draft 2 - zoï environment network
TRANSCRIPT
1
Ecosystem Profile
The Mountains of Central Asia
DRAFT 2.0
Do not cite! Do not quote!
Second Draft for Review
3 February 2017
Send your comments to [email protected] and [email protected] by
15 February 2017
2
On behalf of:
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF)
Drafted by the ecosystem profiling team:
Zoï Environment Network:
Viktor Novikov Regional team leader of the Ecosystem Profile preparation
Firuza Illarionova (PhD) Deputy team leader of the Ecosystem Profile preparation
Otto Simonett (PhD) Director and Supervisor
Geoff Hughes Editor and Writer
Aigerim Abduzhaparova Profile synthesis assistant
Matthias Beilstein Cartographer
Vlad Sibagatulin GIS expert and Cartographer
Maria Libert Creative Designer
CEPF supervisors:
Dan Rothberg Mountains of Central Asia supervisor and Grants Director
Olivier Langrand Executive Director
Jack Tordoff Grants Director
China expert team:
Jilili Abuduwaili (Prof.) Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences (team leader)
Nurbayi Abudushalike (Prof.) College of Environmental Sciences, Xinjiang University
Shen Hao (Dr. Candidate) Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences
Alimu Saimaiti (Prof.) Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences, GIS expert
Ma Long (Prof.) Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences
Kazakhstan expert team:
Kuralay Karibaeva (PhD) Institute of Ecology and Sustainable Development (team leader)
Arkadi Rodionov Institute of Ecology and Sustainable Development
Anatoli Mishenko Institute of Ecology and Sustainable Development, GIS expert
Sergey Sklyrenko (PhD) Association for Biodiversity Conservation of Kazakhstan (ABCK)
Kyrgyzstan expert team:
Biymyrza Toktoraliev (PhD) Academy of Sciences, International Institute of Mountains (team leader)
Kanybek Isabaev “Osh Aarhus Centre” NGO
Gamal Soronkulov “Chatkal Development Fund” NGO
Adilet Usupbaev (PhD) Academy of Sciences, Institute of Biology and Soil
Sergiy Kulagin Kyrgyz Wildlife Conservation Society
Bakyt Shamshiev (PhD) Osh Technical University
Kymbat Osmоnbaeva (PhD) Academy of Sciences, “Tien Shan” Mountain Centre
Pirzhan Manasov (PhD) Osh State University, Zoology and Ecology Department
Tajikistan expert team:
Neimatullo Safarov (PhD) Lab for Nature Protection (team leader)
Khisrav Shermatov National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center, GIS expert
Dilshoda Yakubova “Nature Protection Team” NGO
3
Uzbekistan expert team:
Roman Kashkarov (PhD) Uzbek Society for Birds Protection (science team leader)
Yulia Mitropolskaya (PhD) Academy of Sciences, Institute of Plants and Animals
Anna Ten “Djeyran” ecological center, GIS expert
Natalya Beshko (PhD) Academy of Sciences, Institute of Plants and Animals, Central herbarium
Irina Bekmirzaeva Independent biodiversity expert
Yusup Kamalov “Union for the Defense of the Aral Sea and Amu Darya” NGO
Turkmenistan expert team:
Djuma Saparmuradov (PhD) Desert Institute, State Committee on Nature Protection (team leader)
Amangul Ovezberdyyeva State Committee on Environment Protection and Land Resources
Shaniyaz Menliev Koytendag State Nature Reserve
Afghanistan contributors:
Wali Modaqiq National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA)
Richard Paley (PhD) Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
Jonathan Slaght (PhD) Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
Peter Zahler (PhD) Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
With inputs from consultations, interviews, questionnaires and correspondence:
China:
Xinjiang Branch, Chinese Academy of Sciences Xuekereti (Director)
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences Ge Yongxiao (Prof.)
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences Li Yu-fang (Dr. Candidate)
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences Aisha Jiang
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences Guan Kai-yun (Prof.)
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences Liu Wen-jiang (Prof.)
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences Li Yao-ming (Prof.)
Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Chen Ya-ning (Prof.);
Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Li Wei-hong
Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Guli Jiapaer (Prof.)
Grassland Ecological Station, Chinese Academy of Sciences Li Zhao-zhi (Prof.)
Mulei Wildlife Station, Chinese Academy of Sciences Yang Wei-kang (Prof.)
Botanical Association, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Zhang Yuan-ming (Prof.)
Botanical Association, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Zhang Dao-yuan (Prof.)
Zoological Society, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Abulimiti Abudukadir (Prof.)
Geographical Association, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Tashigen Japaer (Prof.)
Natural Resources Association, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Zhou Ke-fa (Prof.)
Xinjiang Academy of Environmental Protection Science Jaierken (Prof.)
Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University Ding Jian-li (Prof.)
Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University Ma Yong-gang (Assoc. Prof.)
College of Environmental Sciences, Xinjiang University Yusuyunjiang (Ph.D.)
College of Environmental Sciences, Xinjiang University Nuerjiamali (Ph.D.)
College of Environmental Sciences, Xinjiang University Zhao Xue-peng (Ph.D.)
College of Environmental Sciences, Xinjiang University Sheng Yong-cai (Ph.D.)
College of Environmental Sciences, Xinjiang University Feng Gang (Ph.D.)
College of Environmental Sciences, Xinjiang University Liu Yu-bin (Ph.D.)
4
College of Environment Sciences, Xinjiang University Ding Zhi-yong
College of Environment Sciences, Xinjiang University Pu Jia
College of Tourism, Xinjiang University Wahapu Halike
College of Geography and Tourism, Xinjiang Normal University Anniwaer (Prof.)
College of Geography and Tourism, Xinjiang Normal University Jiao Li (Prof.)
College of Grassland and Environment, Agricultural University Bater (Prof.)
Xinjiang State Department of Environmental Protection Mihereban
Import-Export of Endangered Species Center, State Forest Dept. Anniwaer Musha
Kazakhstan:
“Aarhus Centre of Almaty” Public Foundation Sergiy Oleksuk
“Aarhus centre of Burabay” Public Foundation Ekaterina Nikiforova
“Accord”, eco-tourism company Alexey Mitin
“Akbulak” company Nilsia Rahisheva
“Altai” Public Foundation Altai Zhatkanbaev
“Avalon” Public Foundation Vitaly Shuptar
“Biogen” NGO Serik Makashev
“Business Arsenal” Public Foundation Zein Kabikeev
“Eco Forum Kazakhstan” NGO Vadim Nee
“Eco-Atameken” NGO Gulnara Niyazova
“Eco-Gradient” NGO Zharkinbek Dongulov
“Ecological Culture” Public Foundation Eugenie Klimov
“Ecology-Youth-Initiative-Development” Public Foundation Vadim Litvinov
“Ecom” Public Foundation Svetlana Mogiluk
“Farmer of Kazakhstan” NGO Gulnara Bekturova
“Farmer of Kazakhstan” NGO Vladimir Levin
“Farmer of Kazakhstan” NGO Akhmet Mukhtarov
“Farmer of Kazakhstan” NGO Alik Sagundykov
“Farmer of Kazakhstan” NGO Turuspay Baishelekov
“Farmer of Kazakhstan” NGO Yerzhan Zharykpasov
“Green Academy” NGO Bakhyt Yessekina
“Green Salvation” NGO Kamshat Jegtmberdieva
“Green Salvation” NGO Sergey Kuratov
“Green Women” NGO Lidia Astanina
“Green Orda” NGO Maksut Zhaksibaev
“Gulistan” journal Batima Kabdoldanova
“Jabagly-Manas” Public Association Rauf Sabitov
“Makhaon” NGO Svetlana Belova
“Medeu” Nature Park Bezhan Atakulov
“Naurzum” NGO / WWF project partner in Kazakhstan Tatiana Bragina
“Snow Leopard Foundation” NGO, Ust-Kemen Oleg Loginov
Aksu-Zhabagly nature reserve Aitbek Menlibekov
Almaty Forest Center Sanat Baimukhanbetov
Almaty Province, Department for nature protection Naziya Aukhinova
Almaty State Nature Reserve Kuvat Baiturbaev
Almaty State Nature Reserve Altynbek Zhanysbayev
Altyn-Emel national park Khalyk Bayadilov
Association for Biodiversity Conservation of Kazakhstan (ABCK) Oleg Lukanovsky
Association for Biodiversity Conservation of Kazakhstan (ABCK) Vera Voronova
5
Charyn national park Elnur Akhmetov
GIS-Terra Natalia Ogar
Ile-Alatay national park Rustam Habibrahmanov
Institute of Botany Kapar Ussen
Institute of Geography Ainagul Abitbayeva
Institute of Geography Medeu Akhmetkal (Dr.)
Institute of Geography Ainagul Abitbayeva
Institute of Soil Science and Agronomy Abdulla Saparov
Institute of Soil Science and Agronomy Olga Erokhina
Institute of Soil Science and Agronomy Aigul Omirzakova
Institute of Zoology Perizat Esenbekova
Institute of Zoology Alexey Grachev
Institute of Zoology Yury Grachev
International Environmental Association of Women of the East Rashida Rakhmanova
Karatau State Nature Reserve Zhasar Adilbayev
Kazakh National Committee of the UNESCO «Man and Biosphere» Roman Yashenko
Kazakh National Committee of the UNESCO «Man and Biosphere» Irina Kovshar
Kazakhstan Agro-forestry Association Evgeniy Salnikov
Kazakhstan Hunters and Fisherman Society Sergei Sokolov
Kazakhstan Hunters and Fisherman Society, "Kansonar" association Sergey Kulikov
Kazakhstan Hunters and Fisherman Society, "Kansonar" association Viktor Manushkov
Kazakhstan National Agrarian University Aibyn Torekhanov
Kazakhstan National Agrarian University Bayan Yesperova
Kazakhstan Research Institute on Forestry Nurim Seysebek
Kazakhstan Research Institute on Forestry Zhambyl Mykytanov
Kazakhstan Research Institute on Forestry Bakitman Aydarov
Kazakhstan Research Institute on Forestry Auezkhan Dzhakashev
KazHydromet, climate department Svetlana Dolgikh
KazTransGaz company Yerbol Tokhtarov
Kolsay Kolderi national park Amirzhan Malybekov
Ministry of Agriculture Bakytbek Duisekeyev
Ministry of Agriculture Kayrat Ustemirov
Ministry of Energy, climate department Gulmira Sergazina
Ministry of Energy, GEF F. P. Ganiy Sadibekov
Ministry of Energy, Green Economy Department Bekbergen Kerey
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Kaisar Karbozin
Oil and Gas Journal Esengul Arys
Sairam-Ugam national park Askar Nyazov
Zhongar-Alatau national park Rustem Vaggpov
Zhongar-Alatau national park Sayat Igembayev
Kyrgyzstan:
“Aikol-Bulak” Public Foundation Zoya Normatova
“Alan-Too” jamaat Nurbolot Turgunaliev
“Aleine+” Ecological Movement Erik Shukurov
“Aleine+” Ecological Movement Emil Shukurov
“Alliance of Central Asian Mountain Communities AGOCA” Zarina Khudonazarova
“Alliance of Central Asian Mountain Communities AGOCA” Akylbek Rahmanberdi
“Archa Initiative” Public Foundation Dmirty Vetoshkin
6
“Beyme-Bet” newspaper Tamara Kashirskaya
“Biom” Ecological movement, chair Vladimir Korotenko
“Biom” Ecological movement Alfia Nasyrova
“Bishkek Aarhus Centre” Public Foundation Tamara Toktonolieva
“Bishkek Aarhus Centre” Public Foundation Adil Nurbekov
“Bugu-Maral” and Naryn State Nature Reserve Ulanbek Naamatbekov
“CAMP Alatoo” NGO Azamat Isakov
“CAMP Alatoo”, NGO Batjargul Elbegrayv
“Chintamani” Public Foundation Valentina Galich
“Chunkur Tor” NGO Tinchtik Djursunov
“Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations” NGO Adash Toktosunova
“Eco-Guide” NGO Aida Kenensarieva
“Ecological Development” Public Foundation Zhildiz Murzabekova
“Eco-Solidarity” NGO Orunbek Kalanov
“Global and Local Information Partnership GLIP” NGO, WWF partner Farida Balbakova
“Global and Local Information Partnership GLIP” NGO, WWF partner Azat Alamanov
“Joon-Terek” hunting concession Pamir Badyrov
“Joon-Terek” hunting concession Otto Griiz
“Lesik-South” Public Foundation Sherikbay Shaimkulov
“Lesik-South” Public Foundation Davlet Mamadjanov
“Min teke”, “Tekelik” and “Taldi-Suu” jamaat Abdikadir Isaev
“Min teke”, “Tekelik” and “Taldi-Suu” jamaat Mamatyekut Zhusupov
“Mountain tour” hunting concession Vladimir Maizer
“Muras Bashaty” Public Foundation Askarbek Tulobaev
“Orchun” jamaat Ashim Chataev
“Pantera” NGO Zairbek Kubanichbekov
“Public Ecological Expertise” NGO Oleg Pechenuk
“Public Ecological Expertise” NGO Zulfizar Mirdjalaloba
“Public Ecological Expertise” NGO Inna Konuhova
“Shumkar Tor” NGO Urmat Abikanov
“Tabiat-Life” NGO Kairat Moldoshev
“Tabyat-South”, Public Foundation Kutman Stamaliev
“Tree of Life” NGO Kalia Moldogasieva
“White crow studio”, founder and lead cartoonist Ruslan Valitov
“Ysyk-Kolbashaty” Association, Issyk Kul State University Anara Kudaybergenova
Association of Forest and Land users Aitkul Burkhanov
Central Asia Institute of the Applied Sciences CAIAG Ernis Kylychbaev
Chon-Kemin State Nature Park Kanatbek Dabaev
Department Agricultural Sector and Ecology, Kyrgyz Government Mairambek Kalybaev
Ecological Information Portal “EKO-IS” Indira Zhakypova
Ecological Information Portal “EKO-IS” Irina Bairamokova
Institute of biology and soil, Academy of Sciences Askar Davletbakov
Jalal-Abad society of hunters and fishermen Ismailov Aibek
Kyrgyz climate change network Zarina Abdusalimova
Kyrgyz wildlife conservation society Nadezhda Tromchenko
Kyrgyz mining association Valentin Bogdetsky
Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University, “Sustainable nature use” Association Elena Rodina
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Daniiar Omurzakov
Naryn State Nature Reserve Joldoshbek Kirbashev
7
Regional Center of Expertise Chinara Sadykova
Regional Mountain Centre Ysmail Dairov
Rural Development Fund Zakhifa Omorbekova
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry, GEF F.P. Abdykallyk Rustamov
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry Arsen Ryspekov
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry Kumar Mambetaliev
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry Elmira Kachiberova
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry Adylbek Ormonov
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry Almaz Musaev
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry Aigul Turdumatova
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry Baglan Salikmambetova
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry Venera Surapaeva
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry Jyldyz Duishenova
Tien-Shan Research Centre, Academy of Sciences Risbek Satilkanov
Tajikistan: “Afforestation” NGO Ikromzoda Madibron
“Alternative” NGO Aziza Shomansurova
“Association for the protection of forests and wildlife” NGO Shodibek Kurbonov
“Association of smallholder farmers” NGO Nazara Vadud
“Association of smallholder farmers” NGO Azizbek Sharipov
“Association of smallholder farmers” NGO Shoh Sharipov
“Avesto” NGO Firuza Abdullaeva
“Azal” NGO Azal Nazarov
“Bonu” NGO Nasiba Mirpotchoeva
“CAMP Kukhiston” NGO Davlatbek Davlatov
“CAMP Kukhiston” NGO Umeda Rahimova
“CAMP Tabiat” NGO Dilbar Zevarova
“CAMP Tabiat” NGO Umed Balbushoev
“Dushanbe Aarhus Centre” Public Foundation Sulhiya Sadikova
“Elyor” NGO Khatira Yusupova
“Foundation for Support of Civil Initiatives FSCI” NGO Muazama Burkhanova
“Genetic Resources” NGO Mavlon Pulodov
“Genetic Resources” NGO Zebuniso Muminshoeva
“Globe” NGO Timur Unusov
“Globe” NGO Umed Ulugov
“Hamkori Bahri Taraqiyot” NGO Kurbonali Partoev
“Hamkori Bahri Taraqiyot” NGO Kurbonali Melikov
“Jovid” NGO Ramazon Nurmamadov
“Khorog Aarhus-Centre” NGO Boimamad Alibakhshev
“Komroni” local eco-agriculture producer Sabzali Bozorov
“Komroni” local eco-agriculture producer Shamsuddin Shoir
“Kukhiston” Public Foundation Dilshod Dadabaev
“Kukhiston” Public Foundation Sveta Blagoveshenskaya
“Kurgan-Tube Aarhus-Centre” NGO Munira Rahmatulloeva
“Little Earth” NGO Natalia Idrisova
“Little Earth” NGO Timur Idrisov
“Little Earth” NGO Musavvara Shukurova
“Nature Protection Team” NGO Zayniddin Amirov
8
“Noosfera” NGO Tatiana Novikova
“Noosfera” NGO Kurbonali Fatkhulloev
“Parastor” NGO Rano Kasimova
“Ruhafzo” Public Association Chamish Barotov
“Shifo” NGO Nargiza Shohmansurova
“Surkhob” NGO Saidali Saidrakhmonov
“Tajik Social and Ecological Union” NGO Anvar Buzurukov
“Women for Science and Progress” NGO Kumiyo Negmatjanova
“Youth Ecological Center” NGO Yuri Skochilov
“Youth of the new century” NGO Rustem Tahirov
“Zan va Zamin” NGO Muhabbat Mamadalieva
“Zumrad” NGO Hurshed Dadabaev
Academy of Agricultural Sciences Gulniso Nekushoeva
Academy of Science Abdusattor Saidov
Academy of Science Komil Saidov
Academy of Sciences Muzafar Isobaev
Academy of Sciences, Centre of innovative biology Shavkat Saidmuradov
Agency of Hydrometology Suhrob Olimov
Agency on Forests and Hunting, Department of Protected Areas Madibron Saidov
Agency on Forests and Hunting, Department of Protected Areas Ubaidullo Arramov
Center on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction Lutfiya Mansurshoeva
Center on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction Svetalana Dzhumaeva
Committee on Environmental Protection Rakhmatullo Khairulloev
Committee on Environmental Protection Zafar Makhmudov
Committee on Environmental Protection Shahlo Azizbekova
Committee on Environmental Protection Zukhra Salimova
Committee on Environmental Protection Muzaffar Salimov
Committee on Environmental Protection, “Inson va Tabiat” magazine Jamoliddin Yakubov
Committee on Environmental Protection, “Inson va Tabiat” magazine Kholov Bakhtovar
Committee on Environmental Protection, Department on flora and fauna Vatanov Djamshed
Committee on Environmental Protection, Department on flora and fauna Ibrohim Giesov
Committee on Environmental Protection, Department on flora and fauna Kodir Maskaev
International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS), Tajik Branch Firuz Davlatov
Interstate Commission on Water Coordination (ICWC), Tajik Branch Malika Babajanova
Interstate Sustainable Development Commission (ICSD), Tajik Branch Jalil Buzrukov
Kulob Botanical Garden Tillo Boboev
Kulob Botanical Garden Mario Boboev
National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center Vladimir Lekarkin
National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center Sukhrob Irgashev
National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center Dilovarsho Dustov
National Cartography Centre Mirzo Saidov
Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR), Tajik Secretariat Anvar Homidov
Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR), Tajik Secretariat Firuz Saidov
Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR), Tajik Secretariat Salima Imomnazarova
Tajik Forest Service Akbar Bobokalonov
Tajik Forest Service Emomali Nasimov
Tajik Forest Service Shirin Rahmonshoeva
Tajik National University, Botany Department Safarbek Rakhimov
Tajik National University, Zoology department Ismail Holmatov
9
Uzbekistan:
“Aral Sea” GEF Executive Agency Odilbek Eschanov
“Armon” Environmental Law Center Dilbar Zainutdinova
“Association of mahalla elders of Samarkand” NGO Halil Shadiev
“Bioversity” NGO Muhabbat Turdieva
“Children and adults” NGO Tatiana Chabrova
“Contact” NGO Edda Avdeeva
“Contact” NGO Naumov Sergei
“Ekomaktab” NGO Ruzimuhammad Sultanov
“Ekomaktab” NGO / WWF and FSC project partner in Uzbekistan Natalia Shivaldova
“For Ecologically Clean Fergana” NGO Ibragimjon Domuladjanov
“Hangul” NGO Leilya Belyalova
“Journalism Training Center” NGO Gulnara Babajanova
“Life” NGO Hasan Tursunov
“Logos” NGO Saidrasul Sanginov
“Makhaon” NGO Svetlana Belova
“Phasianus” student ornithological club Maksim Mitropolskii
“Suvchi” NGO Takhir Majidov
“Zarafshan” NGO Gauhar Deusheva
“Ziyorat” Tourism Development Centre Abror Rozyhodjaev
Academy of Sciences, Institute of the Gene Pool of Plants and Animals Komiljon Tojibaev
Academy of Sciences, Institute of the Gene Pool of Plants and Animals Maria Gritsina
Academy of Sciences, Institute of the Gene Pool of Plants and Animals Alexander Esipov
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Rakhmatulla Nazarov
State Committee for Nature Protection Nodir Yunusov
State Committee for Nature Protection Zulfiya Yarullina
State Committee of Nature Protection, GEF F.P. Bahtiyor Abdusamatov
Uzbek Hydrometeorological Service Raisa Taryanikova
Uzbek Hydrometeorological Service Natalia Shulgina
Uzbek Hydrometeorological Service, GEF F.P. Sergey Myagkov
Turkmenistan:
“Arhus Centre of Turkmenistan” NGO Viktoria Akopova
“Green Movement of Turkmenistan” NGO Guljamal Nurmuhammedova
“Tebigy Kuwwat” NGO Nazar Korpeev
“Turkmen heritage” NGO Chary Shirliyev
“Тoranny” NGO Gurbanahmed Abdurahmanov
Interstate Sustainable Development Commission, Secretariat Batyr Mamedov
Koytendag State Nature Reserve Nurmuhamad Imamov
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources Kerim Saparov
National Red Crescent Society of Turkmenistan Zuhra Elliyeva
Society of nature protection of Lebap Chary Hodjamberdyev
Society of nature protection of Mary Kakadjan Seiitliyev
Society of nature protection of Turkmenistan Akmuhammed Ibragimov
Society of nature protection of Turkmenistan Serdar Allekov
State Committee for Environment Protection and Land Resources Mergen Yusupov
State Committee on Environmental Protection and Land Resources, GEF F.P. Batyr Ballyyev
Turkmenistan Society of Hunters and Fishermen Rejepmuhamed Orazmuradov
10
With inputs from and coordination with:
Terra Consilium UNEP Office in Central Asia
Penny Langhammer (PhD) Natalia Alexeeva
Holarctic Bridges Forest Stewardship Council
Elena Kreuzberg (PhD) Mariama Matila
WWF Flora Fauna International (FFI)
Olga Pereladova (PhD) Ubaid Gulamadshoev
Ekaterina Vorobyeva
Dan Cao (PhD)
World Bank CAREC
Mannon Cassara Iskandar Abdullaev (Kazakhstan)
Sachin Shahria
Andrea Kutter
Bobojon Yatimov
Andrew Mitchell
Talimjan Urazov
Angela Armstrong
Daniel Kull
Government of Japan and JICA
Keiichiro Onishi
Akiko Tabata
Ikuyo Kaseda
Malik Mukhitdinov
Azizbek Sattorov
Shynar Toilybayeva (Kazakhstan)
Saltanat Zhakenova (Kazakhstan)
Saniya Kartayeva (Kazakhstan)
Meder Seitkasymov (Kyrgyzstan)
Natalya Mustaeva (Kazakhstan)
Shakhboz Akhmedov (Kazakhstan)
Ludmila Kiktenko (Kazakhstan)
Farkhod Abdurakhmonov (Tajikistan)
Dovlet Jumagulyyev (Turkmenistan)
FAO
Oleg Guchgeldiyev
Cholpon Alibakieva
Giovanni Munoz
GEF Small Grant Programme UNDP
Evgenia Postnova (Kyrgyzstan) Yerlan Zhumabayev (Kazakhstan)
Alexei Volkov (Uzbekistan)
Katerina Yushenko (Kazakhstan)
Khurshed Kholov (Tajikistan)
Talgat Kerteshev (Kazakhstan)
Lira Joldubaeva (Kyrgyzstan)
Vladimir Grebnev (Kyrgyzstan)
Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem
Protection Program (GLEP) Secretariat
American University in Central Asia
Ilya Domashev Jildiz Nicharapova
Chingiz Kochorov Aigul Kadralieva
Snow Leopard Trust Christensen Fund
Koustubh Sharma (Dr.) Erjen Khamaganova
Yash Kur Bhebnagar (Dr.)
EU Delegations in Central Asia Aga Khan Network, FOCUS and MSDP
Doniyor Kuchkarov (Uzbekistan) Bakhtiyor Azizmamadov
Emil Dankov (Tajikistan) Roza Kurbonova
Zulfia Davlatbekova (Tajikistan) Kishwar Abdulalishoev
Alia Baidebekova (Kazakhstan) Rajabali Zaripov
Jean-Louis Lavroff (Kazakhstan) Ruslan Bobov
Thierry Deloge (Kazakhstan) Faridun Nazriev
Mia-Fatima Dubois-Boussaid (Kyrgyzstan) Gulomsho Lutfaliev
11
European Union in Brussels GIZ
Berenice Muraille Andre Fabian
Andreja Skerl Umed Vakhobov
Hanna Vuokko Claudia Haller
Piotr Byczkowski Caroline Milow
Dimitrios Zevgolis Maya Eralieva
ADB ACTED
Gulsun Farosatshoeva (Tajikistan) Rano Mansurova
Tulan Rustamov
Mercy Corps NABU
Khurshed Oymatov (Tajikistan) Saltorel Saparbayev
SDC Swiss Federal Office for the Environment
Regina Gujan (Tajikistan) Stefan Schwager
Thomas Walder Gabriela Blatter
André Wehrli
INERNEWS US Government and USAID
Malik Kadirov Deborah Robinson
Sheroz Sharipov Ellen Veronica Connorton
Farhod Rahmatov Gulzada Azhetova (Kazakhstan)
Italian Ministry of Environment Environment Agency Austria Massimo Cozzone Fritz Kroiss
European Environment Agency
David Stanners
12
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
2. BACKGROUND
3. BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE HOTSPOT
3.1. Geography, Climate, and History
3.2. Habitats and Ecosystems
3.3. Species Diversity and Endemism
4. CONSERVATION OUTCOMES
5. SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT
5.1. Population
5.2. Income
5.3. Reliance on Natural Resources
5.4. Cultural Distinctions
5.5. Gender Issues
5.6. Links to the CEPF Monitoring Framework
6. POLICY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT
6.1. Governance
6.2. Policies on Economic Development
6.3. Management of Natural Resources
6.4. Legal and Institutional Policy Framework on Conservation
6.5. Ownership and Management of Sites and Landscapes
6.6. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans
6.7. Links to the CEPF Monitoring Framework
7. CIVIL SOCIETY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT
7.1. China
7.2. Kyrgyzstan
7.3. Tajikistan
7.4. Kazakhstan
7.5. Uzbekistan
7.6. Turkmenistan
7.7. Afghanistan
7.8. Links to the CEPF Monitoring Framework
8. THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY IN THE HOTSPOT
8.1. Direct Drivers
13
8.2. Indirect Drivers (Root Causes)
8.3. Summary of Threats by Country
8.4. Links to the CEPF Monitoring Framework
9. CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT
9.1. Impacts on Human Populations and the Economy
9.2. Impacts on Biodiversity
9.3. Mitigation and Adaption Opportunities
9.4. Review of Major Climate Change Initiatives
10. ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONSERVATION INVESTMENT
10.1. Governmental Funding
10.2. Multilateral and Bilateral Donors
10.3 Foundations
10.4 Other Donors
10.5 Summary of Investment by Country
10.6 Thematic Distribution of Investment
10.7 Gap Analysis
11. CEPF Niche for Investment
12. CEFP INVESTMENT STRATEGY
12.1. Species Priorities
12.2. Key Biodiversity Area Priorities
12.3. Landscape Priorities
12.4. CEPF Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities
13. SUSTAINABILITY
Abbreviations
References
Appendices
14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Background
The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is designed to safeguard the world’s
biologically richest and most threatened regions, known as biodiversity hotspots. It is a
joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement (AFD), Conservation
International (CI), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Government of Japan,
the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the World Bank.
CEPF is unique among funding mechanisms in that it focuses on biological areas rather
than political boundaries and examines conservation threats on a landscape-scale basis.
From this perspective, CEPF seeks to identify and support a regional rather than
national approach to achieving conservation outcomes, and engages a wide range of
public and private institutions to address conservation needs through coordinated
regional efforts. CEPF has implemented 23 hotspot strategies, created 13 million
hectares in protected areas, supported 2,000 grantees, and committed US $191 million
in grants that leveraged an additional US $347 million funding.
A fundamental purpose of CEPF is to engage civil society in biodiversity conservation
in the hotspots, and to support efforts that complement existing strategies and programs
of national governments and other conservation funders. To this end, CEPF promotes
working alliances among diverse groups, combining unique capacities and reducing
duplication of effort for a comprehensive, coordinated approach to conservation. One
way in which CEPF does this is through preparation of ecosystem profiles that articulate
a five-year investment strategy informed by a detailed situational analysis.
In 2016, CEPF came together with the European Union and other members of its Donor
Council to discuss common interests with regard to investments in the Mountains of
Central Asia biodiversity hotspot, and donors agreed to fund the ecosystem profile
preparation. The profile process was launched in May 2016, and concludes in May
2017.
The purposes of the ecosystem profile are to provide an overview of biodiversity
conservation in the Mountains of Central Asia biodiversity hotspot, to present an
analysis of the priorities for action, and to strengthen the constituency for conservation
in the region. In doing so, the profile lays out a framework for the implementation of the
CEPF grant-making program, which will run for about five years from 2017 to 2022,
and which defines a broad conservation agenda in the region. The profile intends to
encourage more stakeholders to engage with and support this agenda.
Zoï Environment Network was mandated by the CEPF secretariat to coordinate the
Central Asia Mountains ecosystems profile process, consulting with more than 500
stakeholders through workshops, field visits, meetings and email correspondence. The
resulting document is a collaborative product of the foremost regional experts,
representing civil society, government, academia and the donor community.
The thematic priorities for conservation investment in the hotspot were defined through
the stakeholder consultations and based on an analysis of the main threats to
biodiversity in the hotspot and the root causes of those threats. The highest ranked
15
threats were habitat change and overexploitation, both of which threaten species with
extinction and affect wider ecosystems. The analysis also identified climate change as a
significant and long-term challenge. The national economies and the livelihoods of rural
people in the region depend on the services provided by natural ecosystems, and the
threats to biodiversity extend to them as well.
To respond to these and other threats, and to begin to address some of the root causes,
CEPF formulated an investment niche comprising 9 investment priorities grouped into
30 strategic directions. CEPF will consult with civil society and government
stakeholders and its donor partners to further develop the investment strategy to
establish the basis for coordinated investment.
The ecosystem profile defines a suite of measurable conservation measures or
outcomes, at the species, site and landscape levels, and assesses current conservation
investment. The ecosystem profile then goes on to present an investment strategy for
CEPF and other funders interested in supporting conservation efforts led by civil
society.
The CEPF investment strategy comprises a series of strategic directions, broken down
into a number of investment priorities outlining the types of activities that will be
eligible for CEPF funding. Civil society organizations may propose projects that will
help implement the strategy by addressing at least one strategic direction. The
ecosystem profile does not include specific project concepts, as civil society groups will
develop these as part of their applications for CEPF grant funding.
The biological basis for CEPF investment in the Mountains of Central Asia hotspot is
provided by conservation outcomes: the quantifiable set of species, sites and landscapes
that must be conserved to reduce biodiversity loss globally. In order to direct investment
by CEPF and other funders effectively, the species, site and landscape outcomes were
prioritized through the stakeholder consultations, considering urgency of conservation
action and opportunity to enhance existing conservation efforts and plans, including the
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and the Aichi targets.
CEPF makes grants to civil society organizations, which are defined as organizations
outside of government – NGOs; community groups; academic institutions; business,
trade and socio-political organizations. For CEPF, understanding the interests, capacity
and needs of civil society in Central Asia is as important as understanding its
biodiversity. Although CEPF makes grants to civil society, government plays a critical
role in conservation and is always a partner in its efforts.
The ecosystem profile describes biodiversity conservation actions needed in the
mountains of Central Asia by defining conservation outcomes defined at three levels –
species, sites and corridors. The outcomes are defined for species of conservation
concern, which principally means those that are considered by the International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List to be globally threatened: critically
endangered, endangered and vulnerable. During stakeholder consultation participants
also recommended inclusion of several near threatened species.
16
2. CEPF investment niche
One clear investment niche in the mountains of Central Asia biodiversity hotspot entails
the application of CEPF global experience to support the continuing economic transition
in the region in a highly dynamic geopolitical environment. In the wake of the collapse
of the Soviet Union, the countries of Central Asia experienced a gradual decline in
funding for conservation activities. China, in contrast, has experienced economic and
population growth, has increased its support for protected areas, and is planning major
investments in infrastructure in Central Asia to re-vitalize the ancient Silk Route.
Booming energy, mining, and infrastructure projects and trade links all require due
consideration and safeguards for globally significant biodiversity.
A second niche recognizes that the predominantly young population of the region needs
support through CSOs for education and awareness-raising activities. Conservation
CSOs in the region also need support to improve their capacities. With its broad
overview of the hotspot and access to global expertise, CEPF can make investment in
this niche more interesting and effective by employing its convening power to build
partnerships, reach out to the broad public, and improve local skills and expertise in the
conservation field.
A number of elements come together in the hotspot to suggest that cross-border
initiatives would make an important investment niche. The history of cooperation
between China and Central Asia and the growing cooperation and dialogue with
Afghanistan on the environment lay the foundation for cross-frontier work. Numerous
KBAs lie near borders and many key species are migratory. CEPF can invest in the
hotspot by taking advantage of existing cooperation and by focusing on landscape and
migratory species, near-border priority KBAs, and cross-frontier corridors. CEPF can
also help reveal and articulate the cross-border climate change threats and support the
region in leveraging climate resiliency funding for conservation of ecosystems and
species.
Key themes The CEPF strategic directions lay out the investment roadmap for prospective projects.
These strategic directions include addressing the threats to high-value and priority
species and improving the management of Key Biodiversity Areas. Resource-dependent
communities throughout the region rely on the mountain forests for sustenance, energy,
food, income, and livelihoods, and the people of the region regard the forests as
essential to their survival and protection against disasters. Thus, the support for
conservation and sustainable management of mountain forests is an investment theme
that takes into consideration that all mountain and riparian forests of the region are
officially protected ecosystems.
The stakeholders with the greatest resources and capacity, and with long-term interests
in production landscapes and ecological services include certain associations and
economic sectors. In addition, civil society organizations report that they need
strengthened management, fundraising and skills, and also note that they often lack the
knowledge and experience to tackle some of the most important threats to the
conservation in the region. An additional set of strategic directions therefore focuses on
engaging communities of interest and economic sectors in the conservation of KBAs
and landscapes, on enhancing civil society capacity for effective conservation action,
17
and on conducting targeted education, training and awareness raising to build capacity
and support for biodiversity conservation.
The countries in the region all take climate change seriously, and are interested in
adaptation, but knowledge of the connections between climate change and ecosystems
remains weak. Many of the protected areas and KBAs in the hotspot lie on or near a
border. Conducting work in these border areas can be complicated by difficult access
and national security concerns. An inability or unwillingness to work collaboratively
across borders may result in these vital biodiversity areas being ignored. The integration
of biodiversity priorities into regional and local climate change actions is another theme,
as is supporting cross-border collaboration, experience exchange, and information
sharing on biodiversity.
3. Biological importance
The Mountains of Central Asia hotspot consists of two of Asia’s major mountain
ranges, the Pamir and the Tien Shan. These are situated within southeastern Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, northwestern China, northeastern Afghanistan, and
a small part of Turkmenistan. The mountains above 7,000 meters include Muztag,
Kongur, Somoni, Khan Tenrgi, and Lenin Peak, while the lowest point is the Turpan
oasis in China at 150 meters below sea level.
The mountains of Central Asia are crucial to the maintenance of the natural and
agricultural global biodiversity. The vertical distribution of species by elevation results
in a wide range of species and ecosystems spread over a relatively small surface area.
The region harbors genetic resources of the wild species of several domesticated plants
and animals such as wheat, apples, pears, almonds, walnuts and pistachios, as well as
horses and goats, and are host to more than 30 distinct ecosystems.
Flora The flora of the Mountains of Central Asia is a mix of Boreal, Siberian, Mongolian,
Indo-Himalayan and Iranian elements. Because of their location in the central part of the
Asian continent, the mountains of Central Asia play an important connecting role in the
distribution of many important Asian species. There are more than 5,500 known species
of vascular plants in the hotspot, about 1,500 of which are endemics, with such high-
endemism as Eremurus, Allium, Tulipa, Akonitum, Cousinia, Astragalus and Sossurea.
Desert, semi-desert, and arid steppe vegetation types predominate on all the lower
slopes, foothills, and in some of the outlying ranges. Steppe communities, dominated by
various species of grasses and herbs, occur at higher altitudes.
A type of wild fruit-and-nut forest unique to Central Asia grows above the steppe zone
in warm, sheltered places in the Pamir and Tien Shan. These diverse forests are
composed of wild pears, plums, cherry, apple, walnut, almonds, and maples. Spruce and
birch forests that include endemic species occur in the Tien Shan, while juniper forests
are more common in the Pamir-Alai at altitudes between 1,000 meters and 2,700 meters.
Forest cover in the hotspot ranges between 3 and 7 percent of the land area, and all the
hotspot countries are considered low forest cover countries. The mountain and riverside
forest ecosystems have legal protection status that forbids any commercial forest
18
exploitation and regulates other economic activities.
Subalpine and alpine meadows occur at 2,000-4,000 meters and above, mainly in the
humid northern and western parts of the hotspot. Plant cover is high, with a tight sward
made up of grasses and sedges, and carpeted with a rich variety of herbs including many
endemic species. Biodiversity declines rapidly as one approaches the upper limits of
plant cover where cushion plants and those with low rosettes that can withstand the high
winds, cold temperatures, and aridity become more common.
Fauna The hotspot holds a variety of mountain ungulates, including three endemic subspecies
of the argali wild sheep, among them the Marco Polo sheep, whose magnificent curling
horns have made it a favored target of international trophy hunters.
There are about 140 mammals found in the hotspot, including iconic endemic species of
Menzibier's marmot found in the Western Tien Shan, and Ili pika in the Chinese portion
of the Tien Shan. Perhaps the best-known symbol of regional fauna is the snow leopard.
Although nearly 500 bird species occur in the hotspot, none are endemic to the region.
The mountains of Central Asia are an important stronghold for birds of prey, with
globally significant populations of several species, including the golden eagle, the
imperial eagle, steppe eagle, booted eagle, lammergeier, black vulture, Eurasian griffon,
Himalayan griffon, peregrine falcon and saker falcon.
Nearly 60 reptiles are found in the hotspot, though there are few endemics. Their
diversity is highest at lower elevations, in desert and semi-desert areas.
Although only eight species of amphibians have been recorded, half of them are
regional and local endemics, including a salamander found only in the isolated parts of
the Jungar range shared by Kazakhstan and China.
This hotspot has less than 30 native fish species, at least five of which are endemic. One
of the most remarkable is Koytendag blind cave fish found only in a cave system of the
Koytendag Mountains of Turkmenistan. A large number of fish species are introduced.
4. Threats A steady rise in the human population and domestic livestock has increased pressure on
the environment. Political and economic changes in Central Asia have led to intensified
use of natural resources to meet peoples’ needs. Afghanistan has experienced decades-
long civil war that has been devastating for the people, economy and the environment.
But its Wakhan Valley is one of the exceptions, where conflict and insecurity did not
directly affect the people or harm the natural resources, though its remoteness and
limited control, poverty and low level of development contribute to the elevated threat
levels to biodiversity. In Chinese Xingjian skyrocketing development led to the intense
use of resources.
Habitat change The Convention on Biological Diversity notes that habitat change has been the most
important driver of terrestrial ecosystem changes over the past 50 years. In the
mountains of Central Asia hotspot, most of the land in the lowland semi-deserts and
19
foothills has been converted to agricultural use, mainly for cultivation of cotton, cereals
and other crops. The agricultural conversion has resulted in the loss of grasslands and
semi-deserts and has diminished soil fertility. Poor water management and irrigation
practices, together with pollution from the overuse of fertilizers and pesticides have
further degraded soil productivity.
Climate change The long-term effects of global warming pose a threat to the biodiversity of the
mountains of Central Asia both directly as an independent cause of disruption and
change and indirectly in synergy with other threats. The Mountains of Central Asia
biodiversity hotspot is home to globally important agro-biodiversity, and harbors wild
relatives of important agricultural crops and domesticated fruit and nut trees. These wild
species possess resistance and tolerance to pests, diseases and climatic stresses, and
some are likely to be well adapted to changing climatic conditions.
Invasive alien species The Convention on Biological Diversity reports that invasive species can change the
species composition of ecosystems, and that increased travel, trade and tourism have in
turn increased the rate of species introductions. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan
all report the grey rat, myna, and squirrel as invasive, and Tajikistan and Kazakhstan
also note an increase in non-native tree species due to unregulated afforestation, the
expansion of gardens and reforestation. Kyrgyzstan waters, including its biological
jewel and major tourist attraction – Issyk Kul Lake – are compromised by introduced
fish species and illegal overfishing.
Overexploitation of species and ecosystems Poaching, especially of larger mammals and birds, is an issue in the region. High-value
mountain ungulates are killed or captured for profit. Falcons are exported to the Middle
East, where they fetch a high price when sold to falconers.
Unregulated collection of plants poses a direct threat to globally threatened and
restricted-range species and impoverishes the diversity of ecosystems. Villagers pick
endemic species of tulips to sell, and some species have become very rare in several
areas as a result. Collection of plants for medicinal use (of which there are around 200-
300 species in the hotspot) is controlled to a limited extent.
Energy shortages in the mountain areas led to the cutting of trees and shrubs for fuel,
particularly in Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. This, together with overgrazing
inside the mountain forests, has disrupted the natural processes in unique and valuable
mountain ecosystems of Central Asia – endemic coniferous and fruit-and-nut forests.
The quality of these forests diminished and regeneration slowed.
After the fall of the Soviet Union during the 1990s, the number of domestic livestock in
the mountains of Central Asia initially declined, alleviating pressure on ecosystems, but
with stabilization of the economy and growth in income and population throughout the
region, the number of sheep and goats has increased sharply, and overgrazing affects
many areas, especially the foothills and lower slopes (800-2,000 meters), and to much
lesser extent the high altitudes of 2,500-3,500 meters. Severe degradation is observed
around settlements, but a wider area is affected in less visible ways. Overgrazing
steadily reduces the fresh grass yield and causes changes in species composition, with
20
increasing predominance of less palatable species. This reduces the productivity of
alpine meadows and the number of wild herbivores they can support, and increases the
risk of soil erosion. In parts of the Chinese Tien Shan, livestock numbers multiplied in
the last 50 years, and serious overgrazing and pasture degradation that began as early as
the 1970s remains at critical levels today.
Pollution The pollution threats to the biodiversity hotspot come from several sources – current
and past applications of agricultural chemicals, the storage of obsolete and discarded
chemicals, mercury, lead and phosphorous contamination, industrial discharges and
hazardous waste, and mine tailings including radioactive tailings from uranium mining.
Within the mountains of Central Asia hotspot, the Lake Issyk-Kul region, the Ferghana
Valley, the Upper Ili, and the Urumqi and Ebi-Nur Lake basins are notably vulnerable
to the threats posed by pollution, agricultural and municipal runoff and water diversions.
Demographic pressures The strongest demographic pressure on biodiversity comes from population growth,
which will still considerable in Central Asia in the years to come. The simple formula -
more people require more resources – is certainly applicable but migration and the
changes in urban and rural population distributions will be additional factors.
Economic effects The expansion of settlements and all that entails may fragment or destroy natural
habitats. New roads have opened up wide tracts of the mountains to development and
disturbance. The recreational load on mountain ecosystems is growing as increasing
numbers of local and overseas tourists visit the region. Accommodation facilities,
access roads, and infrastructure further encroach on habitats.
Weak governance Weak regulatory schemes and poor enforcement contribute to the overexploitation of
natural resources throughout the Central Asia. Environmental decision-making and
implementation are concentrated within governmental authorities and tend to be
centralized, and the links between national, provincial, and local levels remain weak.
The staffs in government, CSOs, the private sector, and in protected areas lack qualified
specialists with current knowledge of biodiversity. Training sometimes proves
ineffective due to the high rate of governmental staff turnover, which is itself a big
challenge for institutional capacity building. Low salaries for government positions
cause qualified experts to leave and work for international projects or private
consultancies or conservancies.
In the Chinese part of the hotspot, local capacities are inadequate to apply the national
regulations to the unique environmental and socioeconomic contexts of each protected
area. Many nature reserve staff lack the basic knowledge needed to discharge their
duties, and there are no competence or performance standards. Due to the scale of the
protected areas and to the limited funding available for management, enforcement
remains difficult. The biodiversity monitoring inside most protected areas is an onerous
task. While the protected area coverage across the hotspot has grown, most sites remain
understaffed and underbudgeted.
21
5. Socioeconomic overview
The socioeconomic factors that affect conservation outcomes include demographics,
beliefs and awareness of natural resource values, income and poverty, the relationships
between natural resources and the main economic sectors in the region, and the cultural
differences that have relevance to conservation or the role of civil society.
Economic and social shocks and skyrocketing poverty and insecurity characterized the
1990s – the first decade of independence in Central Asia. Civil war raged at the same
time in Afghanistan. The following decade, when the countries of the region were
beginning to find ways to move forward, coincided with a global economic boom. The
countries rich in fossil fuels benefited from growing demand and expanding
manufacturing, while the other countries pursued new opportunities for labor migration
and trade and services.
Population The Mountains of Central Asia hotspot is now home to about 60-64 million people.
Most are young (median age 17-25) and living along the main rivers or oases. By 2050
the population in the region may approach 90 million or more. The Ferghana Valley has
the highest rural population density in Central Asia. The population in the rapidly
growing Chinese area of the hotspot has jumped from about 1.5 million in 2000 to more
than 3 million today in Urumqi city alone, which is the main city of Xinjiang Uyghur
Autonomous Region and holds 15 percent of the population.
In addition to Urumqi, the hotspot contains such major urban population centers as
Tashkent, Almaty, Dushanbe and Bishkek, but a significant portion of population in the
hotspot is still predominately rural. The livelihoods of a large part of this rural
population depend on agriculture, which has direct impacts on biodiversity through use
of agrichemicals and the expansion of the agricultural lands. In addition, a great many
are also still dependent on wild resources – firewood, wild fruits and nuts, medicinal
plants – for their basic needs and income.
Reliance on natural resources The Mountains of Central Asia hotspot’s abundant natural resources are the foundation
for all important economic sectors. Rivers provide for hydropower development in the
mountains and for irrigated agriculture in the lowlands. Canyons favor development of
wind power. Rich oil, gas and coal reserves fuel the local economies of Northwestern
China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and the mining sector is developing
the vast mineral deposits that occur throughout the hotspot. The exploitation of these
natural resources without regard for environmental consequences leads to degradation.
The tension between the highlands and the lowlands over the use of water for energy
production and irrigated agriculture is a crucial issue in the region. The effects of
climate change are likely to reverberate throughout the water-agriculture-energy nexus,
and make a difficult situation worse.
Tourism Hot springs and skiing resorts in the hotspot are popular destinations for vacationers and
those seeking the healing powers of the waters and mountains. Tourism development in
Uzbekistan is mostly associated with the cultural heritage sites. Hunting tourism, hiking
22
and alpinism are common in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Key tourism destinations
within the hotspot include the Pamir and Tien Shan Mountains. Many of the most
visited sites are protected areas, which highlights their importance as a source of
tourism revenue. Many scenically beautiful and biodiversity rich montane protected
areas in the hotspot need further investment in facilities and promotion of responsible
and community based tourism. Security concerns are impeding interested tourists from
visiting Afghanistan.
The Tianchi Lake National Nature Reserve is about a one-hour drive from the city of
Urumqi, and every day bus after bus ferries visitors – who number in the thousands per
day – from the city and other parts of China to the reserve. This is a much higher level
of visitation than that in Central Asia, and signifies the strong local interest in natural
wonders and environmental protection. Perhaps the most visited natural site in Central
Asia under protection is the Issyk-Kul Lake and Issyk-Kul biosphere area in
Kyrgyzstan, which attracts up to 1 million visitors per year, mainly in summer.
Tourism in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region has seen rapid growth over the
past decade. By 2008 the region had opened nearly 500 scenic areas or spots, including
many related to the Silk Road history and culture. In 2008, the region hosted over 22
million visitors and reported nearly CNY 20 billion in revenues. In the other countries,
the tourism sector and the accessibility of natural sites to visitors are growing, too.
6. Policy
The countries of the Mountains of Central Asia biodiversity hotspot participate in and
implement multilateral environmental agreements and cross-border initiatives. A
framework of legislation and policy on biodiversity conservation exists throughout the
hotspot, but there are limitations to the successful implementation of environmental
legislation. In many cases, responsibility for biodiversity conservation is divided among
multiple agencies, and overlapping authority and an absence of institutional
coordination are common. Government institutions mandated to protect biodiversity are
understaffed and operate with insufficient budgets, and employees, particularly in
remote areas, often lack the knowledge and skills necessary for effective conservation.
All hotspot nations have a set of laws and policies that support biodiversity
conservation. Central to these is the legislation supporting the creation and management
of protected areas, and wildlife protection laws. In addition, states have other legislation
that affects biodiversity, including environmental regulations and pollution controls.
This legislation is implemented by a diverse array of different ministries, agencies and
institutions. The legal framework for biodiversity conservation in the hotspot is robust,
but coordination between institutions is not always well established and effective
implementation of laws is lacking.
All the Central Asia national governments acknowledge biodiversity as one of their
priority areas in strategic legal documents on sustainable development, and all intend to
update their national legislation relevant to biodiversity to adapt to the international
strategies reflected in the countries’ 5th
national reports to the CBD. Every country has
adopted a number of environmental laws that call for multi-stakeholder cooperation in
environmental protection.
23
The official positions of the countries with respect to biodiversity prioritization do not
always coincide with action, however. Implementation of policies and laws remains
deficient, and national financing for biodiversity-related projects and processes remains
limited. The factors contributing to this situation include the prioritization of economic
development; the lack of national resources and private funding; the predominance of
short-term planning; the lack of understanding of the value of biodiversity and of the
economic implications of environmental degradation and the depletion of natural
capital; and the lack of experience with the valuation of ecosystem services.
7. Civil society
CEPF believes that effective and sustainable conservation is better achieved with the
engagement of civil society, and makes grants to civil society organizations, which then
act as implementing agents. CEPF defines civil society as all the national and
international nongovernment actors that are relevant to the achievement of conservation
outcomes and strategic directions. This includes, at least, local and international
conservation NGOs; economic and community development NGOs; scientific, research
and academic institutions; professional organizations; producer and sales associations;
religious organizations; media; advocacy groups; outreach, education and awareness
groups; formal and informal schools; social welfare agencies; indigenous groups and
indigenous rights groups; land reform groups; and the parts of the private sector
concerned with the sustainable use of natural resources.
Operating environment and constraints Working in the harsh natural environment with difficult access in an underdeveloped
region is challenging. Hazardous weather conditions and difficult terrain may be
obstacles. In some places, inaccessibility is exacerbated by bureaucratic red tape and
restricted access to information. The lack of communication and electricity in rural
areas complicates the project work, and transport and fuel costs are high. In the harsh
mountain conditions, the monitoring of animals and plants can be challenging. The
border areas have certain restrictions and special regulations for access.
The regulatory environments and operational niches of CSOs differ greatly among the
countries. Kyrgyzstan has, perhaps, the most diverse groups and the largest number of
CSOs dealing with natural resource use and conservation. It is also easy for donors to
work there. In other countries, constraints include twisted and time-consuming grant
and project permission and registration procedures; banking and financial reporting
limitations; limited access for international NGOs; and lack of capacity among local
NGOs, including English language skills.
Species in focus and gaps Across the hotspot, project participants identified the gap between the attention iconic
species receive and the attention given to the less glamorous, but nevertheless
threatened species. The snow leopard, for example, receives both attention and funding
beyond what other species get.
In China, funding for the conservation and restoration of populations and habitats is
considered sufficient for the snow leopard, Semirechensk salamander, Przewalski's
24
horse, swans and wild apples and walnuts. In contrast, the Tien Shan birch,
Ammopiptanthus, and other threatened endemic species receive less attention and
support.
In Kazakhstan, the snow leopard and the argali attract both state and international grant
funding for the monitoring of habitats and related activities. Wild apples also receive
significant attention. Still, according to local experts, funding levels are not sufficient to
save them in the long run. The protection of the saiga antelope arguably receives most
of Kazakhstan’s attention among endangered species. The species that draw the most
attention and funding in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are the snow leopard and the
Bukhara deer – both of which are popular with international projects.
8. Conservation investments
Protected areas and forestry networks are major recipients of government funding,
although the bulk of this funding is typically allocated to staff salaries and basic running
costs, including patrolling. Governmental funding varies depending on the level of
staffing and facilities in each area. In several reserves, CSOs and donors provide
additional support for biodiversity monitoring, research and outreach, and development
activities for communities living in and around protected areas.
One of the main and traditional multilateral donors in the hotspot countries is the GEF.
UNDP, UNEP, FAO and the World Bank are the GEF implementing agencies involved
in conservation projects. Bilateral donors active in environmental protection in the
region include the European Union, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Russia, and Finland.
The GEF small grants program (SGP) is active in all countries, except Turkmenistan,
and supports civil society groups in the region at the local level. The GEF SGP covers
biodiversity investments, and renewable energy and land degradation initiatives.
Two global trends have resulted in reduced funding opportunities for smaller civil
society groups, whether local or international. The first is the ever-increasing priority
given to climate change, and the second is the increasing predisposition among donors
to favor large organizations as recipients and project managers.
9. Conservation outcomes and investment strategy
For all priority outcomes for CEPF investment, the most important selection criteria
were urgency for conservation action and opportunity for additional investment. Priority
species, KBAs and landscapes were selected only where current threats, if not
mitigated, were predicted to cause their extinction (in the case of species) or the loss of
key elements of biodiversity (in the case of KBAs and landscapes) within the next 10-20
years. In addition, priority species and landscapes were selected where there were
considered to be great opportunities for CEPF and other organizations to invest in
conservation actions by civil society that complement or improve targeting of other
investments by governments and other donors.
CEPF will implement its grant program through a regional implementation team (RIT)
located in the hotspot. The RIT will promote and administer the grant-making process,
25
undertake capacity building, maintain and update data on conservation outcomes, and
promote the overall conservation agenda to government and other stakeholders.
Species priorities Scientific analysis, national consultations and the processing of the stakeholder
questionnaires provided the basis for the list of priority species. The list includes highly
threatened species or those on the brink of extinction, and distinguishes between such
high profile species as the snow leopard, for which CEPF may provide complementary
funding and less well-known species for which CEPF may provide unique investment.
While CEPF focuses on globally threatened species, the national consultations named
some species that do not meet that criterion. Some are close to global significance and
are near threatened, some are particularly well-preserved populations, and some are
significant subspecies or are geographically distinct. These species may not appear on
the IUCN Red List, but are red-listed in the country or countries. The consultations and
stakeholders proposed some endemics to be included on the list, and supported their
inclusion on the basis that they are globally significant from the genetic point of view.
Key Biodiversity Area priorities The rankings of KBAs followed the CEPF approach – an assessment from the
biological point of view to determine the level of threat, and an exploration of the
practical factors that determine the feasibility of carrying out a project in a specific
place. The country consultations included reviews of preliminary KBA maps and a
consideration of the rationale for CEPF involvement. Many KBAs overlap with
protected areas or lie in the border zones. The list of priorities includes about half of the
areas identified as KBAs.
Protected areas are a critical part of the overall effort for the conservation of KBAs and
other locally and globally important biodiversity resources, and are likely to become
more so as pressure from land-use change increasingly affects other areas. Ideally
protected areas simultaneously accommodate and respect customary local rights and
resource use, although this is often not the case and some protected areas are the subject
of conflicts over land use or agricultural development or are inefficient because of lack
of staff, equipment and management capacities.
CEPF will support efforts to improve the conservation status of protected areas that
involve engagement between mangers of protected areas and other stakeholders,
especially local resource users but also the wider local population and the private sector.
CEPF will equally support efforts to promote conservation of KBAs outside of
protected areas through approaches and means most effective in local circumstances.
Landscape priorities Some of the landscapes are large ecosystems or clusters of KBAs, and range from
wetland habitats and sections of river or lake basins to mountain ranges and agricultural
oases. Landscapes consider species biology, density, range, and migratory corridors that
enable connectivity. Where possible, landscapes are based on existing classifications
and regional ecological networks.
Mountain forests are of particular interest in Central Asia, worthy of their own
sustainable management and investment strategy. Resource-dependent communities
throughout the region rely on the mountain forests for sustenance, energy, food, income
26
and livelihoods, and the people of the region regard the forests as essential to their
survival and protection against disasters. In all parts of the region, the forests are owned
by the state. All the forests within the hotspot have legal protection from logging and
other commercial exploitation with the exceptions of maintenance and limited
community use. The success of sustainable natural resource management in the hotspot,
and the provision of ecosystem services such as water regulation, reduction of natural
disasters and ecological stability will depend on how the mountain forests are managed.
The countries in the region all take climate change seriously, and are interested in
adaptation, but knowledge of the connections between climate change and ecosystems
remains weak. Donors support climate change projects related to infrastructure,
economic development and affected groups, but are missing an ecosystem approach and
a focus on vulnerable species and KBAs.
10. Sustainability
At the institutional level, the project’s support for capacity building will enhance the
professionalism of CSOs across the region. Some of the project’s strategic directions
support this development, provide valuable experience for local staffs, and prepare the
project grantees to replicate the project results. In similar fashion, other strategic
directions – through support for a broad range of grantees across borders – foster a spirit
of cooperation and provide the opportunity to establish cooperation on an ongoing basis.
The engagement of communities, the private sector, and CSOs across the region lays the
groundwork for continuing support for the conservation of biodiversity. The potential
for ongoing alliances fostered by CEPF grants and strategic leadership, the increased
capacity and professionalism of conservation NGOs, and the use of KBAs in policies
and regulations all support the prospective sustainability of the CEPF work in the
mountains of Central Asia.
27
1. INTRODUCTION Biodiversity forms a key element of the environment that underpins human well-being,
and its loss harms evolutionary potential. Despite recognition of this, such loss is
accelerating globally (Butchart et al. 2010) as species-rich natural ecosystems are
overexploited, mined or replaced by simple, artificial systems that are more effective at
producing the food, energy and other needs of growing populations. This simplification
and extinction of unique biodiversity diminishes human cultures, destroys livelihoods
that have evolved, and erodes the genetic diversity.
There are many reasons for this contradiction between acknowledging the value of
biodiversity while allowing its destruction in pursuit of economic growth, but
fundamentally it stems from the choices of individuals based on the range of options
available to them. Conservation, therefore, is about changing people’s perspectives and
choices, so they make decisions that favor the sustainable use of natural resources.
Civil society organizations (CSOs) are in a unique position to influence people’s
choices, habits and behavior because they are based in or work with communities.
Unlike government, CSOs have no power to compel people to change, so they have
learned to influence choices and behavior by combining education and incentives,
providing them new knowledge and better technologies, and by helping people achieve
their aspirations for development while taking a long-term perspective on the
environment.
Biodiversity and the threats to it are not distributed evenly over the planet, biodiversity
hotspot or a country. Conservation organizations can maximize the effectiveness of their
limited funds by focusing on the places that are the most important and where action is
most urgent. One of the most influential priority setting analyses was the identification
of biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al. 2000; Mittermeier et al. 2004), defined as regions
that have at least 1,500 endemic plants species and have lost at least 70 percent of their
natural habitat. There are 34 hotspots globally, covering 15.7 percent of the earth’s
surface. The intact natural habitats within these hotspots cover only 2.3 percent of the
world’s surface, but contain half of all plants and 77 percent of all terrestrial vertebrates.
Figure 1. Global Biodiversity Hotspots Map
28
Figure 2. Map of Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot
The Mountains of Central Asia hotspot consists of two of Asia's major mountain ranges,
the Pamir and the Tien Shan. The hotspot’s 860,000 square kilometers include parts of
seven countries: southeastern Kazakhstan, most of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, eastern
Uzbekistan, western China, northeastern Afghanistan, and a small mountain part of
southeast Turkmenistan. Hotspot delineation is based on the Global 200 eco-regions
(Olson, D. M. and Dinerstein, E., 2002 http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/ecoregion_list/).
The global eco-region of Middle Asian Montane Grasslands and Shrublands is made up
of Hissar-Alai open woodlands, Pamir alpine desert and tundra, Tian Shan montane
conifer forests, Alai-Western Tian Shan steppe, Hindu Kush alpine meadow, Tian Shan
montane steppe and meadows and Tian Shan foothill arid steppe. Altitudinal complexity
leads to the creation of isolated habitats and associated species diversity. The most
diverse ecosystems are mixed forests and meadows between 1,000 and 3,000 m where
up to 15 per cent of the flora is endemic.
The hotspot has mountains reaching 5,000-7,000 meters in elevation, hosts several
ancient oases and cities and is composed of distinct economies, cultures, and political
systems, and of contrasting civil society conditions.
The Pamir Mountains, which include both Pamirs of China and Tajikistan bordered by
the Alai Mountains of Kyrgyzstan and the Hindu-Kush of Afghanistan, is known as the
“roof of the world”. The central Pamir is a high-elevation plateau with various
altitudinal variations, while the western and eastern edges of the Pamir are characterized
by sharp ridges, steep slopes and deeply cut river valleys. The hotspot's highest peak is
Kongur, which rises to 7,719 meters in the China; at least six other mountains in
Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan are above 7,000 meters.
The 300-km-long, 150-km-wide Ferghana Valley separates the Pamirs from the Tien
Shan Mountains. The Tien Shan “heavenly mountains” extend for nearly 2,500
kilometers from west to east. The hotspot holds at least 20,000 glaciers, covering around
29
35,000 km². The large glaciers reach 50-70 km in length, with Tajikistan being the most
glacier-covered country, where they occupy about 6 percent of the country.
The climate in the mountains of Central Asia is arid. Precipitation falls mainly in winter
and spring and varies from more than 1,000 millimeters in central parts of Tajikistan
and Kyrgyzstan in the west of the hotspot to less than 100 millimeters in the rain-
shadowed interior parts – such as Murgab of Tajikistan in the central part of Pamir.
The predominant vegetation types in the hotspot are desert, semi-desert and steppe on
all the lower slopes and foothills and in some of the outlying ranges and major basins.
Patches of riverine woodland (“tugai”) survive along the Ili, Amu Darya, Zeravshan,
Syr Darya rivers and a few other places. At higher altitudes, steppe communities
dominated by various species of grasses and herbs occur, while shrub communities are
widespread in the lower steppe zone. Spruce forests, the only coniferous forest type in
the hotspot, occur on the moist northern slopes of the Tien Shans, while open juniper
forest occurs widely between 1,000 and 2,800 meters. Meadows typically occur at
higher elevations. At the very highest and coldest elevations, there is limited vegetation
cover and diversity, with cushion plants, snow-patch plants and tundra-like vegetation
as well as glaciers.
The Mountains of Central Asia hotspot contains ancestors of domestic fruit and nut
varieties, wild relatives of crops, and is an important storehouse of genetic diversity.
The hotspot is also home to a rich variety of mountain ungulates and the snow leopard.
Overall, about XX percent of the hotspot is under some form of official protection.
Some reserves are small and isolated; others are too large or not well functioning. Since
the breakup of the Soviet Union, followed by reinforcement of national borders and
decades of conflict in Afghanistan, there has been a dramatic decrease in funding,
patrols and other management activities in many mountain protected areas.
The smallest protected area and KBA within the hotspot is the 12 km2 Gongliuyehetao
Chinese Walnut Nature Reserve, while the Taxkorgan Nature Reserve in China and the
Tajik National Park in Tajikistan reach 14,000 and 26,000 km² respectively. Other large
protected areas include Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve in Kyrgyzstan; Mount Tomur
Nature Reserve (1,000 km²) and Boghda Mountain Biosphere Reserve (1,000 km²), both
in the Chinese part of the Tien Shan. Other notable reserves in the countries of the
former Soviet Union include some of the oldest well functioning reserves – Aksu-
Zhabagly and Almaty in Kazakhstan, Koytendag in Turkmenistan. Afghanistan is proud
of its new and large Wakhan National Park (10,000 km²).
Because international borders often follow mountain ridges, the need for transboundary
cooperation to protect mountain ecosystems is increasingly recognized within the
region. Many protected areas and KBAs face the country borders. Regional and bilateral
cooperation exist between the Central Asia countries of the former Soviet Union, with
Afghanistan and with China. Earlier efforts included envisioning of a Central Asian
Mountain Information Network, a Regional Red List to coordinate assessments and set
up a database of threatened species, and Western Tien Shan and Pamir-Alai
conservation and environmental initiatives.
30
Several international donors and partners are actively involved in conservation in the
region, including the Global Environment Facility (GEF), World Wildlife Fund (WWF),
Birdlife and RSBP, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Fauna and Flora
International (FFI), a German nature conservation organization (NABU) and others. The
governments of Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Russia, China, the United Sates
and others supported programs on sustainable natural resource use and environmental
projects. Private foundations such as Christensen, Leonardo DiCaprio and Aga-Khan
are also supporting sustainable development and conservation initiatives in the hotspot.
Conservation-related CSOs receive support from various donors and tend to work on
awareness raising and education, ecotourism, forest and pasture management initiatives,
wildlife monitoring and conservation, climate change adaptation and alternative energy
projects that can contribute to the local economy and gain support for conservation.
Several initiatives in the region are taking a wider approach to issues affecting the
environment. A Global Mountain Summit, held in Kyrgyzstan in 2002, explored united
approaches for mountain development. The Asian Development Bank, UNEP and the
Swiss government sponsored elaboration of a Regional Strategy for Sustainable
Development of the Mountain Regions of Central Asia in 2009 (draft exists). A Global
Snow Leopard Summit held in Bishkek in 2013 resulted in the adoption of the Bishkek
Declaration and establishment of the Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection
Program (GSLEP) active in 12 countries, including all 7 countries of the hotspot.
This profile departs from the usual alphabetical order for countries, and instead reflects
the relative shares of the area under investigation and the potential participation in
conservation projects of the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. As a potential co-
funder of research and conservation projects, and as the country with the most land
falling within the boundaries of the hotspot, China appears first on the list. Next come
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, the mountain territories of which
fall almost entirely inside the hotspot. Turkmenistan follow the next with a relatively
small land area in the hotspot, and a smaller share of total territory. As a least developed
country with ongoing instability, Afghanistan comes last.
31
2. BACKGROUND This chapter describes the ecosystem profile process, including the compilation of the
profile document on the Mountains of Central Asia and the stakeholder consultations.
The purposes of this ecosystem profile are to provide an overview of biodiversity
conservation in the Mountains of Central Asia global biodiversity hotspot, to present an
analysis of the priorities for action, and to strengthen the constituency for conservation
in the region. In doing so, the profile lays out a framework for the implementation of the
CEPF grant-making program, which will run for about five years from 2017 to 2022,
and which defines a broad conservation agenda in the region. The profile intends to
encourage more stakeholders to engage with and support this agenda.
CEPF makes grants to civil society organizations, which are defined as organizations
outside of government – NGOs; community groups; academic institutions; business,
trade and socio-political organizations. For CEPF, understanding the interests, capacity
and needs of civil society in Central Asia is as important as understanding its
biodiversity. Although CEPF makes grants to civil society, government plays a critical
role in conservation and is always a partner in its efforts.
The ecosystem profile describes biodiversity conservation actions needed in the
mountains of Central Asia by defining conservation outcomes. As described in detail in
Chapter 4, these outcomes are defined at three levels – species, sites and corridors. The
outcomes are defined for species of conservation concern, which principally means
those that are considered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
Red List to be globally threatened: critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN) and
vulnerable (VU). During stakeholder consultation participants also recommended
inclusion of several near threatened (NT) species.
In addition to the IUCN red list, the profile team reviewed existing analyses from
BirdLife’s Important Bird Areas (IBAs), WWF’s Econet for Central Asia, national red
lists, published books and atlases, reports and papers describing species and habitats in
the mountains of Central Asia, as well as unpublished reports and information available
on the Internet.
The preliminary list of sites identified for species of conservation concern was discussed
with local and international scientists. In addition to the knowledge of experts, the team
sought the input of local communities, businesses and civil society organizations and
governments in Central Asia.
The profiling process has involved a rapid assessment and evaluation of the current
causes of biodiversity loss throughout the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot, coupled
with an inventory of actual conservation and development investments taking place
within the region. Zoï Environment Network prepared the ecosystem profile, with
contributions from numerous national partners.
The main activities that comprise the profiling process are:
Definition of conservation outcomes
Analysis of socioeconomic, policy and civil society context, and assessment of
threats and current conservation investments in the hotspot
Consultation with a wide range of national and international stakeholders
32
Formulation of a CEPF niche and investment strategy for the hotspot
Results were obtained by synthesizing and analyzing existing biological and thematic
information to inform a participatory priority-setting process that sought to include all
key players in the MCA biodiversity conservation community. The purpose was to
secure broad-based scientific and general practice agreement on the priorities for
conservation and then to define a strategy with specific conservation targets and actions
for future CEPF and other international investments with diverse stakeholders.
This process engaged experts from numerous disciplines, as well as government
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, donor organizations and other stakeholders.
The profiling has also capitalized on priority-setting processes that have already taken
place in a number of the countries, such as the development of National Biodiversity
Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), national protected areas strategies and national
biodiversity gap analyses. The profiling team analyzed up-to-date information on
current activities and threats affecting biodiversity conservation in the hotspot, as well
as current levels of investment and other data to formulate a conservation strategy.
The main findings of the studies, especially KBAs, were reviewed and verified at a
series of consultation workshops, involving stakeholders from civil society and
governmental agencies. These meetings also provided an opportunity for stakeholders to
propose revisions to the lists of priority species, sites and corridors; identify and
prioritize key threats to biodiversity; and propose investment priorities and discuss
prototype projects. Considering that the KBA concept is new to Central Asia, where
only the important bird areas were mapped so far, the profile team has designed popular
cartoons, leaflets and posters (see Annex ___) to broaden and ease the understanding of
the KBA and Ecosystem Profile process by the key stakeholders in the region.
Ecosystem profiles bring together three key constituencies in order to maximize
conservation impacts: national and international biodiversity experts; donors; and
national and regional stakeholders in the hotspot. The last constituency includes
stakeholders such as civil society organizations, national government agencies and
academic institutions to ensure that they have a sense of ownership of the CEPF strategy
and that the profile is fully informed by on-the-ground knowledge and expertise.
Experts have been engaged in the development of the profile through electronic
communication, participation in national and subregional meetings and consultancies.
All experts, contributors and reviewers involved will be listed in the final profile.
The participatory process that is key for a successful conclusion to the profiling exercise
involved three stages: national consultations that set the context for priority geographic
areas and types of investments; questionnaires; and a regional consultation in Almaty
that contributes to regional experience exchange, validation of the hotspot map of KBAs
and landscapes and discusses the provisional elements of the CEPF investment strategy.
The meetings involved a total of about 200 participants including 130 participants from
domestic CSOs, 40 from government institutions, and another 40 from international
organizations, donors and the profiling team (Table __). More than 500 experts, CSO
members, donors and government representatives were consulted or informed by the
profile team in 2016. Names of all these individuals and organizations are in the
beginning of the profile document.
33
Table _. Dates and participants of expert meetings and stakeholder consultations in 2016
Country Expert meetings Kick-off meetings Nat. consultations Regional
China June (1), September (10) Urumqi, 28 SEP
(25 pers.)
Urumqi, 28 SEP
(25 pers.)
(1)
Kyrgyzstan June (7), September (7), October (10)
Bishkek, 10 JUN
(35 pers.)
Bishkek, 3-4 OCT
(48 pers.)
(8)
Tajikistan June (6), September (6), October (6)
Dushanbe, 7 JUN
(33 pers.)
Dushanbe,
13-14 OCT (42 pers.)
(2)
Kazakhstan June (5), September (5), October (5)
Astana, 2 JUN (37)
Almaty, 9 JUN (30)
Almaty, 30 SEP
(35 pers.)
(6)
Uzbekistan June (5), October (5) No official meetings No meetings (4)
Turkmenistan Teleconference (3) No meetings No meetings (2)
Afghanistan September (3), October No meetings No meetings (1) (1)
TOTAL* 40 160 150 40
* including international organizations and partners Source: Zoi Environment Network, Ecosystem Profile team
Questionnaires for CSOs (see annex __) were designed by the project team and
distributed directly through email and web pages, and during consultations. About 100
responses provided much of the information needed for the profile sections on civil
society and enriched information on threats and investments, and gave valuable
suggestions for the investment strategy. A follow-up period of electronic consultations
will ensure that the remaining information gaps will be considered and addressed to the
extent feasible.
The regional consultations in Almaty on 12 December 2016, International mountain
day, gathered country experts, members of the profiling team, representatives of
regional and international stakeholders, GEF focal points or their representatives and
other decision makers. Participants discussed the first version of synthesis of KBAs,
conservation outcomes and the elements of investment strategy for the hotspot. On the
basis of these discussions they recommended and confirmed the strategic directions and
investment priorities for CEPF during the five-year investment period of 2017-2022.
An advisory committee and technical review panel provides overall guidance in
preparing the profile. It will conduct its main work in February-March 2017 and will
likely comprise key national and regional players. The updated draft document will also
be presented to the GEF Operational Focal Points in the countries.
One of the important lessons from the process of compiling the ecosystem profile is
that, while there are many gaps in data on biodiversity in the region, there is also a great
deal of data, published and unpublished, within conservation organizations, universities,
held by individual scientists, companies, government departments, and amateur
observers. The ecosystem profile represents one of the attempts to collate the data and
make it available to conservationists, decision makers and other stakeholders in the
region. It is the first ever experience of application of the newest IUCN 2016 Standard
on the Key Biodiversity Areas.
34
The four-month timeframe for the analysis and KBA mapping and the effective use of
the IUCN 2016 Standard was the greatest challenge both for the project team and for
more than 50 contributing national experts from the seven countries.
The second greatest challenge was and still is that time passes and procedures apply
differently among the seven countries – somewhere slower, somewhere faster. Data
quality, availability and completeness vary from country to country and area to area,
and major differences in the context of countries make a regional synthesis a challenge.
This preliminary version presents the synthesis of inputs from various experts and
literature sources and will be refined to the extent feasible in the next few months before
it is presented to the donors for approval in spring 2017. Much of the KBA data will be
eventually available in the global KBA database, managed by BirdLife. There is,
however, a need to continue to expand this initiative and to update the analysis of
conservation priority sites and species as new information comes to light.
35
3. BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE HOTSPOT This chapter describes the geography, climate, and biological history of the hotspot; and
provides a summary of species diversity, levels of endemism, and global threat status
among major taxonomic groups in the hotspot. It also describes ecosystem services.
Mountain regions are crucial to the maintenance of the natural and agricultural global
biodiversity. The vertical distribution of natural species by elevation results in a wide
range of species and ecosystems spread over a relatively small surface area. Endemic
species find homes in isolated islands of mountain habitat with characteristics
conducive to unique life forms and varieties.
3.1. Geography, Climate, and History The Mountains of Central Asia hotspot consists of two of Asia’s major mountain
ranges, the Pamir and the Tien Shan. These are situated within southeastern Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, northwestern China, northeastern Afghanistan, and
a small part of Turkmenistan. The total area covered is about 860,000 square kilometers
[update the area after final contours are produced]. The highest peak, Kongur, in the
Chinese Pamir, rises to 7,719 meters. Glaciers in the hotspot cover about 35,000 km2.
The mountains were mainly formed by folding due to tectonic movements during the
Caledonian, Hercynian, and Alpine orogenic (or mountain-building) periods. Some
features also result from faulting and from volcanic activity. The hotspot borders several
major deserts, such as Taklamakan and Kyzylkum.
The Pamir was known to early Persian geographers as Bam-i-Dunya, or “roof of the
world” and is situated at the center of several great ranges. The Tien Shan, or “celestial
mountains”, lie adjacent to the north, the Hindu Kush to the southwest, the Karakoram
to the southeast, and the Kun Lun Shan to the east. The Pamir extends east to the
isolated Muztag Ata Massif in western China and south to the Wakhan Valley of
northeastern Afghanistan. The northern rim of the Pamir is formed by the Trans-Alai
Range that drops steeply to the Alai Valley, a deep fault trench carrying the waters of a
major tributary of the Amu Darya, and dividing the Pamir from the Tien Shan.
The central parts of Pamir have a mean elevation of over 4,000 meters and parts of it are
plateau-like in character. The surface is crossed by broad, shallow, valleys or pamir that
give the name to the whole range. The western and eastern parts of Pamir, by contrast,
are characterized by sharp ridges and steep slopes cut by deep valleys and gorges. They
have great variation in elevation and typical alpine relief. The Pamir includes the
Fedchenko Glacier, which is more than 70 kilometers long and one of the longest
glaciers in the world outside the polar regions.
Several mountain ranges – Alai, Hissar, Zeravshan and Turkestan – lie between the
Pamir and the Ferghana Valley, a deeply downfaulted basin, about 300 kilometers long
and 150 kilometers wide. The Ferghana Valley extends into Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan
and Tajikistan, and is the one of most densely populated and ethnically diverse regions
of Central Asia, with an average population density of 350 persons per square
kilometer. Some districts exceed 1,000 persons per square kilometer, and in 2015 the
total population in the valley and nearby mountains exceeded 15 million.
To the north of the Ferghana Valley, the Tien Shan – Chinese for “heaven” or “sky” –
36
Mountains extend for 2,500 kilometers from west to east. Tian Shan is sacred in
Tengrism, and its second-highest peak (6,995 meters) is known as Khan Tengri, which
may be translated as "Lord of the Spirits". The Tien Shan are made up of a complex
series of ranges and are around 300 kilometers wide in the center, narrowing at the
eastern and western ends. The highest peaks are located in a central cluster on the
borders of China, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan, and include Mt. Tomur at 7,439 meters
(also called Janysh/Pobeda in Kyrgyzstan). The Inylchek Glacier, over 50 kilometers
long and the largest in the Tien Shan, is also located in this part of the range.
Across the fertile Ili Valley, the Borohoro Shan links the Dzungar Alatau (4,464 meters)
Range to the Tien Shan. Local glaciers occupy more than 10,000 square kilometers and
occur along most of the range, east to the Bogda Shan in the Chinese Tien Shan. The
central Tien Shan, with a mean altitude of over 3,000 meters, contains a high, uplifted
massif that shares some of the same landscape features as the central Pamir. On the
opposite side of the Tien Shan, lower arid ranges such as the Nuratau, Chu-Ili, and
Karatau run away northwestwards into Central Asia’s deserts. The Tien Shan drains
mainly to the north, and the many streams plunging down the steep northern slopes have
formed alluvial deposits on the plains below. These deposits provide sites for
settlements, and several major population centers are located there.
The Pamir Mountains of Tajikistan and China join the Tien Shan in Kyrgyzstan in the
north and the Hindu Kush Mountains in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the south, and
contain some of world’s highest peaks including the Kongur, which rises to 7,719
meters in China, and Somoni Peak, at 7,495 meters in Tajikistan. The largest river of
Central Asia – the Amu Darya – has its origins in the Pamir and Hindu Kush with deep
valleys, spectacular gorges and traditional settlements nestled on alluvial fans. People
living here in the Badakshan and the Wakhan are among the most isolated and
impoverished in the hotspot, and depend largely on subsistence agriculture.
Glaciers cover 4 percent of Kyrgyzstan and 6 percent of Tajikistan. They are also
present in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and northwest China. In total they
cover an area of 12,000-15,000 km2 within Central Asia plus 15,000-20,000 km
2 within
the Chinese part of the hotspot. Melt water from snow, glaciers and permafrost supplies
about 80 percent of the total river runoff in the high mountains of Central Asia. Glaciers
are crucial to the agricultural economy of the region. They produce water in the hottest
and driest period of the year – summer – and compensate for low precipitation.
The climate in this region is arid. The Tien Shan acts as a climatic divide and intercepts
moist winter air from the north and west, and prevents it from reaching the hyper-arid
Tarim Basin to the south. Precipitation falls mainly in winter and spring, and varies
from over 1,000 mm in the Hissar and Ferghana Ranges in the west of the hotspot, to
below 100 mm in the Pamir plateau. The southwest of the area – the western parts of the
Tien Shan and of the Pamir – is influenced by subtropical air and also enjoys the mild
winters. Temperatures decrease to the east, although there are considerable variations
due to altitude. The high plateaus of the Pamir and Tien Shan are the coldest areas,
having an annual mean temperature below zero and a very short growing season. Winter
temperatures there may reach -40ºC, and numerous patches of permafrost occur.
The Tien Shan and the Pamirs feature contrasting climates from harsh and dry in the
interior and in the eastern corners (below zero annual surface temperatures; 100-300
37
mm average precipitation, mainly in summer) to more humid conditions and warmer
temperatures in the western parts (over 1,000 mm annual precipitation, mainly in winter
and spring). Most high mountains consist of barren ground, glaciers and other
environments inhospitable to humans, but home to wild animals such as the Marco Polo
sheep and the snow leopard. Mountains with more favorable climatic conditions possess
fine grasslands and forests.
The Nuratau, Chatkal and Hissar-Turkestan mountain ranges of Uzbekistan are covered
by protected areas, feature well-preserved juniper forests, and are important sources of
water for downstream cities and oases.
Arable lands occupy less than 0.5 percent of the total area in the Tajik Pamirs, and
pastures another 12.0 percent. In the Tien Shan Mountains of Kyrgyzstan, the
proportion of pastures and arable lands is higher. Only half of Kyrgyzstan's land area
and less than one third of Tajikistan's land area is suitable for agriculture, mainly for
grazing. Croplands and gardens occupy less than 7 and 5 percent of their land areas,
respectively. Other lands are considered not suitable for agriculture due to harsh
climate, poor soils, and the predominance of rocks and glaciers. Nevertheless, a
majority of the mountain communities of Central Asia practice agriculture – principally
cultivating cereals and vegetables, gardening, collecting forest products and extensive
livestock grazing on a wide range of pastures. Tourism, mining and trade form
important economic sectors that have been gathering momentum in the mountain
regions over the past 20 years. Infrastructure development has likewise experienced
growth. All of these activities contribute to the revival of the ancient Silk Road in the
modern age of globalization.
3.2. Habitats and Ecosystems Forests and shrub lands in the mountains of Central Asia cover about 5 million hectares
and 2.3 million ha in Xinjiang, including some 350,000 hectares of globally significant
fruit-and-nut forests comprising walnuts, almonds, pears, apples, cherries and
pistachios. Mountain forests provide invaluable watershed protection and erosion
control, and contribute to the regulation of water resources by decreasing or smoothing
runoff – with a corresponding decrease in erosion – and by retaining groundwater. They
also provide mountain people with a rich source of the fuelwood essential to the heating
of living spaces, the cooking of food and the purification of drinking water, and with
timber and other forest products such as wild fruits, nuts and medicinal plants for
subsistence or trade. A relic species of Tien Shan spruce forms a unique and spectacular
forest belt in the Tien Shan Mountains.
The geological origin of the mountains, the wide range of elevations, and the extreme
climatic variation have combined to produce great landscape and biotic diversity. The
number, extent, and sequence of vegetation zones vary across the hotspot depending on
temperature and moisture gradients, slope aspect, and altitude and latitude. Both
Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, for example, identify 20-25 ecosystem types within their
territories (reference), but classifications of ecosystems vary both within countries and
between countries, so it is difficult to make a universal comparison. This section
summarizes the ecosystems in the hotspot by sorting types into larger groupings. At
lower altitudes and in the foothills, dryland ecosystems prevail. At medium altitudes,
grasslands, shrubs and forests are widespread. Meadows and tundra-like ecosystems are
38
found in the high mountains.
3.2.1. Deserts, Semi-Deserts and Arid Steppes Desert, semi-desert, and arid steppe vegetation types predominate on all the lower
slopes, foothills, and in some of the outlying ranges. Common plants here include
species of widespread genera such as Artemisia, Salsola, and Ephedra, as well as annual
grasses such as Poa and Festuca spp. In the Ili, Amu Darya and Syr Darya river valleys
and a few other places, patches of riverine woodland survive, composed of poplar
(Populus spp.), eleagnus, tamarisks (Tamarix spp.), and willows (Salix spp.)
(Mittermeier et al. 2004).
3.2.2. High steppes Steppe communities, dominated by various species of grasses and herbs, occur at higher
altitudes. A distinctive type of tall-grass steppe, characterized by Elytrigia trichophora
and Hordeum bulbosum, occurs in the western Tien Shan and Pamir. Shrub
communities are widespread in the lower steppe zone and may form dense thickets in
gorges. Species present include hawthorns (Crataegus pontica, C. turkestanica),
Cotoneaster melanocarpa, Euonymus semenovii, Lonicera spp., Rosa spp., and Berberis
spp., with some pistachio (Pistacia vera) and hackberry (Celtis caucasica). The area
occupied by shrubs has declined markedly due to cutting for fuelwood (Mittermeier et
al. 2004).
3.2.3. Forests Walnut and Fruit
A type of wild walnut-fruit forest unique to Central Asia grows above the steppe zone in
warm, sheltered places in the Pamir and Tien Shan. These are diverse and are composed
of walnut (Juglans regia), almonds (Amygdalus communis and A. bucharensis), pears
(Pyrus korshinskyi and P. regelii), plums (Prunus sogdiana and P. ferganica), cherry
(Cerasus mahaleb), and apple (Malus sieversii), along with maples (Acer turkestanicum
and A. semenovii). A few Chinese walnut (Juglans cathayana) trees survive at one
locality in the eastern Tien Shan. This valuable and ancient forest type contains
ancestors of domestic fruit varieties and is an important storehouse of wild genetic
diversity. Some of the surviving walnut trees are estimated to be 500 years old. The area
occupied by this habitat has greatly declined, with around 90 percent lost during the last
50 years (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
Spruce
Spruce forests occur on moist northern slopes of the Tien Shan, the only coniferous
forest type in the mountains of Central Asia. These occur sporadically along most of the
range, east as far as the Karlik Tag. They grow in a broad altitude band between 1,700
meters and 2,700 meters and are dominated by the endemic Schrenk’s spruce (Picea
schrenkiana). Some silver fir (Abies semenovii) occurs and associated species include
the endemic Tien Shan rowan (Sorbus tianshanica), aspen (Populus tremula), willow
(Salix xerophila), and birches (Betula spp.). Stands of closed-canopy forest are found in
patches of varying size, with the largest on the Kyrgyz Range. More open stands also
occur in a forest-meadow mosaic (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
Juniper
Open juniper forest occurs widely between 1,000 meters and 2,800 meters. In the Tien
39
Shan it grows above the spruce belt and is composed of Juniperus seravschanica, J.
turkestanica, and J. semiglobosa (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
3.2.4. Subalpine and Alpine Meadows Subalpine and alpine meadows occur from 2,000-4,000 meters and above, mainly in the
northern and western more humid parts of the hotspot. Plant cover is high, with a tight
sward made up of grasses such as Poa alpina, sedges (Carex and Kobresia spp.) and
carpeted with a rich variety of herbs including many endemic species. The fritillary
(Rhinopetalum stenantherum), gentians (Gentiana spp.), globeflower (Trollius
dshungaricus), primulas (Primula spp.), tulips (Tulipa spp.), anemones (e.g., Anemone
protracta), louseworts (Pedicularis spp.), and aconites (Aconitum talassicum, A.
leucostomum) are prominent among them. These meadows are at their most attractive in
early summer when the flowers are in full bloom. In drier areas of the Pamir and Tien
Shan, the montane meadows are replaced by high-elevation steppes, characterized by
grasses such as Festuca valesiaca, Poa attenuata, Puccinellia, sedges (Carex and
Kobresia spp.), together with a sparse cover of xerophytic perennial herbs (Mittermeier
et al. 2004).
3.2.5. High-Elevation Vegetation Vegetation cover and plant diversity declines rapidly as one approaches the upper limits
of plant cover, and cushion plants and those with low rosettes that can withstand the
high winds, cold temperatures, and aridity become more common. Acantholimon
diapensioides is the most widespread cushion plant and species of Saxifraga,
Androsace, Rhodiola, Saussurea, and Tanacetum are also frequent. At 4,000 to 4,500 m,
even more hardy perennials are found, such as Thylacospermum caespitosum, the large,
tight cushions of which resemble a moss more than a herbaceous plant, and Dryadanthe
tetrandra. Snow patch plants also include attractive species, such as the alp lily (Lloydia
serotina), the large, pale blue and white globeflower (Trollius lilacinus), and several
crucifers (Draba spp.). At such high elevations the vegetation has a tundra-like
character similar to Tibet, with sedge meadows dominated by species of Kobresia and
Carex in areas along valley bottoms. Above this, there are only a few lichens and rare
algal films on some glaciers (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
3.3. Species Diversity and Endemism The mountains of Central Asia harbor genetic resources of the wild species of several
domesticated plants and animals such as wheat, apples, almonds, walnuts and
pistachios, as well as horses and goats, and are host to at least 20-30 distinct ecosystems
and 4,500–5,500 species of vascular plants, almost one quarter of which are endemic to
the region (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
Table __. Species diversity and endemism in the hotspot by taxonomic group
Taxonomic Group Species Endemic Species Percent Endemism
Plants 5,500 1,500 27.3
Mammals 143 6 4.2
Birds 489 0 0.0
Reptiles 59 1 1.7
Amphibians 7 4 57.1
Freshwater Fishes 27 5 18.5
40
3.3.1. Plants The flora of the Mountains of Central Asia is a mix of Boreal, Siberian, Mongolian,
Indo-Himalayan and Iranian elements. There are more than 5,500 known species of
vascular plants in the hotspot, about 1,500 of which are endemic. There are also 64
endemic genera, including 21 from the family Umbelliferae and 12 from the family
Compositae. The endemic flora includes tree species, flowers, onions and grasses.
More than 16 endemic species of tulip grow in the steppe and meadow zones of the
mountains of Central Asia. The largest of these is the rare, brilliant orange-red Greig's
tulip (Tulipa greigii), often known as the king of the tulips, which is only found in
western Tien Shan. Collecting for horticulture and decoration has led to the decline of
many of the hotspot's tulip species (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
3.3.2. Mammals Six of about 140 mammals found in the hotspot are endemic: Menzibier's marmot
(Marmota menzbieri, VU), found only in the western Tien Shan above 2,000 meters,
and Ili pika (Ochotona iliensis, VU), a small species of lagomorph found only in the
Chinese portion of the Tien Shan; two ground squirrels (Spermophilus ralli and S.
relictus); the Pamir shrew (Sorex bucharensis); and the Alai mole vole (Ellobius
alaicus, EN) in the Alai Mountains of Kyrgyzstan (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
The hotspot also holds a variety of mountain ungulates, including three endemic
subspecies of the argali wild sheep (Ovis ammon, VU), among them the Marco Polo
sheep (O. a. polii), whose magnificent curling horns have made it a favored target of
trophy hunters. The Siberian ibex (Capra sibirica) is the most numerous and most
widespread species, occurring in all parts of the area above the tree line, while the blue
sheep (Pseudois nayaur), a typical Tibetan and Trans-Himalayan species, reaches the
southeast corner of the hotspot (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
Because of their location in the central part of the Asian continent, the mountains of
Central Asia play an important connecting role in the distribution of many important
montane Asian species. Perhaps the best-known symbol of this fauna is the snow
leopard (Uncia uncia, EN), a species found in the alpine and subalpine zones of the
hotspot. The species has declined here, as elsewhere, as a result of poaching for its
valued fur and a depletion of its prey base through illegal hunting (Mittermeier et al.
2004).
3.3.3. Birds Although nearly 500 bird species occur regularly in this hotspot, none are endemic to
the region. Many species belong to genera typical of the high ranges of Asia, such as
redstarts (Phoenicurus), accentors (Prunella) and rosefinches (Carpodacus). Coniferous
forests on the northern side of the Tien Shan form the southern limits of several boreal
species, including the black grouse (Lyrurus tetrix) and northern hawk owl (Surnia
ulula), while desert birds, including the great bustard (Otis tarda, VU) and houbara
bustard (Chlamydotis undulate, VU) occur in the low-altitude zones (Mittermeier et al.
2004).
The mountains of Central Asia are an important stronghold for birds of prey, with
important breeding populations of several species, including the golden eagle (Aquila
chrysaetos), the imperial eagle (A. heliaca, VU), steppe eagle (A. rapax), booted eagle
41
(Hieraaetus pennatus), lammergeier (Gypaetus barbatus), black vulture (Aegypius
monachus), Eurasian griffon (Gyps fulvus), Himalayan griffon (G. himalayensis),
peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and saker falcon (F. cherrug, EN).
3.3.4. Reptiles Nearly 60 reptiles are found in the hotspot. Diversity is highest in the lower elevations,
in desert and semi-desert areas. There are ten species of Eremias lizards and eight toad-
headed agamas (Phrynocephalus spp.) (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
3.3.5. Amphibians Although only seven species of amphibians have been recorded, four of them are
endemic, including a salamander (Ranodon sibiricus, EN) found only in the Jungar
Range in the Tien Shan. One recently described species, the frog (Rana terentievi) is
known from hot springs of central Tajikistan (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
3.3.6. Freshwater Fishes This arid hotspot has less than 30 freshwater fish species, five of which are possibly
endemic. Endemism is centered in the Lake Issyk-Kul Basin, which lacks outlets to
connect it with any other bodies of water. In addition, the Koytendag blind cave fish
(Troglocobitis starostini) is found only in a cave system of the Koytendag Mountains in
the southeast Turkmenistan (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
3.4. Ecosystem Services The mountains of Central Asia provide an astonishing array of essential ecosystem
goods and services that serve not only the mountain inhabitants but also those in the
lowlands and people around the globe. These goods and services, which fall into four
broad categories – provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting – include forest
products and land for food production; watershed protection; habitat for flora and fauna
of local and global significance; the regulation of natural hazards and climate; natural
areas for leisure and recreational activities; and perhaps most important of all, the
storage and release of water. In the Regional Sustainable Development Strategy of
Central Asia (2009), the governments officially acknowledge the role of mountains as
"water towers" and storehouses of biodiversity.
Most of the population of Central Asia relies on water that falls in the mountains, where
it is stored until making its way downstream to population centers. Densely populated
valleys and oases of the vast drylands of Central Asia depend on mountain water
transported by numerous rivers and streams, especially the Syr Darya River, which
arises in the Tien Shan Mountains, the Amu Darya, which arises in the Pamir. Each
flows more than 2,000 kilometers to empty into the Aral Sea. Other major regional
rivers originating in the mountains are the Tarim, Ili, Chu and Talas.
Overall, Tajikistan holds 40 percent, and Kyrgyzstan 30 percent, of the water resources
serving the five Central Asia countries. These water resources also serve China and
Afghanistan. Uzbekistan, with the largest share of population in the hotspot, is the
biggest water consumer, in large part because of an economy based on irrigated
agriculture. With 90 percent of their water resources coming from mountains located
outside their country borders, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, are highly vulnerable to
water shortages, especially the downstream communities.
42
Mountains provide a profound sense of place, a source of inspiration and a rich cultural
heritage. The degree of cultural diversity varies among the mountain regions of the
world. People in isolated mountain areas of Central Asia, especially in the Pamir and
Wakhan, differ from those in the main valleys, and communities tend to develop
distinctive cultural identities, agriculture traditions and languages. In the modern period,
however, mountain minorities lost some of their identities to the dominant influence of
Soviet and Chinese cultures. Before the era of industrialization, spirituality was also
common in mountain communities of Central Asia, where people regarded the
mountains as living forces and sources of power or symbols of the sacred.
The rich and diverse cultures in the Mountains of Central Asia and the strong sense of
place in the mountains attract visitors from around the world, and tourism offers an
additional income source for mountain communities.
For residents of some of the region’s largest cities – Tashkent, Almaty, Bishkek,
Dushanbe and Urumqi – the mountains of Central Asia hotspot provides fresh air and
the breezes that disperse urban air pollution. Mountains and their refreshing lakes and
white-water streams are among the most popular weekend destinations for urban
residents. In addition to picnics, hiking or skiing in beautiful unspoiled highlands, the
key mountain attractions include geothermal sources and spas, horse milk therapy and
the sampling of diverse mountain honeys, local herbal teas and traditional products.
Governments in Central Asia are looking to follow the lead of other countries in
formally evaluating the monetary value of national ecosystems and their benefits. This
kind of assessment will help in determining how much should be invested in natural
resources and biodiversity protection initiatives and may encourage further funding. If
mountain regions can prove both the value and critical importance of their existence,
downstream countries may also be encouraged to invest in highland areas. These
activities are in line with the Nagoya Protocol and are beneficial in ensuring that the
genetic resources of countries are valued, recognized and invested in accordingly. Table __. Principal Ecosystem Services Type of Ecosystem Service Examples
Provisioning
Fresh water Food Raw materials Medicinal plants
Regulating
Moderation of extreme events Prevention of erosion Carbon storage Local climate and air quality
Cultural
Spirituality and sense of place Inspiration Mental and physical health Recreation and tourism
Supporting
Habitats for plants and animals Maintenance of genetic diversity
43
4. CONSERVATION OUTCOMES More than 150 key biodiversity areas were identified, mapped and discussed with
stakeholders. For details on conservation outcomes see Annexes 1 and 2 and xls sheets
Map of key biodiversity areas
Map of conservation landscapes
44
5. SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT This chapter provides a socioeconomic overview of the hotspot and an analysis of how
socioeconomic factors affect conservation outcomes. The analysis covers population
demographics, income and poverty, the relationships between natural resources and the
main economic sectors in the region, and the cultural differences that have relevance to
conservation or the role of civil society.
5.1. Population In each of the two mountain countries of the hotspot – Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan –
population numbers in 1950 were about 1.5 million. In 2016, the population of
Kyrgyzstan reached 6 million and in Tajikistan 8.5 million people (400% and 550%
increase as compared to 1950, respectively). By 2050, UN DESA (2015) estimates that
Kyrgyzstan will have more than 8 million people and Tajikistan more than 14 million
people because of improving quality of life and high birth rates. Population of the
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China increased from 4 million in 1950 to
more than 20 million today (500% increase).
The Mountains of Central Asia hotspot is now home to about 60-64 million people.
Most are young (median age 17-25) and living along the main rivers or oases. By 2050
the population in the region may approach 90 million or more (UN DESA, 2015). The
Ferghana Valley has the highest rural population density in Central Asia.
Nomads work the high mountain pasture of Kyrgyzstan and China, the semi-desert
areas of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan pursuing a centuries-old lifestyle reshaped by
modern conditions. In addition to the capital cities and other urban centers, some areas
such as the Ferghana and Zarafshan Valleys are a mix of urban and rural. The
population in the rapidly growing Chinese area of the hotspot has jumped from about
1.5 million in 2000 to more than 3 million today in Urumqi city alone, which is the
main city of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and holds 15 percent of the
population. This region is the largest provincial level administrative division in China,
with an annual population growth rate of 1.1-1.6 percent, the result mostly from in-
migration to the region from other areas of China. The share of Han Chinese in the
overall population increased from 6 per cent in the 1950s to 40 per cent today.
Table __. Population in the hotspot and the countries
Country Population* in the hotspot, million, 2015
Density* of population per km
2, 2015
Population growth* annual %, 2015
% Population increase* 2000-2015
Rural population as % of total* (2015)
China 17.5-20 16-20 1.1 15 56
Kyrgyzstan 6 30 1.6 20 64
Tajikistan 8.5 60 1.9 30 73
Kazakhstan 6-7 8-16 1.1 20 50
Uzbekistan 22 180-200** 1.1 20 50
Turkmenistan 0.050 10 1.3 20 90
Afghanistan 0.050 1-2 1-2 no data 100
Total 60-63.5 m 70
Source: national and local statistics
45
* Approximate figures for the hotspot (within administrative boundaries) estimated for 2016 ** particularly for the Ferghana and Zeravshan Valleys and Tashkent city agglomeration
In addition to Urumqi, the hotspot contains such major urban population centers as
Tashkent, Almaty, Bishkek and Dushanbe, but a significant portion of population in the
hotspot is still predominately rural. The livelihoods of a large part of this rural
population depend on agriculture, which has direct impacts on biodiversity through use
of agrichemicals and the expansion of the agricultural lands. In addition, a great many
are also still dependent on wild resources for their basic needs and income – firewood,
wild fruits and nuts, medicines.
In recent years, Central Asia has experienced several waves of migration and temporary
displacement. Water deficits and drought in the Aral Sea region in the 1990s and again
in 2000-2001 displaced many people (UNEP and ICSD 2006). The hardest hit areas
were the Amu Darya River delta and Afghanistan. Most people eventually returned to
their original homes, but many are considering permanent migration (UNESCO 2013).
While these areas are downstream from the hotspot, they depend on the ecosystem
services – particularly the provision of water – that originate in the mountains.
During the 1950s and the 1970s, the Soviets orchestrated the resettlement of the
mountain dwellers of Tajikistan to the lowlands for the purposes of land development
and cotton cultivation. Some of the migration was forced, and some voluntary, but in
any case, whole mountain communities were abandoned for many years. At the time of
independence, about half of these migrants from the resettlement program went back to
their old villages. Civil unrest in the 1990s and the availability of wood for heating and
land for food cultivation were additional factors encouraging people to return to the
mountains (University of Central Asia et al. 2012).
The Soviet Union collapse led to a major deficit of jobs, and many men from Tajikistan,
Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan rural communities now travel to capital cities or to Russia
and Kazakhstan to find work. The drain of young and middle-aged men from traditional
communities has had an impact on family structures and placed an additional burden on
women, who increasingly take the lead in households, while village elders take on the
roles usually played by younger men. In some poverty-stricken areas, women who are
heads of households have also joined the labor migration. In the 1990s, instability and
ethnic issues have also contributed to the emigration of skilled workers from Central
Asia. On contrary, in northwest China, major inflow of skilled laborers from mainland
China since the 1990s to present has contributed to a booming population, agriculture,
science and industries.
After independence, the exodus of Russians and Europeans from Central Asian
countries, particularly in Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, changed the ethnic
proportions of the countries’ populations. The Russian language, which was quite
common in the region two decades ago, is now rarely spoken and understood in the
mountains of Central Asia. Legislation and national programs are available in Russian
and most international meetings are hold in Russian too. In Xingjian, the Chinese and
Uyghur are the main official languages for meetings, projects and legislation, but
numerous minority languages are spoken too. English and Russian is spoken in business
and academic community.
46
In a major shift since independence, immigration to Central Asia is now primarily
associated with trade, and about three quarters of the immigrant population is Chinese
(Azattyk 2013; Olimova 2012). Investment in development in such areas as energy,
roads and mining increasingly comes from China, and many Chinese nationals now live
and work in Central Asia. The concern over long-term lease of agricultural land to
foreigners, especially Chinese, has triggered public protests across Kazakhstan in 2016
and lead to the ban on land regulation revisions.
5.2. Income Shocks and overall economic decline characterized the 1990s – the first decade of
independence in Central Asia. Civil war raged at the same time in Afghanistan. The
following decade, when the countries of the region were beginning to find ways to
move forward, coincided with a global economic boom. The countries rich in fossil
fuels benefited from growing demand and expanding manufacturing, while the other
countries pursued new opportunities for labor migration and trade and services.
Table __. Economic statistics for the countries in the hotspot
Country Income Group
GDP per Capita*, 2015
GDP Growth (annual %, 2010-2015)
Net ODA Received (2014, Million*)
Net ODA Received as % of GNI, 2014
China Upper middle $11,300** 8-12** -960 0
Kyrgyzstan Middle $1,100 3-8 624 8.6
Tajikistan Middle $1,000 4-7 356 3
Kazakhstan Upper middle $10,500 1-5 88 0
Uzbekistan Middle $2,100 8 324 0.5
Turkmenistan Upper middle $6,900 6-10 34 0
Afghanistan Low $600 1-2 4,823 23.3
Sources: World Bank and national statistics * Current US dollars; ** Xingjian
5.2.1. Poverty As geographically isolated, landlocked and impoverished countries with predominantly
agricultural economies and rural populations, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan
are more impoverished and less developed than their neighbors.
Economic recession in the early years after the end of Soviet Union in Central Asia led
to levels of poverty in the mountain countries as high as 75-80 percent (UNDP
Kyrgyzstan 2002; UNDP Tajikistan 2012; UNECE 2013). Donor support was critical at
the peak of the poverty and humanitarian crisis, especially in the Tajik Pamirs, and
poverty levels have declined dramatically. Poverty levels in Tajikistan, which remains
the most impoverished country in the hotspot, fell below 40-45 (UNECE 2013, UNDP
2016). In both Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan poverty remains significant, but lower than
in Tajikistan (UNDP, 2016). Poverty levels in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are below
5 percent (UNECE 2013). Unemployment remains a problem, and many farmers and
pastoralists migrate to find work abroad or in large cities. In Uzbekistan, 15 years ago
poverty levels were at 27 percent, but according to UNDP estimates, the rate fell below
15 percent (UNDP 2016).
Table __. Poverty and human development indicators in the hotspot countries
47
Country 2014 Human Development Index Rank (out of 185)
Life Expectancy (Years)
Poverty, % (2012-2015)
2015 Adult Literacy Rate*
2014 Gender Inequality Index Rank (out of 185)
China 90 75.4 no data 96 40
Kyrgyzstan 120 70.4 35 99 67
Tajikistan 129 67 35-45 99 69
Kazakhstan 56 71.6 5 100 52
Uzbekistan 114 73.6 10-14 100 No data
Turkmenistan 109 66 5 100 No data
Afghanistan 171 51 35 38 152
Sources: UNDP, World Bank * Population 15+ years, %
Development indicators, such as income and literacy rates, are typically lower in remote
areas, which are often also the site of concentrations of biodiversity and protected areas.
5.2.2. Remittances The Kyrgyz and Tajik republics under the Soviet Union had benefited from substantial
budgetary support and the Soviet economic power and common markets. Soviet policies
had led to a high level of social and economic development and strategic support for the
populations, particularly those in the remote mountain areas, in terms of security, jobs,
and the provision of food and fodder and energy supplies. The withdrawal of subsidies
and the interruption of traditional trading links and markets led to rapid increases in
unemployment and poverty.
Remittances from labor migrants account for a significant proportion of national
incomes in the mountain countries, and improve economic security in the short run
(ILO, 2010). The role of remittances has increased dramatically over the period 2000-
2015 and has become the major source of income as well as the safety net for many
households in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Almost 1 million Tajik citizens,
1.5-2 million Uzbek citizens and 0.5 million Kyrgyz citizens work in Russia. The value
of remittances to Tajikistan officially reported by banks in 2010-2015 exceeded US
$2.5-3.5 billion per year. Remittances to Uzbekistan are even larger at US $5-7 billion
per year, but in proportion to GDP they are smaller. The effects of the 2008-2010 and
2015-2016 economic turbulence in Russia have affected the flow of remittances.
Tajikistan often tops the world ranking of countries relying on remittances from abroad
– with an amount equal to almost half of the country’s GDP (WDI). The share and
overall amount of remittances in Kyrgyzstan is lower, but still significant – almost 30
percent of GDP. Total remittances sent by labor migrants from Russia to their home
countries of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan exceeded US $12 billion in 2013.
5.3. Reliance on Natural Resources The Mountains of Central Asia hotspot’s abundant natural resources are the foundation
for all important economic sectors. Rivers provide for hydropower development in the
mountains and for irrigated agriculture in the lowlands. Windy canyons favor
development of wind power. Rich oil, gas and coal reserves fuel the local economies of
China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and the mining sector is developing
48
the vast mineral deposits that occur throughout the hotspot. The exploitation of these
natural resources without regard for environmental consequences leads to degradation.
Water is the region’s most precious resource, and Central Asia has long depended on
irrigated agriculture for much of its food and fiber production. Wasteful water use
practices and overuse of pesticides and mineral fertilizers – legacies of the Soviet era –
continue to cause problems today. A high proportion of irrigation water is still being
wasted: some drainage water flows into the desert and evaporates, and some returns to
the rivers carrying up to 5-10 times its original salinity.
Most wildlife management and conservation areas are the responsibility of the states,
but some hunting areas are privately managed by licenses. Many protected areas have
low economic value, but their sheer size and the importance of the ecosystem services
they provide makes the condition of these areas an important consideration in the
context of conservation of biodiversity. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) have
been proposed as mechanisms to deliver better conservation by linking beneficiaries of
an ecosystem service with providers via a mechanism to pay the people who manage the
natural habitats that provide the service.
In some instances, the use of the land for biodiversity conservation may conflict with
other prospective uses, especially mining, energy production and infrastructure
development. The increase in size and diversity of protected areas across the hotspot is a
positive trend and contributes to ecosystem resilience (FLERMONECA, 2015).
5.3.1. Agriculture As part of the transition from collective farming to a market economy, Central Asian
governments launched a land redistribution process that resulted in agricultural lands
passing into a quasi-private ownership or long-term private rental. This land rights
transition turned the management of formerly collective farms over to individuals,
villages or groups, and the number of farming units skyrocketed. Although the state
retains official ownership, private management systems such as long-term individual
leasing are now widespread. In 2014 the number of private farmers exceeded 350,000 in
Kyrgyzstan, and 130,000 in Tajikistan. With the change in land ownership, the income
gap widened between those who acquired sufficient land for crop management and
domestic animals and those who did not. This problem is also relevant to Afghanistan.
Prior to the Soviet era in Central Asia and before the 1960s in the Chinese part of the
hotspot, the mountain communities practiced primarily subsistence-based agriculture –
livestock production in the Tien Shan, and a mixture of crop cultivation, gardening and
livestock breeding in the Pamir – with lively trade between home-based agriculturalists
and nomadic pastoralists. During the Soviet period the agricultural sector was
transformed from a household-level system to a centrally planned large-scale production
system. Over the last 20 years, the agricultural sector in parts of Central Asia has
reverted to household-level agriculture, but in China, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, the
state order and planning plays a significant role in agriculture sector development.
Because the Pamir dwellers raise more crops than livestock, they eat mainly vegetables,
legumes and foodstuffs such as bread and noodles. The diet of the Tien Shan and
Wakhan dwellers has a high proportion of meat and milk. Changes during the economic
transition affected nutrition and led to a considerable reduction in food variety.
49
Consumption of meat products, fruits and vegetables generally declined, while
consumption of bread, potato and dairy products increased.
In the mountains of southern Kyrgyzstan and in the Ferghana Valley, unpredictable
weather affects communities reliant on cash crops such as apricots and wild forest
products as well as those relying on subsistence crops such as rice and grain. Rolling
losses can affect entire provinces and lead to grievances and dissatisfaction. Nomadic
communities in the interior and high mountain pastoral communities have suffered
cattle losses related to winter weather.
The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region is well known for its fruits and other
agricultural produce including grapes, melons, pears, cotton, wheat, silk, walnuts and
sheep. Around 7 percent of the land is utilized for agriculture. Animal husbandry now
accounts for nearly 30 percent of local agricultural output value. Region-wide, the net
annual per capita income of farmers was reported at CNY 3,500.
5.3.2. Mineral Resources and Mining The mining sector in the region is relatively small in terms of workforce size, but
generates significant tax revenues. In the mountains, the development of the mining
sector has been significant in recent years, particularly in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and
China. In Kyrgyzstan, most of the large mineral reserves are in the high mountains
(above 2,500 meters), as they are in Tajikistan, where the mining reserves are less
developed and the resources are not as well known.
Mining and metallurgy industries are the major cash sources for national budgets in
both countries, contributing up to 50 percent of the national export earnings in
Tajikistan (aluminum and gold) and up to 30 percent in Kyrgyzstan (mainly gold).
A series of changes in the operators of the mines, and local perceptions of broken
promises, dubious hiring practices, compensation inequities and environmental damage
have all hardened resistance to mining in Kyrgyzstan (Bogdetsky et al. 2012). The
benefit-sharing arrangement between mining projects, central government and local
communities remains a lingering cause of resentment. The conflict between the use of
land for traditional pasture and grazing, nature conservation and for mining activities is
also a source of friction in Kyrgyzstan. The melting of glaciers and permafrost in the
mountains is complicating the infrastructure and waste management requirements of
mining operations (Torgoev 2013).
Kyrgyzstan, which foresaw the mining and energy sectors as having significant
development potential, moved to create conditions favorable to mining operators by
enacting economic reforms and by allowing access to geological information. Currently
many territories are licensed for mining activities. Tajikistan continues to consider its
geological information semi-confidential, as in the Soviet era, and its legislation and the
ease of doing business lags behind Kyrgyzstan’s. As a result, Tajikistan has attracted
fewer investors. Tajikistan had been famous for silver mining from ancient times, and a
recent geological audit suggests that it has probably one of the largest silver reserves in
world in Kuramin, Western Tien Shan. The government is in the process of requesting
expressions of interest from interested mining companies.
50
Regulations on mining are sometimes contradictory to environmental protection
priorities: mining is allowed in riverbeds and sometimes even in the buffer zones of
protected areas. Local communities oppose mining developments in or near nature
reserves and along rivers and springs where ecosystem damage caused by industrial
operations could have negative implications. Residents fear their valleys will become
polluted and people will stop buying their vegetables and other agricultural products.
Some companies have extensively developed alluvial deposits in sensitive freshwater
river ecosystems that provide clean water.
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan are participating in an international
initiative on transparency in extractive industries, and are working to involve as many
mining companies as possible. The transparency initiative requires financial disclosure
that shows how mining activities benefit governments. The initiative does not, however,
require disclosure of how the activities may or may not benefit local communities.
In both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the environmental problems associated with the
increase in mining and related activities are offset to some extent by the declines in all
other industrial sectors. While the increase in mining increases potential threats to the
environment, the reduction in industry reduces other threats.
Artisanal gold mining is not widespread in the hotspot due to tight governmental
controls and regulations, but it exists in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and China. Gold
helped mountain dwellers survive in the turbulent economic transition in the 1990s. For
others it is an income supplement in winter months when agricultural activities are
limited in the mountains. The increasing degree of labor mechanization and the use of
mercury for fine gold extraction are growing threats to the mountain environment.
The extractive sector constitutes the largest source of income and share of GDP of the
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region . There are a large number of mineral exploration
and exploitation sites throughout the region, both legal and illegal. In some instances,
whole valleys have been destroyed by mining activities. Economic pressures continue
for extractive sector expansion wherever there are valuable resources, with insufficient
consideration given to protected status.
The region experienced a gold and oil rush in the 1990s. The local government issued a
ban on placer gold mining, yet illegal mining activities nonetheless still occur.
Especially along river courses, gold mining poses a serious threat to biodiversity, not
only because it seriously damages the riparian ecosystem as well as grassland pastures
traditionally used by Kazakh herders, but also because changes in normal river flow
regimes threaten the fish species and other wildlife that rely on the watercourses. Gold
mining also may pollute the water system through the processes used for extraction.
5.3.3. Energy Within the hotspot, the territories of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have the largest
hydropower potential, and both countries are working on policies and strategies to
develop that potential on all scales. International organizations including the World
Bank and the Asian Development Bank have demonstrated interest in the energy sector,
and are active in promoting markets for energy generation and transfer. Energy-hungry
neighbors, China, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan, are also interested in the prospect of
51
benefiting from the development of Central Asia hydropower projects. Currently,
Tajikistan has about 5,000 MW of installed hydropower capacity and Kyrgyzstan has
2,700 MW, less than 10 percent of their technically feasible hydropower potential.
Russia, China and Iran are interested in investments in the hydropower sector. Planned
and ongoing projects aim to further expand hydropower capacity on the rivers with
existing power cascades, chiefly on the Vakhsh in Tajikistan and on the Naryn in
Kyrgyzstan. Additional plans and projects contemplate development on unmodified
major rivers such as the Panj and Zeravshan in Tajikistan and Sary-Djaz in Kyrgyzstan.
In view of the growing national energy demand, authorities have chosen to increase
power generation capacities using both renewable (hydropower and wind) and non-
renewable energy sources such as coal, deposits of which are accessible and affordable
in many of the hotspot countries. Coal-fired plants would serve as a short-term solution
to overcome energy deficits and increase energy security. The emerging trend towards
increasing use of coal for power generation and in cement production and other
industries is a concern, however, since this use adds to the national carbon footprint and
causes local air pollution.
China is increasingly present in the renewable energy market of Central Asia, and many
small and medium scale hydropower stations, wind energy and solar power installations
are being built with Chinese investment and technology. The region is also interested in
Chinese investments in coal both for power plants and for use in cement production
particularly in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Coal and oil reserves in the Chinese part of
the hotspot are important in China’s energy development plans.
Like in the mining sector, the development of the energy sector is rife with controversy
and competing interests – upstream and down, local and international. The Rogun Dam
on the Vakhsh River in Tajikistan is a case in point. Slated to rise more than 300 meters
high, the Rogun Dam is a source of tension between Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. To
facilitate the development of the project and to attract international investors, the World
Bank has provided assistance in the technical, economic and socio-environmental
assessments. In the absence of international investors, Tajikistan sought to develop the
project as a state-owned venture financed out of the national budget. Kyrgyzstan plans
to develop its upper Naryn River cascade triggers resistance from downstream states.
Finally, corruption is reducing the development potential for the largely state-owned
energy sector. Illegal connections to the grid are not uncommon, and the industrial
sector enjoys privileges while some communities have no service. For the past 20 years,
the system has operated without transparency and without consultation with CSOs.
The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region has large deposits of oil, including the
nation’s second largest oil field Karamay . The region provides natural gas from the
local gas fields and serves as a key transit hub for gas from Turkmenistan and
Kazakhstan. The petrochemical sector accounts for 60 percent of the region’s economy.
In recent years, industry has replaced agriculture as the region’s main economic sector.
5.3.4. Water-agriculture-energy nexus The tension between the highlands and the lowlands over the use of water for energy
production and irrigated agriculture is a crucial issue in the region. The effects of
52
climate change are likely to reverberate throughout the water-agriculture-energy nexus,
and make a difficult situation worse.
The water resources in the Aral Sea basin and Tarim River basin are already used to
such an extent that any significant stress resulting from weather extremes and climate
change affects all users, especially those downstream. The water infrastructure in
Central Asia was designed in the Soviet era for the region as a whole, but since
independence each country owns and maintains its infrastructure with the exception of
some cross-border canals, key reservoirs and pumping stations still held in common or
operated jointly (ENVSEC 2011).
The downstream states prefer to maintain the old status quo in regional water
management, counting on the historical hydrology baseline, water allocations and
arrangements. The upstream states opt for revision of the water management schemes in
line with new political and economic realities (ENVSEC 2011). In line with the growth
and development of the national economies in the region, the countries are pursuing
national and sector-level water reforms in the national interest. At the regional level,
however, water reform discussions are in stalemate.
The increasing demand for cheap hydropower is creating an opportunity for countries
with abundant hydro sources to sell power to both close and distant neighbors, but
current plans for significant growth in the capacity to produce hydropower and regulate
water flow may intensify the upstream-downstream tensions.
In the past 25 years a lack of coordination or willingness to coordinate over water
releases balancing hydropower against irrigated agriculture demands resulted in
downstream flooding episodes in winter and deficits in summer. Upstream countries
suffer from energy deficits or economic losses due to the limitations of energy
exchange. As a result, plans for further hydropower developments in the upstream
countries are viewed with suspicion by the downstream states, although mutually
beneficial solutions exist. When the countries discontinued their energy exchange
system, new markets formed, but the connections are poorly developed. Trading fossil
fuels for electric power or for the provision of water services is still a possibility.
Whether the countries continue to pursue their own narrow national interests or take a
collaborative approach at the regional level may determine whether the tensions escalate
or diminish (ENVSEC 2011).
5.3.5. Forestry The percentage of forest cover in Central Asia is relatively low – from 2.9 percent in
Tajikistan to 8.8 percent in Turkmenistan – and the lowland forests tend to be sparse
while the mountain forests are denser. Most natural forests and plantations remain state
owned. Individuals and associations manage a growing number of state-owned fruit and
nut forests and plantations through long-term leases from the state. This practice has
resulted in a boom in fruit and timber plantations, reduced deforestation and increased
reforestation, all of which provide the benefits of carbon sequestration. On the other
hand, the fragmentation of these areas can occur if leaseholders either fence their areas
or cut artificial barriers to secure their holdings, and the conversion of forest lands to
other uses remains a possibility.
Table __. Forest cover
53
Country
Total Forests (2015) Forests within the
hotspot
Km2
% of land area
Km2
China 2,100,000 22 23,350 (Xinjiang)
Kyrgyzstan 8,360 4.4 8,360
Tajikistan 4,080 2.9 4,080
Kazakhstan 34,220 1.3 No data
Uzbekistan 30,450 7.2 No data
Turkmenistan 41,270 8.8 No data
Afghanistan 13,500 2.1 No forests in Wakhan
Source: World Bank, FAO
Fuel wood is the principal source of energy for cooking and heating in the mountains,
due to the lack of affordable alternatives, and harvesting it is widespread throughout the
hotspot and probably the single largest use of woodlands.
There are no known forest certification schemes in the mountains of the hotspot
countries, although the Forest Stewardship Council has initiated some work in Central
Asia to introduce more sustainable, “eco-friendly” use and management of non-timber
forest products (NTFPs). Overall figures on the value of the market for non-timber
forest products across the hotspot are not available, but household collection of such
products is significant and its economic value believed to be high.
5.3.6. Tourism Hot springs and skiing resorts in the hotspot are popular destinations for vacationers and
those seeking the healing powers of the waters and mountains. Tourism development in
Uzbekistan is mostly associated with the cultural heritage sites. Hunting tourism is
common in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Key nature tourism destinations within the
hotspot include both the Pamir and Tien Shan Mountains. Many of the most visited sites
are protected areas, which highlights their importance as a source of tourism revenue.
Many scenically beautiful and biodiversity rich montane protected areas in the hotspot
need further investment in facilities and better promotion to attract additional tourists.
Security concerns are impeding many interested tourists from visiting Afghanistan’s
Wakhan Valley and Badakshan.
When the region was not accessible to international tourism and regional market there
was little demand for the animal hides and wood-carving products traditionally made in
the mountains, and the skills in those traditional crafts significantly diminished. Now,
however, with the new market opportunities and the growth of tourism in the region, the
traditional mountain crafts are experiencing a resurgence, and many communities are
specializing in traditional crafts.
The Tien Shan and Tianchi Lake National Nature Reserve is about a one-hour drive
from the city of Urumqi, and every day bus after bus ferries visitors – who number in
the thousands per day – from the city and other parts of China to the reserve. This is a
much higher level of visitation than that in Central Asia, and signifies the strong local
interest in environmental protection.
54
Tourism in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region has seen rapid growth over the
past decade. By 2008 the region had opened nearly 500 scenic areas or spots, including
many related to the Silk Road history and culture. In 2008, the region hosted over 22
million visitors and reported nearly 20 billion CNY in tourism revenues.
Tourism development across Xinjiang is oriented toward a pursuit of growth in total
numbers of visitors, rather than a promotion of different forms of tourism. The
environmental capacities of different sites and the variety of management options
available are rarely considered. For example, now nearly 1 million people visit Kanas
Lake and Nature Reserve in the northern part of Xinjiang each year, up from 90,000
visitors in 2006. The large number of tourists that visit different sites could easily
overwhelm the sites’ socio-cultural or environmental capacities; in some places, local
capacities already are surpassed. Inappropriate management threatens the long-term
viability of tourism development and local biodiversity.
Tourism already is causing the degradation of natural ecosystems and endangering
wildlife species in major tourist sites in the prefecture. According to local tourism
managers, wild plants are being harvested illegally for the curio trade and tourism also
is leading to habitat disturbance from trampling and from the pollution of streams.
5.4. Cultural Distinctions
5.4.1. Ethnicity The main ethnic groups in the region are Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Uyghur, Han, Tajik
and Wakhi. The Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, and Uyghur live throughout the mountains of
Central Asia and speak a series of Turkic languages. The other major ethnic groups are
the Tajiks, who inhabit the Pamir in Tajikistan, Afghanistan and China. They are
subdivided into a number of groups. Wakhi-speaking communities live in Wakhan of
Afghanistan. Added to these are many Eastern Europeans (Russians, Ukrainians) in the
Central Asian part of the hotspot and Han Chinese in the Chinese part, especially in
major cities and industrial areas.
In Kyrgyzstan, the Uzbek minority was displaced in ethnic clashes associated with the
2010 revolution. Forested areas in southern Kyrgyzstan were home to a large proportion
of Uzbeks, who harvested forest products for consumption and export. In China, some
tensions involving ethnic factors have occurred, too.
5.4.2. Religion Islam – the most practiced religion in the hotspot – grew and expanded over time
(Munster and Bosch 2012; CORE IFSH 2012) and range from the traditional to the
modern. Independence saw the rise of Islam in Central Asia, particularly in Tajikistan
and the mountain regions where the roots of the religion go deep. Differences in belief
regarding whether government should be secular or theocratic have been a source of
civil conflict and difficult relations. Extreme Islamic groups across Central Asia and
Afghanistan have used the mountains as hiding places. The rise of radical movements
has led to outbreaks of violence in some places (Munster and Bosch 2012). The threat of
fundamentalism remains among the common regional security concerns expressed by
the Central Asian countries (Munster and Bosch 2012; Zarifi 2011).
55
The Tien Shan communities have deep roots in Tengriism, an ancient religion that
incorporates elements of animism, and that focuses on living in harmony with nature.
Sulaiman-Too Sacred Mountain in Osh, Kyrgyzstan, is a United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Mountain areas of Central Asia have
numerous mazars, which are among the distinguished pilgrimage sites in the region.
5.4.3. Language Russian remains the international language of Central Asia and is also spoken in
northwest China thanks to trading links. In Kyrgyzstan – where the links to Russia are
historically stronger – the Russian language remains known in both metropolitan and
rural areas. Russian was common in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan two decades ago, but
now, because of the stronger national identity and legislative requirements regarding
language, Russian is fading away. Russian is the language of regional meetings.
Chinese is becoming more popular among students and traders who plan to develop
business or participate in China-linked trade, mining and energy projects.
Each country in the hotspot has its own national language, in each case the language of
the majority ethnic group. English language skills are generally lacking, particularly in
rural populations, in government institutions and local CSOs.
Table ___. Ethnic Groups, Religions and Languages in the hotspot
Country Majority Ethnic Group(s)
Other Significant Ethnicities
Majority Religion
Other Religions
Majority Language
Other languages in use
China* Han and Uyghur
Kazakh, Hui, Kyrgyz, Mongol
Islam Mandarin, Uyghur
Kazakh, Kyrgyz
Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyz
Uzbek, Russian, Dungan, Tajik
Islam Christianity Kyrgyz, Russian
Uzbek
Tajikistan Tajik
Uzbek, Russian, Kyrgyz, Turkmen
Islam Islam (ismaili) Tajik Russian, Uzbek
Kazakhstan Kazakh Russian, Uyghur Islam Christianity
Kazakh, Russian
Uyghur
Uzbekistan Uzbek
Tajik, Russian, Kazakh, Uyghur
Islam Uzbek Russian, Tajik
Turkmenistan* Turkmen Uzbek Islam Turkmen
Russian, Uzbek
Afghanistan* Wakhi, Kyrgyz
Badahshi, Tajik, Uzbek
Islam Islam (ismaili) Wakhi, Kyrgyz
Dari, English
* Expert assessment for the hotspot (within administrative boundaries)
5.5. Gender Issues The role of women in the region varies from strong leadership in the north to more
traditional in the south. In Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan with nomadic roots, the
relatively independent attitude of women is evidenced by the prominent leadership roles
women take in business and public affairs. In these countries, women are players in
determining the response to climate change, and may be catalysts for climate action. In
both countries, women hold primary responsibility for environmental and climate
change policies, and many experts, leaders and advocates in environmental sector CSOs
are women.
56
In the southern countries – Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan –
women tend to have more than three or four children and to stay at home, often in
situations where men in the family are labor migrants. Turkmenistan has identified
human health as a priority area in its response to climate change, but the other southern
countries may not yet fully recognize the potential effects of climate on human health.
In countries and areas with incomplete families – with a high proportion of male labor
migrants, for example – women and children are sometimes face natural disaster risks
alone, and may be more vulnerable.
The impacts of climate change are different for men and women. In rural areas in the
mountain countries in particular, where many men work abroad and women take care of
the families, women are more vulnerable to climate change. High temperatures coupled
with unreliable energy or water supplies leads to high risks to maternal health. Usually
the women are responsible for provision of clean drinking water and food for the
family, household and animals, and the time spent on these tasks is increasing. At the
same time, women are inadequately represented in the decision-making structures.
5.6. Links to the CEPF Monitoring Framework
6. POLICY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT This chapter reviews the main environment-related national, regional and global
policies and agreements being applied in the mountains of Central Asia hotspot. It
illustrates how development strategies of hotspot countries affect biodiversity
conservation. It provides an overview of the governance in each of the countries, details
economic development policies, biodiversity strategies, and assesses how the policy
context affects biodiversity conservation and how it could influence CEPF investment
strategies and approaches.
6.1. Governance
6.1.1. Political conditions All the Central Asia national governments acknowledge biodiversity as one of their
priority areas in strategic legal documents on sustainable development, and all intend to
update their national legislation relevant to biodiversity to adapt to the international
strategies reflected in the countries’ 5th
national reports to the CBD. Every country has
adopted a number of environmental laws that call for multi-stakeholder cooperation in
environmental protection.
The official positions of the countries with respect to biodiversity prioritization do not
always coincide with action, however. Implementation of policies and laws remains
deficient, and national financing for biodiversity-related projects and processes remains
limited. The factors contributing to this situation include the prioritization of economic
development; the lack of national resources and private funding; the predominance of
short-term planning; the lack of understanding of the value of biodiversity and of the
economic implications of environmental degradation and the depletion of natural
capital; and the lack of experience with the valuation of ecosystem services.
Since the start of implementation of the western development strategy in China boosting
57
the economic development of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, the government
attaches great importance to environmental protection, nature reserves and sustainable
development. Relevant laws, regulations and environmental protection norms are being
developed. Major efforts go to forest ecosystems protection and recovery. The
ecological regulation landscapes include the Ebi-Nur Lake basin, Karamay-Manasi lake
and desert protection area, Manasi-Mulei desert area.
Lands designated for forest, wildlife, wetland and desert ecosystems conservation are
established and managed by the Forestry Department of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous
Region. As of January 2017 there are 28 protected areas, including 6 national nature
reserves, 17 nature reserves at the autonomous region level, 4 prefectures and 1 county
level. These nature reserves cover 2 desert ecosystem reserves, 9 forest reserves, 7
wildlife nature reserves, 7 wetland reserves and 3 wild flora reserves and cover in total
almost 11 million ha.
The Central Asia countries are prioritizing their extractive industries, and the Ministries
of Finance, reflecting a deeply entrenched attitude, tend to regard biodiversity as a cost s
opposed to a potential economic benefit. Biodiversity work in governmental agencies
typically falls to mid-level staff, some of whom are good professionals and motivated,
but overworked. Governments tend to value biodiversity only in direct economic terms,
such as trophy hunting species or species interesting to donors for national or regional
markets, while numerous red–listed species are hardly addressed.
Good local experts and professionals exist in all the countries. Staff in the academies of
sciences are also competent, as are selected experts working for international
organizations and NGOs. While the highly qualified experts are few in number and tend
to be over-occupied, they could potentially support training and educational initiatives.
At the regional level, the Inter-State Commission on Sustainable Development (ICSD)
is the main intergovernmental body in Central Asia that coordinates regional
cooperation on environment and sustainable development in the five Central Asia
countries. China and Afghanistan are not members. Each country has three
representatives on ICSD, including the head of the environmental authority, a
representative from the ministry of economy and a representative from the scientific
community. Although ICSD does not have biodiversity in its action plan, it could be
used as a forum to introduce and strengthen biodiversity-related engagement and action
on the regional level. The Regional Environmental Action Plan (REAP) was produced
and endorsed 15 years ago, but its implementation was limited.
The valuation of ecosystem services and the development of green economies are in the
nascent stage in all the Central Asia countries, and are not yet fully comprehended by
the experts and decision-makers. Kazakhstan participates in the GEF-funded BIOFIN
project addressing this issue; Kyrgyzstan recently joined this project as well.
The Kyrgyz authorities responsible for conservation are making efforts for the
integration of biodiversity into other policies, but many sectoral strategies and
development-focused agencies do not duly consider biodiversity conservation, while the
low salaries cause turnover and the loss of expertise, institutional links and knowledge.
Gaps still exist in biodiversity-related legislation and up-to-date information, although
improvements are occurring. Cooperation among authorities, provincial administrations
58
and local self-government is weak, but the level of decentralization is remarkable in
Kyrgyzstan. NGOs are key partners of the state authorities in revision of legislation and
policies, but the opposite views and positions are not uncommon.
The Committee of environmental protection along with National biodiversity and
biosafety centre in Tajikistan actively promote biodiversity conservation, and elaborate
programs and strategies on biodiversity, but biodiversity remains a low priority in
public policy, undervalued by other authorities, business and society in general.
Population growth is increasing pressure on natural resources and leading to the
destruction and degradation of habitats. Incomplete land and administrative reforms
complicate the management of protected areas, the designation of buffer zones, and the
development of modern sustainable use approaches based on zoning. Qualified experts
are in short supply, and information on the current state of ecosystems and biodiversity
is generally lacking, the Soviet-era research data being most comprehensive and still
useful today.
Kazakhstan re-structured its former Ministry of Environmental Protection and Water
Resources and divided its responsibilities between the Ministry of Agriculture and the
newly created Ministry of Energy, which is responsible for environmental protection
and transition to green economy. The Committee of Forestry and Fauna in the Ministry
of Agriculture is the main biodiversity-related agency, but it remains understaffed
comparing to the scope and geographic scale of work. Kazakh conservation NGOs often
act as consultants or advisers to ministerial processes. At the moment there are no legal
provisions for compensating communities for unavoidable damage to biodiversity, such
as from the activities of the extracting sector.
The conservation of biodiversity is a priority in Uzbekistan’s environmental policy, and
the country is continuously improving its political and legal frameworks on nature
protection. The management of the protected areas, however, remains poorly
coordinated among the several bodies with responsibilities – the Cabinet of Ministers;
the State Committee for Nature Protection; the Ministry of Agriculture and Water
Resources, the State Committee for Geology and Mineral Resources and the provincial
authorities. The political challenges include an insufficient awareness and understanding
of biodiversity problems at different governmental levels; insufficient intersectoral
cooperation; and insufficient coordination and cooperation in the implementation of
biodiversity plans. Low salaries and a high rate of staff turnover complicate the
situation.
In Turkmenistan, the conservation of biodiversity is the basis of environmental policy at
the level of the president, and the government considers environmental protection a
main goal in socioeconomic development.
6.1.2. Conflict and Security Situation In the densely populated Ferghana Valley shared by Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan people historically traded broadly across borders. Over the last 10 years,
however, Uzbek-Kyrgyz and Tajik-Kyrgyz ethnic clashes have occurred in Osh,
Jalalabad and Vorukh in southern Kyrgyzstan, and violence in Andijan of Uzbekistan.
The underlying causes included trade and access to roads, pastures, land and water.
59
The border between Tajikistan and Afghanistan extends more than 1,300 kilometers.
Afghanistan is a least developed country, and the mountain border is volatile, unstable
and difficult to access. While this area has potential KBAs, it is lacking the data
necessary for the analysis, and is unsafe for the implementation of prospective
biodiversity projects, except for the Wakhan Valley and National Park.
[Security restrictions in Xingjian]
The region has a history of conflicts related to mining, primarily in Kyrgyzstan, which
witnessed a number of sometimes-violent protests. These protests have roots in social
and governance issues, but environmental factors have become more prominent.
6.2. Policies on Economic Development
Development of part of the Chinese portion of the hotspot is dominated by the China
Western Development strategy, which aims to improve the economic situation of
western China through capital investment, and has supported infrastructure
development. Acknowledgement of the importance of limiting the environmental
damage of development is becoming increasingly widespread in China.
With regard to infrastructure development, the placement of roads, railroads, pipelines,
buildings and enterprises is critical in relation to regional development and conservation
planning. As should be outlined in newly developed guidelines for all sectors including
construction, environmental impact assessments (EIAs) should always be conducted
beforehand. In China, EIAs are inclusive of social impact assessments or SIAs.
In Uzbekistan, the extractive sector is mainstreaming biodiversity conservation by
developing appropriate political, legislative and institutional conditions.
6.3. Management of Natural Resources
A framework of legislation and policy on biodiversity conservation exists throughout
the hotspot, but there are limitations to the successful implementation of environmental
legislation. In many cases, responsibility for biodiversity conservation is divided among
multiple agencies, and overlapping authority and an absence of institutional
coordination are common. Government institutions mandated to protect biodiversity are
understaffed and operate with insufficient budgets, and employees, particularly in
remote areas, often lack the knowledge and skills necessary for effective conservation.
In addition, some government agencies tasked with biodiversity conservation suffer
from weak governance. Poor pay and conditions, low motivation and training, and lack
of appropriate incentive mechanisms, lead to underperformance.
Piloting improvements to legislation, enhancing interdepartmental cooperation, and
delivering training for protected area staff are examples of the types of action that can
be taken by civil society to enhance implementation of legislation on the ground. Efforts
to improve capacity of national staff should not be restricted to civil society.
As the largest province in China and in the hotspot, with a total land area of 1,664,897
km2, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region serves as a significant store of the
60
biodiversity, with its vast arid lands and grasslands, as well as high mountains, wetlands
and forest ecosystems.
In total, 35 nature reserves in Xinjiang cover around 13 percent of the provincial land
area, mostly administered by the State Forestry Department and its subsidiary bureaus at
the local level. The provincial government has plans to double the land area under
protection by 2030. Yet there are serious inadequacies in the current institutional and
protected areas management systems and a number of barriers that must be overcome
for successful conservation of biodiversity and ecological services. The three main
barriers are insufficient systemic and institutional capacity at provincial level to plan
and manage the protected areas; a disconnect between management of protected areas
and development and sectoral planning processes; and limited nature reserve capacities
for planning and operations with limited local participation in protected areas
management.
Xinjiang formulates nature reserve development plans at five-year intervals and submits
the plans to relevant central governmental agencies for approval. Central government
integrates the provincial plan into the national plans.
Almost all nature reserves in Xinjiang have established independent management
authorities. Nature reserve management authorities are supervised by higher
governmental agencies, under full transparency. Protected area management authorities
have the required leadership but are not fully staffed. Protected area staff are generally
poorly paid, but their working conditions are gradually getting better. Most nature
reserves have established their own incentive mechanisms and have started to recruit
high-quality talent.
Protected area management authorities can receive funds from central, provincial, city
and county finance sources. The management authorities have an independent
accounting unit intended to ensure that they mobilize available resources to manage
their areas effectively, but the available funding and human resources are much less
than their actual needs.
Protected area planning and management in Xinjiang remains hindered by a weak legal
basis at both the national and provincial levels. The Regulations on Nature Reserves
(1994) that allow for the establishment of nature reserves are outdated and do not
provide much flexibility in terms of zoning and management options.
As an autonomous region Xinjiang has much stronger legislative rights than provinces
in China, yet it still does not have relevant laws that could augment some of the
weaknesses of the national framework or that could more specifically be tailored to
local conditions. As a result, management authorities in most nature reserves in the
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region assess and respond to their own local
environmental and social situations to the best of their ability, but with insufficient
guidance or support from provincial authorities, whether in terms of their knowledge of
regulations and laws, an understanding of the different management options available,
or training for environmental management including a regular monitoring, research and
conservation program for wildlife and habitats of special interest.
61
The Kyrgyz network of protected areas covers 6 percent, or 1.2 million hectares, of the
country, and is intended to grow to 10 percent by 2024. The country has has created a
gene bank for the conservation of cultivated plants and their wild ancestors. Kyrgyzstan
recently joined the Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN) GEF project aimed at
increasing national biodiversity financing.
A system of protected areas of various types has grown to 22 percent of the country,
with a largest area (2 million ha) being the Tajik National Park, a UNESCO World
Heritage list. All protected areas in the process of institutional restructuring have been
allocated to the State Forestry Agency. Managers of protected areas change frequently
and their conservation management skills tend to be weak. Understanding and
cooperation between protected areas management and local administrations is lacking,
as is monitoring.
In Kazakhstan, the BIOFIN project is developing new approaches to biodiversity
financing measures (payments for ecosystem services, taxes, subsidies, certifications),
and is raising awareness in the ministries of economy and finance about the values of
biodiversity and ecosystem services. The concept of a green economy is similarly
contributing to raising awareness of the values of biodiversity, and an agrarian
university has developed a new module on the valuation of ecosystem services.
Projects related to protected areas are difficult to implement because of the lack of
resources allocated to them on the national level, the lack of qualified staff, and the lack
of understanding of complex, ecosystem-based sustainable development. Kazakhstan
has no assessment mechanism for protected areas or for the environmental and
recreational services they contribute to the economy and culture. The country also lacks
integrated biodiversity monitoring and a uniform methodology for regular data
collection from different economic sectors on their impact on biodiversity. National
indicators need to be developed to the standards of the global indicators, and
management plans for large mammals and birds need to be developed.
In Uzbekistan, most biodiversity conservation projects are implemented in or around
protected areas, which occupy more than 6 percent of the country. Uzbekistan has
enhanced material and technical capacities of 10 main protected areas, several of which
have been included on the Ramsar Convention List of Wetlands, and has signed an
agreement with Kazakhstan on the protection, reproduction and sustainable
development of the Saiga antelope for 2012-2015.
The entire Wakhan Valley of Afghanistan is now a national park with a management
plan to be launched in 2017. A range of endemic species, mostly plants, make the park
an important KBA, but the presence of the snow leopard in significant numbers and
density really distinguishes the area. On the basis of the snow leopard alone, the
Wakhan Valley qualifies as a KBA. The willingness of Afghanistan to cooperate with
Tajikistan on the common environment and hydrology issues bodes well for the
development of appropriate cross-border cooperation and is supported by the MoUs.
6.4. Legal and Institutional Policy Framework on Conservation
All hotspot nations have a set of laws and policies that support biodiversity
conservation. Central to these is the legislation supporting the creation and management
62
of protected areas, and wildlife protection laws. In addition, states have other legislation
that affects biodiversity, including environmental regulations and pollution controls.
This legislation is implemented by a diverse array of different ministries, agencies and
institutions. The legal framework for biodiversity conservation in the hotspot is robust,
but coordination between institutions is not always well established and effective
implementation of laws is sometimes lacking.
Table __. Laws on nature protection and conservation
Country Ecological code
/ Framework Protected areas law
Flora and fauna law
Forest code / law
Hunting law(s)
EIA law or regulations
China X X X X X X
Kyrgyzstan X X X X X X
Tajikistan X X X X X X
Kazakhstan X X X X X X
Uzbekistan X X X X X X
Turkmenistan X X X X X X
Afghanistan X X
Source: compilation of country information
China’s State Council, appointed by the National People’s Congress, has ultimate
responsibility for the country’s environment. The State Council authorizes the Ministry
of Environmental Protection (MEP) to coordinate and monitor the management of
biodiversity conservation. Its responsibilities include formulating laws, regulations, and
economic, and technical policies, compiling national programs and technical
specifications, formulating management regulations and evaluation standards for nature
reserves, and supervising the conservation of rare and threatened species. In addition,
MEP is responsible for the implementation and supervision of international
environmental conventions, and represented the government in drafting and revising the
CBD.
Responsibility for managing the majority of forests and other protected areas lies with
the State Forestry Administration. Several other institutions also have biodiversity
conservation responsibilities, including the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of
Water Resources and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. One source of independent
expert advice to the State Council in policy development and planning is the China
Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development, a high-level,
nongovernmental consultative forum created in 1992, consisting of senior Chinese
officials and experts, together with high-profile international experts.
There are also clear elements of policy embedded in the national Five-Year Plans, the
NBSAP (2011-2030), provincial development plans and many national programs. These
all add up to a clear commitment on behalf of the government to ensure adequate
protection and restoration of the natural environment of the country to protect
biodiversity, maintain vital ecosystem functions (especially water catchment protection)
and help regulate climate. The NBSAP identifies 35 priority areas where ecosystem
protection will be a national priority. Among them the southwestern section of
Tianshan-Jungar Basin and the Tarim River Basin.
63
Specific NBSAP priorities for Xinjiang include:
Establish and integrate nature reserves to expand the network of nature areas,
taking into consideration bio-geographical units such as mountain, watershed,
desert and ecological functions.
Strengthen protection of desert and grassland ungulates such as wild camels,
argali, as well as rare birds and their habitats such as bustards, crane, stork, gull
Improve the conservation of rare and endemic fish and their habitats
Reinforce protection of the gene resources of wild fruit trees, including wild
apple and wild apricot;
Provide protection of unique desert species such as haloxylon, poplar
diversifolia, tetraena, savin juniper and herba cistanches
Document and research on the traditional medical knowledge of minorities
China’s commitment to protected area development and biodiversity conservation is
also evident in China’s early signature to the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), and other conservation conventions (CITES, Ramsar).
The 12th National Five-Year Plan (2011-2015) emphasizes the need to promote
sustainable growth and environmental protection in tandem. The plan treats biodiversity
conservation as a priority, highlighting the need to strengthen the management of
Nature Reserves – the main protected area category.
At the national level, China enacted the Wildlife Conservation Law, Regulations on
Nature Reserve Conservation in China, and other regulations and bylaws. At the
provincial level, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region also developed corresponding
regulations and bylaws in line with the national framework to provide more practical
legal guidance specific to the region.
In terms of regular operations, most wildlife research and conservation and also the
administration of nature reserves and the coordination of wetland protection are within
the remit of the State Forestry Administration (SFA) and its provincial Forestry
Departments. National and provincial ministries and departments of agriculture, land
and resources, water resources and several other government agencies also have some
nature reserves (and other protected areas, including geologic parks, wetland parks,
scenic areas) within their jurisdiction, but these are fewer and cover smaller geographic
areas than nature reserves under Forestry administration. SFA sets technical standards
for nature reserves, provides technical program support, manages the central database,
and ensures effective management of the national nature reserve system.
The designation of key Ecological Function Zones by the State Council of China in
2010 aimed to promote efficiency and coordination of sustainable land use patterns at
national level. This significant zoning policy divides the country into four zones:
priority, key, regulated, and restricted development zones. All national nature reserves
as well as World Heritage Sites and national scenic areas, forest parks and geological
parks belong to the restricted development category. All provincial governments also
are urged to develop and promulgate their own provincial main ecological function
zoning, in which provincial nature reserves, scenic parks, forest parks and geological
parks are to be included within provincial level restricted development zones.
64
As a national priority, biodiversity conservation enjoys a relatively well-developed legal
basis. Tajikistan has signed the Nagoya protocol, and as part of the protocol
implementation, 55 pilot districts in mountainous areas have signed agreements on the
conservation of the genetic resources of wild fruit tree species. National centers of
biodiversity and genetic resources have been created, along with a collection of mother
gardens and nurseries. A method for homological modeling of the climate for the
adaptation of agricultural biodiversity genetic resources has been developed.
Administrative mechanisms of implementation of laws and regulations remain weak
despite a restructuring of the national administration system in the last five years.
Economic and financial conservation measures and coordination among sectors are
ineffective, and national control of natural resources protection is weak. Financing is
inadequate, and poaching is on the rise.
In Kazakhstan, the two ministries responsible for biodiversity conservation are the
Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and the Ministry of Energy (MoE). Of these institutions
the main responsibility for forests, protected areas and wildlife protection is in the
Ministry of Agriculture.
Kazakhstan allocates national resources for financing biodiversity activities (90 percent
from the state budget, and the rest from donors and the private sector). National rules
prohibit the designation of protected areas unless there is a national budget allocation
for maintenance and management. Currently there is a moratorium on new designations
due to the economic crisis and budgetary difficulties. Pay for protected area staff is low
in comparison with the other sectors.
Government awareness and interest in biodiversity continues to rise, and amendments
are being developed to improve the legal status of natural resources protection. One of
the amendments will designate matching state funds for protected areas based on
developed management plans. The Ecological Code of Kazakhstan is also being
updated, and the changes have been accepted by the parliament in principle.
In Uzbekistan, National Environmental Action Programmes (NEAPs) have become an
important tool of environment protection policy. The Programmes are aimed at ensuring
environmental protection, sustainable use of natural resources, and the introduction of
an ecological basis of sustainable development into economic sectors. Their current
focus is mainly on waste management and technology transfer.
The Uzbek State Committee for Nature Protection, with support of GEF-UNDP
projects, has developed amendments and supplements to 12 laws in order to include
principles of biodiversity conservation and more specific principles of “avoiding-
mitigation-restoration-compensation” into the mining sectors, including a methodology
for identification of impacts on flora and fauna. Biodiversity issues have been included
in several strategic documents, including those pertaining to the extractive industry and
agencies. The laws on flora and fauna and protected areas were revised in 2014, and
now include biosphere reserves.
A deputy group working on environmental issues occupies 15 seats (of 150) in the
Uzbek Parliament. Not all members are specialists in biodiversity, but a Committee on
65
the Issues of Ecology and Environment Protection, composed of former employees of
the State Committee on Nature Protection, supports their work.
A program and concept “On the development of environmental education, training and
retraining, as well as the prospects for improving the system of training in the Republic
of Uzbekistan” was developed.
Uzbekistan is completing a process of adapting the CBD Strategic plan for 2011-2020
to national conditions, and developing national targets and objectives in the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity as the basis for the amended NBSAPs.
A scientifically grounded methodological and conceptual basis for the development of
the protected area system has been developed with a view of expanding coverage to 17
percent of the country.
Structural changes occurred in Turkmenistan in early 2016 when the Ministry of
Environment was re-organized into a government Committee on the Protection of
Nature and Land Resources, as part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
Turkmenistan's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) had already
been approved before these changes took place. A number of stakeholders were
involved in preparing the NBSAP: agriculture, forestry, fisheries, ministry of economy
and finances. The NBSAP includes all components of biodiversity, sustainable
development. All major nature protection laws were reviewed and updated between
2011 and 2015 (on nature protection, protected areas, forestry, water, waste).
A CBD Clearing-House Mechanism – the National Information Center on Biodiversity
– has been created in order to facilitate enhanced collaboration and information
exchange and support development of sectoral strategies and plans aimed at biodiversity
conservation. The National Institute of Deserts hosts the CBD focal point and works on
research in biodiversity. Legislation for the protected areas and biosphere reserves
includes provisions for adjoining territories, and restrictions on activities in these areas.
Management plans for reserves in Repetek, Amudarya and Syunt-Hasardag Nature
Reserves have been developed. About 50 IBAs have been identified, covering all major
ecosystems of the country. Protected areas cover 4 percent of Turkmenistan, and the
long term ambitions include an increase in protected areas coverage to 10-30 per cent.
Process on nomination of several high-value natural sites to the UNESCO world
heritage list is ongoing with support of RSPB and other international partners. The
government prioritizes biodiversity-related initiatives linked to projects on soil
degradation and modernization of agriculture. Turkmenistan like other countries of the
hotspot suffers from a lack of qualified specialists and a relatively weak system of
biodiversity monitoring.
6.5. Ownership and Management of Sites and Landscapes
As elsewhere in China, land inside and outside of protected areas is comprised of both
State-owned and community-managed lands. Much of the pastureland and farmland is
leased to local households on 30-year contracts. As the area is vast and sparsely
populated, it is difficult for the government to manage the land through regulatory
66
mechanisms only. In other countries of Central Asia, the former state-owned
agricultural lands were re-distributed to the local land owners for long-term lease (equal
to private property, but with limitations). Most pasturelands are in community
ownership, while forests remain the property of state. Some parts and types of forests,
such as fruit-and-nut forests, could be used and leased by communities, but most
forestlands are owned and managed by the state through the system of forestry units. All
protected areas are state property and are managed by state authorities, while some
wildlife concessions are privately managed, and some are managed through associations
of hunters and fishermen. There are no private or community-owned or managed
conservation areas in Central Asia.
6.6. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) requires countries to prepare National
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) as the principal instruments for
implementing the Convention at the national level. According to the CBD, “The
requirement to integrate consideration of the conservation and sustainable use of
biological resources into national decision-making, and mainstream issues across all
sectors of the national economy and policy-making framework, are the complex
challenges at the heart of the Convention.” This section provides an overview of the
NBSAPs for the countries of the Mountains of Central Asia biodiversity hotspot and
their participation in and implementation of multilateral environmental agreements and
cross-border initiatives.
Table __. Membership in international conventions and conservation initiatives
Country CBD CITES Ramsar CMS CACILM GSLEP CAMI
China X X X X X
Kyrgyzstan X X X X X X X
Tajikistan X X X X X X X
Kazakhstan X X X X X X X
Uzbekistan X X X X X X X
Turkmenistan X X X X X
Afghanistan X X X X X
Source: compilation of country information and convention websites (as of 3 FEB 2017)
CBD: Convention on Biodiversity CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Ramsar: Convention on Wetlands of International Importance CMS: Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals CACILM: Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management GLSEP: Global Snow Leopard Secretariat CAMI: Central Asian Mammals Initiative
6.6.1. China China’s NBSAP lays out eight specific strategic tasks to achieve its goal of protecting
its biodiversity:
1. Further improve related policies, regulations and systems on biodiversity conservation
2. Promote mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation into related planning
processes
3. Strengthen capacities for biodiversity conservation
67
4. Strengthen in-situ conservation of biodiversity and rationally carry out ex-situ
conservation
5. Promote sustainable development and use of biological resources
6. Improve benefit sharing of biological and genetic resources and associated
traditional knowledge
7. Improve capacities to cope with new threats and challenges to biodiversity
8. Raise public awareness and strengthen international cooperation and exchange
6.6.2. Kyrgyzstan In its NBSAP, Kyrgyzstan views the conservation and sustainable use of its biodiversity
in terms of service to the sustainable socioeconomic development of the country. The
NBSAP identifies four strategic targets:
1. Integrate biodiversity conservation issue into the activities of state bodies and
public organizations by 2020, as the basis of the human being and sustainable
economic development of the Kyrgyz Republic
2. Reduce the impact on biodiversity and promote its sustainable use
3. Improve the protection and monitoring of ecosystems and species diversity
4. Improve the social importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services, increase
the benefits of sustainable ecosystem services and traditional technologies
The NBSAP elaborates on these targets with specific objectives and actions under each.
6.6.3. Tajikistan According to the NBSAP of Tajikistan, “The main goal of the strategy is to preserve
and manage the biodiversity and to conserve ecosystems, thus providing the sustainable
economic and social development of Tajikistan.”
The NBSAP lists the components of the biodiversity conservation strategy as:
Complex economic and social evaluation of national biological resources
Regeneration and conservation of the genetic pool of plants and animals
Biodiversity conservation in-situ and ex-situ
Providing biological safety of the country
Sustainable use of biological resources to reduce poverty and to improve
quality of human life
6.6.4. Kazakhstan According to its NBSAP, Kazakhstan’s main goals include the following:
In-situ conservation of biological diversity
Accounting for and socio-economic assessment of the country biological
capacity and its balanced use in the legal framework
Expanding the genetic fund, and providing genetic independence and
biological security of the country
Establishing conditions for conservation of the genetic fund of agricultural
crop varieties, in particular, of agricultural animals and making agricultural
land more productive
The National Strategy objectives include the following:
Assessment of the status and specifics of biological diversity, as the eternal
value and overall property of mankind
68
Revealing and liquidating the danger for existence of species and ecosystems
as a result of an anthropogenic impact
Using the state sovereign rights for it resources, especially for their unique
objects, and responsibility for their conservation
Identification of the traditional dependence of local population on conservation
and rational use of biological diversity including agrobiodiversity, for the
purpose of satisfying the population needs in food, health, fuel-construction,
raw material, business, technical, recreation, and other resources
Development of a legal framework for conservation of bio-resources,
establishing a balance of economic and social ecological benefits while non-
exhaustive use of biological resources at the national, and local levels
Reduction of the dangers for and ensuring conservation of biological diversity
Improvement of the coordination system for activities regarding the biological
diversity issues
Ecological reconstruction and rehabilitation of infringed ecosystems
Providing for the local population and public non-governmental organizations
awareness of the biological diversity conservation and balanced use issues
6.6.5. Uzbekistan According to Uzbekistan’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological
Diversity, the country’s first NBSAP set out five national strategic targets for
biodiversity management:
1. Improvement of the system of the protected areas (Pas), including organization
of ecologically sustainable and diverse Pas system, which covers at least 10
percent of the territory of Uzbekistan
2. Awareness of society, public participation and education to achieve adequate
understanding and recognition of the importance of biodiversity for the
sustainable development of Uzbekistan
3. Sustainable use of biodiversity resources to achieve the maximal meeting of
economic, scientific, recreational and cultural demands of all people in
Uzbekistan, providing simultaneous conservation of biological diversity and
viability of ecosystems in the long-term perspective
4. Implementation of regional and local Action Plans on biodiversity in the
context of the general framework of the Action Plan development;
development of regional and the republican (in Karakalpakstan) Action Plans,
which reflect more specifically regional and local demands and problems
5. Coordination of international relations and assistance in the sphere of
biological diversity by way of the development of an organizational structure
on professional and managerial issues compatible with international and
regional legislation and agreements on biodiversity
The Fifth National Report goes on to say that, “Following the development and
implementation of the First NBSAP, significant progress has been achieved in
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the Republic of Uzbekistan.”
6.6.6. Turkmenistan The overall aim of Turkmenistan’s NBSAP is “to conserve, restore and sustainably use
the biological diversity of Turkmenistan for present and future generations.” To reach
this target, the strategy specifies the following objectives:
To integrate biodiversity conservation into all governmental programs
To revise and develop nature protection laws in accordance with the
Convention on Biological Diversity, eliminating gaps in the legislation
69
To reduce the relative level of environmental pollution by 20 percent through
the revision and improvement of nature protection laws
To halt the process of degradation of natural landscapes in 30 percent of
Turkmenistan’s territory
To preserve the existing state of the forests and restore 5 percent of their area
To increase the level of public awareness on the importance of biodiversity to
50 percent and increase level of ecological education by 10 percent
To increase protected areas by 6 percent and effective management
To improve the conservation of agricultural biodiversity and ex situ
conservation of genetic resources by 30 percent
To develop and introduce economic incentives to increase local people’s
interest in biodiversity conservation
To support internal and external funding of BSAP projects for the whole
period of their implementation
To develop a plan for biological resource management that aims to reduce
overexploitation and ensure its implementation
6.6.7. Afghanistan Afghanistan signed the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992 and formally
acceded to it in 2002. According to its NBSAP, Afghanistan aims at conserving all
aspects of its biodiversity, and ensuring that future utilization of biodiversity resources
is sustainable. The NBSAP includes the following elements:
To continue ongoing assessments of Afghanistan’s floral and faunal
communities, with the overall aim of improving understanding of Afghanistan’s
biodiversity resources and their conservation requirements
To expand the protected areas system to ensure that it is representative of all
major ecosystems and areas of outstanding conservation or natural heritage value
To develop and implement the support mechanisms (incentives, rules,
regulations, environmental education, public awareness) necessary for the
effective conservation of biodiversity and other natural resources
To continue ongoing assessments of the status of Afghanistan’s floral and faunal
species, with the overall aim of improving understanding of Afghanistan’s
biodiversity resources and their conservation requirements
To develop the mechanisms required for effective conservation of economically
important species
To develop and implement mechanisms to ensure sustainable use of biodiversity
resources, including funding, capacity and policy considerations
To prevent the illegal or unsustainable use of biodiversity resources
To develop and implement mechanisms for preventing damage to natural
ecosystems from invasive alien species
To control impacts on biodiversity resources resulting from climate change,
desertification and pollution
To develop and implement mechanisms and plans for maintaining goods and
services obtained from critical ecosystems, focusing on forests and woodlands
To maintain cultural diversity by recognizing and valuing traditional knowledge
and land uses
To manage genetic resources for the benefit of all citizens of Afghanistan
To ensure that government organizations have sufficient capacity and resources
to carry out Afghanistan’s obligations as a signatory to the CBD and other
Multilateral Environmental Agreements
6.7. Links to the CEPF Monitoring Framework The past 25 years have been a period of dramatic changes and transition in the hotspot.
Lack of resources available to environmental agencies and governance problems have
70
had further impacts on biodiversity. To maximize the benefits of the legal and policy
context, conservation investments may focus on:
Encouraging greater collaboration and information exchange among different
government agencies. Civil society groups, which often work with multiple
agencies within a country, can act as a bridge between institutions.
Supporting pilot programs to help develop new modalities for conservation that
can then feed back into legal frameworks.
7. CIVIL SOCIETY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT CEPF believes that effective and sustainable conservation is better achieved with the
engagement of civil society, and makes grants to civil society organizations, which then
act as implementing agents. This chapter provides an examination of primary and
potential civil society actors and their potential direct or indirect roles in conservation.
For the purposes of this chapter, CEPF defines civil society as all the national and
international nongovernment actors that are relevant to the achievement of conservation
outcomes and strategic directions. This includes, at least, local and international
conservation NGOs; economic and community development NGOs; scientific, research
and academic institutions; professional organizations; producer and sales associations;
religious organizations; media; advocacy groups; outreach, education and awareness
groups; formal and informal schools; social welfare agencies; indigenous groups and
indigenous rights groups; land reform groups; and the parts of the private sector
concerned with the sustainable use of natural resources.
7.1. China Xinjiang’s civil society groups dealing with conservation and biodiversity are mainly
nested within or associated with the scientific institutions. The Xinjiang Institute of
Ecology and Geography of the Chinese Academy of Sciences is the largest and the most
important player in environment protection and natural resources management planning
in Xinjiang with established partnerships and numerous projects in Central Asia.
Xinjiang Institute of Zoology, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology, Xinjiang Geographic
Society, Xinjiang Botanical Society, Xinjiang Zoological Society, Xinjiang Ecologic
Society, Xinjiang Soil and Fertilizer Society, Xinjiang Natural Resources Society, and
Xinjiang Tourism Institute are the key players in local biodiversity initiatives and
international projects implemented in Xinjiang.
Xinjiang Botanical Society established in 1962 has 680 members with numerous botanical experts and volunteers. The society conducts teaching, research, popularizes plant science and protection, provides advisory services, participates in decision-making, conducts international and local botanical expeditions, conducts trainings, workshops and disseminates knowledge. Xinjiang Geographical Society founded in 1965 includes 720 members, and leads geographical exploration and expeditions, promotes geographical science, knowledge, technology and education. The society is active in decision-making consultations, feasibility studies, consulting and technical services, popularization of knowledge and local information dissemination.
71
Xinjiang Wildlife Conservation Association established in 1985, is a member of the China Wildlife Conservation Association, and is engaged in the conservation and management of wild animals in Xinjiang, as well as scientific research, education and planning of nature reserves. The society includes more than 13 thousand members, covers most prefectures and counties and cooperates with forestry bureaus. Xinjiang Zoological Society established in 1963 is active on animal science and conducts seminars and scientific research on fauna. Xinjiang Ecology Institute was established in 1993 by the Xinjiang Environmental Protection Bureau and other partners to disseminate ecological knowledge, popularize ecological books, produce audio-visual materials and support the ecological education across the Xinjiang region. Xinjiang Tourism Institute established in 2014 is providing support in tourism development in Xinjiang. Working in the harsh natural environment with difficult access in an underdeveloped
region is challenging. The Pamir Mountains in China reach 5,000 meters, and weather
conditions can be hazardous. Difficult terrain may also be an obstacle in implementing
projects there.
Local authorities may not have much influence with the local population in terms of
hunting or gathering herbs, and there are some areas where residents do not allow
strangers to go. The level of education and the economic status of the residents is poor.
China’s iconic Giant Panda receives both attention and funding beyond what other
species get. Funding for the conservation and restoration of populations and habitats is
considered sufficient for the snow leopard, Xinjiang salamander, Przewalski's horse,
swans and wild apples and walnuts. In contrast, the Tien Shan birch, Ammopiptanthus
and other threatened species receive less attention and support.
7.2. Kyrgyzstan
The largest nature use organization is the Kyrgyz Association of Forest and Land Users
with offices in all country provinces and almost 7,000 members. The Alliance of
Central Asian Mountain Communities (AGOCA) unites 57 villages from Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan. AGOCA activities are aimed at increasing the capacity of
rural communities through educational seminars and practical training, as well as
through support for the exchange of experience and knowledge and the mobilization of
local communities to solve local problems.
The main focus of the Global and Local Information Partnership (GLIP), based in
Bishkek, is on conserving high mountain biodiversity, in particular, the conservation of
snow leopard habitat and prey species.
Other Kyrgyz CSOs carry out studies of mammals, birds and forests, or work with
farmers, breeders and pasture associations.
The staff of the National Academy of Sciences have given scientific advice related to
the conservation of biodiversity to the State Agency on Environment Protection and
Forestry to establish several new protected areas and nature reserves such as Khan
Tengri, Dashman, Besh-Aral, Sarychat-Ertash, Sarkent and others.
72
Several CSOs work on traditional knowledge, the rights of citizens to a healthy
environment, environmental safety of local communities and transparency. Some CSOs
resist governmental initiatives that entail improper use of protected areas and forest
lands, or that allow the hunting of endangered animals and assists the prosecutors in
bringing cases involving the misuse of natural resources.
Other CSOs conduct public hearings, participate in the reintroduction of animals and
work on strengthening the role of society in the protection of flora and fauna, and
educate the local population in the spirit of hunting ethics and respect for nature. Recent
accomplishments include reducing the incidence of illegal hunting and logging, and
demonstrating how tourism can make a significant contribution to sustainable
community development.
Some CSOs are planning to establish micro reserves and small plantations of native
species of fast-growing trees for fuel, construction or reducing risk of soil erosion.
The Mountain Partnership Central Asia Hub hosted by University of Central Asia is an
established core group of mountain advocates committed to sustainable mountain
development, and includes 40 organizations from 8 countries of greater Central Asia.
The Mountain Partnership is innovative, and conducts outreach, networking and
capacity building, and offers tools and platforms for use by regional stakeholders. It
provides technical support to member countries and their governments for the
mainstreaming of the mountain agenda into policy and planning processes.
The development of new technologies and specific activities related to conservation
calls for the participation of highly qualified specialists, and despite the relatively high
level of education and training in the country, NGOs question the availability of enough
highly qualified specialists to carry out the work.
Some Kyrgyz NGOs report that obtaining grants has become difficult. Access to GEF
funds is not easy, and the requirement for substantial matching funds on the part of local
organizations puts funding beyond their reach. The non-profit sector blames the decline
in the availability of funding on the lack of transparency and accountability, and on
mismanagement. Other constraints include the failure to notify CSOs about grant
competitions, the complexity of application and reporting procedures, and language
requirements.
NGOs report successful experiences in working with small grants from the GEF SGP,
the European Union and the World Bank. The Alliance of Central Asian Mountain
Communities is able to obtain grants with no difficulties.
Potential barriers to successful implementation of the projects include the inaccessibility
of certain areas, bureaucratic red tape and restricted access to information. Finally,
CSOs warn against ignoring the views and visions of local communities and local
authorities.
7.3. Tajikistan The Tajik Socio-Ecological Union is one of the oldest CSOs that helped create the Tajik
National Park and Shirkent Natural Park. Other CSOs help to develop management
73
plans for protected areas, and work to increase public awareness and the level of
knowledge about the importance of biodiversity among the local population. Many
CSOs help in improving the quality of life for rural residents while reducing negative
pressure on natural resources through the introduction of resource-saving technologies
and clean energy sources.
Some CSOs work on information sharing, round tables and campaigns to involve people
in environmental protection. There is a great interest in dialogue and cooperation with
Afghanistan on joint solutions to common ecological problems. Several CSOs work on
restoration of biodiversity by planting native tree species, developing alternative sources
of income for communities near protected areas, promoting organic agriculture, and
biological methods of crops protection.
Tajik CSOs assert that the number of donors providing grants for conservation by civil
society has dropped dramatically, and that fundraising for environmental projects has
become more difficult in spite of persistent threats to the biodiversity. Funding sources
impose requirements that are too high. Grant information is not always available to
NGOs.
One of the difficulties is the requirement for substantial co-financing. Funding agencies
do not conduct outreach with CSOs on their requirements.
Project implementation in the mountain regions faces seasonal restrictions associated
with road closures caused due to bad weather. The remoteness of villages is one of the
major problems, and the lack of communication and electricity in rural areas
complicates the project work. Transport and fuel costs are high.
In the harsh mountain conditions, the monitoring of animals and plants can be
challenging. The border areas have certain restrictions and special regulations for
access; in addition the longest border zone with Afghanistan is still considered insecure.
Language barriers can be significant. Most information prepared in Russian and English
needs to be translated to Tajik, and the variety of local dialects may complicate outreach
work in the field. Translations and interpretation services take time and can be
expensive.
Tajik CSOs claim that without the equal and active participation of women in decision-
making and in the development of their villages and jamoats, projects will not be able to
achieve significant results. They point out that women can and should be leaders and
change their communities for the better, but that for various reasons (tradition and
religion) attracting women to participate in projects and in public life on an ongoing
basis is very difficult.
The weak capacity and motivation of the local authorities and populations, together with
the economic problems in remote areas may diminish enthusiasm for some projects,
especially when the public and the government agencies have a lack of understanding
concerning the project activities. Some local authorities (usually the district level) may
respond with hostility if local problems or data on the hard life of the local communities
hits the press or is voiced at conferences.
74
7.4. Kazakhstan Established in 2016, the Ministry of Culture and Sport is responsible for the supervision
and control of non-profit organizations. Kazakh CSOs are diverse in their thematic
niche, scale and geographic focus. Science-oriented CSOs conduct research to assess
biodiversity conditions and to develop plans for improving biodiversity and soils.
Associations of hunters conduct surveys of wildlife. One of the largest conservation
groups – the Kazakh Association of Biodiversity Conservation (ACBK) conducted
mapping of Important Bird Areas, helped to create several nature reserves and
contributed to biodiversity monitoring, legislation revisions, public awareness
campaigns and a cross-border effort to nominate the Western Tien Shan as a UNESCO
World Heritage Site.
In 2008, the ecological society “Green Salvation” launched a campaign against a project
to construct a high-voltage power line through two national parks. As a result of the
public campaign, the project was changed, and in 2013 a new project built high-voltage
lines that bypass the parks.
Other CSOs lobbied for the expansion of nature reserves, and improved their technical
equipment and monitoring methods. Some CSOs work on the rights of access to
environmental information and the development of recommendations for the authorities
on the reduction of industrial pollution in eastern Kazakhstan. Kazakh NGOs report
good experience with the GEF SGP, the European Union and the World Bank.
Among the potential problems for international funders working in Kazakhstan are
certain gaps and contradictions in the legislation regulating the work of CSOs.
Potential barriers include a lack of knowledge and a conflict of interest with hunting
groups. The local authorities can be arbitrary.
Implementation of cross-border projects can be difficult. One possible approach to
cross-border projects is to have each country carry out its part independently. The most
difficulty of the work in the high mountain zones is attributable to bad weather and the
lack of infrastructure.
Working with the local population can also be a difficult part of a project. Most of the
rural population is engaged in traditional animal husbandry with little regard for pasture
rotation. Since this is their main income-generating activity, they do not think about the
conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems, and convincing them to consider these
issues can be quite difficult.
The snow leopard and the argali attract both state and international grant funding for the
monitoring of habitats and related activities. Wild apples also receive significant
attention. Still, according to local experts, funding levels are not sufficient to save them
in the long run. The protection of the saiga antelope receives most of Kazakhstan’s
attention to endangered or threatened species.
7.5. Uzbekistan Uzbek CSOs work on combating desertification; the protection and monitoring of
wildlife; the conservation of natural and cultural heritage; alternative energy; water,
sanitation, and the protection of water resources; and gender issues. Many CSOs
75
specialize in environmental education and awareness activities. Some CSOs focus on
specific taxa, such as the Society for the Protection of the Birds. Mahalla associations
work on the protection of the local environment and on environmental education.
Grants from abroad can be obtained by local CSOs only by passing a Central Bank
Commission examination, a hurdle that is difficult to clear. To apply for a grant from
abroad, an organization must obtain permission from the Ministry of Justice.
Challenges to the conservation work in the country include the need for permits and
admission to the mountain ecosystems located in the border areas and the lack of
knowledge and training.
The species that draw the most attention and funding are the snow leopard and the
Bukhara deer – both of which are popular with international projects.
7.6. Turkmenistan The Turkmen Society of Nature Protection is the oldest and largest nature conservation
group in the country. Its activities cover: combating desertification; environmental
education; the protection of wildlife; the protection of forests and sustainable forest
management; conservation of natural and cultural heritage; the environment and health
of children; alternative energy; water, sanitation and the protection of water resources.
The Turkmen Society of Hunters and Fishermen is another large organization that
works for the protection of wildlife and rational use of animals, birds and fish. Other
CSOs are active in commenting on legislation on protected areas, flora, fauna,
environmental impact assessments, pastures, and forests.
Foreign partners of local CSOs must conduct consultations with authorities, and register
project applications in advance. Project implementation in the potential project site of
Turkmenistan is not considered to be difficult. Obtaining permits for access to the
nature reserves may be a long process.
7.7. Afghanistan Not many NGOs work in the Afghanistan’s part of the hotspot – the Wakhan National
Park. From conservation NGOs the prime players is Wildlife Conservation Society with
numerous local partners. Development players include Aga-Khan Foundation partners.
7.8. Links to the CEPF Monitoring Framework
8. THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY IN THE HOTSPOT The mountains of Central Asia have long been exploited for grazing, food, timber, and
fuel. The human population of the hotspot numbers around 42-44 million people in
Central Asia’s part and about 17-20 million in the Chinese part, with more people living
in the adjoining plains.
Population density across the hotspot varies greatly: in the Ferghana Valley and the
Tarim Oasis it is may reach 200-400 per square kilometer, but fewer than 2-4 people per
square kilometer live in the Pamir of Tajikistan and China and the Afghan Wakhan. A
steady rise in the human population and domestic livestock, and the associated need for
land and resources, have increased pressure on the environment, which has reached
unsustainable levels in many places. Political and economic changes in the five
76
countries of the former Soviet Union in Central Asia, particularly the transition to a
market economy and withdrawal or reduction of government subsidies and support
created difficult economic situations for many mountain dwellers. This led to intensified
use of natural resources to meet peoples’ needs. Habitat degradation, overgrazing, and
unregulated hunting of animals and collection of plants emerged as the three major and
continuing threats.
With a complexity of ecosystem types, land use patterns and administrative overlays in
the hotspot, as well as different levels of protection status across the region, the
distribution and intensity of threats to biodiversity and to ecological functions in such a
large geographic area are not uniform. Natural habitat is being degraded, decreased
(lost) and fragmented; climate change is affecting many parts of the province, largely
through desiccation; desertification is increasing in some areas; natural resources are
being over-exploited in some areas; and pollution is of increasing concern, especially
where industry is increasing and where mineral exploration and extraction occur. This
situation affects the entire hotspot but is most pronounced in rangeland, wetland and
mountain areas.
Afghanistan has experienced decades-long civil war and many country areas still
display insecurity. The impacts of conflict in Afghanistan were devastating for the
people, economy and the environment. While most of northern and western forests of
the country are not in the hotspot, they are among of the most depleted natural resources
because of conflict and related causes. Northern areas of the country, on the border with
Central Asia states, which for many years were considered as relatively safe, are now on
the list of security hotspots. The Wakhan Valley is one of the exceptions, where civil
conflict and insecurity did not directly affect the people and nature, but its remoteness,
poverty and low level of development contribute to the elevated threat levels to
biodiversity. On the other side of the border and mountains – in Western China –
skyrocketing development led to the intense use of resources.
8.1. Direct Drivers The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and national biodiversity assessments and
strategies identify the following direct drivers of change in biodiversity and ecosystems:
Habitat change
Climate change
Invasive alien species
Overexploitation of species and ecosystems
Pollution
The boundaries between these direct drivers can be indistinct: climate change, for
example, can create conditions attractive to invasive species, and invasive species can
lead to changes in habitat, but the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Parties
follow this organizational scheme and this chapter does as well. Subcategories under the
direct drivers identify more specific threats.
8.1.1. Habitat Change The Convention on Biological Diversity notes that habitat change has been the most
important driver of terrestrial ecosystem changes over the past 50 years (CBD 2006).
Changes in land use, the modification of natural river flows and the withdrawal of water
77
from rivers are common examples of habitat change.
In the mountains of Central Asia hotspot, most of the land in the lowland semi-deserts
and foothills has been converted to agricultural use, mainly for cultivation of cotton,
cereals and other crops. The agricultural conversion has resulted in the loss of
grasslands and semi-deserts and has diminished soil fertility. Poor water management
and irrigation practices, together with pollution from the overuse of fertilizers and
pesticides have further degraded soil productivity (USAID 2013).
Rapid development in northwest China led to the reduction in forest cover and change
in land use in several mountain areas and oases.
Damming for hydropower and installing massive irrigation schemes of low efficiency
have disrupted river flows and affected lands and soil conditions, while excessive water
withdrawals in the agriculture sector led to the Aral Sea disappearance, major river
water ecosystem changes and species extinctions.
More and more wetlands and rangelands near low-lying rivers and in the foothills have
been converted to cropland in the past several decades. The construction of roads –
whether as part of a transport network aiming to improve access for tourism or to reach
mineral exploration sites – poses a threat to local biodiversity through the fragmentation
of the landscape. New roads also mean increased access to previously less disturbed
areas, and may bring harm to wildlife through disturbance and hunting, may increase
overexploitation of natural resources, and may change local demographic and land-use
patterns. New roads continue to be built in the hotspot. Construction of fences may
harm wildlife by limiting their movements.. Long distance movement of wildlife is
hindered, and there is decreased connectivity between regions including different
protected areas in the broader landscape.
8.1.2. Climate Change The long-term effects of global warming pose a threat to the biodiversity of the
mountains of Central Asia both directly as an independent cause of disruption and
change and indirectly in synergy with other threats. According to the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, “Observed recent changes in climate, especially warmer
regional temperatures, have already had significant impacts on biodiversity and
ecosystems, including causing changes in species distributions, population sizes, the
timing of reproduction or migration events, and an increase in the frequency of pest and
disease outbreaks.” The Assessment also finds that the impacts on biodiversity of
climate change are increasing at a very rapid rate, and that climate change is likely to be
one of the most significant drivers of biodiversity loss by the end of the century. The
Assessment’s projections for the effects of climate change on biodiversity pose serious
challenges globally and echo in the Central Asia Mountains:
Climate change is projected to further adversely affect key development challenges,
including…conserving ecological systems and their biodiversity and associated
ecological goods and services:
Projected changes in climate during the twenty-first century are very likely to be
without precedent during at least the past 10,000 years and, combined with land use
change and the spread of exotic or alien species, are likely to limit both the
capability of species to migrate and the ability of species to persist in fragmented
habitats.
78
Climate change is projected to exacerbate the loss of biodiversity and increase the
risk of extinction for many species, especially those already at risk due to factors
such as low population numbers, restricted or patchy habitats, and limited climatic
ranges.
Water availability and quality are projected to decrease in many arid and semiarid
regions [such as Central Asia].
The risk of floods and droughts is projected to increase.
The incidence of vector-borne and of waterborne diseases is projected to increase.
Chapter 9 provides a more thorough discussion of specific climate change impacts in
the hotspot.
8.1.3. Invasive Alien Species CBD summarizes the potential role of invasive species as follows:
Invasive alien species can transform the structure and species composition of
ecosystems by repressing or excluding native species. Because invasive species are
often one of a whole suite of factors affecting particular sites or ecosystems, it is not
always easy to determine the proportion of the impact that can be attributed to them. In
the recent past, the rate and risk associated with alien species introductions have
increased significantly as a result of increased travel, trade and tourism (CBD 2013).
8.1.4. Overexploitation of Species and Ecosystems Poaching and illegal hunting
Poaching, especially of larger mammals and birds, is an issue in the region. High-value
mountain ungulates are killed or captured for profit. Falcons are exported to the Middle
East, where they fetch a high price when sold to falconers.
Collection of Plants
Unregulated collection of plants poses a direct threat to globally threatened and
restricted-range species and impoverishes the diversity of ecosystems. Villagers pick
endemic species of tulips to sell, and some species have become very rare in several
areas as a result. Collection of plants for medicinal use (of which there are around 200-
300 species in the hotspot) is controlled to a limited extent.
Energy shortages in the mountain areas led to the cutting of trees and shrubs for fuel.
This, together with overgrazing inside the mountain forests, has disrupted the natural
processes in unique and valuable mountain ecosystems of Central Asia – juniper and
walnut-fruit forests. The quality of these forests diminished and regeneration slowed.
Overgrazing
After the fall of the Soviet Union during the 1990s, the number of domestic livestock in
the mountains of Central Asia initially declined, alleviating pressure on ecosystems, but
with stabilization of the economy and growth in income and population throughout the
region, the number of sheep and goats has increased sharply, and overgrazing affects
many areas, especially the foothills and lower slopes (800-2,000 meters), and to much
lesser extent the high altitudes of 2,500-3,500 meters. Severe degradation is observed
around settlements, but a wider area is affected in less visible ways. Overgrazing
steadily reduces the fresh grass yield and causes changes in species composition, with
increasing predominance of less palatable species. This reduces the productivity of
alpine meadows and the number of wild herbivores they can support, and increases the
79
risk of soil erosion. In parts of the Chinese Tien Shan, livestock numbers multiplied in
the last 50 years, and serious overgrazing and pasture degradation began as early as the
1970s (Zhang 2002).
8.1.5. Pollution The pollution threats to the biodiversity hotspot come from several sources – current
and past applications of agricultural chemicals, the storage of obsolete and discarded
chemicals, mercury, lead and phosphorous contamination, industrial discharges and
hazardous waste, and mine tailings including radioactive tailings from uranium mining.
Within the mountains of Central Asia hotspot, the Lake Issyk-Kul region and the
Ferghana Valley are notably vulnerable to the threats posed by pollution.
8.2. Indirect Drivers (Root Causes) In addition to the direct drivers, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment identifies five
types of indirect drivers:
Demographic
Economic
Sociopolitical
Cultural and awareness
Scientific and technological
Weak governance, institutions and enforcement
The subcategories under each indirect driver identify the specific causes that require
attention – weak regulatory schemes and poor enforcement, for example. But the
general categories are helpful in understanding root causes: the motivation for poaching,
for example, may come from underlying economic conditions. The improvement of
regulations and enforcement might reduce illegal hunting, but this intervention is
unrelated to the economic conditions that may explain why poaching occurs.
Demographic Pressures The strongest demographic pressure on biodiversity comes from population growth –
more people require more resources – but the demographic dynamics are also factors,
and this section covers migration and the changes in urban and rural population
distributions in addition to population growth.
Economic Factors
Expansion of settlements, construction of roads and other infrastructure, recreational
facilities, mining, and other economic activities may destroy and fragment natural
habitats. Much of the hotspot remained accessible only by foot or on horseback until the
mid-twentieth century, but roads, if not highways, have opened up wide tracts of the
mountains, and facilitated exploitation and increasing disturbance.
The recreational load on mountain ecosystems is growing as increasing numbers of
local and overseas tourists visit the region and impact on the environment through their
various activities. Accommodation facilities, access roads, and infrastructure for skiing
and other mass tourism further encroach on habitats and add to the disturbance.
Cultural Factors and Awareness
80
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment states that, “Culture conditions individuals’
perceptions of the world, and by influencing what they consider important, it has
implications for conservation and consumer preferences and suggests courses of action
that are appropriate and inappropriate.”
One of the most significant barriers to full development of a landscape approach to
protected area management is the limited understanding of the value of biodiversity and
ecosystem services. Authorities and communities alike are generally unaware of how
loss of these resources will negatively impact the overall economy of the region, various
business sectors, and local livelihoods.
Weak institutions, regulations and enforcement Weak regulatory schemes and poor enforcement contribute to the overexploitation of
natural resources throughout the region. In some cases, hunting permits are granted in
contradiction to existing protection laws due to confusing or unclear regulations.
In the Central Asia countries, environmental decision-making and implementation are
concentrated within governmental authorities, and the links between national and local
levels often remain weak. This renders implementation at the sub-national and local
levels challenging, and the preference for short-term planning and short-term economic
gains exacerbates the situation. Only a few actors perceive the protection of biodiversity
as potentially profitable and globally significant task, and a limited awareness of the
opportunities for conservation and green development on all levels, from government to
the private sector, and particularly in rural communities, undermines the prospects for
sustainable entrepreneurship initiatives.
The staffs in government, NGOs, and protected areas lack qualified specialists with
current knowledge of biodiversity. Low salaries for government positions cause best-
qualified experts to leave and work for international projects or private consultancies.
Some types of protected areas in Central Asia exist mainly on paper and maps,
especially species management areas (locally known as “zakaznik”). Lacking funds,
supervision as well as basic infrastructure, these areas cannot monitor species or
manage their territory effectively. The low pay and remote locations contribute to the
shortage of qualified professionals, and the protected areas often hire local residents
without special education or training. The available funding cannot support the
exchange of experience or training opportunities.
Most scientists belong to the older generation, conservative and at times disconnected
from practice and policy, and sometimes uninterested in sharing knowledge with the
younger generation. Scientific careers are not particularly attractive, and many capable
young people tend to leave the region, and well-educated young people tend to prefer
better-paying jobs in other sectors.
At the regional level, cooperation remains challenging due to the reluctance of the
countries to work jointly, and to the lack of trust and dialogue. The root causes of this
problem are: focus on narrow economic interests, the supremacy of economic
development and a wide though changing conviction that economy and environment
cannot go hand-in-hand.
81
The development of crop agriculture, livestock husbandry, mining and mass tourism in
China’s Xinjiang is leading to a rapid exploitation of water and wetland resources both
inside and outside of protected areas. These economically driven sectors generally are
developed with inadequate consideration given to the management objectives of
protected areas or the role of wetlands in sustaining biodiversity and essential water
resources. Lack of standards and guidelines for different protected area management
categories and for interactions between protected areas and different government sectors
hinder the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Overall, the regional protected area system is not well integrated into the development
and sector planning processes, which largely determine land-use and development
activities within the province. For example, there is a lack of integration of protected
area concerns into cross-sectoral plans including tourism, mining, energy and
agriculture development.
Underlying many of these constraints, local capacities are inadequate to apply the
national regulations to the unique environmental and socioeconomic contexts of each
protected area. Many nature reserve staff lack the basic knowledge needed to discharge
their duties, and there are no accepted competence or performance standards. Finally,
due to the scale and remoteness of the protected areas in the region and to the limited
funding available for management, enforcement remains difficult.
The current institutional capacity in most hotspot countries to oversee multiple
protected areas, to make sound operational decisions, to manage budgets effectively, to
deploy staff, and to monitor specific and overall performance of areas remains
inadequate for effective regional management.
Agriculture, mining and water resources agencies each have jurisdiction over different
resources and lands, and tend to operate independently of each other with little
consideration for biodiversity impacts or protected areas and ecosystems. Fencing in
forests, grasslands on in the mining concessions disrupt the migration patterns of wild
ungulates. Placer gold mining in the Chatkal River basin of Kyrgyzstan and in other
countries has severely fragmented the riverbed forest habitat and threatens the survival
of the endemic Tien Shan birch and other species.
8.3. Summary of Threats by Country In their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), National Reports
to the Convention on Biological Diversity and during CEPF consultations, the hotspot
countries identified biodiversity threats, which are summarized in this section.
8.3.1. China
Almost half of the Central Asia Mountains biodiversity hotspot extends into the Chinese
province of Xinjiang and takes in the eastern parts of the Tien Shan and Pamir mountain
ranges. The area supports numerous globally threatened, endemic and relict species
(WHC 2013). In general, China identifies its main pressures on biodiversity as deriving
from the population pressures and the accelerating pace of industrialization and
urbanization (Fifth National Report 2014). Other indirect drivers include inadequate
legal protections, lack of enforcement and overlapping authorities (NBSAP 1994).
China’s biodiversity reports also mention the full range of direct drivers – habitat loss,
climate change, invasive species, overexploitation and pollution (Fifth National Report
82
2014 and NBSAP 1994). Within the hotspot, however, the threats are considered
moderate and coming mainly from booming extractive industries, infrastructure
development, increasing consumption and cultural changes (WHC 2013). Invasive
species is not an issue, but some areas have experienced damage from forest pests.
Rapidly growing domestic tourism potentially threatens the habitats and species,
including those under protection, especially nearby the large urban centers. Other
threats include hunting, climate change impacts and shrinking glaciers (WHC 2013;
World Heritage 2012). Table __. Direct drivers in Chinese Tien Shan Direct driver Country- or area-specific driver Habitat change Agricultural encroachment
Infrastructure development Tourism development
Climate change Shrinking glaciers and impacts on the nival-glacier ecosystems Shifts in biological functionality and ecosystem range, and species occurrence Worsening of dust storms and desertification
Invasive alien species Not reported
Overexploitation of species and ecosystems
Unregulated hunting Overgrazing of pastures Damage to forests, plant collection Mining
Pollution Intensive use of chemicals in agriculture Industrial emissions and discharges Growth in vehicles number, noise, emissions Improper waste management
Sources: NBSAP 1994; Fifth National Report 2014; WHC 2013; and World Heritage 2012
Table __. Indirect drivers in Chinese Tien Shan Indirect driver Country- or area-specific driver
Demographic Population growth and domestic migration
Economic Rapid industrialization Mass tourism Consumption
Sociopolitical Inadequate management and staffing
Cultural Traditional skills and the modern era
Scientific and technological
Institutions, regulations and enforcement
Sources: NBSAP 2010; Fifth National Report 2014; WHC 2013; and World Heritage 2012
8.3.2. Kyrgyzstan
Almost the entire country area falls within the hotspot. Foothill steppes and semi-desert
steppes near settlements are among the most affected ecosystems, and the wild fruit and
nut forests are under growing pressure. Over the last 50 years, fir and juniper forests
have declined by one third, while fruit and nut forests have declined by half (Kyrgyz
NBSAP 1998). Fish stocks in the iconic Issyk-Kul Lake have experienced collapse and
the lake ecosystem is affected by numerous pressures – from invasive species and
overfishing to pollutants and untreated runoff discharges, plastic litter on the lakeshore
and climate change impacts. Kyrgyzstan identifies forests and pastures as the
ecosystems with the greatest economic and social importance to the country (Fifth
National Report 2013), and specifies the destruction of natural ecosystems due to
increases in land use intensity and human encroachment as a key threat to biodiversity
83
(Kyrgyz NBSAP 1998).
Table __. Direct drivers in Kyrgyzstan
Direct driver Country-specific driver
Habitat change Agriculture encroachment Artisanal gold mining and destruction of riverbeds Industrial mining and geological exploration Lack of pasture rotation
Climate change Likely altitudinal shifts in ecosystems and species distribution Long-term risk from mining at high elevations (waste stability)
Invasive alien species Introduced fish species in the Issyk-Kul Lake Grey rat, myna, squirrel
Overexploitation of species and ecosystems
Over-collection of some plant species Overfishing in the Issyk-Kul Lake Overgrazing of pastures Illegal / unregulated hunting and poaching
Pollution Damage to flora and fauna in agricultural areas (chemicals) Contamination and impacts from mining activities and industries
Sources: Kyrgyz NBSAP 1998; Fifth National Report 2013
Table __. Indirect drivers in Kyrgyzstan
Indirect driver Country-specific driver
Demographic Population in and around urban areas (unregulated migration) Ethnic clashes in the Ferghana Valley
Economic Energy shortages Poverty and lack of income sources
Sociopolitical Lack of funds for conservation Underdeveloped institutional capacity
Cultural Limited public awareness despite traditional values placed on natural resources
Scientific and technological Strong science base from the previous investments (Soviet era) Limited research capacities and human potential
Institutions, regulations and enforcement
Limited or ineffective grazing regulations in mountain forests Weak government capacities to manage protected areas
Sources: Kyrgyz NBSAP 1998; Fifth National Report 2013
8.3.3. Tajikistan
The entire country of Tajikistan is in the hotspot with ecosystems ranging from lowland
and high mountain deserts to grasslands, forests, and glaciers. The monitoring of
species, forest resources, and ecosystems has not kept pace with modern developments,
academic programs are declining, and reliable data on the state of biodiversity is
lacking. The capacities of the state for conservation and maintenance of the nature
reserves are constrained and under-budgeted, and CSOs are supporting the functions of
environmental protection and education. Rapid population growth and a dearth of
economic opportunities have placed significant pressures on biological resources,
particularly on forests and pastures. Disturbance of forests and conversion of many
foothill lands and natural pastures to agriculture are transforming the compositions of
ecosystems that are home to valuable genetic resources, and are threatening the
existence of species and ecosystems near densely populated areas, such as around
Tigrovaya Balka reserve, in spite of additional efforts to add a buffer zone to this
reserve and improve the water supply for its wetlands. One of the protected areas –
Saryhosor in Central Tajikistan – has shrunk due agricultural encroachment. The lack of
84
proper controls and the absence of land titles lead to the illegal or unsustainable
collection of forest products and to further deforestation, as most people depend on
biological resources for food, income and welfare (Fifth National Report 2014).
Table __. Direct drivers in Tajikistan Direct driver Country-specific driver Habitat change Agricultural encroachment
Unclear land use rights and regulations Expansion of infrastructure Tourism
Climate change Shrinking glaciers and impacts on the nival-glacier ecosystems Likely altitudinal shifts in ecosystems and species distribution
Invasive alien species Increase in non-native tree species due to unregulated afforestation and reforestation Grey rat, myna, squirrel
Overexploitation of species and ecosystems
Illegal forest cutting and plants collection Illegal and unregulated hunting Overgrazing of pastures and forests
Pollution Mining Sources: Tajik NBSAP 2003; Fifth National Report 2014
Table __. Indirect drivers in Tajikistan Indirect driver Country-specific driver
Demographic High rates of population growth Too ridged terrain for re-distribution of population
Economic Poverty and food insecurity Lack of energy High dependency on biological resources
Sociopolitical Absence of pasture management systems Failure to value biodiversity Incomplete land reforms
Cultural Low levels of environmental education Consumption attitude toward biological resources
Scientific and technological Lack of natural resources planning and management Limited research capacities and human resources
Institutions, regulations and enforcement
Weak implementation of laws and regulations Contradictory or duplicative functions of authorities
Sources: Tajik NBSAP 2003; Fifth National Report 2014
8.3.4. Kazakhstan
Karatau ridge is home to the greatest number of endemic species in Central Asia, and
provides habitats for globally threatened species and isolated sub-subspecies of plants,
animals and birds of prey. Foothills support rain-fed crop production and free-range
animal husbandry; both sectors are expanding. Tien Shan’s natural beauty attracts
tourists, and some mountain ecosystems are suffering from recreational pressures,
especially near Almaty where hikers and skiers visit in large numbers. Unregulated
grazing, illegal hunting and the collection of medicinal plants, endemic tulips and wild
fruits and berries are challenges to biodiversity (Fifth National Report 2014).
Table __. Direct drivers in Kazakhstan’s southeastern mountains Direct driver Country- or area-specific driver Habitat change Forest fires, pests and diseases
Recreation Infrastructure development
Climate change Impacts on mountain forests Threats to survival of genetic resources
85
Invasive alien species Grey rat, myna, squirrel
Overexploitation of species and ecosystems
Overgrazing Illegal hunting Collection of rare insects and plants
Pollution Increase in vehicles, noise and pollution Sources: Kazakh NBSAP 1999; Fifth National Report 2014
Table __. Indirect drivers in Kazakhstan’s south-eastern mountains Indirect driver Country- or area-specific driver
Demographic
Economic
Sociopolitical Ineffective regulation of hunting
Cultural
Scientific and technological
Institutions, regulations and enforcement
Sources: Kazakh NBSAP 1999; Fifth National Report 2014
8.3.5. Uzbekistan
Southeastern Uzbekistan within the Mountains of Central Asia hotspot includes its most
populated parts – Tashkent city agglomeration (5 million) and the Ferghana Valley (9
million). Several water reservoirs serve as nesting areas and wintering grounds for birds,
and are considered as both IBAs and KBAs. Uzbekistan considers the main threats to
the mountain biodiversity in the country to be the loss of habitats; decreases in
population sizes and losses of species due to overexploitation; losses of genetic diversity
and climate change impacts (Fifth National Report 2015). The agricultural sector has
converted many natural areas in the foothills to farmland, has introduced pesticides into
the environment, has expanded irrigation to new areas and has allowed livestock to
overgraze pastures. Other economic activities that affect the state of biodiversity include
the construction of roads, pipelines and other linear infrastructure that may become a
barrier for animal migration, and unregulated tourism.
Table __. Direct drivers in south-eastern Uzbekistan Direct driver Country-specific driver Habitat change Agricultural encroachment
Recreation
Climate change Impacts on freshwater ecosystems (droughts, poor water quality) Impacts on mountains forests
Invasive alien species Grey rat, myna, squirrel
Overexploitation of species and ecosystems
Illegal hunting Over-collection of plants
Pollution Agricultural chemicals Mining and industrial waste
Sources: Uzbek Fifth National Report 2015
Table __. Indirect drivers in south-eastern Uzbekistan Indirect driver Country-specific driver
Demographic Population growth
Economic Agricultural expansion
Sociopolitical
Cultural
86
Scientific and technological
Institutions, regulations and enforcement
Sources: Uzbek Fifth National Report 2015;
8.3.6. Turkmenistan
The Koytendag Ridge, a spur of the Pamir and Hissar Mountains, juts into the southeast
corner of Turkmenistan, and is the country’s only territory within the Mountains of
Central Asia hotspot (ca 350,000 ha) and it includes the tallest mountain of the country
– Airbaba (3,139 meters). Semi-desert, grassland, forest and underground ecosystems in
the area provide habitats for rare, endemic and endangered plants and animals. The area
is home to 130 species of medicinal plants and 40 wild crop relatives. The expansion of
agriculture and the pressures brought by recreation together with the effects of
overexploitation of species are among the threats in the Koitendag Range.
Table __. Direct drivers in Turkmenistan’s Koytendag Mountains Direct driver Country- or area-specific driver Habitat change Agricultural expansion
Recreation
Climate change Aridisation and deserts expansion
Invasive alien species Introduced fish species
Overexploitation of species and ecosystems
Overgrazing Illegal hunting Unregulated plant collection
Pollution Mining legacies Sources: Turkmenistan NBSAP 2002; Fourth National Report 2009
Table __. Indirect drivers in Turkmenistan’s Koitendag Mountains Indirect driver Country-specific driver
Demographic
Economic
Sociopolitical
Cultural
Scientific and technological
Institutions, regulations and enforcement
Sources: Turkmenistan NBSAP 2002; Fourth National Report 2009
8.3.7. Afghanistan
For the country as a whole, Afghanistan lists the main threats to its biodiversity as land
conversions for agriculture and housing, illegal hunting, deforestation, overgrazing,
shrub collection, dryland farming, water diversion, and climate change (Fifth National
Report 2014). The underlying issues are population growth of 4 per cent per year
(including migration), a low level of development, and widespread poverty (NBSAP
2014; Fifth National Report 2014). While the government recognizes the consequences
of biodiversity loss, the pressures for survival at the local level and economic growth at
the national level have resulted in little action (NSCA and NAPA 2009).
The Afghan territory that lies within the Central Asia mountain biodiversity hotspot is
the entire Wakhan Valley, which was declared a national park in 2014. Located in the
most remote and highest mountains of the hotspot, the Wakhan Valley hosts globally
87
important biodiversity. Its diverse mountain fauna include Marco Polo sheep, ibexes,
brown bears, yaks and snow leopards (NBSAP 2014). The Panj River, which forms the
natural and political border between Afghanistan and Tajikistan and the adjoining
mountains form part of the hotspot too. Remarkably, after 25 years of war and
instability, the Wakhan Valley appears to be largely intact (NBSAP 2014). The main
threats within the Afghan part of hotspot are overgrazing and the trampling of pastures
by livestock, and the poaching of wild sheep for meat. The free movement of Marco
Polo sheep and snow leopard across the international borders of the Wakhan Valley has
inspired discussions of a transboundary protected area including parts of Afghanistan,
Tajikistan, China and Pakistan (NSCA and NAPA 2009). The Afghan-Tajik border at
the time of the report writing was characterized by insecurity and high risk for project
interventions. In addition, very limited information is available for the Afghan side, so
this area is not described in detail.
Table __. Direct drivers in Afghanistan (Wakhan Valley) Direct driver Country-specific driver Habitat change Degradation of pastures
Climate change Shrinking glaciers and impacts on the nival-glacier ecosystems
Invasive alien species -
Overexploitation of species and ecosystems
Overgrazing Illegal hunting
Pollution - Sources: Afghan NBSAP 2014; Fifth National Report 2014; and NSCA and NAPA 2009
Table __. Indirect drivers in Afghanistan (Wakhan Valley) Indirect driver Country- or area-specific driver
Demographic Population growth
Economic Widespread poverty
Sociopolitical
Cultural
Scientific and technological
Institutions, regulations and enforcement
Sources: Afghan NBSAP 2014; Fifth National Report 2014; NSCA and NAPA 2009
8.5. Links to the CEPF Monitoring Framework
88
9. CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report finds
that each of the last three decades were successively warmer than any previous decade
since 1850, and that multiple independent datasets show warming in the range of 0.6°C
to 1.0°C over the period of 1880-2012. The level of carbon dioxide in the planetary
atmosphere is higher than at any time in the past 800,000 years and in May 2013 it
reached 400 parts per million – a symbolic threshold of continuing man-made impacts
on the global atmosphere. The report notes that many extreme weather and climate
events have been observed since the middle of the twentieth century. Ice sheet losses
were substantial, glaciers have diminished and the sea level has risen.
Temperatures are generally rising across the hotspot. The increases vary from 0.2°C to
0.4°C per decade over the last 40 years. Spring and fall seasons exhibited the largest
warming trends. Winter temperatures increased in the southern lowlands and mountains
of Central Asia, but the cold spells of 2008 and 2012 have reduced the significance of
this trend. In the Tarim basin of China, precipitation increased by 20 percent between
1960 and 2000 (Rumbaur 2015). Higher surface temperatures result in increased
evaporation and reduced soil moisture content, especially during the dry summer
months, thereby amplifying the risk of droughts in lowlands and reducing the amount of
surface run-off in mountains.
National and regional climate projections indicate increase in temperatures and
precipitation across the Mountains of Central Asia hotspot and the major loss of the
glacier cover by the end of century. Adoption of the 2015 Paris Agreement and its
effective enforcement by all nations may lead to the abatement of pressures on the
global climate system and consequently less dramatic climatic and ecosystem changes
in the hotspot by the end of century (2070-2100). But projections based on current
levels of emissions and high emission scenarios, such as IPCC RCP 8.5, show a
temperature increase between 1°C and 5°C and growth in precipitation by the end of the
century (IPCC, 2013; Mannig et al., 2013).
The glacier ecosystems and glaciers as an element of the landscape are very sensitive to
climate change and to the impact of human activities. Glaciers in the hotspot may shrink
by as much as half by the mid century. Small and low altitude glaciers may vanish
completely.
The glaciers of the Bogda Peak nearby Urumqi decreased by more than 20 per cent
from 144 km2 in 1962 to 112 km
2 in 2006. And over the last 50 years, 12 small glaciers
have totally disappeared in the Bogda Peak area. The Tian Shan “Number One” Glacier,
Urumqi’s source of water, had shrunk by 17 per cent from 1.95 km2 in 1962 to 1.62 km
2
in 2014, with the accelerating speed of the ice loss since the 1980s (Wang et al 2014). In
order to protect the Tian Shan glaciers from excessive human intervention and
disturbance, China has established glacier nature reserves, such as the Tian Shan
Urumqi “Glacier One” protection area. Local authorities in China have banned tourism,
restricted vehicles, grazing and mining activities nearby this and other glaciers to reduce
additional pressures of the nival-glacier ecosystems in addition to global warming.
The large glaciers of the Pamir and Tien Shan did not reduce significantly. Since the
first instrumental observations begun in the early 20th century the Fedchenko Glacier in
central part of the Pamir retreated by 1 km and lost around 5 km3 of ice. The area of the
89
glacier has reduced less than 0.5 per cent, length by 1.5 per cent, and ice volume by 3.5
percent. From 1927 to 2010, the Zeravshan glacier in the Pamir-Alai has retreated by
2.5km or 10% in length. Numerous small glaciers have melted more significantly due to
warming. The area and ice stocks in glaciers within the key mountain river basins of the
hotspot – Vakhsh and Panj – that form the large Amu Darya River shared by
Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan could reduce by
half in a scenario of 2°C warming and little change in precipitation. As a response to
this, Tajikistan launched the State programme on glaciers monitoring and protection in
order to take coordinated action to preserve these valuable natural resources for as long
as possible.
9.1. Impacts on Human Populations and the Economy The number of days with temperature above 40°C has been increasing in the densely
populated southern areas of Central Asia. This has a negative impact on agriculture and
rural and urban populations affected by heatwaves.
The climate effects on water regimes are highly variable. As glaciers retreat and snow
cover patterns change, the hydrological changes in small and medium rivers in the high
mountains are becoming noticeable. The flow in rivers fed by glaciers and snowmelt
tends to increase, especially in summer, e.g. Sary-Dzjaz and Aksu in the Tien Shan
Mountains of Kyrgyzstan and China (Kundzewicz etal, 2015; Krysanova et al, 2015).
In southern hot and dry parts of the hotspot, small rivers and dependent on them
economies and communities are particularly vulnerable to flow variability and climate
change impacts, especially water deficits in dry years. Mountain glaciers that act as
water reservoirs are melting, and thus losing their ability to compensate for low water
flows in low-water years.
A recent IPCC report on extreme events and climate change (IPCC, 2012) as well as the
national communications of the Central Asia countries to the UNFCCC call attention to
the prospect of more damaging extreme weather events in the future.
Water flows in many of the hotspot’s rivers are expected to continue around the current
levels for the next two to three decades, while in the heavily glaciered basins of the Tien
Shan and Pamir increases in flow and summer floods are expected (Sorg et al 2012).
Flash flooding is common in the hotspot. Because of the heavy sediment and rock
content in flash floods, they are often very destructive but this damage is usually
confined to a small physical area such as a valley floor. Another type of flooding, which
occurs more often in the flatter parts of the hotspot, is either due to rain falling on snow
and frozen ground or to rapid snow melt over deeply frozen ground or rapid and
massive snow melt in the mountains. This flooding can result in large volumes of
standing water in inhabited areas where this water can cause serious damage to
infrastructure. The number of glacial lakes is expected to grow as a result of climate
warming in the hotspot (Vilesov et al., 2006). Projected warming will also affect the
stability and properties of mountain permafrost and glacial moraines, which in
combination with the intensified melting associated with climate change may lead to an
increased risk of glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), but geomorphology is an
important factor and conditions vary from place to place.
90
The extreme weather events resulting from climate change and variability are already
imposing additional stress on the use of vital natural resources. Drought is an extreme
event that comes with the potential for increased water insecurity and serious economic
and human consequences. In drought years, the competition for pastures and local water
sources increases, creating tensions between the lowlands and the highlands. One view
of the prospects for water resources in the mountains holds that the receding glaciers
will alter the water regime and worsen the water management problem so that more
reservoirs will be needed to regulate seasonal flows. Another view holds that melting
glaciers and additional precipitation may damage mountain infrastructure, and that the
water deficits are a long-term issue.
Climate variability and change affect pest and insect breeding and spearing conditions.
In the southern Tajikistan, an outbreak of cotton budworm halved the cotton harvest. In
2007 locust destroyed 35,000 ha of crops and caused considerable damage. Due to
climate warming and insufficient forest protection measures, the area of forest affected
by pests and diseases increased in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.
The health effects of extreme heat can be serious. Higher temperatures, particularly in
summer, are expected to worsen the already difficult work conditions of agricultural
fieldworkers in southern lowland parts of the hotspot. Summer high heat has affected
pregnancies, and resulted in birth anomalies related to exposure to summer heat late in
pregnancy (Kayumova 2013).
As average temperatures increase, diseases are likely to spread more easily, thus adding
threats to both animal and human health. Heat stress contributes to cardiovascular
disease, and warming patterns can increase the risk of malaria outbreaks. Heavy rainfall
in areas with inadequate water supplies and substandard sanitation can increase the risk
of infections such as typhoid, salmonellosis and dysentery.
The increase in extreme weather events is likely to increase short-term displacements
and migration, and the degradation of the ecosystems that sustain livelihoods is
expected to accelerate both seasonal and long-term migration. Whether the causes are
economic or environmental, migration has been an effective strategy to maintain
stability and reduce poverty in the region.
9.2. Impacts on Biodiversity The biodiversity hotspot of the Mountains of Central Asia is also the hotspot of globally
important agro-biodiversity from which cultivated plants have originated. The hotspot
harbors wild relatives (landraces) of important agricultural crops and domesticated fruit
and nut trees that possess resistance and tolerance to pests, diseases and climatic
stresses. Some of them are likely to be well adapted to changing climatic conditions,
therefore conservation and sustainable natural resources management under climate
change conditions represent one of the best ways for local communities to maintain and
improve their livelihoods in the face of climate threats.
Limited comprehensive and coordinated studies were conducted in the hotspot on
climate change and biodiversity. Some of the existing studies implemented as part of the
climate adaptation or national communication projects show interesting results, but the
mosaic of the regional impacts remains incomplete. Synthesis of studies lead to the
following conclusions: The mountain forests and pastures are likely to move up in
91
elevation and change in areal extent in response to rising temperatures, particularly in
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, but whether higher elevation soils and other
conditions will support these ecosystems is something of an open question. Productivity
of mountain forests may reduce and slow-growing juniper forests (Juniperus
turkestanica) could be particularly affected by climate change.
In Turkmenistan, decreases in rainfall and increases in temperature have already
contributed to the drop of productivity of the natural desert pastures. At the same time,
climate warming there resulted in habitat changes and arrival of some species new to the
region, such as gray crane (Grus grus), Pandion chaliaetus, Larus hyperboreus,
Stercorarius longicaqudus, Lanius senator.
Table __. Climate change effects on biodiversity
Possible effects Likely indicators and consequences
Earlier bird arrival, earlier appearance of the insects in the northern hemisphere
New wintering areas for some birds: avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta), ruff (Philomaxis pugnax), wood sandpiper (Tringa glareola), redshank (Tringa totanus) and earlier spring arrival
Shift in habitant extent for some plant species and animal ranges
Elevation changes in the spread of the mountain forests and changes in bird and mammal habitats (Juniperus turkestanica, Malus sieversii, Juglans regia, Cursorius cursor, Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, etc).
Increase in pressure levels for threatened species and unique ecosystems and endemic species
Climate change combined with fragmentation and overuse of the mountain ecosystems has already driven gazelle (Gazella subguttarosa) and bustard (Otis tarda) off the Western Tien Shan Mountains. Other species, including tortoise (Agriocnemis horsfieldi), corsac (Vulpes corsac), jerboa (Allactaga jaculus, A.severtzovii, A.vinogradovi) diminished in numbers and extent of occurrence.
Changes in water quality and quantity and impacts on freshwater species and ecosystems
Reduction of water quality in small mountain rivers (Karjantau, Nuratau). Severe impacts of water deficit and low water impacts on delta ecosystems. Increase in irrigation demand due to higher evaporation and, consequently, higher stress on available water resources.
Source: Synthesis of information from the national communications on climate change
Recent research (reference) on the likely impacts of climate change using a homologue
approach and soil-climate modelling conducted in fruit and nut forest areas of Tajikistan
shows air temperatures will have increased by 3°C in 2050, and considering that the
adiabatic lapse rate for the local mountains is 0.6°C per 100 meters, climatic conditions
at given forest sites today will prevail in 2050 at homologous sites that are 500 m higher
in elevation, where forest can potentially grow if soils and moisture conditions are
appropriate. Such significant and rapid ecosystem change may require a set of
adaptation measures, both in-situ and ex-situ, and flexible long-term planning of natural
resources and land use management by the authorities and local communities. In the
absence of adaptation measures, some species or ecosystems could be seriously affected
and face a growing risk of reduction, if not extinction. Agrometeorological observations
reveal shifting biological phases, such as earlier blooming of apple.
92
Forest degradation, overuse and fires release carbon and contribute to carbon dioxide
emissions, formation of regional dust storms and deterioration of local microclimates.
The problem of wildfires, dust storms and flashfloods in the deforested areas is relevant
for the entire hotspot because they create extensive ecological and economic damage. It
is particularly important for China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, where
sustainably managed forests can reduced risks of extreme events soil erosion spurred by
climate change, absorb a significant portion of emissions and promote agro-biodiversity
conservation. The occurrence of numerous relict and paleoendemic species in the
hotspot is evidence of the ability of ecosystems to adapt to significant environmental
changes. Mountain forests are made up of resilient tree species that have experienced
intense climate changes in the past. Therefore, they may play a significant adaptation
role, and become an important element of agro-biodiversity conservation.
9.3. Mitigation and Adaption Opportunities The effectiveness of the response to climate change in the hotspot will depend on the
capacity of the region to adapt and to enhance its resilience. Ecosystems and economic
sectors with a high capacity to adapt are less vulnerable to the effects of climate change,
and strong, stable economies and effective governance improve adaptive capacity, while
healthy ecosystems ensure higher resiliency.
9.3.1. Regional Responses Several organizations at the regional level have the potential to contribute to Central
Asia’s collective capacity to respond to climate change challenges. As the only regional
organization with all five Central Asia states as members, the International Fund for
Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS) serves as a political structure for discussion and
management of regional environmental issues. The organization has launched regional
climate assessments and has sponsored glacier research, but its efforts to secure
international donor support for climate funding have been more passive than proactive.
The IFAS does not include Afghanistan (although the country is part of the basin) and
China.
At the regional level, the Climate Adaptation and Mitigation Program for the Aral Sea
basin (CAMP4ASB), designed with support of the World Bank, hosted by the IFAS and
implemented by CAREC, is expected to become the main regional climate cooperation
and policy coordination platform since 2016. At the time of writing CAMP4ASB was in
the inception and planning phase of regional and country-specific responses. There are
many other smaller (in financial scale) regional initiatives that aim to promote
ecosystem and landscape adaptation and agriculture resilience to climate change in the
hotspot.
China is very active in Central Asia and in 2013 established the Center for Ecology and
Environment of Central Asia managed by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Urumqi
by the Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography (XIEG) with satellite offices in
Almaty, Tashkent, Bishkek and Dushanbe. Together they form a platform for science,
technology and education cooperation between China and Central Asia and scientific
support to “One Belt, One Road” Initiative lead by China.
A number of other regional centers have been established to serve the needs of
environmental, water and climate-related cooperation. The Regional Environmental
Centre of Central Asia (CAREC) based in Almaty, Kazakhstan, collaborates with
93
governmental and non-governmental partners, maintains national offices in each of the
countries and is implementing climate change projects across the region. Other regional
centers – on hydrology (under IFAS) and on glaciers (under UNESCO) – are supposed
to collect and disseminate data and knowledge of regional scale and significance. The
Regional Mountain Centre of Central Asia (RMCCA) based in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan,
promotes cooperation for the protection of mountain ecosystems and now focuses its
activities on climate change impacts in the mountains and on experience exchange on
adaptation. The Central Asia Institute of Applied Geosciences (CAIAG) is based in
Bishkek cooperates extensively with scientists from the region and abroad on
monitoring of global environmental changes in the mountains and other assessments.
Tashkent hosts the Regional Centre on Renewable Energies. Other regional initiatives
include the Central Asian Centre for Disaster Risk Reduction (planned), the Regional
Drought Management Centre (planned), the Regional Centre on Climate Technologies
(planned), and Regional hub for promotion of green technologies based on Astana
EXPO-2017.
The Aarhus Convention under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE) establishes rights of the public to access environmental information, to
participate in environmental decision-making and to challenge public decisions made
without regard to these rights. In cooperation with UNECE and the Environment and
Security Initiative, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
supports a growing network of Aarhus Centres in Central Asia. These centers assist civil
society organizations in building coalitions and working with governments at the local,
national and cross-border levels.
Regional forest and climate cooperation is growing, but is not very advanced. The ECO
(Economic Cooperation Organization) is working with six of the seven hotspot
countries to coordinate the management of forests among low forest cover countries and
link forest actions with climate actions. REDD+ is one of the main global tools for
climate change financing of the forest sector, but so far it has focused mostly on
capacity-building and readiness in forest-rich tropical and subtropical regions. Only
China, among the hotspot countries, is a signatory to the REDD+ and has vast
experience in related projects. In May 2016, Astana hosted the ministerial conference on
cross-border cooperation on forests involving all countries of Central Asia and China
that will possibly intensify the joint activities on increasing forest cover, forest
protection from disease and degradation, and fighting illegal logging and fires.
9.3.2. National Responses All the hotspot countries, but Uzbekistan, have submitted their intended nationally
determined contributions (INDCs) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change, with China and Turkmenistan ratifying the 2015 Paris Agreement at the time of
writing.
China is the largest emitter of the hotspot. On September 2016 the G20 summit,
Chinese leader Xi Jinping announced that, “Green mountains and clear water are as
good as mountains of gold and silver. To protect the environment is to protect
productivity and to improve the environment is to boost productivity.” China is taking
and planning major domestic actions to improve energy efficiency, install renewable,
curb carbon emissions and expand afforestation programs, including in Xinjiang. One of
94
the largest in the world wind parks has already been established there and is growing. In
Xinjiang wind power capacity already reached 25 per cent of the province’s total
generation capacity.
Kazakhstan’s GHG emissions reached their highest level in 1990 at 357 million tonnes
of CO2-equivalent, and in 2014 were 20 per cent below that level. GHG emissions in
the energy sector account for more than 85 per cent of total emissions. In order to
tackle climate change, Kazakhstan has adopted comprehensive and modern
environmental laws, green economy strategy in addition to launching carbon emissions
trading through permits and caps. There are incentives for renewable energy and energy
efficiency projects and the country will host the international Astana EXPO-2017
“Future Energy”. Several wind and solar energy parks are under development, mainly in
the windy steppes and deserts of the country, and small hydropower is expanding in the
mountains.
Kyrgyzstan’s climate-related activities include a national strategy for sustainable
development 2013-2017 and a national program and laws for improving energy
efficiency and renewable energy. The country has identified priority directions for
adaptation to climate change with sectoral action plans, and has established a high-level
inter-sectoral and inter-institutional climate dialogue platform.
Tajikistan has adopted a national climate change mitigation action plan and climate
adaptation strategy. Other climate-related national initiatives include strategies on
glaciers, energy efficiency, small-scale hydropower, disaster risk reduction and forests.
In Turkmenistan, the National Climate Change Strategy of 2013 lays out the policy
framework for building climate resilience and a low-emission economy. The country
has invested significant efforts to reduce GHG emissions by adopting several mitigation
policies. In terms of adaptation, Turkmenistan has initiated policies that aim to improve
its agricultural and land management practices and advance socioeconomic reforms.
Uzbekistan is one of the region’s leader in Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
projects, and its climate-related investments are substantial. Major investments are
planned to solar energy development and improving energy efficiency in the residential
sector and industries.
Afghanistan has developed national adaptation measures and is implementing a number
of climate projects, but within the hotspot area (Wakhan), not much is happening.
9.3.3. Responses at the Household Level A relatively well-educated Central Asian population is one positive legacy of the Soviet
era. In Chinese part of the hotspot investments are growing for education and research.
The literacy rates in the hotspot countries are generally comparable to those in countries
with developed economies, except for Afghanistan.
Resilience to extreme weather and climate change at the household level is related to
income and education, and those households with sufficient incomes and educations are
likely to be better prepared for any climate shocks. In addition, income from diverse
sources adds to economic resilience by protecting households from the loss of income
from a single source (World Bank SDU SDN 2011).
95
Within the hotspot, Tajikistan in its entirety is recognized as highly vulnerable to
climate change, with Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan coming next. In Tajikistan, major
international investments to climate change adaptation have contributed to raising
awareness and provided incentives for climate responses at the household and local
governance levels. In Kyrgyzstan, CSOs were particularly active on catalyzing climate
actions by citizens and conservation of high altitude landscape species, such as snow
leopard.
9.4. Review of Major Climate Change Initiatives Financial assistance for climate change projects across different sectors in Central Asia
is becoming a more prominent part of the work of development banks, the United
Nations and the bilateral donors. The European Union (EU) has representatives in all
the Central Asia countries, and is interested in promoting climate change awareness and
actions in the region, emphasizing the climate mitigation priorities of the EU. Bilateral
cooperation offices and organizations of Germany, Switzerland, Japan, the United
Kingdom and the United States often integrate climate change into the development
projects they sponsor.
(GCF - Green Climate Fund - as an emerging mega donor)
China and Kazakhstan are allocating significant domestic resources to implement a
green economy. The other countries in the hotspot have intentions to advance climate
resiliency and to pursue low-carbon development, but have limited financial resources
on they own. The major climate funding is now coming to Tajikistan via the Pilot
(Strategic) Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR). Kyrgyzstan is also eligible and is
planning to establish the implementation mechanism or secretariat for PPCR
implementation in the near future. Afghanistan as a least developing country is eligible
for climate funding too and is currently receiving diverse assistance from the range of
international donors. In general, international climate funding catalyzed significant
interest and helps countries adopt climate-resilient development paths in energy,
agriculture, land use and other sectors.
Until recently the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has been the major source of
international environmental and climate funding in Central Asia. The Green Climate
Fund (GCF) is likely to provide important new opportunities for Central Asia to address
climate change concerns while strengthening their economies, reducing poverty and
improving environmental performance. Those who receive grants and implement GEF
projects in Central Asia mainly include national government agencies, sometimes with
the participation of non-governmental organizations. Building and maintaining
productive and effective relationships are keys to success from every perspective.
As members of the UNFCCC, each of the Central Asian countries has nominated
institutions to meet its convention obligations. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan
have each created climate change centers or departments, all of which work with
domestic partners to meet the UNFCCC requirements. Some countries have developed
national strategies and actions plans, and have launched projects on mitigation and
adaptation. Kyrgyzstan’s Climate Change Coordination Commission is among the good
examples in the hotspot of the elevation of climate concerns to the top policy level.
96
Table _. International climate funding and links with biodiversity conservation
Instrument CHI KAZ KYR TAJ UZB TKM AFG Central
Asia Silk
Road The entire
hotspot
GCF - - - - - - - - - -
GEF: - ** ** ** ** ** ** * * *
- SGP - * * * * * * X X X
- SCCF - - * * - - - X - -
- LDCF X X X X X X - X X X
AF X X - ** ** ** ** X * *
NAMA - - - ** - - - X X X
REDD+ - X X X X X - X - -
CIF PPCR - *** *** - - *** - -
CAMP4ASB X * * *** *** ** X *** ** X
JICA (Japan) - * *** ** ** * * * * *
Switzerland - - ** ** * - * * - -
Germany - * *** *** ** ** ** *** - -
United States - * ** * - - *** ** - -
EU * ** ** ** * * ** ** -
South-South (China)
** * * * - - - ** ** -
PES * * * * - - * - -
Private (Aga Khan)
X X ** ** X X - X X X
Private (Christensen)
- - * * - - - X X X
Legend: X no eligible or not applicable in the current conditions; - not enough information; Current levels of climate-related funding with links to forests and ecosystems: * low, ** moderate, *** high For all countries information mainly refers to their territories within the hotspot, not the entire country areas
10. ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONSERVATION INVESTMENT 10.1. Governmental Funding Protected areas and forestry networks are major recipients of government funding,
although the bulk of this funding is typically allocated to staff salaries and basic running
costs, including patrolling. Governmental funding varies depending on the level of
staffing and facilities in each area. In several reserves, CSOs and donors provide
additional support for biodiversity monitoring, research and outreach, and development
activities for communities living in and around protected areas.
97
Table ___. Indicative Levels of Governmental Funding for Conservation in the Hotspot
Country Protected areas Forests
China Moderate Moderate
Kyrgyzstan Low Low
Tajikistan Low Low
Kazakhstan Moderate Moderate
Uzbekistan Moderate Moderate
Turkmenistan Moderate Moderate
Afghanistan Low Low
Legend: Current levels of funding: * low (not adequate), ** moderate (sufficient), *** high (optimal) For all countries information mainly refers to their territories within the hotspot, not the entire country areas
10.2. Multilateral and Bilateral Donors One of the main and traditional multilateral donors in the hotspot countries is the GEF.
UNDP, UNEP, FAO and the World Bank are the GEF implementing agencies involved
in conservation projects.
The GEF small grants program (SGP) active in all countries, except Turkmenistan,
supports civil society groups in the region at local level. GEF SGP covers biodiversity
investments, but renewable energy and land degradation initiatives.
Shifting global attention to climate change and the global trend of the increased use of
large donors and organizations as vehicles for projects rather than small organizations
resulted in reduced funding opportunities for many local and international civil society
groups.
Table ___. GEF-6 STAR Allocations for Countries in the Hotspot
Country* Biodiversity Focal Area ($) Total Allocation ($)
China 58.5 194.5
Kyrgyzstan 1.5 6.6
Tajikistan 1.5 6.3
Kazakhstan 5 22
Uzbekistan 1.8 18.3
Turkmenistan 1.8 10.1
Afghanistan 3.9 11.3
Note: * = figures for the whole country Table ___: Overview of Conservation Investment by Multilateral Agencies
Donor Main Countries of Intervention
Main Areas of Intervention Estimated Total Investment ($)
FAO (with GEF)
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan
Agricultural reforms, forestry and land sector, climate resiliency
World Bank (with GEF and CIFs)
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan
Sustainable agriculture and landscapes, CAMP4ASB regional project
ADB (with GEF and CIFs)
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan
Combating land degradation, water sector reforms, disaster risk reduction, pilot program for climate resilience
98
Donor Main Countries of Intervention
Main Areas of Intervention Estimated Total Investment ($)
EBRD (with GEF and CIFs)
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan
Energy efficiency and renewable energy, waste improvement, infrastructure and rural development
European Commission
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan
Funding for disaster risk reduction, forest and pasture improvements, policy cooperation on climate and environment
GEF Small Grants Program
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan
Small grants to domestic CSOs, mainly in support of sustainable use of natural resources, improvement of protected areas, access to energy, awareness
Table ___: Overview of Conservation Investment by Bilateral Agencies
Donor Main Countries of Intervention
Main Areas of Intervention Estimated Investment ($)
China (CAS)
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan
Research, training, monitoring, infrastructure
Switzerland (SDC)
Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan
Water sector reforms, mountain development, disaster risk reduction
Germany BMZ and BMUB via GIZ
Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
Major support was provided for sustainable pastureland, forest and wildlife management
United States (USAID)
Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan
Wildlife conservation (mainly via WCS and WWF), food security, water and sanitation, education, capacity building
Russia
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan Uranium waste rehabilitation
Japan (JICA)
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan
Forestry and sustainable natural resource use, disaster risk reduction
The majority of bilateral funds over the last five years (2010-2015) to environmental
sector in Central Asia came from Germany, Switzerland, Japan, the European Union.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is a major provider
of support to Afghanistan.
10.3 Foundations Table ___. Overview of Conservation Investment by Foundations
Donor Main Countries of Intervention
Main Areas of Intervention Estimated Investment ($)
Aga Khan
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan
Humanitarian support, disaster risk reduction, education, local development
Christensen Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan Support to communities in the high-value natural areas, snow leopard landscape
Di Caprio Kyrgyzstan Species-specific support for snow leopard
WWF Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, China
Species-specific support for snow leopard, tugai ecosystem conservation
99
Donor Main Countries of Intervention
Main Areas of Intervention Estimated Investment ($)
Panthera Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan Species-specific support for snow leopard conservation, including monitoring
10.4 Other Donors
The scale of conservation investment by other donors is hard to assess due to numerous
donations, in-kind contributions of CSOs and micro-financing mechanisms established
by private companies and others. Table ____: Overview of Conservation Investment by Other Donors
Donor Main Countries of Intervention
Main Areas of Intervention Estimated Total Investment 2006-2010 ($)
Private companies
All countries Projects to compensate for environmental impacts and support biodiversity monitoring, clean-up actions and raise awareness
10.5 Summary of Investment by Country
The China Biodiversity Partnership Framework (CBPF) is the country’s primary
investment strategy for biodiversity conservation, and is supported by the GEF and
other partners. The Chinese government has established a grassland ecological
conservation subsidy scheme (US $62.475 million; 2011-2020), which aims to improve
local herders’ income and conserve and restore grasslands by providing subsides to
reduce livestock numbers and to keep away from use the degraded grasslands for
regeneration. The government also has several projects that are geared toward
improving conservation management in nature reserves. The Wetlands Conservation
and Capacity Building Project (US $4.518 million; 2011-2013) aims to support the
development of infrastructure and restoration of wetlands in Xinjiang. The Natural
Forest Protection Plan (US $12.893 million; 2011-2020) aims to build a strategic timber
reserve base through restoration efforts, so as to improve forest condition, the forest
stock and the socioeconomic conditions of local people living in forested areas. It aims
to improve ecological functions of the forest and increase biodiversity.
The EU-China Biodiversity Programme (2005-2011), implemented through UNDP,
invested US $80 million in strengthening biodiversity conservation in the country and
supported the mainstreaming of wetlands management into broader development
through 18 field projects. It facilitated a range of training courses, and supported
development of management plans and strengthening of data management. Three of the
18 sub-projects were focused on the Xinjiang region.
The World Bank Pastoral Development Project (2004-2010) assisted the government’s
efforts to improve the capacity of pastoral areas to support biodiversity and livestock,
and to raise the living standards of the population in Xingjian. The project provided
training to over 600,000 farmers, herders and technicians, and supported public
information campaigns on grassland conservation in schools and communities. The
central and local governments provided 340 million yuan in counterpart funding, while
GEF provided a grant of US $10.5 million in technical assistance to implement
community-based grassland management, mitigate grassland degradation and conserve
100
globally important biodiversity. The Canadian International Development Agency
provided support to the training activities of the project.
The most notable funding trend in recent years has been the dramatic increase in funds
available for climate change adaptation, particularly in Tajikistan. Other countries and
the Aral Sea basin at large are receiving major climate investments.
In Central Asia, several species specific conservation programs exist in the region, for
example, Snow leopard conservation programme and the Argali action plan. Some of
species specific grants have been used to improve monitoring capacities in the relevant
protected areas. Sustainable community-based natural resource management is
relatively well-funded theme in the hotspot. GIZ, JICA and other donors are interested
in supporting local development and the use of such funds by conservation projects to
improve biodiversity value of production landscapes. Programs include community-
based forestry and pasture management.
Most CSOs receive funds and like to work on environmental education and awareness.
Site-based projects often include education and awareness components. Posters, leaflets,
cartoons, campaigns and websites produced by various CSOs play a key role in public
engagement.
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) is an evolving concept with good potential to
provide funding for biodiversity conservation. PES was piloted in several parts of
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and is expanding in China.
11. CEPF Niche for Investment
In large part as the result of the CEPF application of KBAs in its work, international
organizations, governments and NGOs across the globe are broadly embracing the KBA
framework for examining and conserving biodiversity. The KBA concept now endorsed
and promoted under the IUCN Global Standard 2016 and the KBA partnership
consisting of the leading conservation organizations from around the world occupy a
much more significant place in the field, and CEPF would do well to recognize the
expectations it has created for the KBA designation. While a KBA is not necessarily the
same unit as a protected area, KBAs are designed to be viable conservation management
units, not merely geographic localities or priorities for conservation grants.
The success of the KBA approach comes with a new obligation to insure that the larger
biodiversity conservation and economic development community can reliably base their
decisions on KBAs. To garner the respect and acceptance of KBAs to the extent that the
designation can be useful to governments from the regulatory standpoint, CEPF will
maintain continuity and allow sufficient resources and time for conservation work and
monitoring in priority KBAs. The promotion of the new era of KBAs, particularly in the
mountains of Central Asia, can and should be a niche for CEPF work.
The hotspot countries have relatively clear paths and conservation objectives expressed
in their national biodiversity action plans and sustainable development strategies, and
with targeted investment, CSOs can assist the countries reach their objectives. The
question of whether to focus on flagship species and well-known biodiversity-rich sites
101
or bring attention to other globally threatened species and lesser known or newly
identified critical habitats that normally do not attract sufficient support is a common
tension in biodiversity conservation. A hybrid strategy requires no compromise: work at
the landscape scale with a focus on the flagship species and nature reserves together
with a set of smaller efforts focused on lesser known species and sites that occupy the
same landscape.
The six founders of CEPF continue their separate work programs across a spectrum of
activities, and CEPF coordinates its work with theirs to take advantage of potential
synergies on matters of common interest. In particular, in Central Asia CEPF plans to
work and coordinate closely with the GEF Small Grants Program and the GEF-funded
biodiversity projects. At the policy level, CEPF will continue to coordinate its efforts
and seek advice from two important EU processes – the EU platform on environment
and water cooperation in Central Asia, and the EU strategy on conservation in greater
Central Asia (under preparation as of 1 February 2017). The ongoing work and past
experience of economic development players such as the World Bank and JICA – other
key donors for the CEPF – may be taken into consideration in implementing grant
activities.
Finally, opportunities and synergies with Switzerland, a longtime player in sustainable
mountain development of Central Asia, and China – as an emerging partner and donor –
will be explored at various stages of CEPF program design and implementation.
Coordination with these partners as well as collaboration with the University of Central
Asia, the Global Snow Leopard Secretariat, GIZ and others is part of the CEPF work
niche.
Niche one: Links to economic development One clear investment niche in the Mountains of Central Asia biodiversity hotspot entails
the application of CEPF global experience to support the continuing economic transition
in the region. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union more than twenty-five
years ago, the countries of Central Asia experienced a major transformation in the use
of natural resources and governance. Funding for conservation and biodiversity research
declined, though the coverage of mountain ecosystems under protection increased. Even
as the transition has advanced and the Central Asian economies have stabilized,
conservation funding from the state remains low and several protected ecosystems and
nature reserves exist largely “on paper” for lack of management, supervision, tools, and
skills. It results in human activities expansion in or around the areas originally
designated and reserved for conservation.
China’s Xingjian Uighur Autonomous Province, in contrast, has experienced economic
and population growth, has increased its support for conservation, and is accelerating its
investments in infrastructure to revitalize the Silk Route through “The Belt and Road
Initiative”, also known as One Belt One Road (OBOR). Booming mining, energy, road
and tourism projects and trade links between China and Central Asia as well as within
Central Asia inevitably add pressures on ecosystems and species. This is where the
CEPF investments and KBA designation, with the engagement of civil society groups,
may help make economic growth and infrastructure projects more responsible and
respectful of the globally significant biodiversity. Hotspot countries are ready to
embrace the transition to a green economy, and CEPF is well positioned to help it
happen.
102
Niche two: Public awareness and basic support to CSOs in the region The rapidly growing and predominately young population in the region needs support in
education and awareness-raising. The history and core activities of many established
environmental CSOs in Central Asia are associated with awareness and educational
work. With its broad overview of the hotspot, CEPF can make investment in this niche
more interesting and effective by employing its convening power to build partnerships
and by supporting experience exchange. Given that women in Central Asia play a
particularly important and visible role in home education, local leadership and
environmental stewardship, CEPF would warmly welcome activities that involve,
respect, and promote the role and equality of women in conservation and sustainable
development.
CSOs are looking to CEPF funding as an element for the site- and species-focused
conservation that has been declining, and for the last 5-10 years has been largely
missing, in the region. Chinese CSOs see their opportunities rise with the economic
boom. All across the hotspot the support for staff development is needed, and CEPF is
well positioned to invest in human capacity and extend assistance for the management
of conservation projects where CEPF knowledge may be particularly useful. The region
is eager to explore new ways of working, and CEPF experience and connections with
world conservation experts can help develop this opportunity.
Niche three: Cross-border and climate change activities A number of elements come together in the hotspot to suggest that cross-border
initiatives make an important investment niche. Interest in climate change is high in the
region, and like climate change, biodiversity does not recognize national boundaries.
The history of cooperation between China and Central Asia and the growing
cooperation and dialogue with Afghanistan on the environment lay the ground for cross-
frontier work.
Numerous KBAs and protected areas lie near borders, and some of the iconic species
are migratory mammals and birds. Several cross-border conservation landscapes and
action plans, such as those for the snow leopard or argali, already exist. Earlier work by
WWF on the ecological network of Central Asia’s biodiversity, efforts to better link
Central Asia mountain biodiversity sites with each other (the Western Tien Shan or
Pamir-Alai projects, for example) or with outside mountain regions (such as the
Himalayas) reveal the common interest and potential, but projects related to migratory
species or cross-border geographies are still limited to national boundaries even though
the species and landscapes clearly are not.
Large transboundary projects and initiatives are rather difficult to negotiate and manage,
but CEPF can invest in the hotspot by taking advantage of existing cooperation and by
focusing on species migration, near-border priority KBAs, and cross-border landscapes.
These investments need no massive funding. Rather, CEPF can make modest grants
separately on each side of a border, and coordinate the funding so that both sides are
working on the same species or ecosystem.
Climate change may have the potential to alter and disrupt the ranges, compositions,
and interactions in sensitive mountain ecosystems and species across the region, while
103
cross-border efforts may bring some viable solutions in the long term. CEPF can also
help to reveal and articulate the climate change threats and responses for sensitive
ecosystems, and support the region in leveraging climate resiliency funding for
conservation of ecosystems and species, in addition or complementary to the current
and planned climate resiliency investments in infrastructure, water sector and
agriculture.
12. CEFP INVESTMENT STRATEGY Based on the globally threatened species and KBA analysis, an overview of the direct
and indirect pressures on biodiversity and the ongoing conservation investments and
efforts, this chapter recommends specific investment priorities grouped into broad
strategic directions. These are areas where CEPF can add most value or complement
existing investments in biodiversity conservation, justified in terms of the current
context for conservation, past experience with conservation initiatives, and
opportunities to complement and build upon current conservation investment.
For all priority outcomes for CEPF investment, the most important selection criteria
were urgency for conservation action and opportunity for additional investment. Priority
species, KBAs and landscapes were selected only where current threats, if not
mitigated, were predicted to cause their extinction (in the case of species) or the loss of
key elements of biodiversity (in the case of KBAs and eco-corridors) within the next 10-
20 years. In addition, priority species and landscapes were selected where there were
considered to be great opportunities for CEPF and other organizations to invest in
conservation actions by civil society that complement or improve targeting of other
investments by governments and other donors.
It will be of paramount importance to take the specificities of the region and the
countries – as outlined in the other sections of this report – into account. While there are
common issues, the approach to solutions – in particular with regard to the way civil
society is organized and active – vary considerably between the Central Asian republics,
China and Afghanistan.
12.1. Species Priorities National consultations and the processing of the stakeholder questionnaires provided the
basis for the list of priority species. The list includes highly threatened species or those
on the brink of extinction, and distinguishes between such high profile species as the
snow leopard, for which CEPF may provide complementary funding and less well-
known species for which CEPF may provide unique investment. While CEPF focuses
on globally threatened species, the national consultations named some species that do
not meet that criterion. Some are close to global significance, some are particularly
well-preserved populations, and some are significant subspecies or are geographically
distinct. These species may not appear on the IUCN Red List, but are red-listed in the
country or countries. The consultations and stakeholders proposed some endemics to be
included on the list, and supported their inclusion on the basis that they are globally
significant from the genetic point of view.
The countries set all the priorities on the list. The next step is to review the list from the
regional perspective, after which the priorities may change.
[See table in the annex 1]
104
12.2. Key Biodiversity Area Priorities The rankings of KBAs followed the CEPF approach – an assessment from the
biological point of view to determine the level of threat, and an exploration of the
practical factors that determine the feasibility of carrying out a project in a specific
place. The country consultations included mapping exercises and a consideration of the
rationale for CEPF involvement.
Many KBAs overlap with existing protected areas or lie in the border zones, and the
feasibility of working in such areas may be a challenge and a constraint, but may also be
manageable. The list of priorities includes more than half of the areas identified as
KBAs. As with the species list, the countries determined the priorities, and the next step
is to review the list from the regional perspective, after which the priorities may change.
[See table in the annex 2]
12.3. Landscape Priorities
Some of the landscapes on the priority list are larger ecosystems that encompass several
KBAs. Others are based on species biology and considerations of density, range and
migratory corridors that enable connectivity. And some are based on existing landscape
classifications in use in the countries. The countries set all the priorities on the list. The
next step is to review the list from the regional perspective, after which the priorities
may change.
[See table in the annex 2]
12.4. CEPF Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities
This section defines how CEPF will address the challenges of conservation to achieve
priority outcomes for species, KBA sites and landscapes. Which direction or priority is
relevant for a particular priority species, KBA or landscape depends on specific local
ecological, social and economic circumstances. In developing proposals, potential
grantees must show that they have an adequate understanding of these local
circumstances and which of the strategic directions and investment priorities are
relevant to their situation. Strategic directions are summarized in Table __ and
described in greater detail below. Comprehensive approaches to some major
biodiversity pressures – grazing and poaching, for example – are beyond the scope of
CEPF investments, but these threats are susceptible to more modest and targeted
interventions. The recommendations here fall into the latter category.
Table__. CEPF strategic directions and investment priorities for the hotspot
CEPF Strategic Directions CEPF Investment Priorities
105
CEPF Strategic Directions CEPF Investment Priorities
1. Address threats to
high-value and priority species
1.1. Improve enforcement and develop incentives and alternatives for nature users and collectors
1.2. Promote improved regulation of the collecting, hunting and fishing (exploitation) of high-value species and support viable alternatives (e.g. in-situ cultivation that avoid genetic erosion of local populations)
1.3. Support the development of informal micro reserves
1.4. Provide information for conservation actions and decision-making based on improved monitoring, science and species research
2. Improve management
of Key Biodiversity Areas with and without
official protection status
2.1. Facilitate effective collaboration between CSOs, local communities and park management units, and support survey research to enhance protected area networks
2.2. Develop and implement management approaches to sustainable use in KBAs outside official protected areas
2.3. Develop legal and policy instruments for better site management, and build support for recognition of KBAs
3. Support conservation and sustainable management of
mountain forests
3.1. Support afforestation, reforestation and forest conservation, particularly in the disaster prone areas and riverbed ecosystems
3.2. Reduce grazing pressures on forests and shrubs, including support to fodder cultivation and special rental agreements
3.3. Develop alternative energy sources near settlements dependent on wood as a fuel in selected energy insecure areas
3.4. Promote sustainable forest certification and value chains for non timber forests products
4. Engage
communities of interest and economic sectors –
including the private sector – in conservation of KBAs and landscapes
4.1. Engage hunting associations, tourism operators and mining companies in conservation management and establishing co-financing and valuation mechanisms for biodiversity and ecosystem services
4.2. Disseminate best conservation practices in agriculture and water economy
4.3. Educate infrastructure developers to the presence of KBAs
5. Enhance civil society capacity for effective
conservation action
5.1. Enable and enhance communications between environmental authorities and local communities on conservation
5.2. Enhance civil society organizations capacity for planning, implementation, outreach and communication
5.3. Catalyze networking and collaboration
5.4. Increase sustainable funding to civil society for conservation actions via capacity building and appropriate mechanisms, including local revolving micro funds and financial innovations
5.5. Promote civil society efforts to support implementation of national biodiversity strategies and support CSOs participation in the international meetings and events that make an impact
106
CEPF Strategic Directions CEPF Investment Priorities
6. Conduct targeted
education, training and awareness raising to build capacity
and support for biodiversity conservation
6.1. Invest in the professional development of future conservation leaders through support to informal education and research programs at domestic and regional academic institutions
6.2. Conduct programs on education to engage school children with nature in priority KBAs and landscapes
6.3. Champion student initiatives by providing competitive micro-grants and supporting talented young researchers
6.4. Engage the media as a tool to increase awareness about KBAs and inform public debate of conservation issues
7. Integrate biodiversity priorities into regional
and local climate change actions
7.1. Support action-oriented research on the impact of climate change on vulnerable species and KBAs
7.2. Support science-based actions for conservation of high-value species and vulnerable KBAs in view of the changing climate conditions, altitudinal shifts of ecosystems and land use changes
8. Support cross-border collaboration,
experience exchange and information sharing on biodiversity
8.1. Promote collaboration that enhances conservation outcomes, and improve the long-term effect of actions across borders
8.2. Advance the assessment of, and encourage experience exchange and information sharing on, the state of biodiversity, globally threatened species and KBAs
9. Provide strategic leadership and
effective coordination of
conservation investment through a regional implementation team
9.1. Operationalize and coordinate CEPF’s grant-making processes
9.2. Build a broad constituency of civil society groups and promote synergies with other local and international projects
9.3. Encourage the integration of biodiversity considerations into government and business policies and practices
9.4 Monitor geographic and thematic priorities in relation to the long-term sustainability of conservation in the hotspot
9.5. Implement a system for disseminating and popularizing information on conservation and the value of biodiversity
12.4.1. Addressing Threats to High-value and Priority Species Overexploitation can devastate the populations of species even when their habitat is
adequately protected, and can cause local extinctions, reduce the density of the
population and so affect its viability, making the species more vulnerable to other
natural or anthropogenic disturbances. Some species may be able to withstand limited
exploitation, and this may be an effective conservation strategy where exploitation
rights can be defined, managed and policed.
Where a species or product is important for local livelihoods and economies, it may be
possible to find alternatives or to incentivize changes of behavior. For many species,
however, legal protection and enforcement of bans on exploitation are required.
Enforcement of regulations, quotas and species-focused programs and action plans may
be complex, and often depends on the cooperation of local stakeholders.
107
One of the obstacles to defining species and site conservation outcomes is the paucity of
complete, up-to-date information on biodiversity. There are many opportunities for local
stakeholders with simple training to collect useful information, and scientists in research
institutes and universities could contribute to advancing knowledge of the distribution
and taxonomy of species in the hotspot. Support is required to build local capacity, carry
out surveys, and ensure that new information is disseminated widely and effectively. All
such data collection is meant to be “action-oriented” per the investment priorities
described here.
The national consultations identified the species priorities in consideration of the IUCN
Red List and the high value of certain non-listed species. In addition, national red lists,
which are legal documents, need to be kept up to date and linked to the IUCN Red List.
The updating of the national lists can benefit from the modernity and international
expertise that CEPF brings to the process, and updated lists based on more precise
information can guide policymakers and conservation efforts.
Investment priority 1.1. Improve enforcement and develop incentives and alternatives
for nature users and collectors
The lack of government capacity for enforcement creates opportunities for NGOs to
supplement the enforcement effort by acting as rangers who patrol communal areas and
report to the environmental authorities on any violations. Support for this activity could
take the form of providing equipment, such as drones or binoculars, and guidance on
how to conduct community patrols. Local initiative groups, jamoats and CSOs may be
able to coordinate patrols with the authorities, and may be instrumental in identifying
unregistered hunters or flora and fauna collectors.
The compliance with environmental regulations may also benefit from the provision of
incentives. Communities may be able to develop as ecotourism and responsible hunting
destinations if they manage their resources carefully and sustainably. The task of local
CSOs and initiative groups is to develop ideas that fit their communities, and that lead
to the potential for the community members to earn more income through conservation
efforts than they can through illegal hunting, flora and fauna collection or harvesting.
Investment priority 1.2. Promote improved regulation of the collecting, hunting and
fishing (exploitation) of high-value species
Success of implementation of species-focused programs and action plans on globally
threatened mammals, reptiles, birds and plants can be enhanced through greater
involvement of CSOs. CEPF will support approaches that understand the different
motivations of different stakeholders exploiting or collecting rare and exotic plants and
wildlife. In view of the variety of resource-dependent communities throughout the
hotspot, a combination of approaches holds the most promise.
High-value species of mammals (e.g., Argali), birds (e.g., falcons), fish (e.g., sturgeon),
reptiles (Central Asia tortoise) and certain medicinal and commercial plants are all
subject to regulations designed to protect threatened species and regulate trade, but
these regulatory efforts are uncoordinated and may be ineffective at times. Some
authorities grant permission to take a certain number of the otherwise protected animals
108
or plants, but do so without regard for what other authorities or scientists may be
allowing or advising. CSOs can help set reasonable quotas, develop coordinated
controls and provide inputs to governments and international bodies for improved
understanding and traceability of illegal collection and trade in priority species.
Investment priority 1.3. Support the development of informal micro reserves
For species living outside of protected areas, conservation efforts can be difficult. In
response to this situation, CSOs propose the establishment of micro reserves.
Legislation throughout the region allows for community-based or private reserves, but
the region has no precedent or experience in creating or managing such reserves. The
CSOs report that communities are interested, and establishing micro reserves within the
currently authorized framework can provide a foundation on which to build.
Through a combination of outreach and the raising of awareness, CSOs can help
communities develop informal micro reserves intended to protect KBA trigger species
and wild relatives of crops (genetic resources) outside of existing protected areas. The
size of KBAs could be too large for community-level action, but selected high-value or
priority species found locally in high numbers could be subject to the protection by a
community micro reserve, and anywhere such opportunities exist, communities can
establish informal protected areas or encourage land users to apply sound management
plans that consider the conservation needs of these high-value and priority species. This
could be particularly relevant to plants, but applicable to other taxa too.
Investment priority 1.4. Provide information for conservation actions and decision-
making based on improved monitoring, science and species research
Species conservation efforts are hampered by lack of clarity on the taxonomy of species,
lack of information on the distribution of species, and lack of data on threats and
populations on which to base national and global Red List assessments. This is of
particular importance for species threatened by overexploitation or habitat destruction,
where it is difficult to propose management interventions without knowing basic facts
about population size, distribution, and trends. CEPF will support, to a small and
efficient degree, data collection efforts that lead directly to action. People in the area –
staff of protected areas, interested residents and researchers – can collect useful data if
they are equipped with basic skills on identification and survey planning. For some
widely known and easily recognized species, collection of records from amateur
observers, hunter and fisherman societies and birdwatchers can also yield valuable data
and can be used in decision-making. Mapping the current state of priority species and
their habitats helps to set baselines and continued monitoring is vital to assess the
impact of actions taken.
12.4.2. Improving Management of Key Biodiversity Areas with and without Official Protection Status Protected areas are a critical part of the overall effort for the conservation of KBAs and
other locally and globally important biodiversity resources, and are likely to become
more so as pressure from land-use change increasingly affects other areas. Ideally
protected areas simultaneously accommodate and respect customary local rights and
resource use, although this is often not the case and some protected areas are the subject
109
of conflicts over land use (e.g. mining) or agricultural development or are inefficient
because of lack of staff, equipment and management capacities (“paper parks”). CEPF
will support efforts to improve the conservation status of protected areas that involve
engagement between mangers of protected areas (where they exist) and other
stakeholders, especially local resource users but also the wider local population and
private sector players. CEPF will equally support efforts to promote conservation of
KBAs outside of protected areas through approaches and means most effective in local
circumstances.
Investment priority 2.1. Facilitate effective collaboration between CSOs, local
communities and park management units, and support survey research to enhance
protected area networks
In most protected areas, legal protections and management units reduce the threats from
exploitation and development, but are not always efficient in preventing encroachment,
unauthorized grazing, plant collection or illegal hunting. Biodiversity monitoring and
patrols provided by the state are often inadequate due to the large size or understaffing
of many protected areas. CEPF will support actions that address these challenges,
including by working with communities that live around the borders of protected areas
and by collaborating with CSOs that can enhance management efficiency and help
control the protected areas in close coordination with their management.
The long-term viability of some species depends on the continuing existence of
ecological connectivity and buffer zones. The 2006 WWF Econet project in Central
Asia demonstrates how to connect protected areas and other high-value biodiversity
sites. That work needs to be updated in line with new developments and to include
KBAs, and can then be used to inform land-use planning and policymakers across the
region.
The initial identification of KBAs in the mountains of Central Asia highlighted that
many KBAs are located outside of protected areas, or that trigger species do not always
receive adequate attention and protection even within protected areas due to limitations
in monitoring or enforcement capacities. CEPF will support efforts of CSOs to conduct
field work to strengthen, revise and enhance the existing network of protected areas, and
to improve management skills and technical capacities for work in priority KBAs.
Investment priority 2.2. Develop and implement management approaches to
sustainable use in KBAs outside official protected areas
A number of KBAs in Central Asia were identified outside protected areas. They are
typically threatened by a combination of licensed exploitation and unlicensed use.
Interventions to protect these KBAs are complex because multiple stakeholders and
rights may be involved, and because the objective of management is, in most cases,
profit rather than conservation. Success is likely to be the result of long-term
engagement, not a single grant, and so CEPF will support initiatives in which there is a
clear stakeholder, community or company, with management control and rights over the
area and commitment to conservation. This approach will promote awareness of what
KBAs are among land managers. Conservation actions might include formalizing
community-based management, engaging with business interests to develop sustainable
and responsible forest product harvesting, hunting, recreation and other activities.
110
Investment priority 2.3. Develop legal and policy instruments for better site
management, and build support for recognition of KBAs
The recognition of KBAs as part of official policy and regulations lends credibility to
conservation efforts. CEPF will support efforts to identify critical needs for regulatory
development or enhancement. These efforts may include public consultations, enabling
experts from universities and civil society organizations to assist policymakers in
understanding the issues, or engaging influential stakeholders to build support for
recognition of KBAs. CEPF will also support the dissemination of information on laws,
policies and training necessary to assist enforcement agencies or affected stakeholders
in ensuring that the policy produces the intended effect. Monitoring can help
demonstrate this effect, and can provide important feedback that policymakers can use
to show that their decisions have benefited communities and conservation.
Approval and adoption by local government is vital not only to ensure sustainability and
encourage the chance of replication, but also to ensure that local decision makers
actively support the management regime. The recognition of KBAs may appear in local
or national biodiversity strategies, development plans and budgets, and spatial plans,
and CEPF will support efforts to encourage adoption of conservation outcomes within
these documents. This support might include studies to value ecosystem services from
KBAs, good practice examples from other areas, and dissemination of information.
12.4.3. Supporting Conservation and Sustainable Management of Mountain Forests Mountain forests are of particular interest in Central Asia, worthy of their own
sustainable management and investment strategy. Resource-dependent communities
throughout the region rely on the mountain forests for sustenance, energy, food, income
and livelihoods, and the people of the region regard the forests as essential to their
survival and protection against disasters. In all parts of the region, the forests are owned
by the state. All the forests within the hotspot have legal protection from logging and
other commercial exploitation with the exceptions of maintenance and limited
community use. The success of sustainable natural resource management in the hotspot,
and the provision of ecosystem services such as water regulation, reduction of natural
disasters and ecological stability will depend on how the mountain forests are managed.
Investment priority 3.1. Support afforestation, reforestation and high-value forest
gene pool conservation
CEPF will support afforestation and reforestation efforts in the mountains of Central
Asia where community service organizations can work at an appropriate scale to plant
native species and contribute to the conservation of high-value forest genetic resources
such as wild apple, walnut, pear, apricot, pistachio and other tree species. Community
programs may focus on fast-growing or income-generating fruit and nut and fuelwood
plantations that aim to reduce pressures on the natural forests in the vicinity of villages
and enhance protection from natural disasters, reduce soil erosion and desertification.
Investment priority 3.2. Reduce grazing pressures on forests and shrubs
111
As herders move their stock among the mountain pastures and along the river valleys,
the pastures are overgrazed and become deficient in terms of feed. In such
circumstances, herders turn to the mountain forests, riverside tugai forests and shrubs in
high mountains. Programs to reduce the grazing pressures on forests and shrubs may
include campaigns to raise awareness, public patrols, and efforts to improve the
availability of feedstock outside the forests. Actions that support natural regeneration of
forests and shrubs can be supported. Simple and efficient technologies that prevent
cattle from entering or trampling young forests, shrubs and other plantations may help
improve forest recovery.
Investment priority 3.3. Reduce energy-driven pressures on forests through
developing alternative energy sources and enhancing energy efficiency of mountain
dwellings
Significant pressure on mountain forests comes from the use of wood for fuel to heat
and cook in the resource-dependent mountain communities. In the absence of alternative
fuel supplies, people in the mountains collect fuelwood from the nearest available
source. The low energy efficiency of dwellings further increases the demand for energy
and consequently the pressures on forest. Programs to develop alternative energy
sources and efforts to increase energy efficiency can alleviate those pressures.
Additional actions and incentives that link improved energy efficiency and renewable
energy with reduced impacts on trees and shrubs could be promoted and replicated.
Investment priority 3.4. Promote sustainable forest certification and value chains
The legitimate use of mountain forest resources can actually help sustain the forests and
support local livelihoods and trade. Forest products that are certified as being
sustainably produced receive a premium price in global and regional markets, and for
many countries and consumers, sustainable forest certification is a requirement. The
certification itself confers on the products a legitimacy that makes them more attractive
and valuable on domestic and foreign markets. Programs and actions that promote
sustainable forest certification, improve value chains and introduce modern forest
products processing technologies may improve the forest situation and generate benefits
for communities.
12.4.4. Engaging Communities of Interest and Economic Sectors in Conservation of Priority Sites and Corridors in Production Landscapes The stakeholders with the greatest resources and capacity, and with long-term interests
in production landscapes and ecological services include certain associations and
economic sectors. These stakeholders may also have a significant influence over local
government decision-making.
Most of the land in the hotspot is state-owned and typically subject to concession-based
use, with the type of use defining the landscape. The uses with impacts on biodiversity
include agricultural lands (pasture and crop and plantations); concession lands (hunting,
mining, tourism); and lands set aside for infrastructure development (roads, canals for
irrigation, water reservoirs, rail, power transmission lines, pipelines and urban
expansion). The forests in the region have more value as providers of ecosystem
112
services than for resource exploitation, and in this special role are not considered
production landscapes.
Investment priority 4.1. Engage hunting associations, tourism operators and mining
companies in conservation management
Hunting associations, tourism operators, and mining companies share an interest in
being able to conduct their activities in the hotspot, and may view their interests as
compatible with conservation management. Engaging these stakeholders may include
education and awareness raising programs, efforts to encourage stakeholders to consider
and incorporate conservation values into their activities, and programs for the
rehabilitation of production areas and targeted conservation of globally threatened
species and KBAs within and nearby their license and concession areas.
Investment priority 4.2. Disseminate best conservation practices in agriculture
The agricultural sector is important economically throughout the hotspot, and offers
many opportunities for programs that are mutually beneficial with the conservation of
biodiversity. Such programs may include education on soil and biodiversity
conservation practices, information exchanges, and coaching by practitioners.
Investment priority 4.3. Educate infrastructure developers to the presence of KBAs
The biodiversity hotspot region is geographically strategic to China’s One Belt, One
Road initiative – an effort in economic diplomacy to revitalize the Silk Road. This
initiative makes the region a key area for investments, particularly in infrastructure, for
the next 15-20 years. As infrastructure projects move forward, the existence of KBAs in
the path of development is crucial information. The global recognition of KBAs triggers
the requirement that environmental impact statements consider the effects of
development on the KBA. Educating the developers to the specific KBA sites is the first
step in ensuring that they take the KBAs into account. Community service organizations
and academic or research institutions are well placed to promote recognition of KBAs
and to inform developers of their locations and develop actions for their conservation.
12.4.5. Enhancing Civil Society Capacity for Effective Conservation Action
Civil society organizations report that they need strengthened management, fundraising
and skills, and also note that they often lack the knowledge and experience to tackle
some of the most important threats to the conservation in the region. Furthermore, many
CSOs working on issues indirectly related to conservation – such as pasture
management, disaster risk reduction or community development – have difficulty
articulating the link between their work and environmental considerations or benefits
for conservation. Creating sustained improvements in civil society capacity for
conservation is an important aim of CEPF, alongside direct conservation impacts.
In some countries in the hotspot, making grants to CSOs is straightforward, but in
others, governmental prerogatives take precedence. Kyrgyzstan, for example, has the
region’s most diverse collection of civil society organizations, which operate
independently from the government, while in Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, NGOs wield
113
significant influence on decision-making by introducing ideas, collaborating on mutual
interests and refraining from criticism of the government. The rich tradition of CSOs in
Uzbekistan includes ecological movements with many members. These organizations
either support government initiatives officially, or act as an unofficial arm of the
government to build community support for government projects. There are also several
conservation and community groups that work independently, though access to the
funding is rather complicated. In China and Turkmenistan most influential CSO
conservation players are related to academia, geographic and nature protection societies
or associations of forest users, hunters and fishermen.
Pressure from unsustainable local natural resource use is a challenge for KBAs across
the hotspot. Models of sustainable, community-based management in a variety of
situations are important to convince government and local stakeholders that such
approaches are possible. Likely activities include identification of links between
livelihoods and resources, strengthening of local institutions for management, creating
links to markets and economic opportunities that give the sustainable management
greater value, and building networks of support for the community-based initiatives.
Investment priority 5.1. Enable and enhance communications between authorities
and local communities on conservation issues
Legislation and regulations are rapidly evolving across Central Asia, and local
communities have a hard time keeping up to date. The legal framework for conservation
and environmental protection at large is poorly understood among the population and
local officials, and almost no one is working to inform the people. As a result, national
action plans, legislation and regulations may have no impact at the local level. NGOs
can enable and mobilize local communities and authorities to work collaboratively to
achieve a level of knowledge of the legal framework sufficient for local communities to
understand how to act within the law and national biodiversity priorities.
Community service organizations and biodiversity, forest or land user associations can
support sustainable natural resources management in part simply by conveying to local
communities accurate information regarding the national biodiversity-related strategies,
laws, rules and regulations. CSOs with experience in government relations and solid
experience in the management of environmental issues and public communication are
well placed to serve as credible conduits of information. Knowledge of one’s rights and
responsibilities is a prerequisite for behavior that is legal and responsible.
If authorities do not have accurate knowledge of local concerns, they are less likely to
develop policies and measures that support sustainable resource management by
communities. Community organizations and associations can convey to the authorities
the concerns of the people in the local communities. Again, those with experience in
government relations, access to information and citizen rights, such as Aarhus centers or
jamoat development centers and groups, are well placed to serve as credible conduits of
information.
Investment priority 5.2. Enhance civil society organizations capacity for planning,
implementation, monitoring, outreach and communication
114
A specific issue repeatedly highlighted by CSOs is the lack of capacity to assess the
state of an environment, unsustainable exploitation, and the status of key species and
habitats. In the absence of information, they find it difficult to ensure that their work is
focused and effective. CEPF will support training in simple techniques for assessment
of key species and environmental variables and planning conservation interventions.
CSOs with skills in community development and agriculture, and natural resource-
based businesses such as tourism, non-timber forest products, and responsible hunting
are likely to be important for the success of conservation activities. CEPF grantees are
thus likely to be organizations that are working on livelihoods, social and development
issues, and that are aware in a general way of the importance of natural resources and
ecological services but lack the knowledge to define these links clearly or to address
environmental issues in their programs. CEPF will fund capacity building activities that
assist CSOs in understanding the conservation outcomes and enable them to link their
work to biodiversity conservation. Priority for this kind of support will be CSOs with a
clear commitment to work at priority sites.
Investment priority 5.3. Catalyze networking and collaboration
Inevitably subsectors within the CSO community (e.g., conservation groups, forest and
land user and hunting associations, public information centers, mountain development)
tend to be better at networking within their own subsector than with others, and good
opportunities for alliances and collaborative working may be missed as a result. Some
existing alliances focusing on mountain regions – such as the Central Asia mountain
partnership and alliance of mountain communities of Central Asia – have played crucial
roles in targeted support and innovations in sustainable mountain development. CEPF
will support existing networks and provide mechanisms to communicate initiatives,
results and problems between, for example, different CSOs around a KBA. Linking
local CSOs to national and international networks will enhance access to sources of
information and funding, and thus improve the sustainability of actions.
Investment priority 5.4. Increase sustainable funding to civil society for conservation
actions via capacity building and appropriate mechanisms
Access to funding is a key constraint for many CSOs in the hotspot. Some smaller
CSOs become active only when funding is available, and are unable to undertake long-
term financial planning. Others “follow the money,” adopting new agendas in response
to donor priorities and funding. Neither situation supports the development of a
knowledgeable, effective CSO community that can take action in support of
conservation outcomes. CEPF will support civil society by training them to be better
fund-raisers and financial managers.
CEPF will also support locally appropriate, viable, and innovative mechanisms to
increase the broader pool of funding available to civil society. CEPF may support pay-
for-performance links between the private sector and CSOs for conservation activities,
the creation of innovative funding mechanisms and schemes that generate sustainable
funding for civil society and conservation activities.
Investment priority 5.5. Promote civil society efforts to support implementation of
national biodiversity strategies
115
National biodiversity strategies in the hotspot are focusing on the most urgent threats,
but governmental capacities and budgets are often not adequate and do not necessarily
cover well the priority species and KBAs identified in the profile. CEPF investments
can support CSO efforts to enhance implementation of national biodiversity strategies
and the Aichi biodiversity targets within corresponding priority species and KBAs.
CSOs can help to enhance understanding and awareness of national biodiversity
strategies at local level, contribute to and catalyze local actions.
12.4.6. Conduct targeted education, training and awareness raising to build capacity and support for biodiversity conservation in society The majority of CSOs active in conservation and biodiversity specialize in education,
training, and awareness raising. These activities are, in fact, the core business of the
region’s CSOs, and all across the hotspot they have clearance from their governments to
operate. These CSOs report that working in these soft measures result in the biggest
impact and the highest efficiency. This is a niche where the governments are weak or do
not have sufficient resources or capacities, and without the contributions of CSOs, this
work will not be done.
Because the majority of the population in the region is young, and the proportion of
students is high, working with the youth actually targets most people. In the absence of
well-educated professionals, the sustainability of conservation efforts is not possible,
and this strategic direction also aims to assist in the transition of a new generation of
professionals.
Investment priority 6.1. Invest in the professional development of future conservation
leaders through support to education programs at domestic and regional academic
institutions
A shortage of suitably qualified conservation professionals and activists is a major
barrier to development of local conservation actions and movements in the hotspot. The
population in the hotspot is young, with a median age of about 17-25, and high schools,
colleges and universities need support in piloting courses and extracurricular activities
to study biodiversity and conservation basics, and to nurture and motivate professionals
and environmental activists. A complementary approach is to invest in the professional
development of the talented individuals in the domestic CSOs through trainings,
exchange visits and internships.
CEPF intends to focus on the selective enrichment of existing conservation education
programs at domestic and regional academic institutions. Natural sciences education in
the region is mired in the 1970s. Curricula need updating, while educators and young
researchers need to be connected with knowledge hubs and modern methods. Students
need motivation and a sense of the career opportunities that may be feasible.
Educational attainment in post-Soviet Central Asia is marked by a line separating
people now reaching retirement age and those in the younger generation. The former
have an excellent education, but the education of the latter is weaker. Young
professionals can benefit from older generation through exchange programs.
116
Investment priority 6.2. Conduct programs on education to engage school children
with nature in priority KBAs and landscapes
Engaging young people in conservation makes for life-long contributors, and schools
with field experience produce students with an environmental ethic, and who influence
their parents’ views. Creative CSOs can invent activities that connect kids to nature,
such as planting endemics in school gardens or organizing performances and drawing
competitions on priority species and key biodiversity areas, threats and solutions.
While several hotspot countries have state programs and CSO activities related to
environmental education and awareness in schools and universities, their effectiveness
and coverage are limited and do not link the youth and children with the realities on the
ground. National consultations revealed some innovative approaches such as visits to
protected areas for school children and organizing student conservation patrols, mobile
theaters and clubs. In such activities, protected area staff or leaders of domestic
conservation organizations play a role as nature interpreters, and CSOs providing long-
term support to the protected areas can facilitate visits and support field activities such
as summer camps and hikes to exploring eco-tourism trails and nature.
Investment priority 6.4. Champion student initiatives by providing competitive micro-
grants and supporting talented young researchers
[explain]
Investment priority 6.4. Engage the media and public environmental information
services as a tool to increase awareness about KBAs and inform public debate of
conservation issues
The hotspot has a diverse range of media and public information centers and services,
and governments, CSOs and donors made provisions for public participation in
decision-making and for improved awareness. Significant though these steps have been,
they have proven insufficient to fully explain and convey the biodiversity concerns to
the grassroots level and catalyze responses and behavioral changes in civil society.
Major CSOs and public environmental information centers as well as civil society
networks and services are well placed to spread information and knowledge about
KBAs and inform public debate on biodiversity, because they have good connections at
the grassroots level and a good understanding of the impacts of policies and projects on
biodiversity and local communities. One of the approaches that demonstrated
effectiveness has been use of the media festivals, expositions and marches of parks as
tools for raising awareness about conservation issues. The public awareness campaigns
conducted by CSOs on wild apples, tulips, mammals and other biodiversity themes
contributed to the public debate, interest and improved knowledge. This investment
priority will consolidate and amplify these and other approaches.
12.4.7. Mainstream globally important biodiversity considerations into regional and local climate change actions Participants of national consultations highlighted very high sensitivity of mountain
ecosystems, including forests, grasslands and nival-glacier zones, to climate change.
Given that the impacts of climate change are spread across the region, joint studies, data
exchange and coordination may improve the quality of the assessments, help develop a
117
consensus for more effective recommendations and improve climate adaptation
strategies.
The countries in the region all take climate change seriously, and are interested in
adaptation, but knowledge of the connections between climate change and ecosystems
remains weak. Donors support climate change projects related to infrastructure,
economic development and affected groups, but what is missing is an ecosystem
approach and a focus on vulnerable species and KBAs.
Investment priority 7.1. Support action-oriented research on the impact of climate
change on vulnerable species and KBAs
The growing number of climate-resiliency investments and climate adaptation projects
have little or no focus on species and KBAs. Actions that help integrate selected
vulnerable species and KBAs can be supported. The findings of action-oriented research
and pilot projects can lead to practical applications such as informing the existing major
climate initiatives and providing the basis to approach other donors for funding. Such
pilot projects can also provide the basis for experience exchange across the region.
High-value resources – whether wild relatives of crops in the Pamir or fruit-and-nut
mountain forests of China, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan – are under growing climate
change impacts that are both immediate (pests, diseases, extreme weather) and long-
term (geographic and seasonal shifts). Appropriate adaptation actions supported by
research and practice are required to ensure the survival of the globally significant
biodiversity.
Investment priority 7.2. Support conservation of species and KBAs in view of the
changing climate conditions, altitudinal shifts of ecosystems and land use changes
Participants in the national consultations noted the possibilities of using ecosystems as
protection against climate hazards and natural disasters. The entire region is vulnerable
to flooding, flash floods and droughts, and healthy ecosystems are known to moderate
the impacts of these events. Some native species are well adapted to the extremes, and
CEPF will support projects that conserve and enhance such species. Such projects may,
in fact, be used to leverage funds from major climate change donors.
The wild species of domestic crops are among those well adapted to climate extremes,
and the conservation of these species have tangible outcomes for agriculture. The
development of hybrids can make domestic species more resilient, and the transfer of
certain cereal species from nearby locations may help growers adapt their crops to the
changing climate conditions. Small local gardens that specialize in hardy local varieties
can serve as sources for area agriculturalists.
12.4.8. Support cross-border collaboration, experience exchange and information sharing on biodiversity Many of the protected areas and KBAs in the hotspot lie on or near a border.
Conducting work in these border areas can be complicated by difficult access and
national security concerns. An inability or unwillingness to work collaboratively across
borders may result in these vital biodiversity areas being ignored.
118
Investment priority 8.1. Promote collaboration that enhances conservation outcomes,
and improve the long-term effect of actions across borders
While there are seven different countries in the hotspots, all of them share common
conservation landscapes and numerous KBAs face each other on the borders. Migratory
species and routes, species aggregation and bottlenecks, climate change impacts on the
mountains and shifts in ecosystems all require cross-border cooperation. Previous and
ongoing conservation efforts, including GEF projects, demonstrated that cross-border
cooperation on biodiversity and land resources could be rather challenging in the
managerial and governance context, but they also show many successful examples that
encourage continued efforts and synergies. This investment priority aims to complement
the existing regional action plans, multi-country initiatives and emerging cross-border
cooperation dynamics – such as China-Central Asia and Afghanistan-Central Asia – and
to contribute to the long-term impacts of CEPF investments across the region.
Investment priority 8.2. Advance the assessment of, and encourage experience
exchange and information sharing on, the state of biodiversity, globally threatened
species and KBAs
The knowledge of globally threatened biodiversity and its distribution is not adequate
for ensuring comprehensive biodiversity conservation in the hotspot. This problem
exists across most taxa that have been used to trigger the identification of KBAs in the
hotspot. It is particularly acute for sites in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and China, where the
areas involved are especially large or inaccessible, the biodiversity especially rich, or
where research efforts have been restricted by a lack of security, capacity and resources.
These uncertainties have led to a large number of KBAs being considered candidates
rather than confirmed sites. In particular, efforts are needed to map restricted range
species and categorize animals and plants according to their conservation status and
IUCN Red List categories; the absence of up-to-date and spatially precise assessments
hinders planning and prioritization of actions in individual countries and in general
across the hotspot. During the profiling exercise, a major challenge was to consider the
hundreds of endemic plant species. This investment priority will therefore support
targeted field surveys and desk-based assessments to fill gaps in biological knowledge.
This investment priority will also contribute to the regional assessments on the state of
biodiversity, and strive to improve information sharing protocols and accessibility of the
wealth of biodiversity data existing in the region and good practices generated by
numerous GEF and other projects.
12.4.9. Providing Strategic Leadership and Effective Coordination of Conservation Investment through a Regional Implementation Team CEPF will implement its grant program through a regional implementation team (RIT)
located in the hotspot. The RIT will promote and administer the grant-making process,
undertake key capacity building, maintain and update data on conservation outcomes,
and promote the overall conservation outcomes agenda to government and other
stakeholders.
Investment priority 9.1. Operationalize and coordinate CEPF’s grant-making
processes
Guided by the identification of priority sites and species within this ecosystem profile,
the RIT will promote the opportunity for applying for grants by issuing requests for
119
proposals tailored to specific issues and geographies. Through the provision of
appropriate materials and training, the RIT will ensure that local CSOs are not denied
the opportunity to participate because of language difficulties or an inability to articulate
project ideas in a formal proposal or difficulties in accessing the Internet. The RIT will
also ensure that applicants, grantees and other stakeholders are kept informed of
decisions on grants, new opportunities to apply as they arise, and the overall progress of
the CEPF program. The RIT will develop, as needed, formal collaborative arrangements
with government departments, universities and other organizations that have
responsibilities or resources important to the overall implementation of the program.
Coordination with other grant-making organizations such as the GEF Small Grant
Program may also create opportunities for joint grant making or capacity building.
Investment priority 9.2. Build a broad constituency of civil society groups
The conservation outcomes identified in the ecosystem profile are aligned with
conservation priority setting by governments and NGOs in the region. The RIT will
promote the conservation outcomes as an agenda for conservation, including synergies
with other initiatives within the region and with national and international stakeholders.
The RIT may either serve as the lead entity for conservation in the hotspot, or may
identify and promote others to take this role.
Investment priority 9.3. Encourage the integration of biodiversity considerations into
government and business policies and practices
The RIT or other appropriate entities will support civil society to engage with
government and the private sector and adopt their results, recommendations, and best
practice models. This includes engaging directly with private sector partners and
ensuring their participation in implementation of key strategies. It also includes
facilitating the creation or strengthening of conservation-oriented networks.
CEPF and the RIT will seek opportunities to promote conservation outcomes as an
agenda for conservation in the hotspot at national and international levels. Likely entry
points with government include national biodiversity strategy and action plans; country
reports and interventions to the CBD, CITES, the Bonn Convention (CMS), the Ramsar
Convention, and the UNFCCC; and sectoral, species and site action plans. Engagement
with major conservation organizations and international agencies working in the hotspot
should aim to mainstream conservation outcomes into their strategies and programs.
International groups and agencies managing global datasets on conservation, such as
IUCN, BirdLife, and the CBD secretariat, also need to be kept informed of changes and
improvements in the definition of conservation outcomes.
Considering the growing role of China in investments and business development in the
countries of Central Asia and Afghanistan, RIT will aim to strengthen the links between
Chinese infrastructure and other investments and KBAs, and seek opportunities for co-
financing from China for conservation efforts as part of the One Belt, One Road
initiative, academic and environmental cooperation programs and other initiatives.
Investment priority 9.4. Monitor geographic and thematic priorities in relation to the
long-term sustainability of conservation in the hotspot
120
The RIT or other appropriate entities will monitor the overall status of KBAs and
corridors to assess the impacts of the program and to provide information for
conservation planning. Monitoring of land-use change using satellite images is
increasingly near-real time and efficient, but the use of officially recognized data
sources remains important. Monitoring of this information, plus information on civil
society, sustainable financing, the enabling environment, and responsiveness to
emerging issues, will help CEPF report on the overall health of the hotspot and the need
for continued donor engagement in the region.
Investment priority 9.5. Implement a system for disseminating and popularizing
information on conservation and the value of biodiversity in the hotspot
The RIT or other appropriate entities will create a mechanism for the collection and
dissemination of results to government agencies and NGO networks.
A number of different groups, websites and forums exist to share information, but most
of these data have not yet been compiled and used effectively for conservation planning.
This ecosystem profile is a first attempt to do this, and CEPF may establish a
mechanism, based in suitable institutions, to collate information and make it available in
a form that is accessible and useful for stakeholders involved in conservation in the
region.
13. SUSTAINABILITY
The prospects for the sustainability of the conservation outcomes of this ecosystem
profile are promising. Two completed CEPF biodiversity hotspot projects in nearby
regions provide a glimpse of what may occur in the mountains of Central Asia. In the
Caucasus, other donors stepped in at the conclusion of CEPF funding, and supported
numerous initiatives. Funding came from local and outside sources both large and small.
In Southwestern China, the government took over, and local communities kept projects
moving forward. These results bode well for what may occur in Central Asia.
At the institutional level, the project’s support for capacity building will enhance the
professionalism of CSOs across the region. Strategic directions 5 and 6 support this
development, provide valuable experience for local staffs, and prepare the project
participants to replicate the project results. In similar fashion, strategic directions 7 and
8 – through support for a broad range of grantees across national borders – foster a spirit
of cooperation. Strategic direction 9, in turn, provides the opportunity to establish
cooperation on an ongoing basis. The Alliance of Central Asian Mountain Communities
(AGOCA), with 20 member communities in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan,
stands as a shining precedent for this type of success. Established in 2003 with outside
funding, AGOCA continues to bring village matters to the attention of regional and
national policymakers long after the initial grant ran out.
In light of the vast opportunities and challenges related to the conservation of
biodiversity in the mountains of Central Asia, CEPF may decide to continue investing
in the region after the completion of the first phase of the grant program. Based on the
success of the projects and the continuing needs, CEPF has remained in some regions
after the first five-year term, and may find reasons to take the same approach in this
121
hotspot. Financial performance and project management will likely improve under
CEPF procedures, which are streamlined, and could be adjusted to local circumstances.
CEPF can also bring new ideas for sustainable finance mechanisms from other regions
and expand experience exchange between the countries.
Identifying and protecting sites that harbor populations of globally threatened species
and their key habitats is a cornerstone of the CEPF approach highlighted in strategic
directions 1 and 2. Small grants targeted at conservation of globally threatened species
would ensure that these species receive the attention of the conservation community and
serve as indicators for conservation success in the region. The key biodiversity areas
concept initially designed and promoted by CEPF in 2016 received the global
recognition and became the IUCN Standard. While not all KBAs are subject to legal or
other forms of protection yet, the new international weight and status of KBAs would
attract attention of numerous development players and open the opportunities for
conservation by a broad range of actors – from local communities and CSOs to
authorities, businesses and donors. Increased cross-frontier cooperation under the
strategic direction 8 will promote effective conservation at regional scale, which is
important since landscapes, species movements and distributions, and threats transcend
national boundaries. Given that the impacts of climate change cross national borders
and open up new funding prospects to conserve important biodiversity by responding to
climate change, work under strategic direction 7 will contribute to sustainability of the
CEPF investments, too.
Some CEPF grants may support the development of enterprises that subsequently
generate income sufficient to sustain themselves, perhaps in combination with other
funding sources. Under strategic direction 3, for example, grantees may develop
product-based projects – marketing local honey or responsibly harvested fruits and nuts
from the wild forests for instance – that spin into ongoing enterprises. Grantees under
strategic direction 4 may develop tourism and responsible hunting that support
communities and become commercially viable and self-sustaining. Model projects to
promote alternative income generation for communities and sustainable use of natural
resources are investments that become self-financing in the long run. The regional
implementation team (strategic direction 9) can also serve as a force for financial
sustainability by assisting grantees across all activities to identify funding sources for
successive phases.
The potential influence of CEPF on the sustainability of the project extends far beyond
assisting grantees in the search for funding, particularly with respect to KBAs. Strategic
direction 2 establishes the base for improved KBA management and for the
development of legal and policy instruments. Under strategic direction 9, CEPF can
exert its strategic leadership to help policymakers in the region incorporate the KBA
designation into routine governmental administration. Official conservation maps and
regulations can identify and acknowledge the presence of KBAs, and governmental
regulations can rely on the designation in prescribing and proscribing activities. This
contribution alone could insure the sustainability of the conservation efforts in the
mountains of Central Asia. Each addition to policy, legislation, and regulations
increases the chances of long-term success, just as the more of sites with successful
conservation management, the higher chances for overall success across the region.
122
Given the young median age of the population in the biodiversity hotspot, the
sustainability of conservation investments is linked to conservation awareness and
education. Limited awareness of the global importance of nature, the means for
conservation, and the alternatives may limit the effectiveness and long-term viability of
investments. Activities under strategic direction 6 on awareness and education, which is
one of the CEPF niches, too, will deepen the sustainability prospects.
The engagement of communities, the private sector, and CSOs across the region lays the
groundwork for continuing support for the conservation of biodiversity. The potential
for ongoing alliances fostered by CEPF grants and strategic leadership, the increased
capacity and professionalism of conservation NGOs, and the adoption of the KBA
designation in policies and business practices all support the prospective sustainability
of the CEPF investment program in the mountains of Central Asia.
Finally, the sustainability of CEPF investments is strengthened by the alignment with
implementation of the Aitchi targets and Sustainable Development Goal 15 by
increasing mapping and coverage of sites important for mountain biodiversity and
forests.