SPECIAL FEATURE From SATOYAMA to managing global biodiversity

Eklabya Sharma • Nakul Chettri • Krishna Prasad Oli

Mountain biodiversity conservation and management: a paradigmshift in policies and practices in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas

Received: 11 September 2009 / Accepted: 29 June 2010 / Published online: 11 August 2010� The Ecological Society of Japan 2010

Abstract Mountains occupy 24% of the global landsurface area and are home to 12% of the world’s pop-ulation. They have ecological, aesthetic, and socioeco-nomic significance, not only for people living inmountain areas, but for those living beyond. Mountainsneed specific attention for their contribution to globalgoods and services, especially by developing and imple-menting mountain specific policies. Conservation poli-cies have evolved from the protection of charismaticspecies, to habitat and ecosystem/landscape conserva-tion, and, finally, to people-oriented conservation ap-proaches. This paper, with particular reference toparadigm shifts in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH)region, discusses the evolution of conservation policies,developments in conservation practices, the status ofprotected area management, wetland conservation ini-tiatives and the landscape approach, community-basedconservation initiatives, and the convergence of policiesand practices. In the HKH region, conservation effortsnow adopt participatory approaches, implement policiesof decentralised governance for biodiversity manage-ment, and empower local communities in biodiversitymanagement. The paradigm shift in the policies andpractices related to conservation has been gradual andhas included the acceptance of communities as an inte-gral part of national level conservation initiatives, to-gether with the integration of many global conventions.There are many successful pilots in the HKH region thatdeserve upscaling by the countries from the region.Realising the importance of mountains as hotspots ofbiodiversity, and due to their role as providers of globalgoods and services, the Convention on BiologicalDiversity adopted the Programme of Work on Moun-tain Biodiversity. Such a decision specific to mountainsprovides enormous opportunities for both conservation

and development. Recent challenges posed by climatechange need to be integrated into overall biodiversityconservation and management agendas, especially inmountain areas. The HKH region has been identified asa blank spot for data by the Inter-Governmental Panelon Climate Change, indicating the need to develop re-gional database and sharing mechanisms. This is a talltask, but one that holds enormous opportunity for theHKH countries and institutions with regional mandatesto address the emerging challenges of climate change onbiodiversity conservation by reducing scientific uncer-tainty.

Keywords Protected area Æ Landscape Æ Wetland ÆCommunity initiative Æ Regional cooperation

Introduction

Mountains are complex and fragile ecosystems thatcover almost a quarter of the Earth’s land surface andhost 12% of its people (GTOS 2008). Due to the extremeheterogeneity of mountain environments (climates andsoils), rapid elevational changes (altitudinal vegetationbelts), and variable directional orientation (aspect),mountains have diverse vegetation and varied microcli-matic and ecological conditions (Hamilton 2002; Spehnet al. 2002). As a consequence, mountains exhibit highbiodiversity, often with sharp transitions (ecotones) invegetation sequences, and equally rapid changes fromvegetation and soil to snow and ice (Korner 2004;Viviroli and Weingartner 2004). In addition, mountainecosystems are often rich in endemics, because manyspecies remain isolated at high elevations, compared tolowland vegetation communities, which can occupy cli-matic niches, spread over wider latitudinal belts. Thus,majority of mountains are still the last bastions of wildnature ‘islands’ in a sea of transformed lowlands, andprovide a number of very important ecological functions(Hamilton 2002). These functions affect the wellbeing ofhalf of humanity, well beyond the immediate vicinity,

E. Sharma (&) Æ N. Chettri Æ K. P. OliInternational Centre for Integrated Mountain Development,Khumaltar, Lalitpur, GPO Box 3226, Kathmandu, NepalE-mail: esharma@icimod.orgTel.: +977-1-5003222Fax: +977-1-5003277

Ecol Res (2010) 25: 909–923DOI 10.1007/s11284-010-0747-6

benefiting entire river basins (Korner and Ohsawa 2005).In addition, natural and semi-natural vegetation coveron mountains helps to stabilise headwaters, preventingflooding and maintaining steady year-round flows byfacilitating the seepage of rainwater into underwateraquifers. As a result, mountains have often been referredto as ‘natural water towers’, because they contain theheadwaters of rivers, which are vital for maintaininghuman life in the densely populated areas downstream(Schild 2008). Most prehistoric hunters and gathererspreferred mountains because of the great plant andanimal diversity within short distances, year round wa-ter, wood, shelter, and conditions favourable for selfdefence (Rhoades 1985).

Mountains also represent unique areas for thedetection of climatic change and the assessment of cli-mate-related impacts (Nogues-Bravo et al. 2007, 2008).One reason for this is that, as climate changes rapidlywith height over relatively short horizontal distances, sodoes vegetation and hydrology (Whiteman 2000). Inother words, mountains have also been recognized asbeing particularly vulnerable to the negative impacts ofclimate change; especially for those species with narrowecotone and/or high altitude ecosystems. The globalcommunity recognised the importance of mountains atthe United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992,which led to the inclusion of Agenda 21 in Chapter 13,which relates to sustainable mountain development.Chapter 13 Agenda 21 sets the scene by stating the roleof mountains within the global ecosystem and expressesserious concerns about the decline in the general envi-ronmental quality of many mountains. A summarisedversion (UNEP 1992) of Agenda 21/Chapter 13 reads:

Mountains are important sources of water, energy,minerals, forest and agricultural products and areasof recreation. They are storehouses of biologicaldiversity, home to endangered species and an essentialpart of the global ecosystem. From the Andes to theHimalayas, and from Southeast Asia to East andCentral Africa, there is serious ecological deteriora-tion. Most mountain areas are experiencing environ-mental degradation.

Similarly, during the 2002 International Year ofMountains, the World Summit on Sustainable Devel-opment (WSSD) also dealt with mountain ecosystemsand advocated that mountains should be considered asspecial places in the global sustainable developmentagenda. Paragraph 42 of the Plan of Implementation ofthe WSSD focuses on mountains, stating:

Mountain ecosystems support particular livelihoods,and include significant watershed resources, biologicaldiversity and unique flora and fauna. Many are par-ticularly fragile and vulnerable to the adverse effectsof climate change and need specific protection.

Consequently, the Conference of the Parties (COP) tothe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted‘Mountain Biodiversity Programme of Work’ as Deci-sion VII/27 at its 7th Meeting, held in Kuala Lumpur inFebruary 2004 (Sharma and Acharya 2004).

The Hindu Kush-Himalayas (HKH), the workingarea of the International Centre for Integrated Moun-tain Development (ICIMOD), is one such dynamic re-gion with rich and remarkable biodiversity (Pei 1995;Brooks et al. 2006). The region, with its varied land-scapes and soil formation, variety of vegetation typesand climatic conditions, is well known for its uniqueflora and fauna showing high endemism (Myers et al.2000). However, this mountain ecosystem is facing spe-cies loss and extinction from habitat degradation andthe fragmentation of landscape elements (Myers et al.2000; Ives et al. 2004; Pandit et al. 2007). The resourcesin the HKH region are declining, due mainly to the lackof incentives for local communities to conserve biodi-versity and water resources. This leads to developmentthat is environmentally unfriendly, including loss ofbiodiversity, which is increasingly destroying develop-ment itself. Even protected areas (PAs) such as nationalparks, nature reserves and wildlife sanctuaries face tre-mendous pressure from external driving forces andcommunities living inside and outside them (Sharma andYonzon 2005). The HKH regional countries, all beingparty to the CBD, have in recent years been morecommitted to conservation, setting aside an estimated39% of the region’s land mass for some form of pro-tection (Chettri et al. 2008). In recent decades, there hasbeen significant development in biodiversity conserva-tion policies and practices in the region from ‘peopleexclusionary’ and ‘species focussed’ to ‘people centredand community based’ using an ‘ecosystem/landscapeapproach’. This paper discusses the key issues in biodi-versity conservation, the current status of conservationand management in the HKH, evolving conservationpolicies highlighting the paradigm shift in relation to theCBD, and other global conservation agendas includingtheir impacts on biodiversity conservation practices inthe region. The future challenges and opportunities inrelation to biodiversity conservation in the region arealso examined.

Biodiversity conservation and management in the HKH

Stretched over 4 million square kilometres, the HKHincludes Bhutan and Nepal in their entirety and parts ofsix other countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China,India, Myanmar, and Pakistan. Endowed with a richvariety of gene pools and species, and ecosystems ofglobal importance, the region hosts parts of four GlobalBiodiversity Hotspots: Himalayas, Indo-Burma, Moun-tains of South-West China, and Mountains of CentralAsia (Mittermeier et al. 2004). The HKH region hasbeen in the spotlight as a part of the ‘Crisis Ecoregions’,

910

‘Biodiversity Hotspots’, ‘Endemic Bird Areas’, ‘MegaDiversity Countries’, and ‘Global 200 Ecoregions’(Brooks et al. 2006). The start of biodiversity conser-vation and management in the HKH dates back to thenineteenth century, along with the exploration of theregion by botanists, zoologists, and nature explorersfrom around the world. These efforts were mostly con-ventional approaches to conservation. During the pasttwo decades, systematic people- and eco-centric ap-proaches to conservation have emerged in the HKH.The conservation initiatives taken by the HKH countriesalong with support from ICIMOD and other organisa-tions, have identified many conservation priority land-scapes and corridors across the HKH (WWF andICIMOD 2001; Wikramanayake et al. 2002; ICIMOD2009). These analyses were further supplemented by theidentification of gaps, potential corridors, and conser-vation target sites and species across the region (Yonzonet al. 2000; CEPF 2005, 2007). More recently, there hasbeen a significant paradigm shift in conservation effortsin the HKH from ‘people exclusive’ to more ‘participa-tory conservation’ at the landscape and ecosystem levels(GoN/MoFSC 2006; Chettri et al. 2007; Sharma et al.2007). This is possibly due to the commitment of theHKH countries to the CBD. Along these lines, thecountries of the HKH have made significant progress inrelation to both policies and practices. Some of thehighlights of the progress made in the HKH region arediscussed in the following section.

Evolution of conservation policiestowards a new paradigm

The classical approach to biodiversity conservationstarted with an emphasis on ‘flagship’ species conser-vation. The assumption was that if the flagship species,which usually occupy the tip of the pyramid in the foodweb in an ecosystem, flourished, then the ecosystem wasconsidered healthy. Since the Third World Park Con-gress in Bali in 1982, there has been a change of focusaway from the North American practice of nationalpark management to the recognition of the broader roleof PAs. This change reflected the philosophy that there isinterdependence between the environment and develop-ment in creating a sustainable future. The Fourth Con-gress on National Parks and PAs held in Caracas 1992(also referred as the Fourth World Park Congress),emphasised that social, cultural, economic, and politicalissues are central to PA management and called forcommunity participation and equality in decision-mak-ing processes, together with the need for the mutualrespect of each other’s cultures. While conservationpolicies were being curbed at the international level,policies in many countries emerged to maintain theintegrity of environmental processes by integrating PAsinto more extensive and linked ecological networks(Bennett 2003). During the early 1970s, when the threatto conservation posed by local communities was recog-

nised, governments and policy makers in the HKHregion gradually realised that the conservation of nat-ure/forests by government alone, without the participa-tion of local/marginalised peoples in their management,was inadequate as such an approach could not addressthe livelihood needs of the people, leading to unsus-tainable conservation. Another reason for threats toconservation is that human-induced land use isexpanding and intensifying on the lands surroundingPAs, resulting in changes to ecological functions andbiodiversity within PAs (Andrew and Defries 2007).

The 1972 United Nations Conference on the HumanEnvironment (also known as the Stockholm Conference)and World Heritage Convention 1972, sent a strongmessage that conservation and development are insep-arable. The World Conservation Strategy 1980 estab-lished the term ‘‘sustainable development’’ in the globallexicon, and the 1992 UN Conference on Environmentand Development promoted the agenda further by giv-ing birth to the CBD. In the current decade, emphasis isbeing placed on strengthening PAs and on the man-agement of mountain ecosystems through the develop-ment of the ‘Programme of Work on Protected Areas’(PoWPA) and the ‘Programme of Work on MountainBiodiversity’ (PoWMB). The overall purpose of theseprogrammes is to significantly reduce the loss of bio-logical diversity by 2010 at global, regional, and nationallevels by implementing the three main objectives of theCBD. The PoWMB invites the Parties to the CBD toadopt outcome-oriented targets for mountain biodiver-sity, taking into account the Strategic Plan of the CBD,the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, the Plan ofImplementation of the WSSD, and the MillenniumDevelopment Goals. In the process, many internationallegal instruments relevant to conservation, benefitsharing, and the protection of the rights of indigenouslocal communities have evolved. Some of these impor-tant instruments include, inter alia, the Ramsar Con-vention (Convention on Wetlands of InternationalImportance, especially Waterfowl Habitat) 1971; Con-vention on International Trade in Endangered Species(CITES of Wild Fauna and Flora, also known as theWashington Convention) 1973; CBD 1992; and theInternational Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources forFood and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) 2004. Althoughthere are still unresolved issues associated with rightsand responsibilities, the CBD has made it difficult toignore the enormous challenge of biodiversity conser-vation and the crucial role of local knowledge and localcustodians in maintaining and managing natural re-sources. Similarly, the Ramsar Convention—the oldestecosystem specific convention, which speaks not onlyabout conservation, but also about the wise use ofwetlands, and supports the transboundary managementof wetlands for their regulation (Article 5 of the Con-vention)—in its successive protocols and guidelinesemphasises the involvement of people in the manage-ment and use of wetland resources. Bringing forward theprogressive conventions are various international and

911

regional events that encourage the new paradigm shift.Among them, the Fifth World Park Congress 2003, heldin Durban, South Africa, is noteworthy; the theme of theCongress was transferring benefits beyond the bound-aries and good governance (IUCN 2005). This broughtabout a major paradigm shift in PA management at thetime.

In the HKH region, formal conservation policieswere implemented with the Forest Act 1927, which isstill instrumental in India and Pakistan. This was fol-lowed by the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 in India,and the Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation,Conservation, and Management) Ordinance 1979 inPakistan. In Nepal, the National Parks and WildlifeConservation Act 1972 was the pioneering legal instru-ment, while the law on the Protection of Wildlife 1988was the first formal conservation instrument in China.Likewise, in Bhutan, the Forest and Nature Conserva-tion Act 1995 dedicates two chapters to conservationwith several sections on PAs and the conservation ofwildlife. Many of these earlier versions of policies andlaws prohibit human over interference in ecosystemsonce the area is declared a national park or wetland ofinternational importance. Even areas outside PAs aregoverned by either forest laws or wetland laws, andusufruct rights were previously denied to local commu-nities. As a result, the Himalayan degradation dilemmabecame apparent during this time (Ives and Messerli1989). To address Himalayan degradation and otherconservation issues, from the late 1970s, policies andlegislation in Himalayan countries were amended andimproved several times, and new laws for local resourcesmanagement were promulgated. For example, thePanchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 andthe Biological Diversity Act 2002, both in India, and theConservation Area Rules 1996, National Parks andWildlife Conservation Act 1972, and its amendment in1993, as well as the Bufferzone Management Regulation1996, in Nepal, are good examples of policy changestowards conservation in these two countries. Eachchange was, in several fundamental ways, devolution ofcontrol from government authorities to local commu-nities, which is a major shift. As an adaptive socialprocess, these changes strived to create sufficient futureforest opportunities to satisfy potentially competing/conflicting interests, which would diminish the forest ifleft unresolved (Singh et al. 2005). These changes havebeen further boosted by the declaration of India’s na-tional mission of ‘Green India’, targeting the afforesta-tion of 6 million ha of degraded forest lands, expandingforest cover from 23 to 33% of India’s territory throughpeople’s involvement, and enlarging the landscape underconservation (GoI 2008). These developments have oc-curred since the new thinking in conservation andenvironment management began in 1972 at the Stock-holm Conference. The chronological development ofmodern biodiversity conservation at the internationallevel and its impact on the conservation policies andlaws of Himalayan countries is shown in Table 1.

Development of conservation practices

In 1872, United States President Ulysses Grant set aside2.2 million acres of wilderness, primarily for recreationalpurposes, as the first formally recognised PA—Yellow-stone National Park. The concept took hold slowly overthe next 100 years, and PAs are now recognised as thefirst line of defence in the global effort to protect bio-diversity (Chape et al. 2005; Loucks et al. 2008). Col-lectively, the global network of PAs, which has increasedto 12.9% of global land area, contains an importantproportion of remaining biodiversity, and this is likely toincrease with continued conservation efforts (Jenkinsand Joppa 2009). In addition, the ecosystems that areprotected provide a range of goods and services essentialto human wellbeing (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment2005; Martinez-Harms and Gajardo 2008). Recognisingthe importance of PAs for conservation and humanlivelihoods, governments—through the CBD and theWSSD—have established measurable targets for terres-trial PA coverage to be achieved by 2010 that containdirections to effectively conserve ‘‘at least 10% of eachof the world’s ecological regions’’ (Secretariat to theCBD 2004; Balmford et al. 2005). Tracking PA coveragehas been suggested as one of the provisional indicatorsfor assessing progress towards the 2010 biodiversitytarget (CBD Decision VIII/15) and for the achievementof the Millennium Development Goals at a national le-vel (Indicator 7.6: Proportion of terrestrial and marinearea protected). The question remains: How close are weto achieving this noble goal? This paper presents acomprehensive assessment of the area protected withinthe HKH region with respect to PA coverage and trends,and trends in management regimes.

Protected areas in the HKH

The countries within the HKH contain many of theworld’s major mountain PAs and ecoregions (Fig. 1),which host a significant assembly of biological, social,and cultural diversity. Table 2 summarises the totalnumber of PAs and their respective coverage in each ofthe eight countries that share the HKH. As of 2007,there were 488 PAs [International Union for Conserva-tion of Nature (IUCN) Categories I–VI] within theHKH, covering more than 1.6 million km2 representingabout 39% of the region’s terrestrial area (Table 2). Thefirst PA in the HKH was the Pidaung Wildlife Sanctuaryin the state of Kachin in Myanmar, which was estab-lished in 1918. There were 12 PAs in the region by 1957;the number increased significantly to 98 in 1977, then to346 in 1997, and 488 in 2007. The HKH has witnessedsignificant growth in the establishment of PAs in the lastthree decades (Fig. 2). Total area coverage has also in-creased significantly, from 3,973 km2 in 1957 to morethan 1.2 million km2 by 1997. Interestingly, the pro-portion of terrestrial area covered by PAs in the HKH ismuch higher (39%) than in Central America (26%)

912

Table

1Chronologicaldevelopmentofmodernbiodiversity

conservationattheinternationallevel

anditsim

pact

onHim

alayancountries’conservationpolicies

andlaws

Conventions

Somenationalpolicies

Somenationallaws

Impacts

RamsarConvention:1971

WorldHeritage

Convention:1972

CIT

ES—Washington

Convention:1973

CBD:1992

ITPGR

FA:2004

Bhutan

Biodiversity

Actionplan1994

NationalForest

Policy

1995

Bhutan

Forest

andNature

ConservationAct

1995

Priorto

1970s

Dis-empowermentofthepeople

Resources

broughtunder

eminent

domain

Governmentcontrolover

biologicalresources

Nopeople

participation

Revenuegenerationmotive

China

Forestry

Law

1984

India

IndianForest

Act

(1927)anditssuccessiveamendments

1980

EnvironmentProtectionAct

1986

PanchayatiRaj(Extensionto

ScheduledAreas)

Act

1996

Wildlife

protectionact

1972andAmendmentAct

1991and

2002

BiologicalDiversity

Act

in2002

China

NationalBiodiversity

Action

Plan1999

After

1980s

Emphasison:

Governmentmanaged

topeople

managed

Centralisedfundingto

decentralised

fundingatthelocallevel

Collaborativemanagem

entofforest,

wetlandsandprotected

areas

Emphasisonconservationareas

managed

bythepeople

Participatory

andinclusive

conservation

Recognitionofselfinitiatedgroups

Involvem

entofvillagecommittees/

localusergroupsandlocalinstitutions

State

revenuegenerationto

benefit

sharingamongthecommunity

mem

bers

Institutionalgrowth

atdifferentlevels

Punitiveactionto

participatory

action

India

Forest

Policy

1952

NationalForest

Policy

of1988

NationalConservation

StrategyandPolicy

Statement,India

1992

TheWildlife

Action

Plan(2002–2016)

NationalActionPlan

onClimate

Change(2008)

NationalBiodiversity

StrategyandAction

Plan2009

Nepal

NepalLegalCode‘‘themulikiain’’1854

NepalForest

NationalizationAct

1957

NepalForest

Act

1962itsamendments

1968

Forest

Act

1993

NationalParksandWildlife

ConservationAct,Nepal1972

andamendment2002anditsrules

Pakistan

PakistanForest

Act

1927

IslamabadWildlife

(Protection,Preservation,

Conservation,Managem

ent)Ordinance

1979

PakistanEnvironmentalProtectionAct

1997

Nepal

New

Forest

Policy

1978

NationalConservation

Strategy1988

EnvironmentPolicy

andactionPlan1993

Biodiversity

Strategy2002

From

2000onwards

Landscapemanagem

ent

CorridorlinkwiththePAs

Transboundary

biodiversity

conservation

Designationofwetlandsof

internationalim

portance

Maxim

izationofareasoffunctional

habitats

Biodiversity

conservationandhuman

welfare

Recognitionofcommunityconserved

areas

Pakistan

Forest

Policy

Statement1991

NationalConservation

Strategy1992

NationalBiodiversity

Action

Plan1998

NationalEnvironment

Policy

(2005)

NationalForest

Policy

(2008)

NationalVision2030on

Forest

Biodiversity

Conservation

PA

Protected

area

913

(Chape et al. 2005). Such growth in the number and areacoverage of PAs is a significant achievement on the partof the HKH countries towards fulfilling their globalcommitment to conservation.

Analysing PAs in terms of their management cate-gory, the majority in the HKH belong to Category V(39%), followed by Category IV (29%) (Chettri et al.2008), which are basically ‘protected landscapes forconservation and recreation’ and ‘habitat species man-agement areas’, respectively. These PAs are less strictlymanaged and human activities are generally allowed. Ofthe 488 PAs in the HKH, only 0.6% is managed asCategory I, ‘strict nature reserve’ or ‘wilderness area’, inwhich no human intervention is permitted except forscientific monitoring: two in China (Mo Tuo NatureReserve and Shen Zha Nature Reserve) and one inBhutan (Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve). In China, theHeqing Zhao Xia Ming Sheng Nature Reserve (8 km2) isthe only Category III PA, for the ‘protection of naturalmonuments’. The trend in the establishment of PAs withreference to the IUCN categories (Fig. 3) shows that thenumber of PAs under Category V (Protected Land-scape) increased significantly during the last four dec-ades, reaching the highest point in the last decade. Asimilar increasing trend was observed for Category IVuntil the 1970s, after which the number of Category IVPAs declined. For all other categories, the trend inestablishment has been increasing, but with relativelyless variation compared to Categories IV and V. Thus,the analysis shows that PA conservation in the HKH has

shifted away from strictly managed PA systems tocommunity based, as also observed by Zimmerer et al.(2004).

Wetlands conservation initiatives

Wetlands are central to the livelihoods of the 250 millionpeople living on the valley floors and plateau areas of theHimalayas (Trisal 2009). Lakes, floodplains, and peatlands support agriculture and industry in these areas.Rice cultivation, grazing, fish farming, collecting fueland building materials, and tourism, together with localspiritual and religious activities, are vital to the region’spoorest communities. Wetlands maintain water quality,regulate water flow (floods and droughts), and, in thecase of high-altitude peat lands, regulate the global cli-mate (storage of carbon in peat). Wetlands also supportboth regional and global biodiversity. Many speciesdepend on wetlands for their survival; in particular,migratory species, for which wetlands provide importantstopping points for refuelling and rest en-route. Peopleliving in lowland regions also depend on the servicesprovided by high-altitude wetlands (Schild 2008).

Wetlands in the region are degrading rapidly: in someareas as many as 30% of the lakes and marshes havedisappeared during the past few decades because ofoverexploitation of wetland resources and climatechange (Trisal 2009). Unsustainable practices lead toan increase in siltation and lakes cease to regulate

Fig. 1 Spatial distribution of protected areas in different ecoregions in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH) region (see Chettri et al. 2008for corresponding numbers of the ecoregions)

914

hydrological regimes properly. Population increases andeconomic development also pose distinct challenges inthe maintenance of wetlands, ecological characteristics,and livelihoods. The consequent loss of ecosystem ser-vices and biodiversity is hampering sustainable devel-opment. ICIMOD, in partnership with WetlandsInternational, the World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF), IUCN and other local non-governmental or-ganisations (NGOs) are supporting governments in theregion to establish the ‘Himalayan Wetlands Initiative’within the framework of regional cooperation under theRamsar Convention. The initiative addresses wetlandissues from global to regional and local levels towardsachieving the goals of conservation and wise use ofwetlands as a contribution to sustainable development.Its mission is ‘‘to sustain and restore wetlands, theirresources, and biodiversity for future generations’’. Theinitiative is aimed at establishing a regional forum forintegrated wetland conservation and wise use, and atproviding a basis for regional cooperation. This coop-eration has led to the development of a regional strategyfor the conservation of wetlands and is the driving forcebehind the development of the capacity-buildingframework, tools for wetlands, and the wetland infor-mation system. Over the last four decades, four coun-tries in the HKH, namely, China, India, Pakistan, andNepal, brought 27 sites of an estimated 10,639 km2 inarea within the Ramsar network (Fig. 4).

From isolated areas of biodiversityconservation to landscapes

Landscape-level biodiversity conservation is an evolvingconcept (Worboys et al. 2010). The concept emergedprimarily out of recognition that strict protectionthrough a network of PAs (e.g., national parks, sanc-tuaries, wildlife reserves) is an essential, but insufficient,T

able

2Number

andareacoverageofprotected

areasrecorded

in2007foreach

ofthecountriesin

theHinduKush-H

imalayan(H

KH)regionandforthewhole

region

Country

Totalareaof

country(km

2)

Totalno

ofPAs

Coverage

byPAs(%

)Totalareaofcountry

thatfallswithin

HKH

(km

2)

Totalnumber

of

PAswithin

HKH

(IUCN

I–VI)

PA

coverage

within

HKH

(km

2)

CoverageofPAs

thatfallswithin

HKH

part

ofthe

country(%

)

PA

coveragewith

respectto

total

areaofHKH

(%)

Afghanistan

652,225

17

0.44

390,475

62,461

0.63

0.06

Bangladesh

143,998

38

1.70

13,295

5632

4.75

0.01

Bhutan

46,500

10

27.27

46,500

10

12,681

27.27

0.30

China

9,596,960

1,974

15.15

2,420,266

221

1,522,172

62.89

35.51

India

2,387,590

636

8.99

461,139

135

62,417

13.54

1.46

Myanmar

676,577

54

5.32

317,629

16

23,967

7.55

0.56

Nepal

147,181

26

17.86

147,181

19

24,972

16.97

0.58

Pakistan

796,095

158

11.85

489,988

76

18,721

3.82

0.44

Total

2,913

4,286,473

488

1,668,023

38.91

Fig. 2 Trend in number and area coverage of protected areas from1918 to 2007 in the HKH

915

biodiversity conservation strategy (Boyd 2004; Naugh-ton-Treves et al. 2005). These researchers and othersargue that PAs are essential as places where biodiversityconservation is the primary objective, yet insufficient asthey are too small to meet the ecological needs of viablepopulations of wide ranging species and of essentialecological processes. Thus, more than preserving iso-lated patches of sustained wilderness in the form of PAs,the focus is now more on maintaining landscape integ-rity, and on viewing and conserving ecosystems as partof larger agro-ecological and socio-cultural landscapes(McNeely 2004; Canova 2006). It was the concept ofidentifying ‘Global Biodiversity Hotspots’ by Myers(1988) that led to this new approach to conserva-tion—moving from the traditional PA system to thelandscape level by identifying hotspots of biodiversity.Later, this concept was widely accepted and revised(Mittermeier et al. 2004; Myers et al. 2000). Similarly,WWF adopted an ecoregion-based programme in theirglobal conservation interventions (Olson and Dinerstein

2002). IUCN also endorsed the concept of identifyingpriority conservation sites in the form of BiodiversityHotspots as an effective strategy for conservation(Barber 2004).

In the HKH, there are many critical ecoregions andtransboundary complexes that are of global importance(CEPF 2005, 2007; Chettri et al. 2009). Realising theimportance of these areas, WWF-Nepal and ICIMODinitiated regional conservation initiatives on key trans-boundary areas in the Eastern Himalayas (EH) in 1995.Since then, the EH region has witnessed a number ofsuch landscape level initiatives for biodiversity conser-vation in the Himalayas (see Sherpa et al. 2003, 2004;GoN/MoFSC 2006; Chettri et al. 2007). The conceptwas to bring HKH countries together and facilitateeffective conservation for critical transboundary com-plexes across the region. This concept was further ex-plored in transboundary landscapes such as the MountEverest ecosystem (Sherpa et al. 2003), the Hkakaborazimountain complex (Guangwei 2002), and the Terai ArcLandscape (Gurung 2004). These experiences haveshown that the conservation of biodiversity requires acomprehensive and multi-scale approach that includesboth reserve and non-reserve areas, taking into accounthuman dependence on resources for subsistence living. Itwas realised that the existing PAs, which have increasedgreatly in number and extent, ‘‘cannot exist in isolationas islands’’, neither within countries nor across nationalborders, until the needs of people and the surroundinglands in ‘‘the matrix’’ are considered (Chettri et al.2007). It was also realised that to achieve local, national,regional, and global conservation goals, PAs alone areinadequate and that a holistic approach at the land-scape/ecosystem scale, including human beings as partof the system, is needed. Since 1995, ICIMOD hasplayed a pivotal role in forming partnerships, developingcommunity-based natural resource management strate-gies in and around PAs, and exploring the feasibility ofdeveloping corridors to link parts of transboundarylandscapes. There has been a strong focus on communitydevelopment at the local level, followed by cooperationat the regional level to meet global commitments such asto the CBD’s ‘ecosystem approach’ (Sharma et al. 2007).

In recent years, the ecosystem approach to biodi-versity conservation has been the basis for the selectionof seven transboundary landscapes (see ICIMOD2009); the application of the experiences from theKangchenjunga landscape has been initiated in twocritical landscapes, namely (1) Kailash Sacred Land-scape, and (2) Bramhaputra-Salween Landscape. Theessence of the transboundary landscape initiative is anintegrated approach with partnerships between com-munities and government agencies in the countriessharing a conservation area of common interest foreffective biodiversity management. Already there isevidence that transboundary programmes have beenimplemented with some degree of success in theHimalayas (Gurung 2004; Sherpa et al. 2004; Chettriet al. 2007; Sharma et al. 2007). These initiatives

Fig. 3 Trend in the establishment of different International Unionfor Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categories of protected areasfrom 1918 to 2007 in the HKH

Fig. 4 Trends in Ramsar wetland sites falling within the HKHregion of China, India, Nepal and Pakistan

916

consider the geopolitical and ecological importance ofthe region and are based on the belief that the effectiveconservation of important transboundary landscapes ispossible only through regional cooperation (Sherpaet al. 2003; Sharma et al. 2007). These conservationinitiatives in the Himalayas were very much inspired bythe decisions made during the Seventh Conference ofParties (COP VII) to the CBD, which recommended theecosystem approach to biodiversity conservation (Sec-retariat to the CBD 2004), the PoWMB (COP VII), andthe recommendations of the Fifth World Park Congress(IUCN 2005). They were further guided by the con-servation development approaches, which contained thetransboundary biodiversity criteria (Sharma and Chet-tri 2005).

Community-based conservation initiatives

Although policies in relation to decentralised gover-nance for the management of natural resources toempower local communities began to appear across theHKH region in the 1980s, it was only after the recog-nition and implementation of Article 8j of the CBD bynational governments that the knowledge, innovations,and practices of indigenous and local communities inbiodiversity management have been recognised. TheUNCED in 1972 and 1992 placed a premium onpeople’s participation and promoted a conceptual shiftin both natural resources management and conserva-tion. In response, participatory forest managementapproaches evolved as popular means. Experimentsin such approaches started as early as the 1970s.Joint forest management (JFM) in India; communityforestry (CF) and lease hold forestry (LF) in Nepal;and community-based natural resources management(CBNRM) in Bhutan are some often cited successfulexamples of the regeneration of degraded forests andmanagement of existing natural resources by commu-nities (Joshi 2000; Sharma et al. 2006). CF in Nepal is awidely renowned success story. In CF, intervention isseen as a process that essentially involves handing overuse rights in relation to government owned forests tolocal groups of people who customarily hold de factouse rights over such forests (Gilmour and Fisher 1991).Nepal has become a pioneering country in local re-source management, having handed over usufructrights in relation to over 1 million ha of national forestto more than 14,000 community forest user groups(Table 3). Similarly, in India, there is 22 million ha ofland under JFM, managed by over 106,000 JFMcommittees in 28 states (Pai and Datta 2006). Despitesome inherent issues involved in implementation, theseprogrammes have in many cases helped local commu-nities to ensure sustainable livelihoods (Baloon andInoue 2009; Nayak and Berkes 2008). Such an enablingpolicy environment and institutional setup have signif-icantly promoted participatory forest management re-gimes in the region.

Natural resources management by the people be-comes more evident when it has utility value and whencommunities benefit from it (Pagiola et al. 2002). Itsutility could be as a subsistence, health, and foodsecurity strategy for income generation for the manyindigenous peoples in the HKH region, or in relationto enterprise development for the provision of incomegeneration opportunities for poor rural households.Tourism specialists claim that the ‘‘most backwardregions’’ often offer ‘‘the most exotic’’ resource basefor the promotion of tourism (Kruk and Banskota2007). While this may not be applicable to most of thedeveloping and under-developed countries of theworld, it is largely true for the states located in theHKH. Over the years, such enterprise-based commu-nity involved initiatives have gained impetus in theregion, with a number of successful pilot models in theenterprise sector. It can be stated without much hesi-tation that the HKH region, which until very recentlywas one of the least developed regions in the world,has achieved commendable success by exploiting itsexotic scenic beauty. Initiatives in community-basedtourism (ecotourism) models such as (1) the expansionof Chitwan National Park by buffer-zone managementand ecotourism development in Nepal, (2) ecotourismand conservation in the Annapurna Conservation areain Nepal, (3) the Sikkim Biodiversity and Ecotourismproject in India, and (4) home-stay development forthe conservation of snow leopards in Hemis NationalPark in Jammu and Kashmir in India (see Sharmaet al. 2006) are notable examples from the region. Atthe heart of these initiatives are participatoryapproaches linking enterprise operation with conser-vation activities. Working with communities, the pri-vate sector, and government, such activities buildupon the skills, interests, and knowledge of the primestakeholders to: (1) increase community and privatesector involvement in conservation, (2) increase eco-nomic returns from tourism services and enterprises,and (3) contribute to policies that meet tourism andconservation goals. In some of these initiatives, im-pacts such as an increase in the number of visitors, anincrease in income in the communities, and enhancedbiodiversity conservation were reported (Maharanaet al. 2000; Bajracharya et al. 2005; Joshi and Dhyani2009).

Table 3 Cumulative increase in community forests, user groupsand number of beneficiary households in Nepal

Year Area of foresthanded over (ha)

Number of forestuser groups

Number ofhouseholdsbenefited

1985 5,670 98 10,3631991 28,301 481 53,6481996 575,811 7,387 818,7392001 1,051,874 12,559 1,435,7552005 1,179,157 14,104 1,623,067

917

Convergence of policies and practices

Although biodiversity conservation has been driven pri-marily by human curiosity, appreciation, and exploita-tion, the CBD is a very important piece of internationallaw on streamlining global biodiversity conservation. TheCBD is the result of the many conservation experimentsthat took place in the 1970s and 1980s. Firstly, the CBDrecognises national sovereignty over plant genetic re-sources and binds Parties to ‘‘regulate and manage bio-logical resources important for the conservation ofbiological diversity’’ and ‘‘respect, preserve, andmaintainknowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous andlocal communities embodying traditional lifestyles rele-vant to the sustainable use and conservation of biologicaldiversity’’. Secondly, it empowers local communities toparticipate in the management of government ownedPAs, forests, and wetlands. This empowerment has pro-duced many constitutional, policy, and legislativearrangements to guarantee local marginal/tribal com-munities the right to manage their own resources underformal conservation policies and programmes, and hasaddressed the need to improve local people’s livelihoods.More importantly, government bureaucrats and policymakers are becoming increasingly receptive to the par-ticipatory management of PAs, forests, and wetlands.

Almost all the countries in the HKH region aremoving away from conventional conservation gover-nance to participatory systems of governance of PAs,forests, and wetlands. Bhutan, China, India, Nepal,Pakistan, and Bangladesh have moved towards someform of decentralised governance of PAs, forests, andwetlands, with amendments to their respective policiesand laws. For example, in Bhutan, local communitiesare managing pastures within the Jigme Dorji NationalPark through a system of rotational grazing and thelevying of taxes on the grazing of yak herds; traditionalboundaries between villages and forests have also beenrecognised in the planning of parks; and governmentforestry programmes have transferred forest manage-ment responsibilities to local management groups. Inother countries, large areas of degraded forest are beingincreasingly brought under some form of communitymanagement through decentralised natural resourcesgovernance systems. The significant increase in forestedarea as a result of CF initiatives in Nepal (Table 3) andJFM in India is testimony to the effectiveness of this newparadigm (Pai and Datta 2006). In the KhunjarabNational Park in Pakistan, an agreement between localcommunities and Northern Areas administration tojointly manage the park, share revenue, and provideemployment for local communities has been adoptedand respected. Moreover, the examples of ecosystem/landscape level conservation and community-basedenterprise development cited in the previous sections areincreasing delivering promising results.

In recent years, ICIMOD has been advocating forbiodiversity conservation and sustainable development

through its ‘mountain perspective framework’; thisframework is characterised by understanding theimperatives of mountain conditions such as fragility,inaccessibility, marginality, diversity, specific nicheopportunities, and human adaptation practices. It alsopromotes various conservation linked development ap-proaches such as participatory natural resources man-agement; regional cooperation in applied research onconservation and management using the ecosystem ap-proach considering transboundary landscapes; theapplication of crosscutting issues related to policy,governance, and equity and gender; and the main-streaming of information and knowledge managementprinciples.

In order to enhance the process of regional cooper-ation, ICIMOD has been active in advocacy by show-casing the Kangchenjunga landscape pilot using variousinternational and global platforms. Such contributionshave gained impetus and received recognition over thelast few years. ICIMOD is developing mountain specifictools for analysing PA effectiveness in the HKH regionto address the evolving challenge of regional coopera-tion and to understand the effectiveness of existing PAsin reaching the PoWMB targets. In autumn 2008, ICI-MOD organised an International Mountain BiodiversityConference focusing on ‘Biodiversity Conservation andManagement for Enhanced Ecosystem Services:Responding to the Challenges of Global Change’, inwhich many global institutions joined hands to discussthe prevailing issues reflected in the conference title(ICIMOD 2009). The major outcome of the conferencewas that the HKH countries, ICIMOD, and variousglobal programmes have agreed to develop trans-Himalayan transects as a practical solution to the un-wieldy problem of coordinating data collection oversuch a vast area to reduce scientific uncertainty.

In addition, ICIMOD is contributing to many of theseven focal areas and their associate indicators specifiedin the CBD (see Table 4) by facilitating researchon ecoregion and PA coverage (1a, 1c); promotingco-management in rangelands and participatory forestresources management (2a); adopting integratedwatershed management (4b); promoting landscapes andconnectivity in fragmented areas (4d); understandingecosystem health and human wellbeing relationships(4f); promoting high value product development usingmedicinal plants and honeybees (4g); assessing minoritylanguages for ethnic composition in understanding thediverse uses of resources (5a); documenting traditionalknowledge (5b); promoting access and benefit sharing(6-); and promoting innovations in developing newtechnologies and their transfer (7a) on a regional scale.

Challenges and opportunities

The HKH countries have made significant progress inthe expansion of PAs, whose coverage currently ac-counts for 39% of the terrestrial area. However, so far,

918

the coverage provided by these PAs seems to be inade-quate as only 25% of the Biodiversity Hotspots fallingwithin the HKH are under PA networks. Moreover, theeffectiveness of these PAs in reaching conservation tar-gets is still not clear. There is no systematic assessmentand monitoring system in place for assessing effective-ness in majority of the PAs.

People living in the region are highly dependent onnatural resources including agriculture, forests, grass-lands, snow capped mountains, and glaciers for variousgoods and services; these goods and services are now

being threatened by various drivers of change, such asglobalisation and the migration of people, habitatdestruction from overexploitation, and, above all,climate change (Xu et al. 2009). According to the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),‘‘climate change impacts will be differently distributedamong different regions, generations, age, classes,income groups, occupations and gender’’ (IPCC 2007).While climate change is a global problem requiring aglobal solution, mountain systems are particularlysensitive to climate change and must be considered

Focal area Headline indicator ICIMOD’s interventions towardsthese indicators

1. Status of and trends inrelation to thecomponents ofbiodiversity

(a) Trends in the extent of selected biomes,ecosystems, and habitats

(b) Trends in abundance and distributionof selected species

(c) Coverage of protected areas(d) Change in status of threatened species(e) Trends in genetic diversity of domesticated

animals, cultivated plants, and fish species ofmajor socioeconomic importance

Identification of priority biomes and ecoregions,ecosystems and analytical research on protectedarea coverage and trends in the HKH region

2. Sustainable use (a) Area of forest, agricultural, and aquacultureecosystems under sustainable management

(b) Proportion of products derived fromsustainable sources

(c) Ecological footprint and related concepts

Contributed to various fields in relation to thesustainable use of natural resources in the HKHfocusing primarily on rangeland resources,community-based forest management, andpromotion of high value mountain products

3. Threats to biodiversity (a) Nitrogen deposition(b) Trends in invasive alien species

Study of mountain specific threats across theHKH including land use cover change, climatechange, and related issues such as Glacial LakeOutburst Floods (GLOFs) and waterinduced hazards

4. Ecosystem integrity andecosystem goods andservices

(a) Marine Trophic Index(b) Water quality of freshwater ecosystems(c) Trophic integrity of other ecosystems(d) Connectivity/fragmentation of ecosystems(e) Incidence of human-induced ecosystem failure(f) Health and wellbeing of communities that

depend directly on local ecosystemgoods and services

(g) Biodiversity for food and medicine

Integrated watershed management with primefocus on hydrology and water qualitymonitoring; identification and valuationof goods and services; and human healthand wellbeing of communities in the HKHPromotion of transboundary landscapes andconservation complexes by developingconnectivity between protected areas tomaintain ecosystem integrityPromotion of medicinal and aromatic plants;indigenous honeybees and pollination; andmountain specific innovative technologies inagriculture as livelihood improvement strategies

5. Status of and trends inrelation to linguisticdiversity and numbers ofspeakers of indigenouslanguages

(a) Status of traditional knowledge, innovations,and practices

(b) Other indicators of the status of indigenousand traditional knowledge

In collaboration with national partners in theHKH, research and documentation of minoritylanguages, and traditional ecological knowledgeon conservation, food security, and climatechange adaptation.

6. Status of access andbenefit sharing

(a) Indicator of access and benefit sharing Extensive research and policy interventions forthe promotion of access and benefit sharing forgenetic resources and its associated knowledge(policy formulation, awareness raising, andcapacity building were the building blocks inpast interventions)

7. Status of resource transfers (a) Indicator of technology transfer(b) Official Development Assistance provided

in support of the convention

Innovations on mountain specific technologiesand their transfer across the region through‘World Overview Conservation Approaches andTechnologies’ and ‘People and ResourcesDynamic Project’ on integrated watershedmanagement

Table 4 Twenty-two headline indicators divided into sevenfocal areas identified by the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) to assess progress towards the 2010 target and the

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development(ICIMOD)’s interventions in each focal area and associatedindicators

919

separately (Schild 2008). Unfortunately, there is a seri-ous paucity of data on the various aspects of climatechange, as well as on biodiversity in the HKH (IPCC2007). Some of the studies have shown that temperaturesare rising at higher rates in high altitude areas than inothers (Shrestha et al. 1999; Liu and Chen 2000). Withrising temperatures, the areas covered by permafrost andglaciers are receding at a rate faster than the worldaverage (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). As a result,snowmelt begins earlier and winters are shorter; riverregimes, ecosystem services (including water supply),and livelihoods are affected. Moreover, climate changewill have far-reaching consequences for the condition ofbiodiversity in the HKH, the quality of ecosystemfunctioning and services, and the wellbeing of people inthe region, as well as those downstream who rely on theecosystem services that the region provides (Erikssonet al. 2009; Sharma et al. 2009). There are alreadyindications of glacier retreat, erratic rainfall and increasein temperature (Xu et al. 2009). In addition, a change inphenology and the presence of species at higher altitudethan their reported ranges are already visible. Moreover,the incidents of health hazards, including reporting ofmalaria and other diseases, have been recorded fromnew high altitude areas (Xu et al. 2008). The stress ismultiplied by an ever-increasing population, globalisa-tion, and the erosion of age-old traditional practices. Asa result, the resilience of most of the fragile ecosystemsin the region is eroded, making them vulnerable to newand emerging threats such as climate change. There is aneed to alleviate other pressures in order to allowmountain biodiversity to adapt on its own, as much aspossible, to climate change impacts. Thus, the welfare ofapproximately 1.3 billion people downstream is inextri-cably linked to the state of natural resources in the HKHregion (Schild 2008; Xu et al. 2009).

Despite the paradigm shift in the understanding ofbiodiversity conservation and management, importantchallenges remain. Meaningful coordination must bedeveloped between the different stakeholders and insti-tutions at local, national, and regional levels to ensuretheir long-term commitment to research and develop-ment, as well as to facilitate the implementation ofcommon regional policy frameworks for critical trans-boundary landscapes. Different socioeconomic condi-tions in the HKH countries and the large number oflegal instruments crossing jurisdictions create a range ofpractical difficulties in cooperation. This is evidenced bythe flourishing of illegal trade in wildlife in some coun-tries in the region due to policy differences or weakenforcement. In addition, such illegal trade also exists insome of the transboundary areas, which are politicallysensitive and where law enforcement is very difficult.

The huge potential to reap mutual benefits from thesharing of goodpractices, resources, and expertise needs tobe clarified and understood by all stakeholders to ensurethe long-term sustainability of resources. There areexamples of a number of good practices in the region thataddress people’s aspirations, livelihood needs, and com-

munity development needs through conservation activi-ties. There are enormous opportunities for the develop-mentofmanpower skilled inbiodiversity conservation anduse, who could act as meaningful partners. There is alsogreat potential for enterprise development in relation tonon-timber forest products and medicinal and aromaticplants in the region. Community-based biodiversitymanagement in the context of the HKH region is complexdue to the diversity of cultures, ecological variations, dif-ferences in climatic regimes, anddifficult terrain.However,there are good practices that can be up-scaled in the regionto enhance the resilience of ecosystems.

There are some examples of success of community-based biodiversitymanagement in theHKH(such as JFMin India, CF and LF in Nepal, and CBNRM in Bhutan),as elaborated earlier in this paper; however, most of thesuccesses are yet to be upscaled in the region. There is aneed formore formal cooperative agreements between thevarious institutions and communities in the HKH coun-tries at the regional level to address regional conservationissues. There are unprecedented opportunities for theHKH countries and ICIMOD to convert vulnerabilitiesinto opportunities for conservation and development.There is a need to support the assessment of biodiversityto create a biodiversity database, identify hyperdiversityareas and site-specific threats, mitigate threats, and pro-mote the sustainable value-added use of biodiversity.

The IPCC and other agencies have signalled theserious dearth of comparable data from the HKH re-gion, especially in relation to climate change (IPCC2007). Only rigorous long-term observation will make itpossible to acquire the amount and quality of dataneeded on this region. ICIMOD and its partners aredeveloping a regional cooperation framework usingtrans-Himalayan transects as a way to overcome thedeficit in basic data for the region; establishing dataprocessing and analysis mechanisms; and facilitating thesharing of information and knowledge for policy for-mulation and use by decision makers.

Conclusion

Formal conservation efforts started in the HKH as earlyas the nineteenth century, and evolved from the strictconservation of charismatic species to habitat conserva-tion and, in recent times, to livelihood-based landscapeconservation. Conservation efforts now adopt participa-tory approaches, implement policies of decentralisedgovernance for biodiversity management, and empowerlocal communities in biodiversity management; suchpeople-oriented conservation and development ap-proaches are actually being successfully practised in theHKHregion. The paradigm shift in conservation has beengradual andhas included acceptance of communities as anintegral part of national level conservation initiatives,together with the integration of many global conventions.There are many successful pilots in the HKH region thatdeserve upscaling by the HKH countries. Scaling up

920

conservation and management initiatives across largetransboundary landscapes, as promoted by most globalconventions including the CBD, requires cooperation atvarious levels. ICIMOD, with its proposed seven trans-boundary landscapes in the HKH region, is developingregional cooperation for the implementation of globalagreements by adopting and customising recent policydevelopments in the HKH countries. The challenges in-volved in conservation management and in linkingdevelopment with conservation, especially to addresspoverty alleviation, demands innovative approaches toensure the sustainability of HKH biodiversity resourcesand related goods and services for the wellbeing of local,as well as downstream and global, communities.

Over the last two decades, mountains have been thefocus of global attention. Despite the growing awarenessof the importance of mountain ecosystems, especially fortheir goods and services, mountains have been increas-ingly marginalised by the global international develop-ment agenda. Although there are structural policies inplace, these have led mostly to the implementation ofcountrywide strategies that are not specifically designedfor mountain regions. As a result, mountain regions inmany parts of the world, including the HKH, lag behindin conservation-linked development. Mountains shouldreceive specific and more attention in the future if globalgoods and services are to be harnessed optimally forgenerations to come; for this, mountain specific policiesneed to be developed and implemented.

Biodiversity conservation has also received consider-able global attention during the past two decades. Atotal of 192 countries are Party to the CBD, committedto meeting the objectives of conservation, sustainableuse, and fair and equitable distribution of benefits aris-ing from biodiversity. All of the eight countries sharingthe HKH region are Parties to the CBD. Achievingglobal conservation goals requires agreements to becustomised to reach all levels. The CBD’s strategic planwas adopted with the mission that Parties committhemselves to the more effective and coherent imple-mentation of its objectives in order to achieve, by 2010, asignificant reduction in biodiversity loss at global, re-gional, and national levels to contribute to povertyalleviation and for the benefit of all life forms on Earth.Realising the importance of mountains as hotspots ofbiodiversity and for providing global goods and services,the CBD adopted the PoWMB. Such a decision specificto mountains provides enormous opportunities for bothconservation and development. Most of the importantmountain systems in the world are shared by manycountries, as is the case in the HKH region; this requiresspecific approaches and regional cooperation. Moreconcerted effort is required from the countries of theregion for biodiversity conservation and management.

The challenges posed by climate change need to beintegrated into overall biodiversity conservation andmanagement agendas, especially in mountain areas. Oneof the challenges is to reduce scientific uncertainly bydeveloping regional data generation and sharing mech-

anisms. ICIMOD and its partners have proposed tofacilitate such a process by developing trans-Himalayantransects for data sharing. This is a daunting task,especially considering the enormous size of the HKH.This programme will certainly achieve the goal of long-term data sharing, provided that the countries of theregion join hands across the HKH; in this ICIMOD hasa vital facilitating role to play. The trans-Himalayantransect concept has enormous potential to meet thechallenges of climate change, particularly in relation toadaptation and biodiversity conservation in the HKH.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their grati-tude to the Director General of ICIMOD for providing inspirationand the required facilities. The authors are also thankful to therelated departments and individuals from ICIMOD’s eight regionalmember countries in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region for theirsupport in data updates. Thanks also go to Ms Bandana Shakyaand Mr Rajesh Thapa for their support in preparing the manu-script. The financial support received from the MacArthur Foun-dation and German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) to conduct thisanalysis is highly acknowledged and appreciated.

References

Andrew JH, Defries R (2007) Ecological mechanisms linking pro-tected areas to surrounding lands. Ecol Appl 17(4):974–988

Bajracharya S, Furley PA, Newton N (2005) Effectiveness ofcommunity involvement in delivering conservation benefits tothe Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environ Conserv32(3):239–247

Balmford A, Bennum L, Brink BT, Copper D, Cote IM, Crane P,Dobson A, Dudley N, Dutton I, Green RE, Gregory RD,Harrison J, Kennedy ET, Kremen C, Leader-Williams N,Lovejoy TE, Mace G, May R, Mayaux P, Morling P, Phillips J,Redfort K, Ricketts TH, Rodriguez JP, Sanjayan M, Schei PJ,van Jaarsveld AS, Walther BA (2005) The convention of bio-logical diversity’s 2010 target. Science 307:212–213

Balooni K, Inoue M (2009) Joint forest management in India: themanagement change process. IIMB Manage Rev 21:1–17

Barber CV (2004) Designing protected area systems for a changingworld. In: Barber CV, Miller KR, Bones M (eds) Securingprotected areas in the face of global change: issues and strate-gies. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp 41–95

Bennett AF (2003) Linkages in the landscapes: the role of corridorsand connectivity in wildlife conservation. IUCN, Gland, Swit-zerland

Boyd C (2004) Protective landscapes, corridors, connectivity andecological network. In: Biodiversity issues for consideration inplanning, establishment and management of protected area sitesand networks. Technical Series No 15, Secretariat of the Con-vention of Biological Diversity, Montreal, pp 73–81

Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, da Fonseca GAB, Gerlach J, Hoff-mann M, Lamoreux JF, Mittermeier CG, Pilgrim JD, Rodri-gues ASL (2006) Global biodiversity conservation priorities.Science 313:58–61

Canova L (2006) Protected areas and landscape conservation in theLombardy plain (northern Italy): an appraisal. Landsc UrbanPlan 74:102–109

CEPF (2005) Ecosystem profile: Indo-Burma hotspot, EasternHimalayan Region. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund,WWF US-Asian Program, Washington DC

CEPF (2007) Ecosystem profile: Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspot,Indo-China region. CEPF, Washington, DC

Chape S, Harrison M, Spalding M, Lysenko I (2005) Measuringthe extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicatorfor meeting global biodiversity targets. Philos Trans R Soc B360:443–455

921

Chettri N, Sharma E, Shakya B, Bajracharya B (2007) Developingforested conservation corridors in the Kangchenjunga land-scape, Eastern Himalaya. Mt Res Dev 27(3):211–214

Chettri N, Shakya B, Thapa R, Sharma E (2008) Status of pro-tected area system in the Hindu Kush Himalaya: an analysis ofPA coverage. Int J Biodivers Sci Manag 4(3):164–178

Chettri N, Sharma E, Thapa R (2009) Long term monitoring usingtransect and landscape approaches within Hindu Kush Hima-layas. In: Sharma E (ed) Proceedings on international mountainbiodiversity conference. ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal, 16–18November 2008, pp 201–208. http://apps.icimod.org/elibrary/index.php/downloads/pd/612

Dyurgerov MD, Meier MF (2005) Glaciers and changing Earthsystem: a 2004 snapshot. Institute of Arctic and Alpine Re-search, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO

Eriksson M, Jianchu X, Shrestha AB, Vaidya RA, Nepal S,Sandstrom K (2009) The changing Himalayas: impact of cli-mate change on water resources and livelihoods in the greaterHimalayas. ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal. http://apps.icimod.org/elibrary/index.php/downloads/pd/593

Gilmour DA, Fisher RJ (1991) Villagers, forests and foresters: thephilosophy, process and practice of community forestry inNepal. Sahayogi Press, Kathmandu, Nepal

GoI (2008) National action plan on climate change. Government ofIndia, New Delhi

GoN/MoFSC (2006) Sacred Himalayan landscape (SHL) strategicplan: 2006–2016. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation,Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal

GTOS (2008) Terrestrial observation of our planet: biennial report50. GTOS Secretariat, FAO, Rome, Italy

Guangwei C (2002) Biodiversity in the Eastern Himalayas: con-servation through dialogue. Summary reports of the workshopson biodiversity conservation in the Hindu Kush-HimalayanEcoregion. ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal

Gurung PC (2004) Terai arc landscape: a new paradigm in con-servation and sustainable development. In: Harmone D, Wor-boys GL (eds) Managing mountain protected areas: challengesand responses for the 21st century. Andromeda, Colledara,Italy, pp 80–86

Hamilton LS (2002) Why mountain matters? World Conservation:The IUCN Bulletin 1/2002

ICIMOD (2009) Mountain biodiversity and climate change. ICI-MOD, Kathmandu, Nepal. http://apps.icimod.org/elibrary/index.php/downloads/pd/613

IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis.In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M,Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Contribution of work-ing group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergov-ernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge

IUCN (2005) Benefits beyond boundaries. Proceedings of the VthIUCN world park congress. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2005-007.pdf

Ives JD, Messerli B (1989) The Himalayan dilemma: reconcilingdevelopment and conservation. Routledge, New York, USA

Ives JD, Messerli B, Spiess E (2004) Mountains of the world: aglobal priorities. In: Messerli B, Ives JD (eds) Mountains of theworld: a global priority. Parthenon, New York, pp 1–15

Jenkins CN, Joppa L (2009) Expansion of the global terrestrialprotected area system. Biol Conserv 142:2166–2174. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.016

Joshi AL (2000) Leasehold forestry, joint forest management andcommunity forestry as appropriate programmes for mountaindevelopment. In: Price MF, Butt N (eds) Forests in sustainablemountain development: a state of knowledge report for 2000.CABI, Wallingford, UK

Joshi R, Dhyani PP (2009) Environmental sustainability andtourism—implications of trend synergies of tourism in SikkimHimalaya. Curr Sci 97(1):33–41

Korner C (2004) Mountain biodiversity, its causes and function.Ambio Suppl 13:11–17

Korner C, Ohsawa M (2005) Mountain systems. In: Hassan R,Scholes R, Ash N (eds) Ecosystems and human well-being:current state and trends. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,vol 1. Island, Washington, DC, pp 681–716

Kruk E, Banskota K (2007) Mountain tourism in Nepal: fromimpacts to sustainability. In: Bisht H, Rajwar GS (eds) Tourismand Himalayan biodiversity. Transmedia, Srinagar, pp 15–34

Liu X, Chen B (2000) Climatic warming in Tibetan Plateau duringrecent decades. Int J Climatol 20:1729–1742

Loucks C, Rickets TH, Naidoo R, Lamoreux J, Hoekstra J (2008)Explaining the global pattern of protected area coverage: rela-tive importance of vertebrate biodiversity, human activities andagricultural suitability. J Biogeogr 35:1337–1348. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.01899.x

Maharana I, Rai SC, Sharma E (2000) Environmental economicsof the Khangchendzonga National Park in the Sikkim Hima-laya, India. GeoJournal 50:329–337

Martinez-Harms MJ, Gajardo R (2008) Ecosystem value in theWestern Patagonia protected areas. J Nat Conserv 16:72–87

McNeely JA (2004) Sustainable landscape—linking conservationand production. In: Joe D (ed) Millennium development goalsand conservation: managing nature’s wealth for society’shealth. International Institute for Environment and Develop-ment, London, pp 89–105

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and humanwell-being: synthesis. Published for World Resources Institute,Island, Washington, DC

Mittermeier RA, Gils PR, Hoffman M, Pilgrim J, Brooks T,Mittermeier CG, Lamoreaux J, da Fonseca GAB (2004)Hotspots revisited. Earth’s biologically richest and mostendangered terrestrial ecoregions. Cemex, Mexico City

Myers N (1988) Threatened biotas: ‘hot-spots’ in tropical forests.Environmentalist 8:187–208

Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Foseca GAB, KentJ (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.Nature 403(24):853–858

Naughton-Treves L, Holland MB, Brandon K (2005) The role ofprotected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining locallivelihoods. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:219–252

Nayak PK, Berkes F (2008) Politics of co-optation: communityforest management versus joint forest management in Orissa,India. Environ Manag 41:707–718. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9088-4

Nogues-Bravo D, Araujo MB, Errea MP, Martınez-Rica JP (2007)Exposure of global mountain systems to climate warmingduring the 21st century. Glob Environ Change 17:420–428

Nogues-Bravo D, Araujo MB, Romdal T, Rahbek C (2008) Scaleeffects and human impact on the elevational species richnessgradients. Nature 453(8):216–220

Olson DM, Dinerstein E (2002) The global 200: priority ecoregionsfor global conservation. Ann Mo Bot Gard 89:199–224

Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell-Mills N (2002) Selling forest envi-ronmental services: market-based mechanisms for conservationand development. Earthscan, London

Pai R, Datta S (2006) Measuring milestones. In: Proceedings of thenational workshop on joint forest management (JFM), NewDelhi, 17 October 2006. Ministry of Environment and Forest,Government of India and Winrock International, New Delhi,India. http://www.rupfor.org/downloadq/Proceedings.pdf

Pandit MK, Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Bhaskar A, Brook BW (2007)Unreported yet massive deforestation driving loss of endemicbiodiversity in Indian Himalaya. Biodivers Conserv 16:153–163

Pei S (1995) Banking on biodiversity: report on the regional con-sultations on biodiversity assessment in the Hindu KushHimalaya. ICIMOD, Kathmandu

Rhoades RE (1985) Farming on high. In: Tobias M (ed) Mountainpeoples. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, pp 39–44

Schild A (2008) The case of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: ICI-MOD’s position on climate change and mountain systems. MtRes Dev 28(3/4):328–331

922

Secretariat to the CBD (2004) Biodiversity issues for considerationin planning, establishment and management of protected areasites and networks. Technical Series No 15, Secretariat of theConvention of Biological Diversity, Montreal

Sharma E, Acharya R (2004) Summary report on mountain bio-diversity in the convention on biological diversity (CBD). MtRes Dev 24(3):63–65

Sharma E, Chettri N (2005) ICIMOD’s transboundary biodiversitymanagement initiative in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas. Mt ResDev 25(3):280–283

Sharma UR, Yonzon PB (2005) People and protected areas inSouth Asia. Resources Himalaya Foundation, Kathmandu andIUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, South Asia,Bangkok

Sharma E, Chettri N, Gyamtsho P (2006) Advances in communitybased natural resources management in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region. In: Gymtsho P, Singh BK, Rasul G (eds)Capitalisation and sharing of experiences on the interactionbetween forest policies and land use pattern in Asia, vol 2.ICIMOD, Kathmandu, pp 9–23. http://apps.icimod.org/elibrary/index.php/downloads/pd/17

Sharma E, Chettri N, Gurung J, Shakya B (2007) Landscape ap-proach in biodiversity conservation: a regional cooperationframework for implementation of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity in Kangchenjunga Landscape. ICIMOD, Kath-mandu. http://apps.icimod.org/elibrary/index.php/downloads/pd/501

Sharma E, Chettri N, Tsering K, Shrestha AB, Jing F, Mool P,Eriksson M (2009) Climate change impacts and vulnerability inthe Eastern Himalayas. ICIMOD Publication, Kathmandu.http://books.icimod.org/index.php/search/publication/675

Sherpa LN, Peniston B, Lama W, Richard C (2003) Hands aroundEverest: transboundary cooperation for conservation and sus-tainable livelihoods. International Centre for IntegratedMountain Development, Kathmandu

Sherpa M, Wangchuk S, Wikramanayake ED (2004) Creatingbiological corridors for conservation and development: a casestudy from Bhutan. In: Harmone D, Worboys GL (eds) Man-aging mountain protected areas: challenges and responses forthe 21st century. Andromeda, Colledara, Italy, pp 128–134

Shrestha AB, Wake CP, Mayewski PA, Dibb JE (1999) Maximumtemperature trend in the Himalaya and its vicinity: an analysisbased on temperature records from Nepal for the period 1971–’94. J Clim 12:2775–2786

Singh KD, Sinha B, Mukherji SD (2005) Exploring options forjoint forest management in India. Forest policy and institutionsworking paper. World Bank, WWF and ATREE, 23 pp

Spehn EM, Messerli B, Korner C (2002) A global assessment ofmountain biodiversity: synthesis. In: Mountain biodiversity.A global assessment. Parthenon, Boca Raton

Trisal C (2009) Wetland of the Hindu Kush Himalayas: ecosystemfunctions, services and implications of climate change. In:Sharma E (ed) Proceedings on international mountain biodi-versity conference, 16–18 November 2008. ICIMOD, Kath-mandu, pp 169–178

UNEP (1992) Convention on biological diversity. http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp. Accessed 13 Aug 2009

Viviroli D, Weingartner R (2004) Hydrological significance ofmountains: from regional to global scale. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci8(6):1016–1029

Whiteman D (2000) Mountain meteorology. Oxford UniversityPress, London

Wikramanayake E, Dinerstein E, Loucks CJ, Olson DM, MorrisonJ, Lamoreus JL, McKnight M, Hedao P (2002) Terrestrialecoregions of the Indo Pacific: a conservation assessment.Island, Washington, DC

Worboys GL, Francis W, Lockwood M (eds) (2010) Connectivityconservation management: a global guide. Earthscan Ltd,London, UK

WWF, ICIMOD (2001) Ecoregion-based conservation in theEastern Himalaya: identifying important areas for biodiversityconservation. WWF Nepal, Kathmandu

Xu J, Sharma R, Fang J, Xu Y (2008) Critical linkages betweenland-use transition and human health in Himalayan Region.Environ Int 34:239–247

Xu J, Grumbine ER, Shrestha A, Eriksson M, Yang X, Wang Y,Wilkes A (2009) The melting Himalayas: cascading effects ofclimate change on water, biodiversity, and livelihoods. ConservBiol 23(3):520–530

Yonzon P, Pradhan S, Bhujel R, Khaling S, Lachungpa U, Lach-ungpa C (2000) Kangchenjunga mountain complex: biodiver-sity assessment and conservation planning. WWF, Nepal,Kathmandu

Zimmerer KS, Galt RE, Buck MV (2004) Globalization and multi-spatial trends in the coverage of protected-area conservation(1980–2000). Ambio 33(8):520–529

923