Ecosystem Profile

Mountains of Central Asia
Biodiversity Hotspot
Extended Technical Summary

Draft for Submission to the CEPF Donor Council
13 July 2017

Table of Contents
1.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 12.

BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 33.

BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE HOTSPOT ..................................................................................... 44.

CONSERVATION OUTCOMES ............................................................................................................... 55.

SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT ................................................................................. 10

6.

POLICY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT .................................................................................................. 137.

CIVIL SOCIETY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT ....................................................................................... 158.

THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY IN THE HOTSPOT ................................................................................... 16

9.

CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 18

10.

ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS ............................................................ 19

11.

CEPF NICHE FOR INVESTMENT .......................................................................................................... 24

12.

CEPF INVESTMENT STRATEGY ........................................................................................................... 24ii

1. INTRODUCTION
The Mountains of Central Asia are a biodiversity hotspot but the region must first be considered from a
political and cultural perspective. Within the region, “Central Asia” is typically understood to mean thewhole of five former Soviet republics: Kazakhstan; Kyrgyzstan; Tajikistan; Turkmenistan; and Uzbekistan.
In the past, from the perspective of Central Asia, China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (whichborders four of the five former Soviet republics) and Afghanistan were “hinterland,” far from the maineconomic centers and transport hubs. Today, however, with massive investments in trade andinfrastructure, and with greater movement of people and knowledge, it makes increasing sense tounderstand the region in terms of at least parts of seven countries.
Central Asia has a long history as a crossroads between East and West. In the past, it was home to thegreat commercial and cultural centers of the Silk Road. Today, the modern equivalents include China’s
One Belt-One Road initiative and the ten-country Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) stretchingfrom China’s borders to the Caspian, Mediterranean, and Red Seas. For centuries, the region was amajor contributor to the arts, sciences, medicine, and trade. With the mixing of agrarian, nomadic, andindustrial societies, it is a mosaic of cultures, languages, and political systems. Moreover, only 25 years
ago, five of the countries -- Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan – werepart of the Soviet Union, which has added a further layer of complexity and interest to the region.
After the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991-1992, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan
joined the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and Turkmenistan took an official observer
status with a policy of neutrality. Cooperation among these five countries plays a major role incoordinating environmental protection, hydrometeorological monitoring, industrial safety, and otherareas related to the natural resources management. New cooperation forums in the region – including
the Shanghai Security Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Custom Union, andthe aforementioned ECO and One Belt-One Road initiative further integrate these countries. These
economic unions are driving infrastructure and development in a way that will inevitably have major
impacts on the environment.
Conflict and unrest have also been a reality in the region, as each of the former republics transitioned to
new forms of government, and as different groups in each of the seven countries have sought greater
prosperity or self-determination. Difficult topography, remote geography, and ethnic divisions havebeen and remain a challenge. Afghanistan, in particular, has suffered from thirty years of conflict, andthe current Islamic Republic is now trying to establish effective governance and security outside themain urban areas. Tajikistan’s civil war in 1992 was started, in part, due to a power struggle between
groups from the eastern, southern, and central parts of the country. In Kyrgyzstan, political power
centers are split to the east and west. Moreover, due to a policy of decentralization, local community“jamaats” can challenge decisions at the national level and apply they own rules, including to natural
resources.
Much of the biodiversity and natural ecosystems are in the remote mountains, whose ridges form manyof the international borders. As a result, many protected areas sit across borders from one another,raising a question of bilateral or regional cooperation. Such cooperation existed within the five former
republics during the Soviet era, and attempts have been made more recently with the Central Asian
Mountain Information Network, a regional Red List to coordinate assessments and set up a database of
threatened species, and the cross-border Western Tien Shan and Pamir-Alai conservation andenvironmental initiatives.
1Several international donors and partners are actively involved in conservation in the region. The Global
Environment Facility (GEF), the European Union, and the governments of China, Japan, Germany,
Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Russia, China, Korea and the United States support programs onsustainable natural resource use and environmental projects.
Civil society organizations (CSOs) are in a unique position to influence people’s choices, habits andbehavior because they are based in or work with communities. Unlike governments, CSOs have nopower to compel people to change. Instead, they influence behavior of stakeholders through education,
incentives, demonstration of best practice, and direct assistance. Several major international
environmental NGOs are active in the region, including World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS), Fauna & Flora International (FFI), and BirdLife International and its network
partners, and to varying degrees, local CSOs are, or are in a position to become, active in conservation.
The Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot is centered on 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 montane part of southeastern Turkmenistan. Hotspot delineation
is based on the Global 200 eco-regions1 (Olson, D. M. and Dinerstein, E., 2002). With a relatively large
amount of remaining natural habitat, high endemism, and increasing threats, the region is important forinvestment by CEPF.
Figure 1. Map of Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

1

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/ecoregion_list/22. BACKGROUND
Over the period of May 2016 to March 2017, Zoï Environment Network of Geneva, Switzerland, led theprocess to prepare the ecosystem profile, with contributions from numerous national partners. This
process engaged experts from numerous disciplines, as well as government agencies, nongovernmentalorganizations, donor organizations and other stakeholders. The profiling team reviewed existing
analyses from BirdLife’s Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs), WWF’s ECONET for Central Asia,
the IUCN Red List and 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 publicly
available information. The profiling capitalized on priority-setting processes that had already taken placein several countries, such as National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), national
protected areas strategies and expansion plans, and national biodiversity gap analyses. The profilingteam analyzed up-to-date information on drivers and threats affecting biodiversity conservation in the
hotspot, and current levels, geographies, and themes of conservation investments.
The profiling team began the process by formally notifying the GEF Operational Focal Points in eachcountry of the work ahead. The team then conducted a desk review, began the process of identifying
Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) with local and international scientists, and publicly sought the input of adiverse group of stakeholders. Because both CEPF and the KBA concept are new to Central Asia, theprofile team designed and used cartoons as an accessible way for stakeholders to understand the
purpose of the exercise.
The team held 10 formal, government-attended meetings in China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, andTajikistan between May and December 2016. While there were no formal meetings in Afghanistan,
Turkmenistan, or Uzbekistan, stakeholders did travel from those countries to the other events and werealso consulted directly by phone and electronic mail. In all, 256 unique participants attended the public
meetings or were consulted directly (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1. Contribution of Different Stakeholders to the Consultation Process
Country

CSOs

Afghanistan
China
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Total

2
4
25
40
35
10
15
131

Privatesector
2
4
7
4
4
2
3
26

Government

Research

2
2
17
5
4
4
3
37

2
8
6
6
8
2
4
36

Donor andint. org
2
4
4
4
6
2
4
26

Total
10
22
59
59
57
20
29
256

The final public event was a regional consultation in Almaty on 12 December 2016, International
Mountain Day. This meeting brought together a cross-section of senior participants from previous
meetings, including representatives of GEF Focal Points, to finalize KBA priorities and the investment
strategy.

33. BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE HOTSPOT
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. The total area covered is about 860,000 square
kilometers. The highest peak, Kongur, in the Chinese Pamir, rises to 7,719 meters, and some 20,000
glaciers cover between 25,000 - 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 central parts of Pamir have a mean elevation of over 4,000 meters andparts of it are plateau-like in character. The western and eastern parts of Pamir, by contrast, arecharacterized by sharp ridges and steep slopes cut by deep valleys and gorges. They have great variationin elevation and typical alpine relief. The Pamir includes the Fedchenko Glacier, which is more than 70
kilometers long and one of the longest non-polar glaciers in the world.
Glaciers cover four percent of Kyrgyzstan and six percent of Tajikistan, but spread throughout themountains. Melt water is the source of 80 percent of total river runoff in the region, and they are crucial
to maintaining water flow during the hot and dry summer months. The climate is arid with most rain
falling in the winter and spring. Arable lands occupy less than 0.5 percent of the total area in the Tajik
Pamir, and pastures another 12 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 lessthan 7 and 5 percent of their land areas, respectively.
Habitats and Ecosystems. The predominant vegetation types in the hotspot are desert, semi-desert, andsteppe on all the lower slopes and foothills and in some of the outlying ranges and major basins. Patchesof riverine woodland forest, called tugai, survive along the Amu Darya, Zeravshan, Syr Darya, Chu-Talas,and Ili 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 occur on the moist northern slopes of the Tien Shan, 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 hotspot contains ancestors of domestic fruit and nut varieties: apricots, plums, cherries, apples,
pears, cherry plums, grapes, pistachios, almonds, walnuts, and pomegranates. In addition, the wild crop
relatives of many cultural herbaceous plants – wheat, barley, oats, rhubarb, sorrel, anise, coriander,
onions, garlic, tulips – are still found here, making the region an important storehouse of genetic
diversity.
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. High steppecommunities, 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 thewestern Tien Shan and Pamir. Shrub communities are widespread in the lower steppe zone and may
form dense thickets in gorges. A type of wild walnut-fruit forest unique to Central Asia grows above thesteppe zone in warm, sheltered places in the Pamir and Tien Shan. These are diverse and are composed4

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). Spruce forests occur on moist
northern slopes of the Tien Shan, the only coniferous forest type in the mountains of Central Asia. Theseoccur 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). Open juniper forest occurs widely between 1,000 meters and 2,800 meters. In the
Tien Shan it grows above the spruce belt and is composed of Juniperus seravschanica, J. turkestanica,
and J. semiglobosa (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
Subalpine and alpine meadows occur from 2,000-4,000 meters and above, mainly in the northern andwestern 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. High-elevation vegetation is less diverse due to harsh conditions.
Species Diversity and Endemism. The hotspot harbors significant numbers of wild crop relatives andaround 5,000 species of vascular plants, almost one quarter of which are endemic.
Table 3.1. Species Diversity and Endemism in the Hotspot by Taxonomic Group
Taxonomic Group
Plants
Mammals
Birds
ReptilesAmphibians
Freshwater Fishes

Species
5,000-6,000
140
c.500
60-80
10
30-60

Endemic Species
1,500
10-20
1
10-20
2
5-10

Ecosystem Services. Tajikistan holds 40 percent and Kyrgyzstan 30 percent of the water resources
serving the five former Soviet republics. 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.
Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, with 90 percent of their water resources coming from mountains locatedoutside their country borders, are highly vulnerable to water shortages.

4. CONSERVATION OUTCOMES
CEPF identifies conservation outcomes at three scales, which are collectively needed to conserve global
biodiversity:
1. Globally threatened species on the IUCN Red List.
2. Sites that contribute signficiantly to the global persistence of biodiversity (i.e., Key Biodiversity Areas
or KBAs).
3. The conservation landscapes necessary to maintain the ecological and evolutionary processes uponwhich those sites and species depend.
To track and evaluate the effectiveness of its investments (in synergy with other projects and funding),
CEPF sets quantitative targets and monitors the performance of its grants and portfolios towards these5targets. To this end, conservation outcomes are measured in terms of “species extinctions avoided,”“KBAs protected,” and “ecological corridors created”.
Species OutcomesSpecies outcomes comprise those species that regularly occur in the hotspot and are classified as
globally threatened (Table 4.1). The identification of these species is based on the IUCN Red List andincludes species in categories Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) and Vulnerable (VU). CEPF
purposefully excludes extinct taxa and threatened species that occur in the hotspot countries but notwithin the hotspot limits. Selected species, included ones classified as Data Deficient (DD) and Near
Threatened (NT) and national endemics that meet the IUCN Red List criteria for a global threat category,are listed as candidate species outcomes. If, during the CEPF investment, they are formally assessed as
globally threatened on the IUCN Red List, they could be recognized as priorities for research orconservation action.
Table 4.1 Synthesis of globally threatened species in the hotspot
Group
Vertebrates (total)
Mammals
Birds
ReptilesAmphibians
FishesInvertebrates
Plants
Total

CR
4
1
1
0
0
2
0
15
19

EN
9
3
4
0
1
0
0
10
19

VU
23
5
12
2
0
4
3
4
30

Total
36
9
17
2
1
6
3
29
68

Site Outcomes – Key Biodiversity Areas
Site outcomes comprise KBAs: sites of importance for the global persistence of biodiversity. KBAs are
identified for biodiversity elements for which specific sites contribute significantly to their global
persistence, such as globally threatened species or ecosystems. The identification of KBAs uses multiple
criteria and sub-criteria, each with associated quantitative thresholds (IUCN, 2016). Sites are identified
as KBAs when they meet at least one of the following criteria:
•
•
•
•
•

A1: presence of a significant proportion of the global population of one or more globallythreatened species.
A2: presence of a significant proportion of a threatened ecosystem.
B1 to B4: presence of geographically restricted biodiversity (which may not necessarily bethreatened), including individual species, co-occurring species, assemblages of species, andecosystem types.
C: ecological integrity: sites that hold wholly intact ecological communities with supporting
ecological processes.
D: exceptional biological processes, including demographic aggregations, ecological refugia, andsource populations essential for the survival of the species.

6•

E: irreplaceability: sites identified as having through quantitative analysis of complementarity
between sites that confirms a very high irreplaceability for the global persistence of biodiversity
through a complementarity-based quantitative analysis of irreplaceability.

In consultation with CEPF and international advisors, the ecosystem profiling team at Zoï Environment
Network and in-country experts focused on a subset of these criteria, in response to limitations of time,and information.
KBAs are sites, meaning that they have a boundary that can be shown on a map. The aim of KBA
delineation is to develop boundaries that are ecologically relevant yet practical for management. Thus,
delineating the boundary of a site requires both spatial data and expert judgment on the likely limits ofthe ecosystems, ecological communities or individual trigger species for which the site is identified. It
also requires pragmatic judgment so that, for example, it may make sense to use an existing boundary ofa protected area or an administrative boundary or other type of management unit, such as a mining or
hunting concession, forest management unit (known as leshoz in the five countries of Central Asia) or
water protection zone, where this appears to coincide with the ecological boundary of the site.
A total of 167 KBAs, covering a combined area of 180,495 square kilometers, were identified during theecosystem profiling process. All the countries of the hotspot have KBAs within their borders. Tajikistan
and Uzbekistan have the most by number, with 38 each, while China has the greatest combined area ofKBAs, equivalent to 31 percent of the total. Afghanistan and Turkmenistan have the fewest KBAs, due tothe relatively small area of these countries included within the hotspot boundaries. Because of the data
limitations discussed in the previous section, there is no doubt that further desk research and fieldwork
as part of projects or targeted research grants would improve the quality of KBA delineation and identify
additional global KBAs in the hotspot.
Of the 167 KBAs identified during the ecosystem profiling process, 144 are confirmed global KBAs (Table
4.2). These cover an area of 149,130 square kilometers, equivalent to 18 percent of the total area of thehotspot. The remaining 23 KBAs support globally threatened species, restricted-range species or otherelements of biodiversity relevant to the KBA criteria but the available data are insufficient to determine
whether they meet the thresholds for the global KBA criteria.
Table 4.2. Number and area of KBAs in the hotspot

Country

Afghanistan
China
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan
TOTAL

Number ofconfirmed
global KBAs

1
14
23
32
35
3
36
144

Total area ofconfirmed
global KBAs
(km2)

10,00028,40021,38020,61038,9502,960
26,830149,130

Total area of
Number of KBAs
KBAs with
with global/
global/ regional
regional status
status not
not confirmed
confirmed (km2)

1
15
2
0
3
0
2
23

7

1,000
28,085
175
0
2,035
0
70
31,365

Number of IBAs
with global/
regional status
not confirmed(within the
hotspot)

Number of IBAs
outside thehotspot (global/
regional status
not confirmed)

0
0
1
2
8
0
5
16

2
4
8
2
0
0
8
24

Figure 4.1. Overview map of KBAs in the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

8

Figure 4.2. Overview map of conservation corridors in the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

9

Corridor Outcomes
Conservation corridors are large-scale spatial units necessary to maintain ecological and evolutionary
processes. Corridors were identified with a view to: meeting the area requirements of wide-ranging
species; maintaining ecological connectivity among KBAs; ensuring the uninterrupted delivery of key
ecosystem services; and enhancing resilience of ecosystems to climate change. Twenty-five conservation
corridors were identified during the ecosystem profiling process, covering a combined area of
576,800 square kilometers, equivalent to two-thirds of the area of the hotspot (Figure 4.2). The 25
corridors include 154 of the 167 KBAs identified in the hotspot. The remaining 13 KBAs mostly compriseisolated islands of habitat, such as wetlands.

5. SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOTThe hotspot is a fragmented and sensitive region politically and socio-economically, but all the countries
share deep cultural links laying on the Silk Route, while the five former Soviet republics share a common
communication language (Russian) and cultural, political, and economic history. There are obvious
differences in economic power and stability when comparing countries across the hotspot, from China
to Afghanistan. As a whole, the populations are relatively young and rapidly growing. Urban populations
are growing across the region, and particularly in China; nonetheless, more than half the people ofAfghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan live in rural areas and are directly dependent upon natural
resources.
Table 5.1. Population in the hotspot, 2015

Country

Population
within hotspot(million)

Annualpopulation
growth(percent)
2.4
-1.1
1.1
1.6
1.9
1.3
1.1

Density per km2

Population
increase 2000 2015 (percent)Rural
population as
percent of
total*
100
56
50
64
73
90
50

Afghanistan
0.05
1-2
no dataChina17.5-20
16-20
15
Kazakhstan
6-7
8-16
20
Kyrgyzstan
630
20
Tajikistan
8.5
60
30
Turkmenistan
0.05
10
20
Uzbekistan
2250-500*20
Total60-63.5 m
70
Source: national and local statistics* The high density and broad range in Uzbekistan is due to populations in the Ferghana and Zeravshan Valleys andthe city of Tashkent

During the 1950s and the 1970s, the Soviet Union orchestrated the resettlement of the mountaindwellers 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 the forced migrants fromthe resettlement program returned to their old villages. Migration back to mountain communities in
Tajikistan was further spurred, beginning in the 1990s, by civil unrest, lack of arable land, and scarcity offuelwood in the lowlands (University of Central Asia et al. 2012).

10

Income. Post-independence in the 1990s led to rapid changes and overall economic decline in theregion, and at the same time, there was civil war in Afghanistan. However, in the 2000s, the countries
stabilized and benefited from global economic growth. The countries with fossil fuels grew even more,leading to increased incomes in related sectors such as manufacturing. Labor movement and new
economic relationships also led to new services in banking and trade. By the period of 2013-2016, with adrop in the prices of commodities, oil, and gas, state income in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, andUzbekistan became constrained, led to a greater national focus on job creation. Meanwhile, Afghanistan
focuses on security, peace, and stability, with the related impact on employment and household
welfare.
Table 5.2. Economic statistics for the countries in the hotspot

Country

GDP per Capita
2015

Afghanistan$600
China - Xingjian$14,300
Kazakhstan$10,500
Kyrgyzstan$1,100
Tajikistan
1,000
Turkmenistan$6,900
Uzbekistan$2,100Sources: World Bank and national statistics

Percent Annual
GDP Growth, 20102015
1-2
8-12
1-5
3-8
4-7
6-10
8

Net ODA Received,
2014 (millions)

Net ODA Received
as % of GNI, 2014

S4,823.3
S-960
S88.4
S624.1
S356.3
S34.2
S24.4

23.3
0
0
8.6
3.1
0.1
0.5

With the fall of the Soviet Union, poverty in the region rose to as high as 75-80 percent (UNDP
Kyrgyzstan 2002; UNDP Tajikistan 2012; UNECE 2013). Donor support was critical at the peak of thepoverty and humanitarian crisis, especially in the Tajik Pamir. Subsequently, poverty has rapidly
declined, but Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan are still worse off than their neighbors (in part due
to conflict, and in in part due to the countries lacking major natural resources and relying on small-scaleindustry and agriculture). Poverty levels in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are below 5-10 percent(UNECE 2013) and in Uzbekistan, poverty has been almost halved over the past fifteen years to fifteen
15 percent (UNDP 2016).
Table 5.3. Poverty and human development indicators in the hotspot countries
Human
Development
Country
Index Rank,
2015 (out of
188)
Afghanistan
171
China
90
Kazakhstan
56
Kyrgyzstan
120
Tajikistan
129
Turkmenistan
109
Uzbekistan
114
Sources: UNDP, World BankLife Expectancy(Years)Percent inPoverty(2012-2015)

Adult Literacy
Rate (percent)GenderInequality Index
Rank, 2014 (outof 185)

51
75
70
70
67
70
73

36
no data
10
35
38
5
14

38
96
100
100
99
100
100

152
40
52
67
69
No data
No data11

Reliance on Natural Resources
Agriculture. With independence, the five Central Asian governments transitioned collectively-owned
farms to quasi-private ownership and long-term private rental. As a result, the number of formal
farming units skyrocketed: over 350,000 private farms in Kyrgyzstan and 130,000 in Tajikistan. This also
led to an income gap between those who had sufficient arable land and those who did not. In turn,
agricultural cooperatives have been formed to collectively own machinery for more efficient planting,harvesting, and processing.
Mineral Resources and Mining. In terms of revenue, if not employment, mining is most notable in
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and China. In Kyrgyzstan, most of the large mineral reserves are in the highmountains (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 contributes up to 50 percent of thenational export earnings in Tajikistan (aluminum and gold) and up to 30 percent in Kyrgyzstan (mainlygold). Kyrgyzstan has purposefully created conditions favorable to mining operators by enacting
economic reforms and by allowing access to geological information. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,and Afghanistan participate in the Extractive Industries Transparence Initiative (EITI). This effort
promotes more participation in tenders and financial disclosure showing who is receiving the benefits ofmining operations. However, EITI does not currently require disclosure of data on the environmental
and social impact of mining on local communities.
Energy. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have the largest hydropower potential, and both countries are actively
seeking to exploit this. Currently, Kyrgyzstan has 2,700 MW of installed hydropower and Tajikistan 5,000
MW, combined less than ten percent of their technically feasible hydropower potential. Ongoingdevelopment and planning is taking place on Kyrgyzstan’s Naryn and Sary-Djaz rivers and in Tajikistan’s
Vakhsh, Panj, and Zeravshan.
Forest management. The percent of forest cover in the region is low, whether one looks at forests
under national boundaries or at more limited data for forest cover within the portions of each country
that fall within the hotspot. Most natural forests and plantations are state owned, although individuals
and associations can enter long-term leases with the state.
Table 5.4. Forest cover
Total Forests (2015)
Km2
Percent of land area
Afghanistan
13,5002.1
China2,100,000
22
Tajikistan
4,080
2.9
Kyrgyzstan
8,360
4.4
Kazakhstan
34,2201.3
Turkmenistan
41,270
8.8
Uzbekistan
30,450
7.2
Source: World Bank, FAO, national statistics
Country

Forests within the hotspot
Km2
No forests in Wakhan
23,350 (Xinjiang)
4,080
8,360
No dataMarginal
No data

Fuel wood is the principal source of energy for cooking and heating in the mountains, due to the lack ofaffordable alternatives. Forest certification schemes do not yet exist, although the Forest StewardshipCouncil has initiated efforts to promote sustainable, “eco-friendly” use and management of non-timber
forest products.
12Tourism. With the exception Afghanistan, international and domestic tourism within the region iscommon, with destinations based around hot springs, ski resorts, mountaineering, rock climbing, major
lake-based resorts, and cultural heritage sites. Hunting tourism is particularly important in Kyrgyzstan
and Tajikistan. Nature parks – lakes, forests, view-sites – are all extraordinarily popular and frequently
suffer from too little investment in relation to the number of visitors. Standards for ecotourism have notyet matched the need for the same.
Cultural Distinctions
Ethnic, religious, and linguistic distinctions are captured in the table below. The dominant religion is
Islam and Russian remains the international language of the region. Russian is less dominant in Tajikistan
and Uzbekistan. English language skills are generally lacking, particularly in rural populations, ingovernment institutions and local CSOs.
Table 5.5. Ethnic Groups, Religions, and Languages within the Hotspot
Main
Ethnicities

Other Ethnicities

Afghanistan

Wakhi, Kyrgyz

Badahshi, Tajik, Uzbek

China – Xinjiang

Han, Uyghur

Kazakh, Hui, Kyrgyz,
MongolKazakhstan

KazakhRussian, Uyghur

Kyrgyzstan

KyrgyzTajikistan

Tajik

Turkmenistan

TurkmenUzbekistan

Uzbek

Country

Uzbek, Russian,Dungan, Tajik
Uzbek, Russian,
Kyrgyz, Turkmen

Main Languages
Wakhi, Kyrgyz, Dari,
EnglishMandarin, Uyghur,
Kazakh, Kyrgyz
Kazakh, Russian,UyghurKyrgyz, Russian,
Uzbek

Main Religions
Islam
Islam, local
regions
Islam,
Christianity
Islam,
Christianity

Tajik, Russian, Uzbek

Islam

Uzbek

Turkmen, Russian,
Uzbek

Islam

Tajik, Russian, Kazakh,
UyghurUzbek, Russian, Tajik

Islam

6. POLICY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT
Environmental Governance
The primary government agencies responsible for conservation in each country are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Afghanistan: National Environmental Protection Agency
China: Ministry of Environmental Protection
Kazakhstan: Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Energy
Kyrgyzstan: State Agency on Environment and Forestry
Tajikistan: Committee on Environmental Protection / National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center
Turkmenistan: Committee on the Protection of Nature and Land Resources under the Ministryof Agriculture and Water
Uzbekistan: State Committee for Nature Conservation

13

Policy and legislation among each of the countries is robust and clear, but implementation is conductedby a diverse array of government agencies that may not be coordinated or motivated.
Protected Areas
Formal protected land within the hotspot varies by country from four percent in Turkmenistan to 22
percent in Tajikistan, with protected areas ranging in size from the 1,200 hectare Gongliuyehetao
Chinese Walnut Reserve to the massive Tajik National Park in Tajikistan (2.6 million hectares).
1. Species management areas – locally known as zakaznik – correspond to IUCN category IV. These
are the most numerous protected areas in the hotspot, but most of them are actually “paperparks.”
2. Forestry management areas – locally known as leskhoz – apply to most forest lands in theformer republics and set regimes for fire management, pest control, grazing, and timber
harvest.
3. Hunting concessions are supervised and licensed by the state environmental authorities, andincreasingly, are managed privately.
4. Mountain forests and riverbank forests are protected by law (typically the Forest and Water
Codes) and their use for commercial activities is restricted. Most are state property undernational government control, although some belong to municipalities or communities.
5. Water protection zones – essentially rivers themselves, their riverbanks, and associatedgroundwater reserves (with sizes varying depending on the importance for drinking watersupply or other purposes) – are legally controlled by government entities.
Regional and International Environmental Agreements and Initiatives
Table 6.1. Membership in international conventions and regional conservation initiatives
Country
Afghanistan
China
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

CBD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

CITES
X
X
X
X
X
X

Ramsar
X
X
X
X
X
X

CMS
X

CACILM

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X

GSLEP
X
X
X
X
X
X

CAMI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

UNFCC
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX

Table 6.2. Membership in regional environmental agreements and cooperation mechanisms
Country
Afghanistan
China
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

Caspian Sea
convention

Aral Sea basin
IFAS

X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X

UNECE Water

UNECE Aarhus

EU-CA platform

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

14

Within the five former republics, the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS) maintains theInter-State Commission on Sustainable Development (ICSD). This is the main body within the fivecountries tasked to coordinate regional cooperation on environment and sustainable development. Eachcountry has three representatives on the ICSD: the head of the national environmental authority, a
representative from an economic affairs ministry, and a representative from the scientific community.
ICSD allows for civil society to participate. ICSD has mountain ecosystem conservation as a mandate.
While the entity has bureaucratic issues not atypical of international bodies, it is still an important bodyfor sharing of information and promulgation of approach, particularly for KBAs.
Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, each country has revised a National Biodiversity Strategies
and Action Plans. The NBSAPs are summarized in the full Ecosystem Profile.

7. CIVIL SOCIETY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOTThe trend in the region is one of greater government control over CSOs, particularly since a high point ofcivil society engagement following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The reasons for this are many andcan be sensitive, but include issues of democratic governance, ethnicity and religion, and perceived andreal threats from abroad and from within countries. The end result is that there are now more
requirements for organizational and project registration than in the recent past. Nonetheless, CSOs are
generally welcome to engage at the local level, particularly for biodiversity monitoring, environmental
education, public awareness, and to import “best practice” from abroad.
Comparing across countries, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have the strictest rules for the engagementof CSOs via support from international donors. Scientific institutes in these two countries have highstandards and adequate funding from national authorities, while CSOs play a role in protection offlagship species and education. In both countries, funding from international entities to local NGOs mustbe first approved by appropriate authorities.
Engagement of civil society in Xinjiang is proscribed in various ways. Academic and scientificorganizations, such as the Academy of Science and universities, receive the most funding and have thegreatest ability to conduct field work, especially compared to smaller and independent groups, which
are underrepresented.
Perhaps at the next level are Tajikistan, then Kazakhstan. Tajikistan’s environmental CSOs are largely
based in Dushanbe, or in Khorog, in the heart of the Pamir Mountains. A significant amount of climatechange money coming into the country flows to CSOs to work on adaptation and disaster risk reduction.
Local CSOs and public groups are also active in species surveys, support for protected areas,
conservation of agro-biodiversity, and sustainable development and forestry projects. Kazakhstan has
numerous CSOs in its various large ecosystems (e.g., northern steppes, southern deserts, mountains).
Those focused on the mountain environment are in Almaty and south-east Kazakhstan, in the foothills of
the Tien Shan Mountains. Many have offices in the capital city, Astana, outside the hotspot, to maintainlinks to the government and donors. Kazakh CSOs play an active role play an active role in environmental
regulation and legislation, implement field projects, and conservation efforts and maintain regional andinternational relations.
CSOs in Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan can engage in the broadest array of activities. CSOs in Kyrgyzstan
have played a significant role in shaping biodiversity legislation and strategies, and in improving the
network of protected areas. However, there is a growing conflict between conservation aims and15

development aims, particularly around the Ferghana Valley and the western and central Tien Shan, andthis is reflected in the types of CSOs operating, respectively in Osh, Jalal-Abad, and Batken. Afghanistan
is perhaps a special case, coming off a period of transition, with so many new governance structures andso much decentralization, that there are numerous roles for CSOs to fill. However, compared to theother countries in the region, national-based CSOs in Afghanistan have the lowest capacity and suffer
the most from geographic distance and instability.
Each of the countries has CSOs which can be described as “local,” covering smaller parts of the country,“national,” covering the majority of the country, “regional” with offices or partners in multiple countries,
and “international,” based outside the hotspot. These CSOs face similar challenges, to varying degrees:••••

National government controls, limitations monitoring, and inspections.
Limited technical and organizational capacity.
Lack of recurrent or sustainable funding.
Differing and challenging donor requirements, including different major languages (English,
Russian, Chinese) and donor expectations.

Regional CSOs of note include the University of Central Asia, based in Bishkek, which hosts theMountain Partnership Central Asia, consisting of 40 organizations from eight countries – the seven in the
hotspot plus Pakistan. Also of note is the Central Asia Regional Environmental Center (CAREC).
Established in the early 2000s by the five Central Asian countries and international donors, including the
EU and USAID, CAREC is headquartered in Almaty and has offices in each of the five capitals, as well as aproject office in Kabul.

8. THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY IN THE HOTSPOTKey threats and their root causes, as well as barriers to effective conservation within the hotspot
boundary were identified through the various workshops held as part of the process. The workshops
confirmed efforts from previous exercises per Table 8.1.
Table 8.1. Threat Trends by Ecosystem
Ecosystem Type

Habitat Change

Pollution

OveruseClimateChangeEvergreen forests
Wild fruit and nut
forests
Desert forests
Tugai and riparian
forests
Deserts and semideserts
SteppesHigh mountains
Rivers and lakes
Agroecosystems

↘

→

→

↗

↘

→

↗

↗

↘

→

→

↗

→

→

→

↗

→

↗

→

↗

↘
↗
→
↗

→
↗
↘
↘

→
→
→
↗

↗
↗
↗
↗

16

Invasive
Species↗

↗
→↗

Changes in land use, the modification of natural river flows, and the withdrawal of water from rivers are
the most common examples of habitat change. This region suffers from land conversion to agriculture
and pasture, irrigation schemes, construction of hydropower dams, and threats from infrastructure,
Illegal hunting and poaching have reached an epidemic level in the region, despite strict legislation on
species protection or listing of species in national Red Books. This applies particularly to high-value
mountain ungulates (“trophy” species), falcons that are exported to the Middle East, and the Central
Asian tortoise. During the Soviet era, with greater state control, poaching was less of an issue. Today,with decentralization of government and limited national revenues, enforcement is rare. Similar toexcessive hunting, the unregulated collection of plants is a threat for endemics for sale (e.g., various
tulip species) and for household use (e.g., medicinal plants).
In Xinjiang, serious overgrazing and pasture degradation began as early as the 1970s (Zhang 2002). In
the former Soviet republics, with the fall of the Soviet Union, domestic livestock production initiallydeclined, but as economies stabilized, the herding of sheep and goats increased sharply, especially in thefoothills and lower slopes (800-2,000 meters). Human-wildlife conflict is primarily a threat in the
Wakhan Valley, where there is retaliatory killing, trapping, and poisoning of snow leopards by herders
trying to protect livestock. In the other countries, the fines and criminal penalties for killing a snow
leopard seem to serve as sufficient deterrent. However, for other predators, such as wolves, authorities
encourage an even reward trapping and hunting.
Invasive and alien species (IAS) and pollution are a serious threat to freshwater ecosystems like Lake
Issyk Kul Kyrgyzstan and like those found in the Ferghana Valley and the Ili Basin.
Indirect threats stem from demographic pressure, the demands for socio-economic growth, and weak
institutions.
Primary threats can be summarized by country as:•

Afghanistan – Wakhan Valley: overgrazing, poaching of wild sheep for meat; threats borne ofextreme poverty, geographic isolation, surrounding geographies of political instability.

•

Threats in Xinjiang, China are from extractive industries, infrastructure development, andincreasing consumption that comes with the rapid creation of a middle class.

•

Kazakhstan: overgrazing, illegal hunting, over collection of wild plants, increasing tourism, andagricultural expansion.

•

Kyrgyzstan: over-exploitation of forests containing fir, juniper, and trees bearing wild fruits andnuts; over-exploitation and degradation of Lake Issyk-Kul; freshwater pollution; and degradationof steppes, foothills, and grassland corridors.

•

Tajikistan: declining knowledge base in science and academia; low capacity of state actors
responsible for conservation; rapid population growth combined with poor economic prospectsof communities in forest and pasture areas; agricultural expansion right to the borders ofprotected areas; and lack of clear title to land.

17•

Turkmenistan: in the hotspot region of the Koytendag Ridge expansion of agriculture,
overexploitation of certain species, and recreational tourism.

•

Uzbekistan: Loss of habitat, agricultural expansion, agriculture-related pollution, unregulated
tourism, and infrastructure development are also major threats.

9. CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT
National and regional climate projections expect increases in temperatures and precipitation across the
hotspot and as much as a fifty percent loss in glacial cover by mid-century. Glaciers ensure continuous
waterflow for these water-deficit countries. 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 are
expected to increase, especially in summer, for example in the Sary-Dzjaz and Aksu in the Tien Shan
Mountains (Kundzewicz et al, 2015; Krysanova et al, 2015).
Impact on human health. More extreme weather events are expected (IPCC, 2012), as are flash floods,
which are very destructive given the heavy sediment and rock content of the rivers. Another type offlooding is when rain falls on snow or frozen ground in flat areas, leading to standing water and damage
to infrastructure. Project warming will likely affect the stability of mountain permafrost and glacial
moraines, which may lead to an increased risk of glacial lake outburst floods.
More frequent and longer droughts are expected, with expected conflicts over competing economic
uses for limited water and a demand for more reservoirs and water-related infrastructure. Agriculturalphases may also change, with earlier blooming and changing times of harvest.
According to the Global Climate Risk Index, in 2014, Afghanistan was the second most climate changeaffected country in the world, with most impacts occurring in Badakhshan Province, home to the
Wakhan Valley.
Impact on biodiversity. Various studies expect mountain forests and pastures to move up in elevationand to decrease in size, but it is not known if higher elevation soils will support these ecosystems.
Productivity of mountain forests is expected to decline for slow-growing juniper forests (Juniperus
turkestanica). Climate change is also bringing new species to the region, including gray crane (Grus grus),
Pandion chaliaetus, Larus hyperboreus, Stercorarius longicaqudus, and Lanius senator. Table 9.1
summaries information from the studies and the Profile team’s stakeholder consultations.
Regional responses. Several organizations at the regional level have the potential to contribute toCentral Asia’s collective capacity to respond to climate change. As the only regional organization with all
five Central Asia states as members, the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS) serves as apolitical structure for discussion and management of regional environmental issues. The organization
has launched regional climate assessments and has sponsored the Fedchenko glacier research, but its
efforts to secure international donor support for climate funding have not been as successful as hoped.
Since 2016, 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, has been themain (but not only) regional climate cooperation and policy coordination platform. As this Profile was18being written, CAMP4ASB was in the inception and planning phase of regional and country-specificresponses.
Table 9.1. Climate Change Effects on Biodiversity
Possible effects
Earlier bird arrival, earlier
appearance of insects
Shift in habitat extent forsome plant species andanimal ranges
Increase in pressure levels
for threatened species,
endemic species, and uniqueecosystems
Changes in water quality andquantity and impacts on
freshwater species andecosystems

Likely indicators and consequences
New wintering areas for some birds: avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta), ruff
(Philomaxis pugnax), wood sandpiper (Tringa glareola), redshank (Tringa
totanus) and earlier spring arrival. New wintering places for the Common crane,
little bustard, waterfowl genus, Ruddy shelduck and other species in the Central
Asian region (Kreuzberg-Mukhia 2002).
Elevation changes in the spread of the mountain forests and changes in bird andmammal habitats (Juniperus turkestanica, Malus sieversii, Juglans regia,
Cursorius cursor, Phalacrocorax pygmaeus)
Climate change combined with fragmentation and overuse of the mountainecosystems 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.
Reduction of water quality in small mountain rivers (Karjantau, Nuratau). Severe
impacts of water deficit and low water impacts on delta ecosystems. Increase inirrigation demand due to higher evaporation and, consequently, higher stresson available water resources.

Other regional responses are being hosted by IFAS for hydrology, CAREC for training, UNESCO for
glaciers, the Regional Mountain Centre of Central Asia (part of the ICSD and the Kyrgyz State Agency on
the Environment) for mountain ecosystems, and the Bishkek-based Central Asia Institute of Applied
Geosciences (CAIAG) for monitoring.
Each of the countries has some form of national response, and other than Uzbekistan, all the hotspot
countries have submitted their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change, with China and Turkmenistan being the most recent
countries in the hotspot to ratify the 2015 Paris Agreement

10.ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS
Consultations with stakeholders suggest, across all sources of domestic, international, and private
funding, that between $20 million and $30 million per year is allocated to biodiversity conservation andrelated topics (e.g., watershed management, forestry, research, monitoring, etc.). Table 10.1 shows anassessment of the relative level of funding by country and donor with a scale, from greatest to least, ofpredominant, medium, minor, marginal, and negligible.
Afghanistan is noted for its dependence on foreign donors for conservation but even in Tajikistan andKyrgyzstan, with higher amounts of foreign funds, major gaps still exist. Funding for conservation in
Uzbekistan can be difficult to assess in terms of the hotspot boundary, because large amounts go to theAral Sea region (i.e., outside the hotspot) or for economic development in the Ferghana Valley(i.e., inside the hotspot but not necessarily for conservation). International funding for China,
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan ebbs and flows. Sometimes, their GDP is high enough that they do not
request, or are not eligible for, donor assistance, or else their economies are massive in relation to the19amount of foreign funding. Nonetheless, all are eager to accept technical assistance and introductions
new technologies or best practice.
Table 10.1. Indicative Proportions of Investments to Biodiversity Conservation in the Hotspot
Country
Afghanistan (Wakhan)
China (Xinjiang)
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

Domestic Public Sector
Marginal
Predominant
Predominant
Minor
Minor
Predominant
PredominantInternational Donors
PredominantMarginal
Marginal
Minor
Moderate
Marginal
Minor

Private Sector
Negligible
Marginal
Minor
Marginal
Marginal
Negligible
Marginal

Not properly accounted for here is Chinese investment into the other six countries. The AsianInfrastructure Investment Bank and the One Belt-One Road initiative will both invest money into
infrastructure and energy, perhaps with some of this being used for impact assessments, biodiversity
surveys, or land or funding offsets.
A different way to assess country dependency on sources other than public revenue is the OECD’s
statistics on country programmable aid (CPA; Table 10.2).
Table 10.2. Country Programmable Aid Dynamics, Aid dependency, and Outlook
Country
Afghanistan
China
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Source: OECD.

2008 (USD
million)
40
2149
336
377
300
3850
189

2014 (USD
million)
30
886
109
572
350
4000
360

Aid per capita,
2014 (USD)
126
1
6
100
42
6
12

CPA per GNI,
2014
20.2%
0.01%
0.06%
8.4%
4.5%
0.08%
0.5%

2019 (projected
USD million)
25
1300
100
600
370
4000
570

It is difficult to fully assess the amount of public revenue or domestic funding for conservation. Not all
the countries make such information readily available. Indications of levels of public funding forbiodiversity by country are provided in Table 10.3.
Protected areas and forested areas are major recipients of public finance, with the bulk of this funding
for staff salaries and basic operating costs, such as patrolling. The BIOFIN analysis indicates the gaps andscenarios for change (e.g., how much funding could be raised by increasing trophy fees or collection
from fines). Across the hotspot, governments provide only nominal amounts for civil society to become
engaged in conservation activities.

20

Table 10.3. Indicative Levels of Public Funding for Biodiversity Conservation

Country

Afghanistan
China
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

Protected areas I-II
(nature reserves
and national parks)
Marginal
SufficientSufficient
LimitedLimitedSufficientSufficient

Protected areas IIIV (zakazniks andnaturemanagement
areas)
No funding
LimitedMarginal
No funding
No funding
Marginal
Marginal

Forest protection
and reforestation

Landscapes andnon-flagshipspeciesMarginal
SufficientSufficient
LimitedLimitedSufficientSufficient

No funding
LimitedLimitedMarginal
Marginal
LimitedLimitedMultilateral and Bilateral Donors
The major single source of international aid for conservation in the region is the GEF working via its
implementing agencies, which include UNDP, UNEP, FAO, and the World Bank. This includes both
funding for outright conservation as well as for biodiversity-related elements of climate change projects.
Whereas the vast majority of GEF funding goes to national government entities, the GEF Small Grants
Programme (SGP) is targeted at civil society. The SGP makes grants of up to $50,000 and is active in eachof the hotspot countries other than Turkmenistan. Challenges facing CSOs seeking access to SGP funds
are varying requirements for matching funds and application procedures that can be difficult for nascentgroups. However, in places like Kyrgyzstan, the SGP provides good outreach via a network of local
supervisors. Another challenge is that during implementation, financial reporting must follow national
standards for organizations receiving public funds – such standards can be daunting for smaller groups.
The SGP in Kazakhstan will have a particular overlap with CEPF in the next two to three years. There,
SGP expects to support work in and around protected areas, hunting concessions, and IBAs. In
Kyrgyzstan, the SGP intends to direct funding at jamaats (i.e., community-based organizations) in thesouthern parts of the country. Across the hotspot overall, there are possibilities for CEPF and the SGP tocollaborate on grant-making or find procedural synergies (e.g., in Uzbekistan).
Table 10.4 summarizes GEF-6 STAR Allocations, including SGPs and multiple major projects, and Table
10.5 provides an overview of funding via multilateral agencies.
Table 10.4. GEF-6 STAR Allocations for Hotspot Countries (USD millions)
Country
Afghanistan
China
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

Climate Change

Biodiversity

Land Degradation

Total

3.00
126.00
11.81
2.00
2.00
4.99
11.46

3.91
58.55
5.04
1.56
1.50
1.81
1.78

4.39
9.95
5.13
3.04
2.78
3.29
5.12

11.30
194.50
21.99
6.60
6.28
10.09
18.37

21

Fully
Flexible
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no

Over the period of 2010-2015, the majority of bilateral funds for conservation in the five former Soviet
republics came from Germany, Switzerland, Japan, and the European Union, while the United States, via
its Agency for International Development (USAID), has been the major provider in the Wakhan Valley of
Afghanistan. Meanwhile, as part of the One Belt-One Road initiative, China established the Central AsianCentre for Ecology and Environment, hosted in Urumqi by Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography,
with satellite offices and monitoring stations in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
Table 10.5. Overview of Investments by Multilateral Agencies
Donor
FAO (with GEF funds)

Countries
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Uzbekistan, Afghanistan

World Bank (with GEF
and CIFs)

Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, China,
Uzbekistan, Afghanistan

ADB (with GEF and CIFs)

Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Uzbekistan, Afghanistan

EBRD (with GEF and CIFs)

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan

GEF, including the Small
Grants Program

All countries of the hotspot

Areas of support
Agricultural reforms, forestry and land sector,
climate resiliency, CACILM-2
Sustainable agriculture and landscapes,
CAMP4ASB, water management, agriculturalreforms, hydrometeorological monitoring network
modernization
Combating land degradation, water reforms,
disaster risk reduction, pilot program for climate
resilience (PPCR in Tajikistan)
Energy efficiency and renewable energy, waste
management improvements, infrastructure, andrural development (PPCR in Kyrgyzstan)
Medium-sized biodiversity-related projects; small
grants to local CSOs for: sustainable use of natural
resources; support to protected areas; access toclean energy; awareness raising; and ecotourism

Table 10.6. Overview of Conservation-Related Investments by Bilateral Agencies
Donor
China

Countries
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan

European Union /European Commission

All countries of the hotspot

Switzerland (SDC)

Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan

Germany (BMZ, BMUB
via GIZ + KfW)

Afghanistan, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

United States (USAID)

Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan,
Kazakhstan, Tajikistan

RussiaKyrgyzstan, Tajikistan

Japan (JICA)

China, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Afghanistan

22

Areas of support
Research and training, environmental
monitoring, infrastructure
Regional environmental cooperation, water
management, disaster risk reduction, forest andpasture improvements, river basin
management (Zeravshan Basin in Tajikistan),clean-up of the hazardous waste and toxic
legacies, education
Water reforms, mountain development,
disaster risk reduction, health and sanitation,
waste management, education
Sustainable pasture, land, forest and wildlife
management, education, health, energy, basic
infrastructure
Wildlife conservation (via WCS and WWF),
agriculture, food security, water and sanitation,
education, capacity building
Uranium waste rehabilitation, education,
capacity building
Sustainable natural resource use, disaster risk
reduction

The European Union is the leading donor in Central Asia with overall assistance for 2014-2020 budgetedat €1 billion. The EU is now working on a strategic approach for conservation in all of Asia, with a volume
dedicated to Central Asia being prepared by WCS. The regional approach, called “Larger than Tigers,” isintended to guide the programming of EU funding related to biodiversity. The authors of this profile andthe Central Asia “Larger than Tigers” team have coordinated in the development of these strategies.
The World Bank has implemented work throughout the region, including the Western Tien Shanbiodiversity conservation project in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan; the Dashtijum biodiversity
conservation project in Tajikistan; and major pollution clean-up efforts in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.
Major ongoing projects include the Environmental Land Management and Rural Livelihoods project inTajikistan ($5 million), the Integrated Forest Ecosystem Management in Kyrgyzstan ($16 million, withpartial GEF financing), the East-West International Transit Corridor Project between Almaty and Korgos,
China, and several agricultural, road and water projects in Uzbekistan. The World Bank also supports
regional efforts, such as the Central Asia Climate Adaptation and Mitigation Project for the Aral Sea
Basin (CAMP4ASB) and capacity building programs in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan designed to promote
information exchange and coordinated ecosystem adaption efforts. The World Bank also supports
national hydrometeorological service modernization projects and regional disaster risk management
efforts. Finally, the World Bank also supports the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative in
Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan, which could lead to improved collaboration withnational mining associations and individual companies.
Japan supports work throughout the region, but its biodiversity focus is in Kyrgyzstan. It has supported a
program called “One Village, One Product” around Lake Issyk-Kul to develop unique agricultural
products or handicrafts in a sustainable manner. Japan also supports university students andprofessional from Afghanistan and the five republics to study abroad. In Afghanistan, JICA is supporting
improved hydrological and land use management in the Panj-Amu River basin.
A significant regional initiative is the Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection Program(GSLEPP). Its partner and funding entities include the GEF, World Bank, UNDP, and several other donors,
and implementers, who via the program, have joined under the banner of the governments of all thesnow leopard range countries (i.e., 12 countries overall, including all the hotspot countries other than
Turkmenistan). Together, they support a common agenda (the Bishkek Agenda of 2013), which has
identified desired portfolios in each country (i.e., identified programs that require funding). Fully
implementing the GSLEPP portfolios will require tens of millions of dollars. The CEPF program
purposefully considers GSLEPP and, in various areas, complements its approach or helps to achieve its
objectives.
Assessment of Funding Opportunities and Gaps
In terms of funding for civil society in the conservation space, CSOs receive money to work on “safe”
activities like environmental education, training, and awareness, with money used for posters, leaflets,
lectures, information campaigns, websites, and popular outreach methods. There has also been funding
to CSOs for rural development and forest, pasture, and water management. There has been relatively
less money to support CSOs in field-based conservation of KBAs, however.
In terms of funding for species and site conservation, most money has gone into planning (the plans arequite robust) but less has gone into actual implementation of these plans. Thus, there are welldeveloped plans from GSLEPP, the Argali action plan, and the Central Asian Mammal Initiative (CAMI). In
23

theory, donors can select from the menu of options that these plans present. Within the countries of thehotspot (albeit outside of the hotspot boundaries) are several ongoing species-focused conservation
efforts targetting at saiga, kulan (Equus hemionus kulan), and sturgeons, all of which can provide models
and lessons for work within the hotspot.
There are a few examples of “innovative” financing mechanisms in the region. Payment for ecosystemservices (PES) is understood and has been piloted in China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. With
the exception of China, these pilots have been limited in terms of scope and scale. There are also
examples like the “Archa Initiative” that promote public-private partnerships, in this case aroundbotanical gardens and ex situ conservation. Newer still to the region is promotion of certification andeco-labeling of sustainable forest and agricultural products, to incentivize biodiversity-friendly land
management practices and/or create revenue streams for conservation. A final example that may bepromising is from micro-finance and the establishment of revolving funds to support small enterpriseand household needs. These are common worldwide but are now being proposed specifically forconservation enterprises tied to particular KBAs or landscapes in the hotspot.

11.CEPF NICHE FOR INVESTMENT
CEPF’s investment niche for the hotspot is defined by the KBA methodology, with prioritization of KBAs
that are in trans-border areas, those that allow for resilience to climate change, and those that allow for
linkages across productive landscapes. The niche is also defined by the operational environment for
grant making in hotspot each country, taking into account political realities and issues of peace andstability. Furthermore, the niche allows for purposeful synergies with possible future funders, as well as
adaptive responses to emerging threats. Finally the niche is designed to ensure that biodiversity
conservation fully supports local and national economic development agendas.
CEPF’s investment niche is to promote a common agenda among decision-makers/politicians, private
developers, and civil society, to complement the work of public sector managers of protected areas via
civil society engagement, and to build the capacity of CSOs to engage in conservation in the hotspot.

12.CEPF INVESTMENT STRATEGY
Priority Species
National consultations and the processing of the stakeholder questionnaires provided the basis forprioritization of the species outcomes. The list of priorities includes highly threatened species, includes
both high profile species, such as snow leopard, for which CEPF may only provide complementary
funding, and less well-known species, such as Strauch’s toad agama (Phrynocephalus strauchi), for which
CEPF may be the only source of investment. While CEPF focuses on globally threatened species, thenational consultations identified some taxa in need of conservation attention that are not currently
recognized as such. Some are close to being assessed as globally threatened, some are particularly
distinctive sub-specific taxa, and some are geographically distinct populations. If any of these taxa arerecognized as globally threatened on the IUCN Red List, they will be automatically added to the list of
species outcomes, and will be candidates for inclusion on the list of priority species, when it is next
updated (for instance, at the mid-term assessment of the CEPF investment program).

24

A total of 33 species outcomes were selected as priorities for CEPF investment (Table 12.1). A little morethan half are plants, while the others are animals, mainly mammals and birds. The priority species arefound in all seven hotspot countries, with at least nine species in each country. This creates
opportunities for civil society organizations across the hotspot to engage in species-focusedconservation actions.
Table 12.1. Priority species for CEPF investment

VU
EN

+
+

Uzbekistan

Turkmenistan+

Tajikistan+

Kazakhstan

Vulnerable

EN

Kyrgyzstan

Bukhara Deer
Menzbier’s Marmot
Ili Pika
Urial
Snow Leopard

China

MAMMALS
Cervus hanglu
Marmota menzbieri
Ochotona iliensis
Ovis orientalis*
Panthera uncia

Distribution by Country

Afghanistan

1
2
3
4
5

Common Name

Endangered

No. Scientific Name

CriticallyEndangered

Global Threat
Status

+

+

+
+

+
+

+

+

+
+

+
+

+

+

+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
+

+
VU

EN

+
+

+

+
+

BIRDS
6

Anser erythropus

7
8
9
10
11

Aquila heliaca
Aquila nipalensis
Columba eversmanni
Neophron percnopterus
Vanellus gregarius

Lesser White-fronted
Goose
Eastern Imperial Eagle
Steppe Eagle
Yellow-Eyed Dove
Egyptian Vulture
Sociable Lapwing

12

REPTILES
Phrynocephalus strauchi

Strauch’s Toad Agama

VU
VU
EN
VU
EN
CR

+
+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
+

VU

+
+
+
+
+
+

+

AMPHIBIANS
14

14
15

Ranodon sibiricus
FISHES
Aspiolucius esocinus
Pseudoscaphirhynchus
kaufmanni

Semirechensk (Xingjian)Salamander
Pike Asp
Amudarya Shovelnose
Sturgeon

EN

+

VU
CR

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

PLANTS
16
17
18
19
20
21

Amygdalus bucharica
Armeniaca vulgaris
Betula talassica
Betula tianschanica
Calligonum calcareum
Crataegus darvasica

Wild Almond
Wild Apricot
birch species
birch species
smartweed species
hawthorn species

VU
EN
EN
EN
CR
CR

25

+
+

+
+
+

+
+

+

+
+

+
+
+
+

+

Uzbekistan

Turkmenistan

+
EN
VU

CR
CR

+

+
+

+
+
+

+
+
+

+
+

+
EN

CR
CR
CR
CR
CR

Tajikistan

Kyrgyzstan

Kazakhstan

CR
CR

China

hawthorn species
hawthorn species
wild apple species
wild apple species
smartweed species
poplar species
wild pear species
wild pear species
wild pear species
currant speciesrose species
dogwood species

Crataegus knorringiana
Crataegus necopinata
Malus niedzwetzkyana
Malus sieversii
Polygonum toktogulicum
Populus berkarensis
Pyrus cajon
Pyrus korshinskyi
Pyrus tadshikistanica
Ribes malvifolium
Sibiraea tianschanica
Swida darvasica

Distribution by Country

Afghanistan

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

Vulnerable

Common Name

Endangered

No. Scientific Name

CriticallyEndangered

Global Threat
Status

+

+
+
+

+
+

+

+
+

Note: * = includes both Bukhara urial (Ovis orientalis bocharensis) and Laddakh Urial (Ovis orientalis vignei).

Priority Sites
The initial prioritization of sites was undertaken by participants at the national and regional
consultations, who proposed 90 KBAs (out of the 167 confirmed and candidate KBAs) as priorities for
CEPF investment. The criteria used for this exercise included biological importance, site-level threats,
opportunities for synergies with other initiatives, and feasibility of project implementation (based on
considerations of technical challenges, remoteness, security, border zone restrictions, etc.). In view ofthe expected level of CEPF investment in the hotspot, this shortlist of sites was considered too many,even allowing for some redundancy, which is essential for mitigating the political and security risks thatcan restrict access to parts of the hotspot. Consequently, the following additional criteria were appliedby the profiling team, at the request of the CEPF Secretariat:
•
•
•
•
•

Small KBAs were preferred to very large KBAs, where the impacts of CEPF investments could bediluted by sheer size.
UNESCO World Heritage sites (or candidate sites) were favored, unless they were too large (seeprevious criterion).
Preference was given to KBAs important for highly threatened and narrowly endemic species,
unique communities and/or crop wild relatives (that are threatened and/or narrowly endemic).
KBAs outside or in the buffer zones of protected areas were preferred to strictly protected KBAs
that already benefit from a certain level of protection and may present fewer opportunities forcivil society involvement
Particular preference was given to KBAs that presented opportunities for supporting synergistic
activities with GEF Small Grants, larger GEF biodiversity projects and investments by other
donors at the local level.

26

Figure 12.1. Map of priority sites for CEPF investment in the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

27

By applying these criteria to the shortlisted KBAs, 28 priority sites were selected (Table 12.2, Figure12.1). These 28 sites cover a combined area of 38,420 square kilometers, less than five percent of thetotal area of the hotspot. As with the priority species, the priority sites are distributed across the sevenhotspot countries: five each in China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan (to promote
programmatic balance), and two in Turkmenistan and one in Afghanistan (reflective of fewer
opportunities in those two countries). Priority sites have different combinations of legal protection
status, threats and biological values, and require different conservation responses. Table 12.2
summarizes indicative actions for each site, proposed by the participants at the consultations.

Code
Name of KBA
Afghanistan
1

Wakhan National Park

Table 12.2. Priority sites for CEPF investment
Possible actions (indicative only)
Protection of snow leopard and other species of rare mammals, birds andplants. Biodiversity monitoring and close collaboration and engagement oflocal communities, diversifying income opportunities and protecting livestockfrom predation and disease.

China
3
5
6

Bayanbuluke and Kaidu
River Valleys (UNESCO
WHS)
Nalati Prairie Nature
Reserve

Studies on the number and dynamics of species, suggestions for the optimal
natural resources use regime and conservation actions in relation to UNESCOWorld Heritage site status.

Tangbula Forest

Forest protection, conservation of endemic species and genetic resources

Threatened and endemic species protection and research.

Gongliu Wild Fruit Forest
Forest protection, conservation of endemic species and genetic resources.
Nature Reserve
Tianshan Tien Chi Lake
Threatened and endemic species protection and research, and engagement of
13 (Bogdashan) Nature
nature users – especially the tourism sector and infrastructure developers.
Reserve (UNESCO WHS)
Kazakhstan
Threatened and endemic species protection and research, engagement of
Aksu-Zhabagly (UNESCO local nature users and capacity building for more effective functioning of the8
WHS)
KBA. Awareness work and cross-border cooperation in relation UNESCOWorld Heritage site status.
Threatened and endemic species protection and research, engagement of
12 Aksay
local nature users and capacity building for more effective functioning of the
KBA.
Threatened and endemic species protection and research, engagement of
13 Almaty reserve
local nature users and capacity building for more effective functioning of the
KBA.
7

16

KolsaiThreatened and endemic species protection and research, engagement oflocal nature users and capacity building for more effective functioning of theKBA. Special focus on sustainable tourism.

18

Narynkol

Protection of threatened and endemic species, wildlife, and engagement oflocal nature users and capacity building for more effective functioning of the
KBA.

28

Code
Name of KBA
Kyrgyzstan

Possible actions (indicative only)

4

Kassan-Sai

Protection and responsible management of the riverbed and forest
ecosystems, threatened and endemic species with engagement of local
nature users.

5

Aflatun-Padyshata(UNESCO WHS)

Threatened and endemic species protection and research, engagement oflocal nature users and capacity building for more effective functioning of theKBA. Awareness work and cross-border cooperation in relation to UNESCO
status.

10Chychkan

Threatened and endemic species protection and research, engagement oflocal nature users and capacity building for more effective functioning of KBA.

20

Isfairam-Shakhimardan

Protection and responsible management of the juniper forest ecosystems,
wildlife and endemic species with engagement with local nature users.

23

Alai-Kuu

Protection of threatened and endemic species, wildlife, and engagement oflocal nature users and capacity building for more effective functioning of the
KBA.

Tajikistan
21

Baljuvan23

Dashtijum

24

Darvaz29

Shakhdara

31

Ishkashim

Threatened and endemic species protection and research, engagement oflocal nature users. Reduction of pressures within KBA, including grazing,
access to energy, endemic plants collection. Community-managed micro-sites.
Threatened and endemic species protection and research, engagement oflocal nature users. Reduction of pressures within KBA, including grazing,
access to energy. Promotion of community-managed micro-sites.
Threatened and endemic species protection, engagement of local nature
users. Reduction of pressures within KBA, including grazing, access to energy,
unregulated hunting and plants collection. Community-managed micro-sites.
Protection of threatened species and endemics. Genetic resource
conservation.
Protection of threatened species and endemics. Genetic resource
conservation.

Turkmenistan
1

Koytendag

2

Tallymerjen

Uzbekistan
Akbulak River Basin(core of Chatkal
4
Biosphere Reserve UNESCO WHS)
Bashkyzylsay River Basin(part of Chatkal
5
Biosphere Reserve UNESCO WHS)
Karabau and Dukentsay
6
River Basins

Protection of endemic plants, birds of prey and ungulates. Species monitoring
and awareness raising among the local population. Reducing pressures fromover-grazing and illegal hunting.
Wetland management focused on the conservation of threatened species.
Species monitoring and awareness raising among the local population.
Threatened and endemic species protection and research, engagement oflocal nature users and capacity building for more effective functioning of KBA.
Awareness work in relation to UNESCO World Heritage site status, crossborder cooperation.
Threatened and endemic species protection and research, engagement oflocal nature users and capacity building for more effective functioning of KBA.
Awareness work in relation to UNESCO World Heritage site status, crossborder cooperation.
Threatened and endemic species protection and research, engagement oflocal nature users and capacity building for more effective functioning of KBA.

29

Code

Name of KBA

Possible actions (indicative only)

24

Nuratau Ridge

Threatened and endemic species protection and research, engagement oflocal nature users and capacity building for more effective functioning of KBA.

30

Talimarjan Reservoir

Protection of threatened species and globally significant aggregations.

It should be noted that participants at the regional consultation in Almaty agreed in principle to adopt
an adaptive approach to site prioritization. It is important to start with a reasonable number of priority
KBAs that allows some flexibility to take advantage of opportunities for synergy that may arise, as well
as some redundancy to mitigate political risk, while ensuring that CEPF investments remain focused for
maximum impact. If there is a significant change to the situation, priorities can be revised by the RIT
during the mid-term assessment in consultation with local and regional stakeholders.
Priority Corridors
As similar approach was used to prioritize conservation corridors as was used for prioritizing KBAs. An
initial list of more than 10 (out of 25) conservation corridors was suggested by participants at thenational and regional consultations. Again, this was considered not commensurate with the expectedlevel of CEPF funding in the hotspot, and was further refined through the application of additional
criteria, including opportunity for synergy with investments by other funders, and opportunity to engage
civil society in the conservation and management of mountain forests, which was one of the strategic
priorities to emerge from the consultations (see Section 12.4). Through this process, five corridors wereprioritized (Table 12.3, Figure 12.2). These corridors cover a combined area of 251,200 square
kilometers, equivalent to 29 percent of the total area of the hotspot. The priority corridors connect key
sections of the Tien Shan and Pamir Mountains in China with the Central Asian republics, based on
biologcal considerations and economic and infrastructure development trends, thereby creating
opportunities to engage civil society in landscape-scale conservation actions.
Table 12.3. Priority Corridors for CEPF investment
Code
7
9
15
18
22

Conservation corridor nameTurkestan and Alai Mountains
Western Tien Shan
Pamir-Alai and Wakhan Mountains
Khan-Tengri and Tomur Mountains
Dzungaria

Area (km2)
23,90034,300122,000
23,60047,40030Countries
KYR, TJK, UZB
KYR, TJK, UZB
KYR, TJK, AFG, CHI
KYR, KAZ, CHI
KAZ, CHI

Figure 12.2. Map of priority corridors for CEPF investment in the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

31

CEPF Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities
Stakeholders discussed potential strategic directions (i.e., thematic priorities for investment) extensively
during the various workshops. The list of six shown in Table 12.4 originally consisted of nine (with 35
investment priorities), which were then modified or combined for management efficiency, or deleted,because they did not correspond with CEPF’s broader aims or operational policy.
Table 12.4. Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities
CEPF Strategic Directions

CEPF Investment Priorities
1.1. Improve enforcement and develop incentives andalternatives for nature users and collectors
1.2. Promote improved regulation of collecting,hunting, and fishing

1. Address threats to priority species

1.3. Support the development of species-specificreserves and conservation programs
1.4. Prevent human-wildlife conflict by addressing
killing, poisoning, and trapping
1.5. Maintain populations of priority species beyond
those solely affected by collection, hunting, fishing,poisoning, and nature users
2.1. Facilitate effective collaboration among CSOs,
local communities, and park management units toenhance protected area networks

2. Improve management of priority sites with andwithout official protection status

2.2. Develop and implement management approaches
to sustainable use in KBAs outside official protectedareas
2.3. Build support and develop capacity for
identification and recognition of KBAs
3.1. Develop protocols and demonstration projects for
ecological restoration that improve the biodiversity
performance and connectivity of KBAs

3. Support sustainable management and biodiversity
conservation within priority corridors

3.2. Evaluate and integrate biodiversity and ecosystemservice values into land-use and development
planning
3.3. Support civil society efforts to analyze
development plans and programs, evaluate theirimpact on biodiversity, communities and livelihoods,
and propose alternative scenarios and appropriate
mitigating measures

32

CEPF Strategic Directions

CEPF Investment Priorities
4.1. Engage hunting associations, tourism operators,
and mining companies in conservation management
and establishing valuation mechanisms for biodiversity
and ecosystem services
4.2. Promote mainstreaming of conservation into
livestock and farm management practices

4. Engage communities of interest and economic
sectors, including the private sector, in improved
management of production landscapes (i.e. priority
sites and corridors that are not formally protected)

4.3. Promote sustainable forest certification and value
chains for non-timber forest products
4.4. Engage with the government and private sector toincorporate site safeguards into infrastructuredevelopment
4.5. Engage the media as a tool to increase awarenessabout globally threatened species and KBAs andinform public debate of conservation issues
5.1. Enable and enhance communication andcollaboration between civil society and communities
and government agencies responsible for
implementing national biodiversity strategies

5. Enhance civil society capacity for effective
conservation action

5.2. Enhance civil society organizations’ capacity forplanning, implementation, outreach, sharing of bestpractice, fundraising, and communication
5.3. Catalyze networking and collaboration among civilsociety organizations and between them and public
sector partners
5.4. Promote greater sources of funding for civilsociety to become engaged in conservation action

6. Provide strategic leadership and effective
coordination of conservation investment through a
Regional Implementation Team5.5. Support action-oriented environmental education
6.1. Build a constituency of civil society groups
working across institutional and political boundaries
toward achieving the shared conservation goals
described in the ecosystem profile
6.2. Act as a liaison unit for relevant networks
throughout the hotspot to harmonize investments anddirect new funding to priority issues and sites

Strategic Direction 1: Address threats to priority species
Overexploitation can devastate a species even when its habitat is protected. Species with reduced
populations are at increased risk of disease, less resilient to habitat disturbance, and less able tocompete with invasives. Some species may be able to withstand limited exploitation, and this may be aneffective 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 find33

alternatives or to incentivize behavioral change. For many species, however, legal protection andenforcement of bans on exploitation are required. Enforcement of regulations, quotas and otherrequirements of species action plans is complex and often depends on the cooperation of local
stakeholders.
Strategic Direction 2: Improve management of priority sites with and without official protection status
Protected areas are a critical part of the overall effort for the conservation of KBAs, and are likely to
become more so as pressure from land-use change increasingly affects them. Protected areas should
simultaneously accommodate and respect local customary rights and resource use, although this isoften not the case. Some protected areas are the subject of conflicts over land use, mining, or
agricultural development, or are poorly managed “paper parks.” CEPF will support the improved
management of protected areas, which are the backbone of conservation in the hotspot.
At the same time, not all KBAs are within protected areas, nor should they be. Some KBAs are on public
land with management designations that offer a degree of legal protection and control over what may
and may not happen to them. For example, there are lands designated for catchment protection orsustainable forestry that is not incompatible with conservation. CEPF will support actions that maintainthe conservation value of these KBAs by working with regulations, incentives and technical support toencourage stakeholders managing the forest (communities, district forest agencies, license holders, etc.)
to incorporate biodiversity into their management practices.
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 toconvince 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.
Strategic Direction 3: Support sustainable management and biodiversity conservation within priority
corridors
A defining feature of this hotspot is its large, uninhabited landscapes across which roam iconic ungulates
and carnivores. The hotspot is also home to wild relatives of cultivated fruit and nut trees, including
apple, pear, walnut, apricot, and pistachio. Corridors of forested areas not only allow movement of
threatened species but provide resource-dependent communities with energy, food, income,livelihoods, secure water supply, and protection against natural disasters. Throughout the hotspot,
forests are formally owned by the state but may be leased by communities or concessions. Managing
these corridors for local human well-being, national economic interest, and conservation is an important
goal of CEPF.
Strategic Direction 4: Engage communities of interest and economic sectors, including the private
sector, in improved management of production landscapes (i.e., priority KBAs and corridors that are
not formally protected)
KBAs are defined spatial units that can be managed for biodiversity conservation. KBAs can be either
formally protected or not. By definition, any place outside of a protected area is, conceivably, a“production landscape”: a place where the primary goal might be economic. A production landscape34

could be as small as an individual farm or as large as a mining concession, as openly managed as acommunal mountain grazing area or as controlled as private hunting estate. Under this strategic
direction, CEPF will support activities that demonstrate that economic activities need not be in conflictwith sustainable management. Work will take place in priority KBAs, in areas that affect priority KBAs, orin the arena of decision-making about productive practice, and could include discussions of agriculturallands (pasture and crop and plantations); forested areas (timber production, non-timber forest
products); concession lands (hunting, mining, tourism); and lands set aside for infrastructuredevelopment (roads, canals for irrigation, water reservoirs, rail, power transmission lines, pipelines andurban expansion). Work will have a direct impact on priority species, sites, and corridors.
Strategic Direction 5: Enhance civil society capacity for effective conservation action
The profiling process identified a need among CSOs in the hotspot for strengthened management,
fundraising ability, and technical skills, and also noted that they often lack the knowledge andexperience to tackle some of the most important threats to the biodiversity in the hotspot.
Furthermore, many CSOs working on issues indirectly related to conservation, such as pasturemanagement, disaster risk reduction or community development, have difficulty making 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 directconservation impacts. CEPF will support capacity-building to ensure that local CSOs make effective useof grants, and that their actions have a sustainable impact.
The scope for engagement of CSOs is not equal throughout the countries of the hotspot. Kyrgyzstan has
a diverse collection of local CSOs that operate independently from the government, and in the Wakhan
Valley of Afghanistan (where capacity of local groups is low) there are few legal limits how they can be
involved. Kazakh and Tajik CSOs also are welcome to introduce ideas into the policy arena and cancollaborate with public sector authorities on areas of mutual interest (e.g., in a protected area) provided
they act appropriately with government mores. Uzbekistan has a strong cadre of CSOs that promoteconservation: 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 independent
CSOs, as well, though access to funding is complicated. In China and Turkmenistan, the strongest CSOs
are related to academia, geographic and nature protection societies or associations of forest users,
hunters and fishermen.
Strategic Direction 6: Provide strategic leadership and effective coordination of conservation
investment through a Regional Implementation Team
CEPF Regional Implementation Teams (RIT) support comprehensive, vertically integrated portfolios suchas large anchor projects, smaller grassroots activities, policy initiatives, governmental collaboration andsustainable financing. The RIT converts the plans in the Ecosystem Profile into a cohesive portfolio ofgrants that exceeds in impact the sum of their parts. The RIT will consist of one or more civil society
organizations active in conservation in the region. For example, a team could be a partnership of civilsociety groups or could be a lead organization with a formal plan to engage others in overseeing
implementation, such as through an inclusive advisory committee.
The RIT will be selected by the CEPF Donor Council based on an approved terms of reference andselection process. The team will operate in a transparent and open manner, consistent with the CEPF
mission and all provisions of the CEPF Operational Manual.
35