors) across three corridors. See legend for details. A- BCC1, B - BCC2, and C – BCC3.

C

Photos: Dr. Vichit Lamxay (first right) and his

teams members conducting plant sampling

plots in the field (at BCC3)


35

5.4 Wildlife

We conducted interviews of 792 local experts (i.e., villagers) from April 21st to June 15th,

2014, which resulted in completion of 198 15-km2 grid cells, covering an area of 2,970

km2 from a total landscape of 3,109 km2. Of those 70 15-km2 grid cells were in BCC1,

108 15-km2 grid cells in BCC2, and 21 15-km2 grid cells in BCC3. Field data were

entered and stored into Microsoft-Access database. Occupancy rates of key wildlife

species occurring in the BCC landscape within the past one year are summarized in table

5.

5.4.1 Wildlife species and their occupancy rate across the entire BCC landscape

Overall, 17 species or groups of species was identified by local villagers or experts. Of

those, the commonly occurring mammal species with high occupancy rate (i.e., high

proportion of area occupied by species) are muntjac, wild pig, and civets (Ψ = 0.96, 0.95

and 0.86, respectively – see table 5), followed by sambar, douc, gibbon, medium cats,

bears, gaur, and langur (Ψ=0.63, 0.61, 0.57, 0.44, 0.37, 0.28, and 0.28, respectively), and

the most restricted species are serow and maccaques (Ψ = 0.15, SE = 0.02). Two

endangered ground birds, such as green peafowl and Crested Argus, were still reportedly

remained in the BCC, (Ψ=0.03). Example map show probability of species detection

provided in figure 8.

Table 5.Estimated occupancy rates of key wildlife species occurred in BCC landscape,

southern Lao PDR.

Note: a Naïve estimate of occupancy; does not incorporate detection probability (p) b Standard error of the occupancy estimate, c Detection probability , d Standard error of

the detection probability

Species Naïve Occupancy (Ψ) SEb Pc SEd

Gibbon ທະນ 0.57 0.57 0.03 0.80 0.01

Douc ຂາແດງ 0.61 0.61 0.03 0.80 0.01

Langur ຂາງ/ຕະຫລງ 0.27 0.28 0.03 0.57 0.03

Maccaque ລ ງ 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.61 0.04

Elephant ຊາງ 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.86 0.05

Gaur ກະທງ 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.74 0.03

Sambar ກວາງ 0.65 0.63 0.03 0.85 0.01

Serow ເຍ ອງ 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.69 0.04

Wild pig ຫມປາ 0.95 0.95 0.01 0.91 0.01

Muntjac ຟານ 0.96 0.96 0.01 0.84 0.01

Civets ເຫງນ 0.86 0.86 0.02 0.80 0.01

Medium cats ເສ ອນອຍ 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.67 0.02

Bears ຫມ /ເຫມ ອຍ 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.60 0.02

Green Peafowl (ນກຍງ) 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.5 0.1

Grested Argus (ນກວວາວ) 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.35 0.11

36

5.4.2 Wildlife Occupancy at BCC1, Sekong province

Muntjac and wild pig were reportedly widely occurred across the BCC1, with occupancy rates of

Ψ = 0.93 and 0.91, respectively, followed by civets, Douc, serow, sambar, medium-sized cats,

bears, and gibbon (Ψ = 0.68, 0.47 0.39, 0.36, 0.40, 0.38, and 0.31, respectively). Crested argus

and green peafowl were still reportedly present only in the BCC1. Key species shown in Figure

7a.

Table 5.1 Estimated occupancy rates of key wildlife species occurred in BCC1, Sekong province, Lao PDR


Gibbon ທະນ 0.31 0.34 0.06 0.5 0.06

Douc ຂາແດງ 0.46 0.47 0.06 0.62 0.04

Langur ຂາງ 0.12 0.25 0.14 0.14 0.03

Maccaque ລ ງ 0.08 0.11 0.04 0.30 0.12

Sambar ກວາງ 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.73 0.04

Serow ເຍ ອງ 0.38 0.39 0.05 0.60 0.04

Wild pig ຫມປາ 0.91 0.91 0.03 0.82 0.02

Muntjac ຟານ 0.92 0.93 0.03 0.69 0.03

Civets ເຫງນ 0.66 0.68 0.05 0.62 0.03


Bears ຫມ /ເຫມ ອຍ 0.36 0.38 0.06 0.49 0.05

Green Peafowl (ນກຍງ) 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.50 0.11

Crested Argus (ນກວວາວ) 0.10 0.12 0.04 0.34 0.11

Note: a Naïve estimate of occupancy; does not incorporate detection probability (p) b Standard error of the occupancy estimate; c Detection probability d Standard error of the detection probability

5.4.3 Wildlife Occupancy at BCC2, Attapeu province

Muntjac, wild pig and civets were reportedly widely occurred in BCC2, representing relative

high in occupancy rates (Ψ = 0.98, 0.96, and 96, respectively; see table 5.2), and then douc and

sambar ( Ψ = 0.82 and 0.90, respectively). Of other endangered species such as gibbon, medium-

sized cats, bears and gaur were widely reported, representing Ψ = 0.55, 0.43, and 0.5,

respectively, of occupancy rates. Key species shown in figure 7b.


37

Table 5.2 Estimated occupancy rates of key wildlife species occurred in BCC2, Attapeu province, Lao PDR

Note: a Naïve estimate of occupancy; does not incorporate detection probability (p) b Standard error of the occupancy estimate; c Detection probability ; d Standard error of the detection probability

5.4.4 Wildlife Occupancy at BCC3, Champasak province

Occurrence of wild pig, muntjac and civets were similarly reported of wide existence in

BCC3 (Ψ=1), representing 100% of area occupied or used by species. Whereas others,

such as macaques, sambar and bears, were relatively low in occupancy rate (Ψ=0.33,

0.23, and 0.38, respectively) exception to the medium-sized cats (Ψ=0.97, SE = 0.04, see

table 5.3). Key wildlife species shown in Figure 7c.

Table 5.3 Estimated occupancy rates of key wildlife species occurred in BCC3, Champasak province, Lao PDR


Maccaque ລ ງ 0.33 0.33 0.1 0.67 0.09

Sambar ກວາງ 0.23 0.30 0.13 0.30 0.13

Wild pig ຫມປາ 1 1 0.00 0.85 0.03

Muntjac ຟານ 1 1 0.00 0.86 0.03

Civets ເຫງນ 1 1 0.00 0.85 0.03


Bears ຫມ /ເຫມອຍ 0.38 0.38 0.10 0.60 0.09

Note:

a Naïve estimate of occupancy; does not incorporate detection probability(p) b Standard error of the occupancy estimate c Detection probability

d Standard error of the detection probability

Species Naïvea Occupancy (Ψ) SEb Pc SEd

Gibbon ທະນ 0.55 0.55 0.04 0.70 0.03

Douc ຂາແດງ 0.82 0.82 0.03 0.86 0.01

Langur ຂາງ/ຕະຫລງ 0.41 0.42 0.04 0.63 0.03

Maccaque ລ ງ 0.15 0.16 0.03 0.68 0.03

Elephant ຊາງ 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.86 0.05

Gaur ກະທງ 0.50 0.50 0.04 0.76 0.02

Sambar ກວາງ 0.89 0.90 0.02 0.70 0.02

Serow ເຍ ອງ 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.74 0.08

Wild pig ຫມປາ 0.96 0.96 0.01 0.94 0.01

Muntjac ຟານ 0.98 0.98 0.01 0.91 0.01

Civets ເຫງນ 0.96 0.96 0.01 0.85 0.01


Bears ຫມ /ເຫມ ອຍ 0.50 0.50 0.04 0.81 0.02

38

Key wildlife

species occur in

BCC1 and their

occupancy rates.

FIGURE 7a:

Key wildlife

species occur in

BCC2 in Attapu

province

FIGURE 7b:

Key wildlife

species occur in

BCC3 in

Champasack

province

FIGURE 7c:


39

A

B Figure 8. An example map shows probability of Douc occurrence (or detection) at BCC1 and BCC2 based on questionnaire survey (A-BCC1, and B – BCC2)

40

5.4.5 Major threats to wildlife in BCC landscape

Of major threats to wildlife (or biodiversity) across the entire BCC landscape, frequency of reports of hunting by local people were highest (88.64%, n=792), followed by logging (61.15%), and harvest of NTFPs (60.6%) (Figure 9).

Of hunting, several species of wildlife were reportedly hunted. Wild pig and muntjac were mostly reported of hunting (80% and 75%, respectively), followed by civets and others (see Figure 10). Similarly, of the extent to which the species has been hunted2 (see Figure 11), wild pig and muntjac were reportedly hunted as “heavy” (40% and 30%, respectively) – i.e, a species is hunted twice a month, and as of “moderate” (39 and 43%, respectively) – i.e., a species is reportedly hunted once a month. Only the Serow and Sambar were reportedly hunted as of “occasion” – i.e., a species is reportedly hunted one to three animal per year. The extent of timber logging and NTFPs collection in figure 12.

Figure 9: Major threats to

wildlife reported by local

villagers (N=792). Of

those 702 people (number

in bracket) were reported

of hunting (see number in

bracket)

Figure 10. Reports of wildlife species being mostly hunted in BCC.

2 Frequency of species being hunted; Heavy – species is hunted twice a month, moderate – species is hunted once a month, occasion – species is hunting 1-3 animals per year


41

Figure 11: Reports of the extent to which species being frequently hunted across the BCC landscape

Figure 12: Reports of the extent to which logging and NTFPs occurred across the BCC landscape3

Photos: teams conducting village questionnaire survey

3 “Severe” if logging is operated by company, and moderate if logging is made by villagers for timber sale

42

6. Discussion and Recommendations 6.1. Biodiversity values of BCC Landscape

6.1.1 Vegetation/Forest cover

Overall, the forest cover mapping clearly shows that

biodiversity conservation corridors are still forested,

representing approximately 77% of natural habitats, and 23%

of modified habitat (Figure 13,2a,b,c, and table 3).

Natural habitat is an environment where the biological

communities are largely formed by native plant and animal

species and where human activity has not modified the areas

primary ecological functions (ADB, 2012). Modified habitat is

an altered natural habitats, often formed by removal of native

species for harvesting, land conversion and/or introduction of

alien fauna and flora species (ADB, 2012).

The natural habitats within the BCC landscape include

upper/lower mixed deciduous forest, dry dipterocarp and

bamboo forests (see table 3).

The BCC1 is dominated by upper mixed deciduous,

representing 55% of its total footprint (n=1,100 km2). BCC2 is

dominated by upper mixed deciduous and bamboo forest, representing 58% and 32% of its

footprint (n=1,694 km2), and small portion of lower mixed deciduous forest (48.4 km2). The

BCC3 are dominated by dry dipterocarp forests and lower mixed deciduous, accounted for 30%

and 10% of its total area (n=315 km2). The differences in vegetation types are due largely to

different altitudes of those BCCs, and thus each corridor differs in plant composition and

structures.

The modified habitats within the BCC project areas include young and old follow land (i.e.,

unstocked forest), crop land, rice paddy, roads and residential areas. Together they cover

approximately 703.7 km2 or 22.6% of total BCC landscape area (n=3,109 km2). Of those,

15.52% is unstocked forest, covering approximately 438 km2 (or 40% of its footprint, n=1,100

km2) of BCC1 and other 43.93 km2 (or ~14% of BCC3 area, n=315 km2) of BCC3, and other

7.14% are of the cropland or upland fields (4.71%) and Rice paddy (1.93%), roads (0.39%), and

residential area (0.11%) (see table 3). Cropland or upland fields dominates mostly the BCC2

(107.55 km2), followed by BCC1 (26.26 km2), and BCC3 (12.51 km2). Rice paddy dominates

mostly BCC3 (51.27 km2, 16% of its total area), and less in BCC1 and BCC2, 2.33 and 6.32

km2, respectively.

Given the above figures (Table 3) provided evidence that the BCC2 contains the most natural

habitats (93% of footprint, n=1,694 km2), then BCC3 (60.17%, n=315 km2), and BCC1 (56.51%,

n=1,100 km2) (Figure 14). In contrast, and BCC1 and BCC3 are highly dominated by modified

habitats, representing approximately 43.55% and 38.53% of each footprint (n=1,100 and 315

km2), respectively. The unstocked forest dominates largely the BCC1 (n=438.1 km2) while the

rice paddy dominates the BCC3 (51.27), and the cropland or upland fields dominates BCC2 (172

km2).

Figure 13: Natural vs Modified

Figure 14: Proportion of

natural vs modified habitats in


43

FIGURE 16:

Proportion

of habitat

suitability

in each

corridor

FIGURE 15:

Habitat

suitability

across the

BCC

landscape

6.1.2 Habitat suitability model

The habitat model provides spatially explicit estimates of current remaining suitable

habitat for Douc langur. Habitat suitability here describes habitat with high quality (food,

shelters, water) that support high carrying capacity, high rates of growth, survival or

reproduction for the species. The Douc inhabit forested habitats (i.e., natural habitats of

only montane and lowland semi/evergreen forest, mixed evergreen/deciduous forest) over

a wide range of elevations (i.e., from sea level up to 1,600 m.). Accordingly, the presence

of species truly indicates the existing healthy forest habitats, which are home to several

co-existing species.

It was clearly evident that

together 67% of the total BCC

landscape area (n=3,109 km2)

support most and suitable habitat

for the Douc (see table 4, figure

3, figure 15) – i.e., the areas

include upper/lower mixed

deciduous forests in good

condition.

Of those the BCC2 contains largely the most suitable habitat (n=877 km2), representing

36.76% of total BCC landscape area (n=3,109 km2) or 51.77% of its total footprint area

(n=1,694 km2). BCC1 remains approximately 130 and 405 km2 of most and suitable

habitats for Douc, representing 11.82% and 36.82% of its total footprint (n=1,100 km2),

respectively (see figure 16). The habitat model is in line with the questionnaire survey in

that the occupancy rate and probability of species detection is Ψ=0.82, P=0.86 for BCC2,

and Ψ=0.46, P=0.62 for BCC1 (table 5.1, figure 17). Given the results suggests that

BCC1 and BCC2 remain the most natural habitats, especially lower/upper mixed

deciduous forests that support home for Douc and other co-existing wildlife species

(figure 18).

44

Figure 17: Detection probability of Douc based on questionnaire survey versus habitat suitability model. See details in legend

a

b


45

6.1.3 Flora species

204 sampling plots were assessed in different forest types across the entire BCC

landscape, resulted approximately 746 species of plants recorded. Of which 558, 689, 672

species recorded at BCC1, BCC2, and BCC3, respectively (see Annex 1, a,b,c,d). The

number of species recorded are varied among different habitat types (Figure 18, table 12).

Dipterocarp forest contains the highest number of plant species (n=552), followed by

bamboo (n=465), lower/upper mixed deciduous (n=419/349), degraded forest (n=317),

Karst forest (n=137), and grassland (n=15). Accordingly, the number of plant species is

highest in BCC3 where dipterocarp forest largely dominates (Figure 21c). Of dominant

tree species (Annex3), BCC1 is dominated by Mark Kor (castanopsis sp.), while BCC2 is

dominated by Peuay Dok Khao

(Lagerstroenia calyculata), and

BCC3 dominated by Mak

Chong Bane(Scaphium

macropodum).

Table 12: Summary of fauna

species diversity in different

types of habitats in BCC

Dry

Dipterocarp

Bamboo

Forest

Lower Mixed

Deciduous

Upper Mixed

Deciduous

Degraded

Forest

Karst

Forest

ALL 552 465 419 349 317 137

BCC1

BCC2

BCC3

Note: DiF – dipterocarp forest, BF – bamboo forest, LMD – Lower mixed deciduous, UPD – Upper mixed deciduous, KF – Karst forest, KL – Grassland

Of total 764 species, 88 species

were classified as high

conservation concern in IUCN

Red List. Of which 54, 75, and

73 plant species, are recorded

in BCC1, BCC2, and BCC3,

respectively. Critical

endangered and endangered

plant species, i.e., Tree, were

found only in BCC2 and BCC3

(Figure 19). Figure 23. Plant

species classified in the IUCN Red List in each

Figure 18. Number of plant species recorded in different forest types.

46

6.1.4 Wildlife

Results from questionnaire-based survey indicates that several wildlife species still remain

existence in the BCC landscape. Overall, proportion of landscape area being occupied by

common species (e.g., muntjac, wild pig and civets) is relatively higher than those IUCN Red

List’ threatened species (see figure 20), especially species with large-sized (e.g., elephant, gaur,

sambar, serow, bears green peafowl) and specific habitat requirement (e.g., gibbon, douc,

langurs, crested argus). Many of them are of highly threatened with “Endanger” and

“Vulnerable” on the IUCN Red List because their population numbers are recently rapidly

declined due to overhunting, habitat loss and fragmentation (IUCN Red List 2013). In

consistence with remaining natural habitats, the BCC1 and BCC2 still support important habitats

that contain higher number of key wildlife species than the BCC3 (See figure 21, 22, 23). Of

those species with high conservation

concerns recorded in those two BCC1

and BCC2 are primates, e.g., gibbons,

douc and langurs – all are endangered on

IUCN Red List, presence of species

truly indicate healthy forest ecosystems

because they inhabit only forest habitats,

preferably mixed deciduous and

evergreen forest with connected canopy.

Other key species of terrestrial mammals

and birds include wild elephant, gaur,

sambar, bears, serow, medium-sized cats

and ground pheasants. They are globally threatened due to direct killing for wildlife trades as a

result of increasing demand at international markets for traditional medicine purpose, and also

due to habitat loss and fragmentation as a result of clearance of land for agriculture (e.g., cash

crops–cassava and rubber) and logging for timbers. All were categorized in the category 1 of

prohibited species – species are not allowed for hunting in any times and places across the entire

country in wildlife law of Lao PDR as they are considerable at high risk of extinction due to their

population numbers are low. The reports of species occurrence at corridors are similar to those

records in the earlier wildlife survey in the NPAs (table1b) so that the corridors may serve the

passage for those species to move between those NPAs.

6.1.5 Threats to wildlife and habitats

Hunting, logging, land clearing for agriculture, and infrastructure construction associated with

logging and mining activities have posed major threats to both wildlife and habitats across the

BCC landscape, but they differ in the extent and level of seriousness in each corridor. Given its

unique vegetation types and plant species composition in each corridor, logging in BCC1 has

focused largely on Mai sakai" Betula allogated, also "Mai Longleng" Fokeinia and "Mai Hing"

Podocarpa-ceous, and “Mai Pek” pinus, while in BCC2 and BCC3 focused largely on "Mai

Kangoung" & "Mai Pa dong" Dalbergia spp. "Mai Dou" Pterocarpus, "Mai Ngang" Dipterocar-

paceous & "Mai Manpa" Fagraea fragrans species. Mining activities were found in BCC1 and

BCC2. Land clearing for crop plantation was observed at BCC1 and BCC2, but for cash crops,

e.g., cassava, at BCC3.

Figure 20. Occupancy rates of selected wildlife species occurred in BCC

landscapes


47

Direct hunting of wildlife was reportedly occurred and believed as a major threat to

wildlife population decline across the BCC landscape. Common species, e.g., wild pigs

and muntjac, are more frequently hunted (see Figure 12) while rare (and also some

endangered) species were less hunted. The results of this study provide clear evidence

that hunting of wildlife is still widely practiced in the BCC landscape. In line with our

questionnaire results, it was evident that several wildlife species, e.g., civets, wild pigs,

muntjac and squirrels, were sold at fresh market in Attapeu province despite the trade on

wildlife is prohibited by laws.

Harvest of timbers by villagers in BCC2, Attapeu province

Photos: Logging in Attapeu Infrastructure construction for Mining in Sekong

Photos: Wildlife sold in Attapeu market Land clearing for cash crop in Champasak

48

6.2 Priority/Critical Biodiversity Areas in BCCs

According to ADB (2012)4, the critical habitat is an area that has high biodiversity value. It

includes;

habitat required for the survival of critically endangered or endangered species; areas

having special significance for endemic or restricted-range species;

sites that are critical for the survival of migratory species; areas supporting globally

significant concentrations or numbers of individuals of category species;

areas with unique assemblages of species or that are associated with key evolutionary

processes or provide key ecosystem services; and

Areas having biodiversity of significant social, economic, or cultural importance to local

communities.

Given above conditions, the critical biodiversity areas (CBA) in the BCC are chosen with the

combined information below;

areas that still contain most natural habitat5provided results from forest cover analysis, and

habitat suitability models. Those natural habitats include different forest types such as

upper/lower mixed deciduous, dry dipterocarp, and bamboo forest, each still contains rich plant

species diversity.

areas that have high detection probability of key wildlife species provided baseline

information from village questionnaire survey. Probability of species occurrence in each 15-km2

grid cell was judged only if reports from informants >0.5, (or two reports from four informants)

areas that reportedly contain high number of threatened species in IUCN’ Red List.

Notably, the Red List serves to raise red flags calling for conservation action, sooner rather than

later, while there is a still chance of recovery, and of forestalling permanent biodiversity loss.

In recognition that unmanaged steep decline, even of large population, may ultimately lead to

ecosystem perturbations, and eventually biological extinction.

The loss or degradation of biodiversity in these corridors would result in loss or degradation of

ecosystem services, and thus has significant implications for people and economic activities.

Combined information of presence of wildlife species, existing natural habitats and current level

of threats occurring in the BCC landscape, including hunting, logging, mining, and road

construction (see figure 9 and 10, and table 11), recommendations for focused conservation

interventions, i.e., anti-poaching patrols, are elaborated by corridor below;

6.2.1 BCC1 connecting Xe Sap-Dong Ampham, Sekong province

BCC1 – remains rich natural habitats, composed largely of upper mixed deciduous forest, while

modified habitat such unstock forest remains high across the corridor (Figure 2a). Extensive

reports of presence of several key wildlife species (table 5.1) in many areas of corridor (Figure

21). Therefore, anti-poaching patrols and control of encroachment into natural habitat should

target at;

4 Asian Development Bank. 2012. Environment Safeguards: A Good Practice Sourcebook: Draft Working Document 5 natural habitat is an environment where the biological communities are largely formed by native plant and animal

species and where human activity has not modified the area’s primary ecological functions (ADB, 2012)


49

Priority areas;

1. Northern - Ban Kalo, Chateu, Pala, Achingagel, Tavang, and Panone.

2. Southern parts – Ban Daklan

3. Central – Ban Dakdian-Dakrou, DaktaOng, DakDom, Dakmam

Figure 21: A map shows number of key wildlife species in BCC1 (see legend for

description)

Photo: A potential threat to habitat (mining & associated infrastructures) in BCC1

50

6.2.2 BCC2 connecting Dong Ampham-Xe Piane, Attapeu province

Key priority areas;

Given its rich natural habitats and wildlife species diversity, anti-poaching patrols and control of

encroachment into natural habitat are most important and should be targeted at;

1. Eastern – Phouyang, Nam Souan, Lamong.

2. Western –Ban Nam Kong -TaNgao

Figure 22: A map shows number of key wildlife species in BCC2 (see legend for description).

Darker indicates higher number, and the lighter is otherwise.

Photo: Logging (il/legal) in BCC2


51

6.2.3 Dong Hua Sao – Xe Piane (BCC3), Champasak province

Key priority areas;

Both anti-poaching patrols and habitat re-habitation (i.e., plantation, enrichment) should

target at;

1. Upper-central part – the focus villages including KiatNgong, Houay Ko, Thopsok,

Sanote, Thahoo, Thong Pha, LaoYa, Somsouk, and Nabon.

2. South-east – the focused villages should be Tavang, Ta Ong, Phalai, Khonthout,

KengNang, and Kala

Figure 23: A map shows number of key wildlife species in BCC3 (see legend for

description)

Photo: forest clearing for cash crop plantation, e.g., cassava (left), and luxury timber harvest (right) in BCC3.

52

6.3 Recommendations

The first biodiversity assessment shows evidence that the BCC remains dominant natural habitats

that supports rich fauna and flora species diversity, and many of them are of national and

international conservation concerns. Along with those, BCCs are also now facing with several

challenges that pose major threats to their biological values, such as harvest of timbers, hunting,

mining and infrastructure development. Despite the current information serves useful baseline

for informed decision-making by the project in planning for conservation activities, it requires

further work in order to in order to build in-depth understanding on the current status of

biodiversity that serves us better information for designing effective conservation strategy and

monitoring progressive implantation of conservation interventions toward the goal.

The following recommendations are of high priorities to be taken;

i) Presence of wildlife species are now based on village questionnaire, therefore, the

ground-truth confirmation and assessment of current status of wildlife species populations, using

systematic camera traps, is highly needed. The survey should focus on the BCC1 and BCC2

where current reports of several key species exist.

ii) It was evident that the BCC is dominated by forest (natural habitats), but patches of those

forest areas are sometimes disconnected (or fragmented) by human use of land for agriculture,

and thus connectivity between those habitats is critical. Therefore, further GAP analysis is

needed to identify key priority biodiversity areas, and high priority biodiversity habitat

connections that will contribute most to future conservation objectives, upon which a

demonstration of connectivity restoration and rehabilitation is developed. The analysis should

focus on BCC1 and BCC2 as both sites remain rich wildlife species and natural habitats. The

model then can be replicated to the BCC3.

iii) Conduct further analysis for forest cover change across the entire BCC landscape and

how this is impacting conservation within the corridor. The information provides better

understanding on how much the rate of forest changes annually and its drivers of change, upon

which we can design proper habitat rehabilitation plan for each corridor, and identify proper

measures to address the problems

iv) Given the expansion of corridor size in Champasak province from 315 km2 to 1,353 km2,

it requires further analysis of forest cover and land use. Such information is important to design

proper land use planning and conservation.

v) Given the rich species diversity of flora, the specific study on plant species that are of

importance for non- timber forest products (NTFPs) and traditional medicine is highly needed.

Such information is useful for enhancing the local livelihood improvement through sustainable

use of NTFPs.


53

REFERENCES:

Anon. (1997). Rapid and Participatory Biodiversity Assessments (BIORAP) in Xe Piane

NBCA. Final Report, WWF – Thailand Project Office

Asian Development Bank. 2012. Environment Safeguards: A Good Practice Sourcebook: Draft

Working Document

Austin, A. (1997). A mammal survey of XP NBCA, Laos PDR. Report to WWF.

Boonrattana, R. (1999). Training in Wildlife Survey and Data Analysis for the National

Biodiversity Conservation Areas Dong Hua Sao and Phou Xiang Thong. Report to BCP,

Pakse.

Boonrattana, R. (1998). Wildlife survey training at Dong Hua Sao and Phou Xiang Thong

National Biodiversity Conservation Areas. Report to BCP, Pakse.

Davidson, P., Robichaud, W., Tizard, R., Vongkhamheng, C. and Wolstemcroft, J. (1997).

Wildlife and Habitat Survey of Dong Amphan and Phou Kathong Proposed NCBA, Attapeu

Province, Lao PDR. WCS, Lao PDR.

Evans, T. D., Stones, A. J. and Thewlis, R. C. M. (1996) A Wildlife and Habitat Survey of the

Dong Hua Sao Protected Area. Biodiversity Conservation Project, Pakse

Duckworth, J. W., Evans, T. and Timmins, R. J. (1994). A Wildlife and Habitat Survey of Xe

Pian Proposed Protected Area, Champasak, Laos. Draft report to the Protected Areas and

Wildlife Division of the National Office for Nature Conservation and Watershed Management,

Lao – Swedish Forestry Cooperation Programme, Vientiane, Laos (70 pp.)

Evans, T. D. and Timmins, R. J. (1994). The Status of Green Peafowl in Laos. Forktail 11: 11–

32.

Hines, J.E., 2006. PRESENCE, USGS-PWRC. Available at: http://www.mbr-

pwrc.gov/software/presence.html.

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded

on 30 December 2014

Kongay K., S. Phaipasith, J. Ferrand, Jean‐Christophe Castella (2010). Land use / cover change

analysis in Pek, Kham and Nonghet Districts of Xieng Khouang Province, Laos. Vientiane.

Karanth et al. (2008). A revised monitoring framework for tiger forever – Panthera sites,

Bangalore (unpubl.).

MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Royle, J. A. & Langtimm, C.

537 A. (2002). Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one.

Ecology, 83, 2248–2255.

MacKenzie , D. I., Nichols, J. D., Hines, J. E., Knutson, M. G. & Franklin, A. D. (2003).

Estimating site occupancy, colonization and local extinction when a species is detected

imperfectly. Ecology, 84, 2200–2207.

http://www.mbr-pwrc.gov/software/presence.html

http://www.mbr-pwrc.gov/software/presence.html

54

MacKenzie, D. I., Bailey, L. L. & Nichols, J. D. (2004). Investigating species co-occurrence

patterns when species are detected imperfectly. Journal of Animal Ecology. 73, 546–555.

Niraula, R., Maharjan, S.K. (2010). Forest cover change analysis in Dolakha district (1990-

2010). Nepal Swiss Community Forest Project, In cooperation. Nepal. ISBN: 978-9937-2-

3647-8.

Royle , J. A. (2005). Site occupancy models with heterogeneous detection probabilities.

Biometrics, 62, 97–102. Royle, J. A. & Nichols, J. D. (2003). Estimating abundance from

repeated presence-absence data or point counts. Ecology, 84, 777–790

Zeller, K., R. Salom Perez, and S. Nijhawan. 2009. Jaguar Corridor Ground Truthing Manual.

Panthera. New York, NY.

ANNEXES;

Annex 1: Plants

Annex 1_Cheklist of plants

Annex 1a_Checklist of plants by BCC

Annex 1b,c, & d_Species at BCC1, BCC2, & BCC3

Annex 2_IUCN Red List

Annex 2a_Red List of Trees

Annex 3_List of dominant trees

Annex 4_Dominant tree family

Annex 4a,b&c_Dominant plants at BCC1,BCC2& BCC3

Annex 2: Summary report of forest cover analysis

Annex 3: Wildlife survey protocol

Annex 4: Summary of botanical report

Annex 5: BCC’ National protected area profile

biodiversity baseline assessment in the southern

Documents