Ecosystem Profile

Mountains of Central Asia
Biodiversity Hotspot

Draft for Submission to the CEPF Donor Council
13 July 2017On behalf of:
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF)

Drafted by the ecosystem profiling team:Zoï Environment Network
Viktor Novikov
Firuza Illarionova (PhD)
Otto Simonett (PhD)
Geoff Hughes
Aigerim Abdyzhaparova
Vlad Sibagatulin
Maria Libert

Regional team leader of the Ecosystem Profile preparation
Deputy team leader of the Ecosystem Profile preparation
Director and Supervisor
Editor and Writer
Profile Assistant
GIS expert and Cartographer
Creative Designer

Scientific and practice advisors
Penny Langhammer (PhD)
Stephanie Ward (PhD)
Olga B. Pereladova (PhD)
Elena Kreuzberg (PhD)

Terra Consilium, USA
Royal Society for Birds Protection, UK
WWF, Russia
Holarctic Bridges, Canada

CEPF supervisors
Dan Rothberg
Olivier LangrandJack Tordoff

Mountains of Central Asia supervisor and Grant Director
Executive Director
Managing Director

China expert team
Jilili Abuduwaili (Prof.)
Nurbayi Abudushalike (Prof.)
Shen Hao (Dr. Candidate)
Alimu Saimaiti (Prof.)
Ma Long (Prof.)

Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences (team leader)College of Environmental Sciences, Xinjiang University
Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences, GIS expert
Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences

Kazakhstan expert team
Kuralay Karibaeva (PhD)
Arkadi Rodionov
Anatoli Mishenko
Sergey Sklyrenko (PhD)

Institute of Ecology and Sustainable Development (team leader)
Institute of Ecology and Sustainable Development
Institute of Ecology and Sustainable Development, GIS expert
Association for Biodiversity Conservation of Kazakhstan (ABCK)

Kyrgyzstan expert team
Biymyrza Toktoraliev (PhD)
Kanybek Isabaev
Georgy Lazkov (PhD)
Gamal Soronkulov
Adilet Usupbaev (PhD)
Sergiy Kulagin
Bakyt Shamshiev (PhD)
Kymbat Osmоnbaeva (PhD)
Pirzhan Manasov (PhD)

Academy of Sciences, International Institute of Mountains (team leader)“Osh Aarhus Centre” NGO
Academy of Sciences, Institute of Biology and Soil
“Chatkal Development Fund” NGO
Academy of Sciences, Institute of Biology and Soil
Kyrgyz Wildlife Conservation Society
Osh Technical University
Academy of Sciences, “Tien Shan” Mountain Centre
Osh State University, Zoology and Ecology Departmentii

Tajikistan expert team
Neimatullo Safarov (PhD)
Khisrav Shermatov
Dilshoda Yakubova

Lab for Nature Protection (team leader)
National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center, GIS expert“Nature Protection Team” NGO

Uzbekistan expert teamRoman Kashkarov (PhD)
Yulia Mitropolskaya (PhD)
Anna Ten
Natalya Beshko (PhD)
Irina Bekmirzaeva
Yusup Kamalov

Uzbek Society for Birds Protection (science team leader)
Academy of Sciences, Institute of Plants and Animals“Djeyran” ecological center, GIS expert
Academy of Sciences, Institute of Plants and Animals, Central herbarium
Independent biodiversity expert“Union for the Defense of the Aral Sea and Amu Darya” NGO

Turkmenistan expert team
Djuma Saparmuradov (PhD)
Amangul Ovezberdyyeva
Shaniyaz Menliev

Desert Institute, State Committee on Nature Protection (team leader)State Committee on Environment Protection and Land Resources
Koytendag State Nature Reserve

Afghanistan contributors
Wali Modaqiq
Richard Paley (PhD)
Sabra Simmonds
Jonathan Slaght (PhD)
Peter Zahler (PhD)

National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA)
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)With inputs from consultations, interviews, questionnaires, and correspondence
China
Botanical Association, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region
Botanical Association, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region
College of Environment Sciences, Xinjiang University
College of Environment Sciences, Xinjiang University
College of Environmental Sciences, Xinjiang University
College of Environmental Sciences, Xinjiang University
College of Environmental Sciences, Xinjiang University
College of Environmental Sciences, Xinjiang University
College of Environmental Sciences, Xinjiang University
College of Environmental Sciences, Xinjiang University
College of Geography and Tourism, Xinjiang Normal University
College of Geography and Tourism, Xinjiang Normal University
College of Grassland and Environment, Agricultural University
College of Tourism, Xinjiang University
Geographical Association, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region
Grassland Ecological Station, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Import-Export of Endangered Species Center, State Forest Dept.
Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University
Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University
Mulei Wildlife Station, Chinese Academy of Sciencesiii

Zhang Dao-yuan (Prof.)
Zhang Yuan-ming (Prof.)
Ding Zhi-yong
Pu JiaFeng Gang (Ph.D.)
Liu Yu-bin (Ph.D.)
Nuerjiamali (Ph.D.)
Sheng Yong-cai (Ph.D.)
Yusuyunjiang (Ph.D.)
Zhao Xue-peng (Ph.D.)
Anniwaer (Prof.)
Jiao Li (Prof.)
Bater (Prof.)
Wahapu Halike
Tashigen Japaer (Prof.)
Li Zhao-zhi (Prof.)
Anniwaer Musha
Chen Ya-ning (Prof.);
Guli Jiapaer (Prof.)
Li Wei-hongDing Jian-li (Prof.)
Ma Yong-gang (Assoc. Prof.)
Yang Wei-kang (Prof.)Natural Resources Association, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region
Xinjiang Academy of Environmental Protection Science
Xinjiang Branch, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences
Xinjiang State Department of Environmental Protection
Zoological Society, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region

Zhou Ke-fa (Prof.)
Jaierken (Prof.)
Xuekereti (Director)
Aisha Jiang
Ge Yongxiao (Prof.)
Guan Kai-yun (Prof.)
Li Yao-ming (Prof.)
Li Yu-fang (Dr. Candidate)
Liu Wen-jiang (Prof.)
Mihereban
Abulimiti Abudukadir (Prof.)

Kazakhstan“Aarhus Centre of Almaty” Public Foundation“Aarhus centre of Burabay” Public Foundation“Accord”, eco-tourism company“Akbulak” company“Altai” Public Foundation“Avalon” Public Foundation“Biogen” NGO“Business Arsenal” Public Foundation“Eco Forum Kazakhstan” NGO“Eco-Atameken” NGO“Eco-Gradient” NGO“Ecological Culture” \ Public Foundation“Ecology-Youth-Initiative-Development” Public Foundation“Ecom” Public Foundation“Farmer of Kazakhstan” NGO“Farmer of Kazakhstan” NGO“Farmer of Kazakhstan” NGO“Farmer of Kazakhstan” NGO“Farmer of Kazakhstan” NGO“Farmer of Kazakhstan” NGO“Green Academy” NGO“Green Orda” NGO“Green Salvation” NGO“Green Salvation” NGO“Green Women” NGO“Gulistan” journal“Jabagly-Manas” Public Association“Makhaon” NGO“Medeu” Nature Park
“Naurzum” NGO / WWF project partner in Kazakhstan“Snow Leopard Foundation” NGO, Ust-Kemen
Aksu-Zhabagly nature reserve
Almaty Forest Center
Almaty Province, Department for nature protection
Almaty State Nature Reserve
Almaty State Nature Reserve
Almaty State Nature Reserve
Altyn-Emel national park
Association for Biodiversity Conservation of Kazakhstan (ABCK)
Association for Biodiversity Conservation of Kazakhstan (ABCK)

Sergiy Oleksuk
Ekaterina Nikiforova
Alexey Mitin
Nilsia Rahisheva
Altai Zhatkanbaev
Vitaly Shuptar
Serik Makashev
Zein Kabikeev
Vadim Nee
Gulnara Niyazova
Zharkinbek Dongulov
Eugenie Klimov
Vadim Litvinov
Svetlana Mogiluk
Akhmet Mukhtarov
Alik Sagundykov
Gulnara Bekturova
Turuspay Baishelekov
Vladimir Levin
Yerzhan Zharykpasov
Bakhyt Yessekina
Maksut Zhaksibaev
Kamshat Jegtmberdieva
Sergey Kuratov
Lidia Astanina
Batima Kabdoldanova
Rauf Sabitov
Svetlana Belova
Bezhan Atakulov
Tatiana Bragina
Oleg Loginov
Aitbek Menlibekov
Sanat Baimukhanbetov
Naziya Aukhinova
Altynbek Zhanysbayev
Kuvat Baiturbaev
Kuvat Baiturbaev
Khalyk Bayadilov
Oleg Lukanovsky
Vera Voronova

iv

Charyn national park
GIS-Terra
Ile-Alatay national park
Institute of Botany
Institute of Geography
Institute of Geography
Institute of Geography
Institute of Soil Science and Agronomy
Institute of Soil Science and Agronomy
Institute of Soil Science and Agronomy
Institute of Zoology
Institute of Zoology
Institute of Zoology
International Environmental Association of Women of the East
Karatau State Nature Reserve
Kazakh National Committee of the UNESCO «Man and Biosphere»
Kazakh National Committee of the UNESCO «Man and Biosphere»
Kazakhstan Agro-forestry Association
Kazakhstan Hunters and Fisherman Society
Kazakhstan Hunters and Fisherman Society, "Kansonar" association
Kazakhstan Hunters and Fisherman Society, "Kansonar" association
Kazakhstan National Agrarian University
Kazakhstan National Agrarian University
Kazakhstan Research Institute on Forestry
Kazakhstan Research Institute on Forestry
Kazakhstan Research Institute on Forestry
Kazakhstan Research Institute on Forestry
KazHydromet, climate department
KazTransGaz company
Kolsay Kolderi national park
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Energy, climate department
Ministry of Energy, GEF F. P.
Ministry of Energy, Green Economy Department
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Oil and Gas Journal
Sairam-Ugam national park
Zhongar-Alatau national park
Zhongar-Alatau national park

Elnur Akhmetov
Natalia Ogar
Rustam Habibrahmanov
Kapar Ussen
Ainagul Abitbayeva
Medeu Akhmetkal (Dr.)
Ainagul Abitbayeva
Abdulla SaparovOlga Erokhina
Aigul Omirzakova
Alexey Grachev
Perizat Esenbekova
Yury Grachev
Rashida Rakhmanova
Zhasa Adilbayev
Roman Yashenko
Irina Kovshar
Evgeniy Salnikov
Sergei Sokolov
Sergey Kulikov
Viktor Manushkov
Aibyn Torekhanov
Bayan Yesperova
Auezkhan Dzhakashev
Bakitman Aydarov
Nurim Seysebek
Zhamby Mykytanov
Svetlana Dolgikh
Yerbol Tokhtarov
Amirzhan Malybekov
Bakytbek Duisekeyev
Kayrat Ustemirov
Gulmira Sergazina
Ganiy Sadibekov
Bekbergen Kerey
Kaisar Karbozin
Esengul Arys
Askar Nyazov
Rustem Vaggpov
Sayat Igembayev

Kyrgyzstan“Aikol-Bulak” Public Foundation“Alan-Too” jamaat“Aleine+” Ecological Movement“Aleine+” Ecological Movement“Alliance of Central Asian Mountain Communities AGOCA”“Alliance of Central Asian Mountain Communities AGOCA”“Archa Initiative” Public Foundation“Beyme-Bet” newspaper“Biom” Ecological movement, chair“Biom” Ecological movement“Bishkek Aarhus Centre” Public Foundation

Zoya Normatova
Nurbolot Turgunaliev
Erik Shukurov
Emil Shukurov
Zarina Khudonazarova
Akylbek Rahmanberdi
Dmirty Vetoshkin
Tamara Kashirskaya
Vladimir Korotenko
Alfia Nasyrova
Tamara Toktonolievav

“Bishkek Aarhus Centre” Public Foundation“Bugu-Maral” and Naryn State Nature Reserve“CAMP Alatoo” NGO“CAMP Alatoo”, NGO“Chintamani” Public Foundation“Chunkur Tor” NGO“Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations” NGO“Eco-Guide” NGO“Ecological Development” Public Foundation“Eco-Solidarity” NGO“Global and Local Information Partnership GLIP” NGO, WWF partner“Global and Local Information Partnership GLIP” NGO, WWF partner“Joon-Terek” hunting concession“Joon-Terek” hunting concession“Lesik-South” Public Foundation“Lesik-South” Public Foundation“Min teke”, “Tekelik” and “Taldi-Suu” jamaat“Min teke”, “Tekelik” and “Taldi-Suu” jamaat“Mountain tour” hunting concession“Muras Bashaty” Public Foundation“Orchun” jamaat“Pantera” NGO“Public Ecological Expertise” NGO“Public Ecological Expertise” NGO“Public Ecological Expertise” NGO“Shumkar Tor” NGO“Tabiat-Life” NGO“Tabyat-South”, Public Foundation“Tree of Life” NGO“White crow studio”, founder and lead cartoonist“Ysyk-Kolbashaty” Association, Issyk Kul State University
Association of Forest and Land users
Central Asia Institute of the Applied Sciences CAIAG
Chon-Kemin State Nature Park
Department Agricultural Sector and Ecology, Kyrgyz Government
Ecological Information Portal “EKO-IS”
Ecological Information Portal “EKO-IS”
Institute of biology and soil, Academy of Sciences
Jalal-Abad society of hunters and fishermen
Kyrgyz climate change network
Kyrgyz wildlife conservation society
Kyrgyz mining association
Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University, “Sustainable nature use” Association
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Naryn State Nature Reserve
Regional Center of Expertise
Regional Mountain Centre
Rural Development Fund
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry, GEF F.P.
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestryvi

Adil Nurbekov
Ulanbek Naamatbekov
Azamat Isakov
Batjargul Elbegrayv
Valentina Galich
Tinchtik Djursunov
Adash Toktosunova
Aida Kenensarieva
Zhildiz Murzabekova
Orunbek Kalanov
Farida Balbakova
Azat Alamanov
Pamir Badyrov
Otto Griiz
Sherikbay Shaimkulov
Davlet Mamadjanov
Abdikadir Isaev
Mamatyekut Zhusupov
Vladimir Maizer
Askarbek Tulobaev
Ashim Chataev
Zairbek Kubanichbekov
Oleg Pechenuk
Zulfizar Mirdjalaloba
Inna Konuhova
Urmat Abikanov
Kairat Moldoshev
Kutman Stamaliev
Kalia Moldogasieva
Ruslan Valitov
Anara Kudaybergenova
Aitkul Burkhanov
Ernis Kylychbaev
Kanatbek Dabaev
Mairambek Kalybaev
Indira Zhakypova
Irina Bairamokova
Askar Davletbakov
Ismailov Aibek
Zarina Abdusalimova
Nadezhda Tromchenko
Valentin Bogdetsky
Elena Rodina
Daniiar Omurzakov
Joldoshbek Kirbashev
Chinara Sadykova
Ysmail Dairov
Zakhifa Omorbekova
Abdykallyk Rustamov
Arsen Ryspekov
Kumar Mambetaliev
Elmira Kachiberova
Adylbek OrmonovState Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry
Tien-Shan Research Centre, Academy of Sciences

Almaz Musaev
Aigul Turdumatova
Baglan Salikmambetova
Venera Surapaeva
Jyldyz Duishenova
Risbek Satilkanov

Tajikistan“Afforestation” NGO“Alternative” NGO“Association for the protection of forests and wildlife” NGO“Association of smallholder farmers” NGO“Association of smallholder farmers” NGO“Association of smallholder farmers” NGO“Avesto” NGO“Azal” NGO“Bonu” NGO“CAMP Kukhiston” NGO“CAMP Kukhiston” NGO“CAMP Tabiat” NGO“CAMP Tabiat” NGO“Dushanbe Aarhus Centre” Public Foundation“Elyor” NGO“Foundation for Support of Civil Initiatives FSCI” NGO“Genetic Resources” NGO“Genetic Resources” NGO“Globe” NGO“Globe” NGO“Hamkori Bahri Taraqiyot” NGO“Hamkori Bahri Taraqiyot” NGO“Jovid” NGO“Khorog Aarhus-Centre” NGO“Komroni” local eco-agriculture producer“Komroni” local eco-agriculture producer“Kukhiston” Public Foundation“Kukhiston” Public Foundation“Kurgan-Tube Aarhus-Centre” NGO“Little Earth” NGO“Little Earth” NGO“Little Earth” NGO“Nature Protection Team” NGO“Noosfera” NGO“Noosfera” NGO“Parastor” NGO“Ruhafzo” Public Association“Shifo” NGO“Surkhob” NGO“Tajik Social and Ecological Union” NGO“Women for Science and Progress” NGO“Youth Ecological Center” NGO“Youth of the new century” NGO“Zan va Zamin” NGO“Zumrad” NGO

Ikromzoda Madibron
Aziza Shomansurova
Shodibek Kurbonov
Nazara Vadud
Azizbek Sharipov
Shoh Sharipov
Firuza Abdullaeva
Azal Nazarov
Nasiba Mirpotchoeva
Davlatbek Davlatov
Umeda Rahimova
Dilbar Zevarova
Umed Balbushoev
Sulhiya Sadikova
Khatira Yusupova
Muazama Burkhanova
Mavlon Pulodov
Zebuniso Muminshoeva
Timur Unusov
Umed Ulugov
Kurbonali Partoev
Kurbonali Melikov
Ramazon Nurmamadov
Boimamad Alibakhshev
Sabzali Bozorov
Shamsuddin Shoir
Dilshod Dadabaev
Sveta Blagoveshenskaya
Munira Rahmatulloeva
Natalia Idrisova
Timur Idrisov
Musavvara Shukurova
Zayniddin Amirov
Tatiana Novikova
Kurbonali Fatkhulloev
Rano Kasimova
Chamish Barotov
Nargiza Shohmansurova
Saidali SaidrakhmonovAnvar Buzurukov
Kumiyo Negmatjanova
Yuri Skochilov
Rustem Tahirov
Muhabbat Mamadalieva
Hurshed Dadabaev

vii

Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Academy of Science
Academy of Science
Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences, Centre of innovative biology
Agency of Hydrometology
Agency on Forests and Hunting, Department of Protected Areas
Agency on Forests and Hunting, Department of Protected Areas
Center on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction
Center on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction
Committee on Environmental Protection
Committee on Environmental Protection
Committee on Environmental Protection
Committee on Environmental Protection
Committee on Environmental Protection
Committee on Environmental Protection, “Inson va Tabiat” magazine
Committee on Environmental Protection, “Inson va Tabiat” magazine
Committee on Environmental Protection, Dept on flora and faunaCommittee on Environmental Protection, Dept on flora and faunaCommittee on Environmental Protection, Dept on flora and faunaInternational Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS), Tajik BranchInterstate Commission on Water Coordination (ICWC), Tajik BranchInterstate Sustainable Development Commission (ICSD), Tajik Branch
Kulob Botanical Garden
Kulob Botanical Garden
National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center
National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center
National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center
National Cartography Centre
Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR), Tajik Secretariat
Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR), Tajik Secretariat
Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR), Tajik Secretariat
Tajik Forest Service
Tajik Forest Service
Tajik Forest Service
Tajik National University, Botany Department
Tajik National University, Zoology department

Gulniso Nekushoeva
Abdusattor Saidov
Komil Saidov
Muzafar Isobaev
Shavkat Saidmuradov
Suhrob Olimov
Madibron Saidov
Ubaidullo Arramov
Lutfiya Mansurshoeva
Svetalana Dzhumaeva
Rakhmatullo Khairulloev
Zafar Makhmudov
Shahlo Azizbekova
Zukhra Salimova
Muzaffar Salimov
Jamoliddin Yakubov
Kholov Bakhtovar
Vatanov Djamshed
Ibrohim Giesov
Kodir Maskaev
Firuz Davlatov
Malika Babajanova
Jalil Buzrukov
Tillo Boboev
Mario Boboev
Vladimir Lekarkin
Sukhrob Irgashev
Dilovarsho Dustov
Mirzo Saidov
Anvar Homidov
Firuz Saidov
Salima Imomnazarova
Akbar Bobokalonov
Emomali Nasimov
Shirin Rahmonshoeva
Safarbek Rakhimov
Ismail Holmatov

Uzbekistan“Aral Sea IFAS” Project Executive Agency“Armon” Environmental Law Center“Association of mahalla elders of Samarkand” NGO“Bioversity” NGO“Children and adults” NGO“Contact” NGO“Contact” NGO“Ekomaktab” NGO“Ekomaktab” NGO / WWF and FSC project partner in Uzbekistan“For Ecologically Clean Fergana” NGO“Hangul” NGO“Journalism Training Center” NGO“Life” NGO“Logos” NGO

Odilbek Eschanov
Dilbar Zainutdinova
Halil Shadiev
Muhabbat Turdieva
Tatiana Chabrova
Edda Avdeeva
Naumov Sergei
Ruzimuhammad Sultanov
Natalia Shivaldova
Ibragimjon Domuladjanov
Leilya Belyalova
Gulnara Babajanova
Hasan Tursunov
Saidrasul Sanginov

viii

“Makhaon” NGO“Phasianus” student ornithological club
“Suvchi” NGO“Zarafshan” NGO“Ziyorat” Tourism Development Centre
Academy of Sciences, Institute of the Gene Pool of Plants and Animals
Academy of Sciences, Institute of the Gene Pool of Plants and Animals
Academy of Sciences, Institute of the Gene Pool of Plants and Animals
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
State Committee for Nature Protection
State Committee for Nature Protection
State Committee of Nature Protection, GEF F.P.
Uzbek Hydrometeorological Service
Uzbek Hydrometeorological Service
Uzbek Hydrometeorological Service, GEF F.P.

Svetlana Belova
Maksim Mitropolskii
Takhir Majidov
Gauhar Deusheva
Abror Rozyhodjaev
Komiljon Tojibaev
Maria Gritsina
Alexander Esipov
Rakhmatulla Nazarov
Nodir Yunusov
Zulfiya Yarullina
Bahtiyor Abdusamatov
Raisa Taryanikova
Natalia Shulgina
Sergey Myagkov

Turkmenistan“Arhus Centre of Turkmenistan” NGO“Green Movement of Turkmenistan” NGO“Tebigy Kuwwat” NGO“Turkmen heritage” NGO“Тoranny” NGOInterstate Sustainable Development Commission, Secretariat
Koytendag State Nature Reserve
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources
National Red Crescent Society of Turkmenistan
Society of nature protection of Lebap
Society of nature protection of Mary
Society of nature protection of Turkmenistan
Society of nature protection of Turkmenistan
State Committee for Environment Protection and Land ResourcesState Committee on Environmental Protection and Land, GEF F.P.
Turkmenistan Society of Hunters and Fishermen

Viktoria Akopova
Guljamal Nurmuhammedova
Nazar Korpeev
Chary Shirliyev
Gurbanahmed AbdurahmanovBatyr Mamedov
Nurmuhamad Imamov
Kerim SaparovZuhra Elliyeva
Chary Hodjamberdyev
Kakadjan Seiitliyev
Akmuhammed Ibragimov
Serdar Allekov
Mergen YusupovBatyr Ballyyev
Rejepmuhamed Orazmuradovix

With inputs from and coordination with:
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
Mariama Matila

UNEP Office in Central Asia
Natalia Alexeeva

WWF
Dan Cao
Ekaterina Vorobyeva

Flora Fauna International (FFI)
Ubaid Gulamadshoev

World Bank
Mannon Cassara
Bobojon Yatimov
Andrew Mitchell
Talimjan Urazov
Angela Armstrong
Daniel Kull

CAREC
Iskandar Abdullaev (Kazakhstan)
Shynar Toilybayeva (Kazakhstan)
Saltanat Zhakenova (Kazakhstan)Meder Seitkasymov (Kyrgyzstan)Natalya Mustaeva (Kazakhstan)
Ludmila Kiktenko (Kazakhstan)
Farkhod Abdurakhmonov (Tajikistan)
Dovlet Jumagulyyev (Turkmenistan)

Government of Japan and JICA
Keiichiro Onishi
Akiko Tabata
Ikuyo Kaseda
Malik Mukhitdinov
Azizbek Sattorov

FAO
Oleg Guchgeldiyev
Cholpon Alibakieva
Giovanni Munoz

GEF Small Grant Programme
Evgenia Postnova (Kyrgyzstan)Alexei Volkov (Uzbekistan)
Katerina Yushenko (Kazakhstan)
Khurshed Kholov (Tajikistan)

UNDP
Yerlan Zhumabayev (Kazakhstan)
Talgat Kerteshev (Kazakhstan)
Lira Joldubaeva (Kyrgyzstan)
Vladimir Grebnev (Kyrgyzstan)

Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection
Program Secretariat
Ilya Domashev
Chingiz Kochorov

American University in Central Asia
Jildiz Nicharapova
Aigul Kadralieva

Snow Leopard Trust
Koustubh Sharma
Yash Kur Bhebnagar

Christensen Fund
Erjen Khamaganova

EU Delegations in Central Asia
Doniyor Kuchkarov (Uzbekistan)
Emil Dankov (Tajikistan)Zulfia Davlatbekova (Tajikistan)
Alia Baidebekova (Kazakhstan)
Jean-Louis Lavroff (Kazakhstan)Thierry Deloge (Kazakhstan)
Mia-Fatima Dubois-Boussaid (Kyrgyzstan)Aga Khan Network, FOCUS and MSDP
Bakhtiyor Azizmamadov
Roza Kurbonova
Kishwar Abdulalishoev
Rajabali Zaripov
Ruslan Bobov
Faridun Nazriev
Gulomsho LutfalievxEuropean Union in Brussels
Berenice MurailleAndreja Skerl
Hanna Vuokko
Piotr Byczkowski
Dimitrios Zevgolis

GIZ
Andre Fabian
Umed Vakhobov
Claudia Haller
Caroline Milow
Maya Eralieva

ADB
Gulsun Farosatshoeva (Tajikistan)

ACTED
Rano Mansurova
Tulan Rustamov

Mercy Corps
Khurshed Oymatov (Tajikistan)

NABU
Saltorel Saparbayev

SDC
Regina Gujan (Tajikistan)
Thomas Walder
André Wehrli

Swiss Federal Office for the Environment
Stefan Schwager
Gabriela Blatter

INERNEWS
Malik Kadirov
Sheroz Sharipov
Farhod Rahmatov

US Government and USAID
Deborah Robinson
Ellen Veronica Connorton
Gulzada Azhetova (Kazakhstan)

Italian Ministry of Environment
Massimo Cozzone

Environment Agency Austria
Fritz Kroiss

European Environment Agency
David StannersxiTable of Contents
ABOUT THE CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM PARTNERSHIP FUND ............................................................................xiv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ xv
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 4
3. BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE HOTSPOT ........................................................................................ 7
3.1. Geography, Climate, and History ..................................................................................................... 7
3.2. Habitats and Ecosystems ................................................................................................................. 93.3. Species Diversity and Endemism ................................................................................................... 14
3.4. Ecosystem Services ........................................................................................................................ 16
4. CONSERVATION OUTCOMES ................................................................................................................ 18
4.1. Species Outcomes .......................................................................................................................... 19
4.2. Site Outcomes – Key Biodiversity Areas ........................................................................................ 224.3. Corridor Outcomes ........................................................................................................................ 46
4.4. Recommendations for Improving the Outcomes Analysis ............................................................ 50
5. SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT .................................................................................... 51
5.1. Population ...................................................................................................................................... 51
5.2. Income ........................................................................................................................................... 53
5.3. Reliance on Natural Resources ...................................................................................................... 54
5.4. Cultural Distinctions ....................................................................................................................... 59
6. POLICY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT ..................................................................................................... 63
6.1. Environmental Governance ........................................................................................................... 63
6.2. Environmental Policy ..................................................................................................................... 68
6.3. Protected Areas ............................................................................................................................. 68
6.4. Regional and International Environmental Agreements and Initiatives........................................ 71
6.5. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans ......................................................................... 72
7. CIVIL SOCIETY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT .......................................................................................... 76
7.1. Afghanistan .................................................................................................................................... 79
7.2. China .............................................................................................................................................. 79
7.3. Kazakhstan ..................................................................................................................................... 80
7.4. Kyrgyzstan ...................................................................................................................................... 81
7.5. Tajikistan ........................................................................................................................................ 81
7.6. Turkmenistan ................................................................................................................................. 82
7.7. Uzbekistan...................................................................................................................................... 83xii

7.8. Regional Organizations and Networks ........................................................................................... 83
8. THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY IN THE HOTSPOT ...................................................................................... 85
8.1. Habitat Change .............................................................................................................................. 85
8.2. Overexploitation of Species and Ecosystems ................................................................................ 86
8.3. Invasive and Alien Species ............................................................................................................. 87
8.4. Pollution ......................................................................................................................................... 87
8.5. Indirect Drivers of Threats ............................................................................................................. 87
8.6. Summary of Threats by Country .................................................................................................... 88
9. CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 90
9.1. Impact on Human Populations and the Economy ......................................................................... 90
9.2. Impact on Biodiversity ................................................................................................................... 91
9.3. Mitigation and Adaptation Opportunities ..................................................................................... 92
9.4. Review of Major Climate Change Initiatives .................................................................................. 95
10. ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS ................................................................ 96
10.1. Government Funding ..................................................................................................................... 97
10.2. Multilateral and Bilateral Donors .................................................................................................. 98
10.3. International Funds and Private Foundations ............................................................................. 109
10.4. Assessment of Funding Opportunities and Gaps ......................................................................... 110
11. CEPF NICHE FOR INVESTMENT ........................................................................................................... 111
12. CEPF INVESTMENT STRATEGY ............................................................................................................ 115
12.1. Priority Species............................................................................................................................. 115
12.2. Priority Sites ................................................................................................................................. 117
12.3. Priority Corridors.......................................................................................................................... 121
12.4. CEPF Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities ................................................................... 123
13. LOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND RISK ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 138
14. SUSTAINABILITY .................................................................................................................................. 145
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 147
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 149
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................. 158
Appendix 1. Species outcomes ............................................................................................................. 158
Appendix 2. Globally threatened species no longer present in the Hotspot........................................ 161
Appendix 3. Candidate species outcomes ............................................................................................ 162
Appendix 4. Site outcomes ................................................................................................................... 164
Appendix 5. Corridor outcomes ............................................................................................................ 183

xiii

ABOUT THE CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM PARTNERSHIP FUND
The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) empowers people to be good stewards of the planet, sothey and future generations continue to benefit from its life-sustaining resources, such as clean air, fresh
water, a stable climate and healthy soils. The Fund is a joint program of l'Agence Française deDéveloppement, Conservation International, the European Union, the Global Environment Facility, theGovernment of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. The partners believe that civilsociety is uniquely positioned to protect some of Earth’s most biologically rich yet threatened
ecosystems.
CEPF provides grants to nongovernmental and private sector organizations, communities and individuals
so they can conserve these critical ecosystems, located in biodiversity hotspots. The investments areeven more meaningful because these regions are home to millions of people who are impoverished andhighly dependent on natural resources.
Enabling civil society groups to have stronger voices and exert greater influence in the world aroundthem is the hallmark of our approach. Our grantee partners range from small farming cooperatives andcommunity associations to private sector partners, and national and international nongovernmentalorganizations.
CEPF grants:•

Target biodiversity hotspots in developing and transitional countries, and address many of the“Aichi” targets—the 20 goals set by the countries that are parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity to guide global efforts to save biodiversity and improve human well-being
through 2020.

•

Are guided by regional investment strategies — ecosystem profiles — developed with local
stakeholders.

•

Go directly to civil society groups to build this vital constituency for conservation alongside
governmental partners. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis to implement theconservation strategy developed in each ecosystem profile.

•

Create working alliances among diverse groups, combining unique capacities and eliminating
duplication of efforts.

•

Achieve results through an ever-expanding network of partners working together toward sharedgoals.

To date, CEPF has supported more than 2,020 civil society groups and individuals in more than 92
countries and territories.

xiv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Biodiversity and the threats to it are not distributed evenly over the face of the globe. Conservation
organizations can maximize the effectiveness of their limited funds by focusing on the places that are
most important and where action is most urgent. Thirty-six biodiversity hotspots, defined as regions thathave at least 1,500 endemic plants species and have lost more than 70 percent of their natural habitat,
have been identified globally. They cover only 2.3 percent of the Earth’s surface but contain adisproportionately high number of species, many of which are threatened with extinction. Hotspots,
therefore, are global priorities for conservation.
The Mountains of Central Asia Biodiversity Hotspot consists of two of Asia's major mountain ranges, thePamir 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 mountainous part of southeastern Turkmenistan. In addition to1,500 endemic plant species, the region is home to 53 endemic species of mammal, bird, reptile,amphibian, and freshwater fish. That is, as endemics, they occur nowhere else in the world. Further, of
the approximately 6,700 species occurring in the hotspot, 68 are classified by the International Union forConservation of Nature as globally threatened.
The region is home to about 64 million people and is undergoing dramatic change that places increased
stress on the scarce habitat that protects threatened species. Economic growth and increased
connections in trade and transport, on the one hand, and economic downturns and local instability, on
the other, force people and their representatives into making short-term decisions on the use of land
and water, or into allocating limited financial resources for their protection. That being said, the region
has a large and historical estate of formally protected areas and a tradition of conservation built aroundrespect for natural resources and cultural identification with iconic species.
To increase the chance of success, it is important that actions supported by CEPF complement existing
strategies and programs of national governments, donors and other stakeholders. To this end, before
starting a grant-making program, CEPF works with local stakeholders to develop an ecosystem profile forthe hotspot. The profile describes the important species and sites, as well as the threats, opportunities
and actions that are already being taken for conservation in the region, enabling CEPF to identify priority
sites, species, and themes to support.
The ecosystem profile for the Mountains of Central Asia was developed between May 2016 and March
2017, through a process that involved the participation of more than 250 people representing
government and non-government organizations from all seven countries. The profile lists the 68 species
in the Mountains of Central Asia that are classified by IUCN as globally threatened. For most species, thekey to conservation is protection of adequate areas of appropriate habitat. The profile, therefore,
identifies 167 important sites, known as Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), where species and ecosystems ofelevated conservation concern are known to occur.
In some cases, the protection of discrete areas of habitat in a KBA may not ensure the survival of a
species, especially where the species ranges widely over the landscape or occurs at a very low density.
This is especially important for species that may move over large areas during their life cycles. To
accommodate this, 26 corridors are also identified. These large areas play a vital role in ensuring
connectivity between KBAs. In doing so, they also play an important role in ecosystem functions
important for human livelihoods, such as by protecting water supplies.
xv

CEPF Niche and Investment Priorities
The identification of conservation outcomes in Chapter 4 of the Ecosystem Profile constitutes a longterm, overarching agenda for conservation of the region’s unique and valuable biodiversity. Only afraction of these priorities can be tackled by civil society organizations over the next five years with CEPF
support. The Ecosystem Profile therefore identifies CEPF’s niche (Chapter 11); namely, to support adiversity of civil society organizations with varying levels of capacity to achieve conservation outcomesand environmental sustainability within the increasingly important national agendas of economic
growth. Building from the niche, the profile identifies biogeographic and thematic priorities for support,
summarized here and described in detail in Chapter 12.
The Profile identifies 33 priority species, 28 priority sites, and five priority corridors around which CEPF
will apply six Strategic Directions, each broken down into Investment Priorities. These Strategic
Directgions, summarized in the table below and describedin detail in Chapter 12, form the heart of
CEPF’s plans for grant-making in the Mountains of Central Asia Biodiversity Hotspot.
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

xvi

CEPF Strategic Directions

3. Support sustainable management and biodiversity
conservation within priority corridors

CEPF Investment Priorities
3.1. Develop protocols and demonstration projects for
ecological restoration that improve the biodiversity
performance and connectivity of KBAs
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
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 forests 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
CSOs and between CSOs and public sector partners
5.4. Promote greater sources of funding for civilsociety to become engaged in conservation action
5.5 Support action-oriented environmental education

xvii

CEPF Strategic Directions

6. Provide strategic leadership and effective
coordination of conservation investment through a
Regional Implementation Team

CEPF Investment Priorities
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

xviii

1. INTRODUCTION
The Mountains of Central Asia are a biodiversity hotspot to be understood in terms of conservation, but
the region must first be considered from a political and cultural perspective. Within the region, “Central
Asia” is typically understood to mean the whole of the 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 – which borders three of the five former republics – andAfghanistan were “hinterland,” far from the main economic centers and transport hubs. Today,
however, with intensifying investments in trade and infrastructure, and with greater movement ofpeople and knowledge, it makes increasing sense to understand the region in terms of at least parts ofseven 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
Belt and Road initiative (BRI) and the ten-country Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) stretchingfrom China’s borders to the Indian Ocian and Caspian and Mediterranean Seas.
For centuries, the region was a major contributor to the arts, sciences, medicine, and trade. With themixing of agrarian, nomadic, and industrial societies, it is a mosaic of cultures, languages, and politicalsystems. Moreover, only 25 years ago, five of the countries -- Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan – were part of the Soviet Union, which has added a further layer ofcomplexity 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 supports environmental
protection and hydrometeorological monitoring. New cooperation forums in the region – including theShanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), the Custom Union (CU),and the afore-mentioned ECO and Belt and Road – further integrate these countries. These economic
unions are driving infrastructure and development in a way that may have massive impacts on theenvironment.
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 have sought greater prosperity or selfdetermination. Difficult topography, remote geography, and ethnic divisions have been and remain achallenge. Afghanistan, in particular, has suffered from more than thirty years of conflict, and thecurrent Islamic Republic is now trying to establish effective governance and security outside the main
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 as well as north and south. 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 mountain regions, and ridges
themselves form many of the international borders. As a result, many protected areas or key
biodiversity 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, and1

attempts have been made more recentlythrough the cross-border Western Tien Shan, Pamir-Alaiconservation, and snow leopard landscape conservation initiatives.
Several initiatives are taking a wider approach to address regional conservation issues. A Global
Mountain Summit held in Kyrgyzstan in 2002 explored united approaches for mountain development. A
Global Snow Leopard Summit in 2013 resulted in the establishment of the Global Snow Leopard andEcosystem Protection Program (GSLEP). GSLEP is active in 12 countries, including all of the hotspot
countries other than Turkmenistan.
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. Private funds and charities are supporting
sustainable development and conservation initiatives, as well.
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.
Biodiversity and the threats to it are not distributed evenly over the planet, biodiversity hotspot or acountry. Conservation organizations can maximize the effectiveness of their limited funds by focusing on
the places that are the most important and where action is most urgent. The Critical Ecosystem
Partnership Fund (CEPF) is designed to safeguard the world’s biologically richest and most threatened
regions, known as biodiversity hotspots. One of the most influential priority setting analyses was theidentification of biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al. 2000; Mittermeier et al. 2004), defined as regionsthat have at least 1,500 endemic plants species and have lost at least 70 percent of their natural habitat.
There are 36 hotspots globally, covering 15.7 percent of the earth’s surface. The intact natural habitats
within these hotspots cover only 2.3 percent of the world’s surface, but contain a disproportionately
high number of species, many of which are threatened with extinction. Hotspots, therefore, are global
priorities for conservation.
The Mountains of Central Asia hotspot consists of two of Asia's major mountain ranges, the Pamir andthe 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 mountainous part of southeastern Turkmenistan. Hotspot delineation is basedon the Global 200 eco-regions (Olson, D. M. and Dinerstein, E., 20021), with some adjustments thatreflect the administrative and geographic features of the region. With a relatively large amount ofremaining natural habitat, high endemism, and increasing threats, the region is important forinvestment by CEPF.

1

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/ecoregion_list/2

Figure 1.1. Global Biodiversity Hotspots Map and CEPF Investments

Figure 1.2. Map of Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

32. BACKGROUNDCEPF develops Ecosystem Profiles to identify an investment strategy for each hotspot. Ecosystem
Profiles are prepared by subject matter and regional experts in consultation with a large number ofnational stakeholders to ensure that the final product is locally “owned” and then used as a guide foraction not just by CEPF and its grantees, but by the larger civil society, government, and donor
communities. Ecosystem Profiles reflect a rapid assessment of biological priorities and the underlying
causes of biodiversity loss. The profile couples these two elements with an analysis of conservation
investments within the hotspot and other key information to identify CEPF’s “niche for investment;”
that is a statement of how CEPF funding can provide the greatest value.
Each Ecosystem Profile recommends broad strategic directions for investment into civil society-guided
projects that contribute to biodiversity conservation. The Ecosystem Profile is designed to ensure thatthose investments complement other work, particularly that of host country national governments.
CEPF promotes working alliances among community groups, nongovernmental organizations, academic
institutions, the private sector, and the public sector to facilitate a comprehensive approach toconservation.
CEPF makes grants to civil society organizations, which CEPF defines broadly as organizations outside ofgovernment – NGOs, community groups, academic institutions, and business, trade, and socialorganizations. For CEPF, understanding the interests, capacity and needs of civil society is as importantas understanding its biodiversity. Although CEPF makes grants to civil society, government plays a criticalrole in conservation and is always a partner in its efforts.
Over the period of May 2016 through March 2017, Zoï Environment Network of Geneva, Switzerland led
and prepared the ecosystem profile with contributions from numerous national partners. The main
activities of the process were:
•
•
•
•
•

Definition of conservation outcomes
Analysis of socioeconomic, policy, and civil society context of the hotspot
Assessment of biodiversity threats and current conservation investments in the hotspot
Consultation with a broad range of national and international stakeholders
Formulation of a CEPF niche and investment strategy for the hotspot

This process engaged experts from numerous disciplines, as well as government agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, donor organizations and other stakeholders. The profile 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 has capitalized on priority-setting processes that have already takenplace in 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
4

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 profiling team then presented its preliminary findings, particularly the lists of species, KBAs, andcorridors (clusters of KBAs), in workshops with CSOs, government agencies, and other donors.
Stakeholders helped refine and prioritize KBAs and investment priorities.
The team held formal meetings, government-attended meetings in four of the countries. While there
were no formal meetings in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, or Uzbekistan, stakeholders did travel fromthose countries to the other events and were also consulted directly by phone and electronic mail. In all,256 unique participants attended the public meetings or were consulted directly (Table 2.2).
Table 2.1. Dates and Location of Stakeholder Consultations and Profile Presentation EventsDate
May 2016
June 2016
June 2016
June 2016
June 2016
September 2016
September 2016
October 2016
October 2016
October 2016

Location
Bern, Swiss GEF Constituency
AstanaAlmatyDushanbe
Tashkent
AlmatyUrumqiBishkek
Bishkek
Dushanbe

Country Covered by Workshop
Central Asia
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan (informal)
Kazakhstan
China
Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan and Afghanistan

Participants
20
37
30
33
10
35
25
35
48
42

Table 2.2. Contribution of Different Stakeholders to the Consultation Process
Country

CSOs

Afghanistan
China
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikisan
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

Zoï posted draft data on species and sites, maps, and drafts of this document on its website andreceived about one hundred individual CSOs responses to a questionnaire about their capacity, needs,
and suggestions for conservation of particular species or areas.
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

5meetings, including representatives of GEF Focal Points, to finalize KBA priorities and the investment
strategy.
Reflecting on the process, itself, of preparing this Ecosystem Profile, the team learned that while there
are many gaps in data in publicly available records, there is an equal amount of information being heldby the multiple stakeholder groups that participated in this effort. This Profile represents an important
collation of this information. This profile was also the first time ever for the wide application the global
KBA Standard (IUCN 2016), promoted by the KBA partnership.2 Application of the standard was achallenge: different experts in each country took varying amounts of time to understand the standard;
data quality, availability, and completeness varied across and within countries; the hotspot, itself, islarge, with seven countries and documents and communication in English, Russian, Chinese, and Dari, atleast; all with a limited budget of time and funds. In no way does this devalue the work here; rather, itsays there is still more to be done.

2 The KBA standard is described in IUCN (2016) A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas.

The KBA partnership includes BirdLife International, IUCN, Amphibian Survival Alliance, Conservation International,
CEPF, the GEF, Global Widlife Conservation, NatureServe, RSPB, WWF, and WCS.

6

3. BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE HOTSPOTThis chapter describes the geography, climate, and biological history of the hotspot; provides a summaryof species diversity, levels of endemism, and global threat status among major taxonomic groups in the
hotspot; and describes ecosystem services.
Mountain regions are crucial to the maintenance of the natural and agricultural global biodiversity. The
vertical distribution of natural species by elevation results in a wide range of species and ecosystems
spread over a relatively small surface area. Endemic species find homes in isolated islands of mountainhabitat with characteristics conducive to unique life forms and varieties.

3.1. Geography, Climate, and History
The Mountains of Central Asia hotspot consists of two of Asia’s major mountain ranges, the Pamir andthe 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, the lowest point is in the Turfan depression in China, 150
meters below sea level, and and some 20,000 glaciers cover between 25,000 - 35,000 km2 (see Figure
3.1).
The mountains were mainly formed by folding due to tectonic movements during the Caledonian,
Hercynian, and Alpine orogenic (or mountain-building) periods. Intense growth has occurred over the
past 15-20 million years and continues today with strong earthquakes and active surface dynamics. The
hotspot borders several major deserts, including the Taklamakan in China, the Kyzylkum in Uzbekistan,and the Karakum in Turkmenistan.
The Pamir was known to early Persian geographers as Bam-i-Dunya, or “roof of the world” and issituated at the center of several great ranges. The Tien Shan, or “celestial mountains,” lie adjacent to
the north, the Hindu Kush to the south, and the Karakoram and the Kun Lun Shan to the east.
The Pamir Mountains have a mean elevation of over 4,000 meters and its central parts are plateau-likein character. The western and eastern parts of the Pamir, in contrast, are characterized by sharp ridges
and steep slopes cut by deep valleys and gorges. The Pamir includes the Fedchenko Glacier, which ismore than 70 kilometers long and one of the longest non-polar glaciers in the world.
Several mountain ranges – the Alai, Hissar, Zeravshan and Turkestan – lie between the Pamir and theFerghana Valley, a deeply downfaulted basin, about 300 kilometers long and 150 kilometers wide. The
Ferghana Valley extends into Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, and is the one of most densely
populated and ethnically diverse regions of Central Asia, with a population density of 300-400 persons
per square kilometer.
To the north of the Ferghana Valley, the Tien Shan Mountains extend for 2,500 kilometers from west to
east. The Tien Shan are made up of a complex series of ranges and are around 300 kilometers wide in
the center, narrowing at the eastern and western ends. The highest peaks are located in a central clusteron the borders of China, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan, and include Mt. Tomur at 7,439 meters (also called
Janysh/Pobeda in Kyrgyzstan). The Inylchek Glacier, over 50 kilometers long and the largest in the Tien
Shan, is also located in this part of the range.

7

Figure 3.1. Topography of the Mountains of Central Asia

8

The central Tien Shan, with a mean altitude of over 3,000 meters, contains a high, uplifted massif(plateau) that shares some of the same landscape features as the central Pamir. On the western andnorthern edges of the Tien Shan, lower arid mountains such as the Nuratau, Chu-Ili Divide, and Karatau
run northwestward into Central Asia’s deserts. The Tien Shan drains mainly to the north, south andwest, and the many streams plunging down the steep northern slopes have formed alluvial deposits on
the plains below. These deposits provide sites for settlements and several major population centers.
The Pamir Mountains of Tajikistan and China join the Tien Shan in Kyrgyzstan in the north and the Hindu
Kush Mountains in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the south, and contain some of world’s highest peaks
including Kongur (7,719, China) and Somoni (7,495 meters, Tajikistan). The largest river of Central Asia –the Amu Darya – has its origins in the Wakhan corridor between Pamir and Hindu Kush with many deep
valleys, spectacular gorges, and traditional settlements nestled on alluvial fans. People living there – inthe Badakshan and the Wakhan regions – are among the most isolated and impoverished in the region.
Glaciers cover four percent of Kyrgyzstan and six percent of Tajikistan, but spread throughout themountains. Glaciers 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. The Tien Shan and Pamir act as aclimatic divide and intercepts moist air from the north and west, and prevent it from reaching the hyperarid Taklamakan desert and the Tarim Basin in China. Precipitation falls mainly in winter and spring, andvaries from over 1,000 mm in the Hissar and Ferghana Ranges in the west to below 100 mm in the east.
The southwest of the area – the western parts of the Tien Shan and of the Pamir – is influenced bysubtropical air and also enjoys mild winters. Temperatures decrease to the east, although there areconsiderable variations due to altitude. The high plateaus of the Pamir and Tien Shan are the coldest
areas, having an annual mean temperature below zero and a very short growing season. Wintertemperatures there may reach -40ºC.
Much of the high mountain environment is inhospitable to humans, with barren ground and glaciers,
but is still home to such charismatic species as the Marco Polo sheep and the snow leopard. At lower
altitudes, the mountains have fine grasslands and forests.
Only half of Kyrgyzstan's land area and less than one third of Tajikistan's land area is suitable for
agriculture, mainly for grazing. Croplands and gardens occupy less than 7 and 5 percent of their land
areas, respectively. Other lands are considered not suitable for agriculture due to harsh climate, poor
soils, and the predominance of rocks and glaciers. Nevertheless, a majority of the mountaincommunities of Central Asia practice agriculture: principally cultivating cereals and vegetables,
gardening, collecting forest products, and livestock grazing on a wide range of pastures.

3.2. Habitats and Ecosystems
The predominant vegetation types in the hotspot are desert, semi-desert, and steppe on all the lower
slopes and foothills and in some of the outlying ranges and major basins. Patches of riverine woodlandforest, 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 andherbs 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 in the Pamir-Alai.
Meadows typically occur at higher elevations. At the very highest and coldest elevations, there is limited
9

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. Further, ancient forms of domesticated animals and their wild ancestors have survived in theregion. The fauna of mountain ungulates is particularly diverse, which includes several species of wildgoats and subspecies of mountain sheep. The hotspot is also home to magnificent wild cats, the most
famous of which is the snow leopard, and it was once home to the now extinct Caspian Tiger.
The geological evolution of the mountains, the wide range of elevations, and the extreme climatic
variation have combined to produce great landscape and biotic diversity. The number, extent, andsequence of vegetation zones vary across the hotspot as a function of temperature gradients, moisturegradients, slope aspect, altitude, and latitude, and depending on the sytem of classification, countries
report between 20-30 different ecosystem types within their borders. This section summarizes theecosystems in the hotspot by sorting types into larger groupings. At lower altitudes and in the foothills,
dryland ecosystems prevail. At medium altitudes, grasslands, shrubs and forests are widespread.
Meadows and tundra-like ecosystems are found in the high mountains. (See Figure 3.2. and Figure 3.3.)

3.2.1. Deserts, Semi-Deserts and Arid Steppes
Desert, semi-desert, and arid steppe vegetation types predominate on all the lower slopes, foothills, andin some of the outlying ranges. Common plants here include species of widespread genera such as
Artemisia, Salsola, and Ephedra, as well as annual grasses such as Poa and Festuca spp. In the Ili, Amu
Darya and Syr Darya river valleys and a few other places, patches of riverine woodland survive,
composed of poplar (Populus spp.), eleagnus, tamarisks (Tamarix spp.), and willows (Salix spp.)(Mittermeier et al. 2004).

3.2.2. High Steppes
Steppe communities, dominated by various species of grasses and herbs, occur at higher altitudes. A
distinctive type of tall-grass steppe, characterized by Elytrigia trichophora and Hordeum bulbosum,
occurs in the western Tien Shan and Pamir. Shrub communities are widespread in the lower steppe zone
and may form dense thickets in gorges. Species present include hawthorns (Crataegus pontica, C.
turkestanica), Cotoneaster melanocarpa, Euonymus semenovii, Lonicera spp., Rosa spp., and Berberis
spp.

3.2.3. Forests
Mountain forests provide invaluable watershed protection and erosion control, and contribute to theregulation of water resources by decreasing or smoothing runoff – with a corresponding decrease inerosion – and by retaining groundwater. They also provide mountain people with a rich source of the
fuelwood essential to the heating of living spaces, the cooking of food and the purification of drinking
water, and with timber and other forest products such as wild fruits, nuts and medicinal plants for
subsistence or trade. A relic species of Tien Shan spruce forms a unique and spectacular forest belt in
the Tien Shan Mountains.
10Figure 3.2. Land Cover in the Mountains of Central Asia

11

Figure 3.3. Ecological Regions in the Mountains of Central Asia

12

Walnut and fruit forests. 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 composedof 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). Some of the surviving walnut trees
are estimated to be 500 years old. The area occupied by this habitat has greatly declined, with around
90 percent lost during the last 50 years (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
Spruce forest. Spruce forests occur on moist northern slopes of the Tien Shan. They grow in a broad
altitude band and include the regional endemic Schrenk’s spruce (Picea schrenkiana) with some silver fir
sub-species (Abies semenovii) and associated species of endemic Tien Shan rowan (Sorbus tianshanica)
and birches (Betula spp.). Stands of closed-canopy forest are found in patches of varying size, with thelargest on the Kyrgyz Range. More open stands also occur in a forest-meadow mosaic.
Juniper forest. Open juniper forest occurs widely between 1,500 meters and 3,300 meters, particularlyin the Pamirs. 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).

3.2.4. Subalpine and Alpine Meadows
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. The fritillary (Rhinopetalum stenantherum), gentians (Gentiana spp.),globeflower (Trollius dshungaricus), primulas (Primula spp.), tulips (Tulipa spp.), anemones (e.g.,
Anemone protracta), louseworts (Pedicularis spp.), and aconites (Aconitum talassicum, A. leucostomum)
are prominent among them. These meadows are at their most attractive in early summer when theflowers are in full bloom. In drier areas of the Pamir and Tien Shan, the mountain meadows are replacedby high-elevation steppes, characterized by grasses such as Festuca, Poa, Puccinellia, sedges (Carex andKobresia spp.), together with xerophytic perennial herbs (Mittermeier et al. 2004).

3.2.5. High-Elevation Vegetation
Vegetation cover and plant diversity declines rapidly as one approaches the upper limits of plant cover,and cushion plants and those with low rosettes that can withstand the high winds, cold temperatures,
and aridity become more common. Acantholimon diapensioides is the most widespread cushion plantand species of Saxifraga, Androsace, Rhodiola, Saussurea, and Tanacetum are also frequent. At 4,000 to
4,500 m, even more hardy perennials are found, such as Thylacospermum caespitosum, the large, tightcushions of which resemble a moss more than a herbaceous plant, and Dryadanthe tetrandra. Snow
patch plants also include attractive species, such as the alp lily (Lloydia serotina), the large, pale blue andwhite globeflower (Trollius lilacinus), and several crucifers (Draba spp.). At such high elevations thevegetation is short, similar to Tibet, with sedge meadows dominated by species of Kobresia,
Shmalhausenia and Carex in areas along valley bottoms. Above this, there are only a few lichens andrare algal films on some glaciers (Mittermeier et al. 2004).

13

3.3. Species Diversity and Endemism
The hotspot harbors significant numbers of wild crop relatives and around 5,000 species of vascularplants, almost one quarter of which are endemic. By contrast, the nearby lowland deserts, which aretwice as large, have ony a quarter the number of plant species. Threatened animal taxa include snow
leopard (of which the hotspot supports about half the world population), Persian leopard (Panthera
pardus saxicolor), Saiga (Saiga tatarica) on the edges of the hotspot, as well as numerous birds, reptiles,
fishes and invertebrates. Caspian tiger (Panthera tigris virgata), an iconic large cat that inhabited lower
altitude riparian forests, went extinct in the last century. Other species have suffered fromanthropogenic transformation, especially the foothills zone, where natural habitats have been
converted to agricultural land.
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

3.3.1. Plants
The flora of the Mountains of Central Asia is a mix of Siberian, Mediterranean, Indo-Himalayan, andIranian elements. There are also 64 endemic genera, including 21 from the family Umbelliferae and 12
from the family Compositae. The endemic flora includes tree species, flowers, onions, and grasses.
More than 16 endemic and regionally threatened species of tulip grow in the hotspot. Collecting for
horticulture and decoration has led to the decline of many of the hotspot's tulip species, especially inthe lowlands and along the roads (Mittermeier et al. 2004).

3.3.2. Mammals
Between 10 to 20 species of about 140 mammals found in the hotspot are endemic (depending on thedefinition of endemic and sub-species): Menzibier's marmot (Marmota menzbieri, VU), found only in thewestern Tien Shan at elevation of 2,000 meters, and the Ili Pika (Ochotona iliensis, VU), a small speciesof lagomorph found only in the Chinese part of the Tien Shan. There are also ground squirrels(Spermophilus ralli and S. relictus), the Pamir shrew (Sorex bucharensis), the Alai mole vole (Ellobius
alaicus, DD), and other regional endemics.
The hotspot also holds a variety of mountain ungulates, including three endemic subspecies of the argali
wild sheep (Ovis ammon, VU), among them the Marco Polo sheep (O. a. polii), whose magnificent
curling horns have made it a favored target of trophy hunters. The Siberian ibex (Capra sibirica) is themost numerous and most widespread species, occurring in all parts of the area above the tree line
(Mittermeier et al. 2004).

14

Saiga (Saiga tatarica, CR) is a species living on the flat and hilly plains of Central Asia, just on the edugeof the hotspot boundary in Kazakhstan. The number of saigas declined sharply since the 1970s due tothe destruction of habitat and hunting (for Chinese medicine), largely restored in the period 2002-2015
due to the efforts of Kazakhstan, and again declined after the mass death of 2015 due to the epizootic
pasteurellosis.
Because of their location in the central part of the Asian continent, the mountains of Central Asia play animportant connecting role in the distribution of many important montane Asian species. Perhaps thebest-known symbol of this fauna is the snow leopard (Uncia uncia, EN), a species found in the alpine andsubalpine zones of the hotspot. The species has declined here, as elsewhere, as a result of poaching for
its valued fur and a depletion of its prey base through illegal hunting (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
In addition to the endemic and threatened species, there are other iconic large mammals of local
importance, including gray wolf (Canis lupus lupus), Turkestan lynx (Lynx lynx isabellinus), Altai lynx (L. l.
wardi), and brown bear (Ursus arctos).

3.3.3. Birds
Although nearly 500 bird species occur regularly in the hotspot, none are narrow endemics, although
one Data Deficient (DD) species is considered a regional endemic. This is because most species makeseasonal latitudinal and/or altitudinal migrations, typically to plains regions to the south. Many species
belong to genera typical of the high ranges of Asia, such as redstarts (Phoenicurus), accentors (Prunella)
and rosefinches (Carpodacus). Coniferous forests on the northern side of the Tien Shan form thesouthern limits of several boreal species, including black grouse (Lyrurus tetrix) and northern hawk owl(Surnia ulula), while steppe and desert birds, including great bustard (Otis tarda, VU) and Asian houbara(Chlamydotis macqueenii, VU) occur, predominantly in the lowlands (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
The Mountains of Central Asia are an important stronghold for birds of prey, with important breeding
populations of such species as golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), eastern imperial eagle (A. heliaca, VU),
steppe eagle (A. nipalensis, EN), booted eagle (Hieraaetus pennatus), bearded vulture (Gypaetus
barbatus, NT), cinereous vulture (Aegypius monachus, NT), Eurasian griffon (Gyps fulvus), Himalayan
griffon (G. himalayensis, NT), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and saker falcon (F. cherrug, EN).

3.3.4. Reptiles
More than 60 reptiles are found in the hotspot, including 10-20 endemics. Diversity is highest in thelower elevations, in desert and semi-desert areas. There are a significant number of species of lizards
and snakes, including ten species of toad-headed agamas (Phrynocephalus spp.) (Mittermeier et al.
2004).

3.3.5. Amphibians
Amphibian diversity and richness patterns are opposite of that for reptiles. Species richness is low – only
8-10 species of amphibians have been recorded here, two of them are endemic, including the
Semirechensk salamander (Ranodon sibiricus, EN) found in the Jungar-Alatau in China and Kazakhstan
and a frog (Rana terentievi) in southern Tajikistan.

15

3.3.6. Freshwater FishesThis arid hotspot has about 30-60 freshwater fish species (depending if introduced species and subendemics are counted), about 5-10 of which are narrow endemics. Endemism is centered in the IssykKul Lake and Talas River basin, which lacks outlets to connect it with any other bodies of water. In
addition, the Koytendag blind cave fish (Troglocobitis starostini) is found in a cave system of the
Koytendag Mountains in Turkmenistan (Mittermeier et al. 2004).

3.4. Ecosystem Services
The hotspot provides an astonishing array of ecosystem goods and services that are essential for thesustainable development of the whole region. These goods and services fall into four broad categories –provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting – and include food products; fiber and wood; land forfood production; genetic and medical resources; watershed protection; habitat for flora and fauna oflocal and global significance; the regulation of natural hazards and climate; natural areas for leisure andrecreational activities; and perhaps most important of all, the storage and release of water (Table 3.2).
In the Regional Sustainable Development Strategy of Central Asia (2009), the governments officiallyacknowledge the role of mountains as "water towers" and storehouses of biodiversity.
Most of the population of Central Asia relies on water that falls in the mountains, where it is stored until
making its way downstream to population centers. Densely populated valleys and oases of the vast
drylands depend on numerous rivers and streams, especially the Syr Darya River, which rises in the Tien
Shan Mountains, and the Amu Darya, which rises in the Pamir. Each flows more than 2,000 kilometers toempty into the Aral Sea. Other major regional rivers originating in the mountains are the Sarydjaz, Ili,
Chu, and Talas.
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 andTurkmenistan, with 90 percent of their water resources coming from mountains located outside theircountry borders, are highly vulnerable to water shortages.
Mountains provide a profound sense of place, a source of inspiration, and a rich cultural heritage.
People in isolated parts of the hotspot, especially in the Pamir and Wakhan, differ from those in themain valleys, and communities have developed distinct cultural identities, agricultural traditions, andlanguages. However, with modernization and the dominant influence of Soviet and Chinese cultures,
many minorities have lost some of that identity.
The diverse culture of the region, and the strong sense of place that the mountains provide, attract
visitors from around the world, and tourism offers an additional income source for mountaincommunities.
Residents of of the region’s largest cities – Tashkent, Almaty, Bishkek, Dushanbe, and Urumqi rely on themountains for water, fresh air, and breezes that disperse urban air pollution. The mountains’ lakes andwhite-water streams are among the most popular weekend destinations for urban residents. The
mountains also provide hiking, picnics, horseback riding, skiing, geothermal spas and resorts, and family
farms selling fresh products to urban dwellers. However, many areas are suffering from poorly planned
tourism development.
16

The governments in the seven countries have, to varying degrees, expressed interest in formally valuing
their ecosystem services.
Table 3.2. Principal Ecosystem Services
Type of Service

Provisioning

Regulating

Supporting

Ecosystem Service

Beneficiaries

Relative Importancewithin the hotspot

Water (artisanal and runoff) for drinking,irrigation, industrial use,energy generation

Entire population

High

Fisheries in freshwater

Local fishers, fishconsumers, associatedeconomic activity

Locally important

Wood for firewood,
charcoal

Rural communities

Minor, but significant forsome remotecommunities

Timber traders, forest
owners, crafts-people

Significant in some areas

Rural and agrariancommunities

Locally important forforest communities

Grazing and fodder for
livestock

Local livestock herders
and, indirectly,
consumers of milk, meatHigh

Medicinal plants

Local populations

Genetic resources
Moderation of extreme
eventsAgro-industry

Locally important, in
China active use in
traditional medicine
High

Entire population

Significant in some areas

Timber, poles and otherconstruction material
Non-timber forest
products (e.g. resins,fibers, fruits)

Reduction of soil erosion
through stabilization of
soils
Local air quality
Habitat for plants andanimals
Maintenance of genetic
diversity
Carbon sequestration
Recreation

CulturalTourism using natural
spacesSpirituality

Local populations,
economic activity,
especially in mountainous
and arid areas
Urban populations
Agricultural population,
global existence value
Agricultural community
and users
GlobalLocal populations,especially urban
populations using natural
areas
Global tourists, local
people engaged in the
tourism economy
Local populations

17

Significant in some areas
Moderate
Significant
High
Low
High

High
Significant in some areas

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.
In order to track and evaluate the effectiveness of its investments (in synergy with other projects andfunding), CEPF sets quantitative targets and monitors the performance of its grants and portfolios
towards these targets. To this end, conservation outcomes are measured in terms of “species
extinctions avoided”, “KBAs protected” and “ecological corridors created”.
Conservation outcomes are defined sequentially, with species outcomes being defined first, then site
outcomes and, finally, corridor outcomes. Since species outcomes are extinctions avoided at the global
level, they encompass globally threatened species, in the IUCN Red List categories Critically Endangered(CR), Endangered (EN) and Vulnerable (VU). Species threatened nationally – but not globally – are not
identified as species outcomes: while they may be high local priorities, if they are common or
widespread in other parts of the world, they are not global priorities. Similarly, if no formal assessment
has been conducted to define a global threat status, species cannot be global priorities.
Site outcomes are defined next, to provide a lens for focusing investments in site-scale conservation
action. Within the biodiversity hotspots, CEPF targets investment toward specific sites that are globally
important for biodiversity. The principal basis for defining site outcomes in this assessment is A Global
Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas (IUCN 2016; hereafter the “global KBA
Standard”). KBAs are identified for globally threatened species and ecosystems that are best conserved
through the network of sites at which they are present in significant proportions. In addition, many KBAs
in the hotspot are defined based on the populations of geographically restricted species (mostly
endemic plants) and congregatory species (mostly birds). Sites supporting significant populations ofrestricted-range species contribute significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity, because there
are few or no other sites in the world for which conservation action for these species can be taken. Sites
that support globally significant aggregations of one or more species at particular times of year (e.g. forbreeding, feeding, wintering) can also be identified as KBAs; these species are often particularly
vulnerable to exploitation and habitat loss.
Site outcomes are achieved when a KBA is safeguarded through improved management or expansion ofan existing protected area, creation of a new protected area (including conventional, governmentmanaged protected areas and community or privately managed ones), and improved management of
KBAs without protection status. Improved management may include changing or adjusting management
practices for a KBA in order to improve the long-term persistence of species and ecosystems. Expansion
or modification of existing protected areas or management plans may involve increasing the proportionof a KBA under conservation management to meet species’ requirements or introducing species-focusedmeasures to ensure that (previously) neglected species or sites receive due attention. Creation of a newprotected area may involve designating all or part of a KBA as a national, local, community or privately
managed area with special conservation or land-use status.
18

The long-term persistence of biodiversity requires the protection of landscapes or conservation
corridors. This is particularly important for the conservation of broad-scale ecological and evolutionary
processes, and for the conservation of species with wide ranges, low natural densities and migratory
behavior. In addition, conservation corridors may effectively support cross-border collaboration
between the managers of neighboring KBAs that are ecologically similar but divided by a national
border. Conservation corridors can also be an effective tool for mainstreaming conservation
requirements into land-use planning and promoting biodiversity-friendly management practices in
production landscapes, such as cultivated land, pasture and forestry concessions.
Corridors are the last scale at which conservation outcomes are identified. Corridor outcomes areachieved when a conservation corridor maintains little-changed natural processes and contributes toecological connectivity of KBAs and species ranges. Conservation corridors are landscapes anchored on
KBAs, linked together by corridors or “stepping stones” of natural habitats, which maintain ecologicalintegrity and facility movement of wide-ranging and migratory species (so-called “landscape species”). In
the Mountains of Central Asia, habitat requirements of landscape species (such as snow leopard),
latitudinal and altitudinal migrations of species, and considerations of potential climate change impacts
on the future distribution of species and ecosystems inform the definition of conservation corridor
boundaries. In addition, conservation corridors take into consideration the results of previous
conservation planning exercises, in particular the WWF ECONET initiative for Central Asia (which
included all hotspot countries apart from Afghanistan and China).

4.1. Species Outcomes
4.1.1. Methodology
Species outcomes comprise those species that regularly occur in the hotspot and are classified as
globally threatened (Table 4.1, Appendix 1). The identification of these species is based on the IUCN Red
List and includes species in categories Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) and Vulnerable (VU).
Extinct taxa, such as Caspian tiger are not listed, neither are species that have not been observed in the
hotspot for the last 30 years, such as Syr-Darya shovelnose sturgeon (Pseudoscaphirhynchus
fedtschenkoi, CR) and dhole (Cuon alpinus, EN) (Appendix 2). CR, EN and VU species that occur in the
hotspot countries but not within the hotspot limits are also excluded, although some gaps are possible(see Section 4.2.3). Reintroduced species, such as Przewalski’s horse (Equus ferus, EN), as well as theintroduced fringebarbel sturgeon (Acipenser nudiventris, CR), are included, however, since they occur
within the hotspot, although they did not necessarily occur there historically. 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 (Appendix
3). 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 or conservation action.

4.1.2. Species Outcomes in the Hotspot
A total of 68 species outcomes were identified during the ecosystem profiling process, around half ofwhich are animals (mainly vertebrates) and half are plants (Table 4.1). Assessments of the global
conservation status of mammals, birds and amphibians are comprehensive, and relatively up to date.
Assessments of reptiles and fishes are patchier, while only a tiny proportion of invertebrates have beenassessed according to the Red List categories and criteria. The same is true for plants, only a small tiny
fraction of which have been assessed for their conservation status. Even considering this, 15 of the 19
19

CR species in the hotspot are plants. The part of the hotspot within Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan
and Kyrgyzstan has a high number of globally threatened species.
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
4
4
0
1
0
0
10
19

VU
23
5
12
2
0
4
3
4
30

Total
36
10
17
2
1
6
3
29
68

Mammals
One iconic mammal (sub-species) in the hotspot was Caspian tiger, which was last seen in the first halfof the 20th century in the tugai riverbed forests across the region. Tigrovaya Balka (also known as Beshai
Palangon), the oldest nature reserve in Tajikistan, was specifically created for the protection of tiger andits prey species. Presentday conservationists are hopeful to see tiger back again in Central Asia, at leastin the Balkhash Lake wetlands of Kazakhstan, which are considered an appropriate habitat for
reintroduction of the closely related subspecies Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica). Of the 10 globallythreatened mammal species that currently occur in the hotspot, four are Endangered, including anarrow endemic, Ili pika, in China, and the more widespread Bukhara deer (Cervus hanglu), which wasrecently recognized as a separate species. Snow leopard is a top regional conservation concern andfocus of attention for policy-makers. The fourth Endangered mammal species is Przewalski’s horse,
which is the focus of reintroduction efforts. Also of elevated conservation concern, from the perspectiveof participants at the national and regional consultations was urial (Ovis orientalis, EN), a species of wild
sheep with several sub-species in the hotspot and Saiga (Saiga tatarica, CR) along the edges of thehotspot. Stakeholders also note the importance of wolves, lynxes, and bears, although they are notassessed as globally threatened. (Lynxes and bears are protected by law in most of the hotspot
countries.)
Birds
Seventeen bird species occurring in the hotspot are globally threatened, one of which, sociable lapwing(Vanellus gregarius) is Critically Endangered. For many bird species, for example lesser white-fronted
goose (Anser erythropus, VU), the wetlands of the hotspot play a key role in their survival. Among
threatened birds of prey, the hotspot is particularly important for the conservation of eastern imperial
eagle (VU), steppe eagle (EN) and Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus, EN). In addition to species
currently assessed as globally threatened, participants at the consultations suggested that attention be
given to large-billed reed warbler (Acrocephalus orinus), cinereous vulture, bearded vulture andHimalayan griffon (Appendix 3).

20

Reptiles
There are only two globally threatened reptiles found within the hotspot. One is Central Asian tortoise(Testudo horsfieldii, VU), a relatively common and widespread species. The other is Strauch’s toadagama (Phrynocephalus strauchi, VU), a narrow endemic found only in the Ferghana valley. Greaternumbers of threatened reptiles are found in the vast deserts of Central Asia outside of the hotspot
boundaties.
Amphibians
The hotspot supports very few amphibian species (up to 10 in total). These include one Endangered andnarrowly endemic species: Semirechensk salamander. China has established a specialized nature reserve
to protect this salamander but more efforts are needed, including in collaboration with Kazakhstan,where the species also occurs.
Freshwater Fishes
There are at least six threatened species in the hotspot. Fringebarbel sturgeon is a Critically Endangered
species native to the Aral Sea, where it went extinct due to habitat degradation. In an effort to save thespecies, it was introduced to Balkhash Lake in Kazakhstan and the Upper Ili River in China that flows into
this lake. The species is considered as a conservation priority in both countries but there are enoughresearch and protection efforts in place already, and it does not require additional support from CEPF.
On the contrary, little conservation and research is conducted on the Amu-Darya shovelnose sturgeon, aCritically Endangered species found in the Amu-Darya system. Its cousin, Syr-Darya shovelnose sturgeon,
was only known from the Syr-Darya River. However, there have been no reports since the 1960s, and it
is believed to be probably extinct. Participants at the consultations requested that selected narrowly
endemic fish species that are nationally red listed be recognized as priorities for research orconservation action by the CEPF grantees, and these are included on the list of candidate species
outcomes in Appendix 3.
PlantsTwenty-nine plant species found in the hotspot have been formally assessed as globally threatened.
Many of these are narrow endemics, including some known from no more than a handful of sites.
Participants at the national and regional consultations gave particular priority to crop wild relatives,because of their high value genetic resources. These include wild relatives of pear (Pyrus cajon, EN,
P. korshinskyi, CR, and P. tadshikistanica, CR), apple (Malus niedzwetzkyana, EN, and M. sieversii, VU)
and apricot (Armeniaca vulgaris, EN). Beyond the species currently included on the IUCN Red List, there
are many narrowly endemic plants that meet the criteria for CR, EN or VU status. Some of these species
were identified by participants at the consultations, and are listed as candidate species outcomespending formal assessment (Appendix 3). These species were used to identify KBAs, which can betriggered by the occurrence of restricted-range species or endemic species assessed as globallythreatened at the national or regional level. Since most of the KBAs in the hotspot are defined by or
include narrowly endemic plant species, site-level conservation actions will address their mainconservation need (habitat protection), even if they are not recognized as species outcomes. With this inmind, participants suggested that research efforts should focus on poorly known restricted-range plant
species, with few or no known populations within KBAs.

21

4.2. Site Outcomes – Key Biodiversity Areas
4.2.1. Methodology
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 (such as seasonal
breeding or feeding aggregations of a species), ecological refugia, and source populations
essential for the survival of the species.
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. Criterion A1 was applied, using available information on globally threatened species,
and locally endemic species assessed as threatened under national or regional assessments. Criterion A2
was initially considered for potential use by the team but the coverage of the IUCN Red List of
Ecosystems does not yet extend to Central Asia, meaning that this criterion could not be readily applied.
Criterion B1 (individual geographically restricted species) was applied, due to the availability of data on
restricted-range species, especially plants. The other B criteria were not applied systematically, due totheir complex nature and lack of time and budget. Nevertheless, some tentative KBA nominations underCriteria B2 (co-occuring geographically restricted species) and B3 (geographically restrictedassemblages) were proposed by national experts, based on IBAs previously identified by the BirdLife
International Partnership. Criterion D1 (demographic aggregations) was applied, especially to data on
birds. This was largely through reassessment of IBA data against the new thresholds in the new Global
Standard for the Identification of KBAs (IUCN 2016). Criteria D2 (ecological refugia) and D3 (recruitment
sources) were not applied systematically, due to lack of relevant information. Finally, Criteria C and E
were not applied due to lack of time, data and budget.
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 of22

a 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, to yield a site that is actually or potentially manageable as a single unit, where
this appears to coincide with the ecological boundary of the site.
The global KBA Standard (IUCN 2016) and the earlier guidelines for identification and gap analysis of
KBAs (Langhammer et al. 2007) provided additional guidance, possible approaches and choices fordelineation. There were two situations where delineation was relatively simple and straightforward:••

Where a candidate KBA generally coincided with the boundaries of an existing protected areawith effective enforcement and management.
Where a candidate KBA could be defined geographically as a section of river or catchment thatwas sufficient for conservation management of the biodiversity elements for which the KBA was
identified.

Many KBAs in the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot fell into one or both of these categories. Even then,the application of these apparently simple rules could be complicated. For example, large protectedareas (such as Tajik National Park in Tajikistan or Khan Tengri National Park in Kyrgyzstan) or protectedareas nominated as UNESCO World Heritage sites often have different management sub-units. Some
examples are discussed in Section 4.2.3.
Another challenge was that the quality of available protected area maps varies from country to country.
In Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, protected areas maps are digitized and were relatively easy to access(except for the newest protected areas). Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have good maps, too, but thesewere not easily accessible. In Tajikistan, reliable, up-to-date protected area contours (as well as thelatest state border lines) are missing, especially for species management areas, while, in China, mostprotected areas are well defined, while some are not. For all countries, the World Database of Protected
Areas (WDPA) was considered incomplete and outdated for the scope of the assessment.

4.2.2. Departure Points and Steps in KBA Identification
In the past, a site could qualify as a global KBA on the basis of the confirmed presence of a globallythreatened species or a single-site endemic. However, the new standard imposes higher documentation
requirements, needing proposers to demonstrate that a site must regularly hold a specific proportion ofa species’s global population for it to qualify as a global KBA. A number of metrics can be used to inferthat the global population thresholds are met at a site, such as range, area of occupancy and extent ofsuitable habitat (IUCN 2016). For many globally threatened and restricted-range species in the
Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot, the required data on global and site-level population (observed orinferred) were not available in time. Thus, it was not always possible to determine whether a given
candidate site met the new global criteria and could be confirmed as a global KBA within the timeframeof the ecosystem profiling process. Such sites were considered “KBAs with global/regional status notconfirmed”. This particularly applies to sites identified as IBAs under a previous analysis by the BirdLife
International partnership, which used an earlier set of thresholds. Sites for which the available data
showed that they met the thresholds of the new standard were considered “confirmed global KBAs”.
Priority sites for CEPF investment were selected only from among sites in this last category. Further
work is a priority to mobilize data to determine the status of the KBAs with global/regional status notconfirmed. If such analyses confirm that these KBAs qualify at global KBAs, they will be added to the list23

of site outcomes for the hotspot, and be eligible for consideration when the list of CEPF priorities is next
updated.
The expert team analyzed the globally threatened species on the IUCN Red List that occur within theboundaries of the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot. For Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, these essentiallycomprised the entire country list. For the other hotspot countries, national experts screened andanalyzed the list of species to remove those that did not regularly occur within the hotspot boundaries
or were considered extinct. Further work involved detailed, site-specific screening of species
populations to assess which ones could potentially meet the global thresholds established in the newstandard.
BirdLife International provided an extract from the World Bird and Biodiversity Database, of all IBAs thatlie within the hotspot boundaries. Bird species data for these pre-existing IBAs were analyzed and thosesites that the available data enabled Criteria A1 (globally threatened species) or D1 (demographic
aggregations) to be triggered were designated as confirmed global KBAs. Other IBAs were designated as“KBA global/regional status not confirmed”, and are shown on the maps as pink-shaded polygons.
WWF Russia provided the ECONET project database and GIS data, which contains useful information forscreening core biodiversity areas against the global KBA criteria. The profiling team encountered a lackof site-specific information on species and outdated assessments (more than 10 years old), which weretypical obstacles throughout the KBA identification process.
The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Afghanistan Program provided comprehensive data and maps
on distribution and population size of species in the Wakhan valley and the main threats to biodiversity
there.
In contrast to ecosystem profiling efforts in other hotspots, there were no Alliance for Zero Extinction(AZE) sites identified for the Mountains of Central Asia, while Important Plant Areas (IPAs) directly usefulto the application of the global KBA Standard were not available.
Since the KBA concept was new to the region (and known mainly to those conservation groups andscientists who had worked on IBA identification), the profiling team had to make a major effort tointroduce the concept, including translating the global KBA Standard (IUCN 2016) into Russian. Acrossthe region the team provided detailed explanations of the global KBA criteria at technical meetings andconsultations, which brought together biodiversity experts, the general public and politicians. The
consultations gave a wide range of stakeholders the chance to contribute to draft lists of KBAs andspecies, discuss boundaries, and suggest additional candidate KBAs. Chapter 2 describes theconsultation process in more detail.
Multiple criteria were used to prioritize KBAs for conservation investment, encompassing considerationsof biological importance, existing and planned conservation actions, security and accessibility of the site,
status of legal protection, geography and other aspects of feasibility. Biological prioritization was carriedout on the basis of uniqueness (i.e., irreplaceability, or how many other sites are known to hold thesame species or ecosystems), vulnerability (i.e. global threat status of the species triggering KBA status)and perceived or assessed level of threats to the site (i.e., the likelihood that the site will lose thefeatures that qualify it as a KBA), following the methodology suggested in Langhammer et al. (2007).
Given the very intense nature of the assignment, and an extensive list of species and sites, the decisions

24

on prioritization of specific species and sites by the workshop participants and the expert group wereprimarily based on:••

Practical feasibility for implementation of CEPF-funded conservation projects by CSOs.
Likelihood of achieving conservation outcomes for priority species and sites.

Given the topography of the hotspot, and the concentration of biodiversity in areas away from major
centers of human population, many KBAs lie along international borders, and require coordinatedactions on both sides. To provide opportunities for cross-border conservation initiatives, or simply
coordinated investments in site-specific work at ecologically similar KBAs divided by international
borders, attention was also given to prioritizing contiguous KBAs in neighboring countries.
The prioritization exercises during the national consultations also took note of the fact that CEPF has not
yet worked in the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot, and thus local CSOs and policy-makers need moretime to become familiar both with CEPF and the KBA concept. In this context, assigning priorities to sites
and species that might have high biological priority but where CSOs are not currently active and do nothave established relationships with local stakeholders might not be productive. Therefore, the final listof priorities considers both biological criteria and local specificities capturing political priorities andrealities, as well as opportunities for synergistic investments with other projects. The final prioritizationof sites for CEPF investment is presented in Chapter 12.

4.2.3. Limitations of the Assessment and Outlooks for Improving the Analysis andPractical Engagement with KBA Stakeholders
All KBAs were defined using the global KBA Standard (IUCN 2016), which was completely new to theregion, as was the very concept of a KBA. A considerable effort was required to explain KBAs to thebroad range of stakeholders, from conservation-focused CSOs to officials, private sector participants andresearchers. The actual identification of KBAs required confirmed records of the presence of trigger
species, ecological communities or ecosystems, with sufficiently accurate and up-to-date data on
species populations and distribution of communities and ecosystems. IBAs, which were originallyidentified and mapped between 2004 and 2008, were the only proxy sites available that had been
defined following a similar methodology to the global KBA Standard.
The absence of data on the distribution of species among sites was a particular constraint in most partsof the hotspot. There were only a few recent surveys available on species of conservation concern, suchas snow leopard, argali and a few others. Distributional data on the majority of restricted-range species
and many globally threatened species were scarce, obsolete (more than 10 years old) and insufficiently
precise (e.g., no detailed geographic information or site locations). There was, thus, a bias in theidentification of KBAs towards well known or well observed groups of species, and towards areas where
there has been a recent and robust survey effort. For example, in largely insecure Afghanistan, theWakhan National Park established in 2014 has been spared from conflicts. Thanks to the efforts of WCS
and the National Environmental Protection Agency of Afghanistan (NEPA), this site is better studied forlarge mammals than most other biodiversity-rich areas of Central Asia. It meets the global KBA criteria
based on the number of snow leopards alone, and holds significant populations of other species as well.
On the other hand, in all other sites in northern Afghanistan and many candidate KBA in Kyrgyzstan,data on snow leopard, not to mention numerous lesser-known species, are not available or are
outdated, incomplete or poorly documented. Thus, such sites could not be confirmed as global KBAs andremain in candidate status. The recently published cadastres of flora and fauna of Kyrgyzstan (Lazkov
25

and Sultanova, 2014) could have been extremely useful for work on KBA identification. However, thelack of spatial and numerical information on species distribution placed limits on their use in theassessment.
Tajik National Park covers (2.2 million hectares, equivalent to the half the size of Switzerland). It includes
numerous sub-sites that have trigger species and qualify as KBAs on their own right, such as Karakul
Lake, Murghab, Pshart and areas of the Western Pamirs that hold narrowly endemic wild crop relatives.
On the other hand, such fragmentation of a single management unit is not in line with the global KBA
Standard, which encourages delineating KBA boundaries to correspond with the most appropriate
management unit(s). In this case, the KBA boundaries followed the official boundaries of the nationalpark, which was nominated as a UNESCO natural World Heritage site in 2013. While amalgamation ofsmaller KBAs into a single large one does result in a loss of information about sub-sites, it makes more
sense from the conservation point of view, especially when species with large ranges are considered. For
example, the assessed (inferred) number of snow leopards in the national park triggers the global KBA
Criterion A1 when the park is considered as a single unit but would not do so if each of the smaller units
was considered separately.
The Issyk Kul Biosphere Territory, which comprises the entirety of Issyk-Kul province of Kyrgyzstan,
covers 4.3 million hectares: an area larger than Switzerland. Its official status and legal regulations dateback to 1998 but, in reality, it does not function as a protected area, since enforcement capacities are
weak or not adequate to conservation tasks across such a large area. Numerous individual nature
reserves within the biosphere territory work relatively well, however, with Sarychat-Ertash Strict Nature
Reserve being one the best protected and monitored sites in Kyrgyzstan. This site, and the new KhanTengri National Park established in 2016, both qualify as global KBAs for snow leopard and otherspecies.
Issyk Kul Lake, the central element of the biosphere territory, a biologically important site listed under
the Ramsar Convention, is a more complicated case. The lake is very large (1.6 million hectares, almost
half the size of the former Aral Sea) and supports a number of endemic and near-endemic fishes, manyof which are on the brink of extinction due to over-fishing and introduction of non-native predatory
fishes. On the one hand, the entirety of Issyk Kul Lake could be considered as one KBA based on species
and possibly ecosystem-based criteria. On the other hand, its original aquatic and shoreline ecosystem
has changed dramatically over the last 50 years and its designation as a single, effective management
unit is doubtful due to its size. Consequently, the western and eastern parts of the lake and adjacentshoreline were identified as separate KBAs.
The upstream Ili River basin protection zone in China posed similar challenges. The size of the
management unit was considered inappropriate for site and species-focused conservation. The same
was true for the downstream Ili basin in Kazakhstan, which discharges into Bakhash Lake (outside of thehotspot boundary). This area was also considered too large to effectively manage as a single unit,
especially given the activities of numerous economic sectors (e.g., mining, tourism and agriculture) that
contribute to water pollution and river-flow fragmentation. Consequently, several smaller KBAs wereidentified within the Ili basin.
The ecosystem profiling team faced several other challenges in applying the global KBA Standard in thecontext of the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot. To the extent that these can be addressed, whether
as part of the CEPF investment phase or through separate initiatives, the quality and efficiency of futureconservation planning processes in Central Asia will be improved.
26•Species synonyms and sub-species: Some of the species that were screened and analyzed aspart of the KBA identification process have multiple sub-species or synonyms. The mostexemplary is argali (Ovis ammon, NT), which has four sub-species present within the hotspot: O.
a. karelini; O. a. severtzovi; O. a. nigrimontana; and O. a. polii. Some of these sub-species are
considered as regional endemics, such as Karatau mountain sheep (O. a. nigrimontana) and
Severtzov mountain sheep (O. a. severtzovi), which are recognized nationally as distinct species.
There are differing opinions regarding the taxonomic status of these and other taxa of large,
globally threatened mammals (e.g. leopard and urial), as well as regarding various endemic
fishes and plants. In many cases, the taxonomy debates remain unresolved. The global KBA
Standard emphasizes the use of species, rather than sub-specific taxa, for application of the KBA
criteria. This conflicts with the opinion of many national experts, who suggested that subspecies of large mammals and reptiles should be considered in KBA identification. The result isthat local sub-species of gray wolf, brown bear, and Eurasian lynx, among others, are not used
as KBA trigger species or included as species outcomes (Appendix 1) but do appear as candidate
species (Appendix 3).

•

Definitions of endemism and ecosystems: The definitions of these terms used in the global KBA
Standard differ from those used in the region traditionally. Given that spatial information on
species distribution is missing or incomplete, it was not always possible to define which species
have a global range of less than 50,000 square kilometers or to comprehensively check thelinear distributions of aquatic species to see if these are less than 200 kilometers. There are also
several ecosystem classifications available for the hotspot, depending on the group of authors or
the country in focus. Ecosystem classifications and maps already differ among the hotspot
countries and adding a global approach and definitions makes the task even more complicated.

•

Anthropogenic ecosystems: It was not always obvious to the general public or policy makers
why anthropogenic ecosystems, such as wastewater lakes, reservoirs with dams and irrigatedlands with extensive canals, could qualify as KBAs of global importance.

•

Limitations in access to and the use of global assessments and information: These limitations
are linked to both English-language skills of local experts and inconsistencies among global,
regional and national assessments of the conservation status of species. For example, the global
threat level for markhor (Capra falconeri) was been downgraded in 2015 from EN to NT, while,in the hotspot countries, it is still officially considered to be a threatened species (in addition to
being a regional endemic). What is more, some NT species with a large area of occupancy, forexample, birds of prey, may have their largest populations or best-preserved habitats in the
hotspot, as compared to other parts of the world. While they are not threatened withextinction, conservation efforts for these species in the hotspot many make a disproportionate
contribution to their global persistence. The profiling team made their best effort to provide
translations of key references into the two main working languages in the hotspot: Russian; andChinese. Over time, access to international expertise and regional data exchange may help fillgaps in knowledge, and help align local perceptions of conservation priorities with global ones.
One lesson here is to fully account for the funds and time needed for translation (and editing)during the CEPF investment phase, to broaden the understanding by and involvement of allinterested stakeholders.

•Lack of global population data: Lack of data needed to estimate or infer global population sizesof globally threatened or restricted-range species became a barrier to applying KBA Criteria A1
27

and B1, especially for plants. For example, there is no global or comprehensive regional
assessment of the distribution of Malus sieversii (VU), which is believed to be the ancestor ofthe domesticated apple. While it is known to occur in China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan
and Uzbekistan, and local data exists, it proved impossible to apply the KBA criteria for thisspecies, as its global population could not be either estimated or inferred with any degree of
accuracy. In order to partially compensate for this gap, Kazakh experts applied the metric for“distinct genetic diversity”, which can be used to infer that KBA thresholds are met under the
threatened and geographically restricted species criteria, based on Kazakhstan’s extensive
research on this topic.
•

Lack of robust local data: Large differences exist among countries in terms of the availability of
up-to-date, spatial precise data on the status and distribution of species. For example, thanks tothe support of the government, the GEF and other partners, Uzbekistan has digitalized flora andfauna data, and has conducted extensive research on potential expansion of the protected areasystem, which helped enormously in the KBA analysis. Data on the Wakhan valley in Afghanistan
are also rich and up-to-date, while data for all other candidate KBAs in Afghanistan are either
missing or outdated. In Tajikistan, good data exist in the National Biodiversity Centre. However,
due to a lack of modern research, many datasets are based on past studies, and only a few areas
with ongoing or recent biodiversity projects have robust, up-to-date information. In Kyrgyzstan,there is a large diversity of data and holders but, unfortunately, the limited timeframe andbudget for the ecosystem profiling process prevented the full use of expertise and the pool ofavailable data. In China, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan good information exists but it is limited
to protected areas. Areas outside protected areas have little or obsolete information, except for
selected IBAs, where bird counts and monitoring of species is conducted, and biodiversity
project sites. In all hotspot countries, official data on the wildlife population sizes tend to beaggregated at the provincial or country level, and focused on hunting quarry species(e.g., ungulates) or iconic species (e.g. snow leopard and saiga).

•

Lack of access to local and international expertise: Invertebrates and fishes are among themost challenging groups, as research on these species is patchy, there are very few experts ineach country with good knowledge, and, in general, the top experts are very busy. To engage
the top experts requires forward planning (they can be busy on other projects or away in thefield), good compensation and enough time for preparation. The ecosystem profiling team had
only four months (during the peak field season) and a very limited budget to engage experts on
numerous taxa, which put constraints on the use of all available expertise.

Because of varying availability and quality of data in different hotspot countries, the local experts took adifferent approach to KBA delineation in each case. For example, the expert team in Kazakhstan took adecision to keep delineation in line with well-defined units, mainly protected areas, hunting areas andsites with well defined ecologically boundaries (such as lakes).
The expert team in China used a similar approach, but expanded or modified the boundaries of several
sites with a view towards more effective management, and also considered administrative divisions andpowers. For example, in the Tarim River basin, sandwiched between the high mountains and the
Taklamakan desert, there exist large, ancient agricultural oases recognized as IBAs. However, thequestion of KBA delineation here (as in other agricultural lands in the hotspot that are quasi-private) wasa challenge, because the land ownership is a mosaic. The solution used here was to group multiple landholdings within a single KBA boundary based on ecological criteria. This was considered a legitimate
28

approach from a management perspective, since the local administration in charge of land and nature
conservation could be a lead actor in promoting biodiversity conservation within production landscapes.
In Uzbekistan, the expert team extensively applied their field knowledge to KBA delineation decisions
that combined official management units (i.e., protected areas or forest management units) withecological units that sometimes stretched well beyond them. This was the case for Western Gissar
Mountains KBA, which is centered on but extends beyond Gissar Strict Nature Reserve. In the opinion of
the expert team, a larger management unit would allow more effective conservation actions for the KBA
trigger species than if the site was sub-divided into several separate KBAs. The comprehensive
recommendations of a UNDP-GEF project on the expansion of the national protected area network in
Uzbekistan also informed KBA delineations.
A similar approach was used in Tajikistan, where some KBAs boundaries were fully aligned withprotected areas, while others expanded beyond them, with the intention that existing protected areas
could be expanded into or take responsibility for conservation management in adjacent areas of habitat.
In Kyrgyzstan, most KBAs were defined within protected area and the forestry management units
around them.
In the section of the hotspot within Turkmenistan, only three KBAs were identified. Two of these werebased on IBAs, whose boundaries were followed with no changes in delineation. The third KBA,
Koytendag Mountains, which is triggered by numerous taxa, is centered on a strict nature reserve andincludes the species management areas attached to it. In Afghanistan, the largest KBA, Wakhan National
Park, is well defined geographically, while the smaller Afghan Ishkashim KBA was defined ecologically,and needs further research and refinement.

4.2.4. Site Outcomes in the Hotspot
A total of 167 KBAs, covering a combined area of 180,495 square kilometers, were identified during theecosystem profiling process (Appendix 4, Figures 4.1 to 4.8). 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 of KBAs, equivalent to 31 percent of the total. Afghanistan andTurkmenistan have the fewest KBAs, due to the 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 areaof the hotspot. The remaining 23 KBAs support globally threatened species, restricted-range species orother elements of biodiversity relevant to the KBA criteria but the available data are insufficient todetermine whether they meet the thresholds for the global KBA criteria. These sites are therefore
considered “candidate” site outcomes: KBAs with unresolved global/regional status. The same applies toa further 16 IBAs within the hotspot boundaries, for which recent data on populations of trigger species
were unavailable, making it impossible to determine whether they met the global KBA criteria or,instead, qualified as KBAs at the regional level. An additional 24 IBAs are located within 50 kilometers of
the hotspot boundaries. These IBAs were not analyzed during the profiling process, and theirglobal/regional status remains unresolved. The final confirmation of global KBAs will only occur when29

they are entered into the global database of KBAs (http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org) after the
profiling process is complete; additional peer review may be required at this time.
Table 4.2. Number and area of KBAs in the hotspot

Country

Afghanistan
China
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
TOTAL

Number ofconfirmed
global KBAs

Total area ofconfirmed
global KBAs
(km2)

1
14
23
32
35
3
36
144

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

Number of
Total area of
Number of
IBAs with
KBAs with
KBAs with
global/global/global/regional statusregional statusregional status
not confirmed
not confirmed
not confirmed(within the2(km )hotspot)
1
1,000
0
15
28,085
0
2
175
1
0
0
2
3
2,035
8
0
0
0
2
70
5
23
31,3651630

Number of
IBAs outside
the hotspot(global/regional status
not confirmed)
2
4
8
2
0
0
8
24

Figure 4.1 Map of KBAs in the Afghanistan part of the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

31

Table 4.3. KBAs in Afghanistan

Code

1

KBA name

Wakhan National Park

32

Figure 4.2 Map of KBAs in the China part of the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

33

Table 4.4. KBAs in China

Code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Terrestrial KBA

CodePamir Plateau Nature Reserve
Tuomuer Nature Reserve
Bayanbuluke and Kaidu River Valleys
Kunes forest
Nalati Prairie Nature Reserve
Tangbula Forest
Gongliu Wild Fruit Forest Nature Reserve
Ili River Basin

9
10
11
12
13
14

34

Terrestrial KBA

Yining Xiaoyebaila Nature Reserve
Xitianshan Nature Reserve
Wenquan Nature Reserve and River Basin
Xiaerxili Nature Reserve
Tianshan Tien Chi Lake (Bogdashan) Nature Reserve
Jiangbulake Forest

Figure 4.3. Map of KBAs in the Kazakhstan part of the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

Note: The crosshatched areas represent “state reserved zones for nature”. These do not correspond to any IUCN category. Such areas allow for multiple
economic activities, as well as providing core protected zones. In general, these fall outside of the hotspot but they are relevant in the national context.

35

Table 4.5. KBAs in Kazakhstan

Code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Terrestrial KBA

CodeKaratauKyzylkol
Arystandy
Turkestan
Ugam
Tolebi
Boraldai
Aksu-Zhabagly
Chakpak Pass and Ters-Ashchibulak Reservoir
Berikkara
Merke
Aksay

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

36

Terrestrial KBA

Almaty Nature Reserve
Issyk
Assy Plateau
Kolsai
Toraigyr
Narynkol
TuzkolCharyn Park
Altyn-Emel
Koksu
Zhongar-Alatau

Figure 4.4. Map of KBAs in the Kyrgyzstan part of the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

37

Table 4.6. KBAs in Kyrgystan

Code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Terrestrial KBA

Code

Besh-Aral
Chandalash
SumsarKassan-Sai
Aflatun-Padyshata
Sary-Chalek
Besh-Tash
Talas River
Nyldy
Chychkan
Torkent-Kara-Jygach
Sargata
KarasuKurp-Sai
Bekechal
Dashman

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

38

Terrestrial KBA

Kyzyl-Unkur
Bazar-Korgon
LeilekIsfairam-Shakhimardan
Tuz
Alai Valley
Alai-Kuu
Ak-Sai
Chatyr-Kul Lake
Kavak-Too and Moldo-Too
Son-Kul Lake
Kumtor and Sarychat-Ertash
KarkyraSary-Djaz
Eastern Issyk-Kul Lakeshore
Western Issyk-Kul Lakeshore

Figure 4.5. Map of KBAs in the Tajikistan part of the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

39

Table 4.7. KBAs in Tajikistan

Code

KBA name

Code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

AktashAsht
Kayrakum
Turkestan Mountains Southern Slope
Upper Zeravshan
YagnobUpper Gissar
Ramit
Sarikhadang
KondaraShirkent
KarnayTajik Babatag
GazimalikSarsaryak
Ayvaj
Tigrovaya Balka
Tajik Karatau

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

40

KBA name

Khojamumin
Kushvoristan
Baljuvan
Muminabad
Dashtijum
DarvazKamarou
Tavildara
Vanj
RushanShakhdara
KudaraIshkashim
Alichur Valley
Zorkul Mountains
Shorkul Lake
Tajik National Park

Figure 4.6. Map of KBAs in the Turkmenistan part of the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

41

Table 4.8. KBAs in Turkmenistan

Code

1
2
3

Terrestrial KBA

Koytendag
Tallymerjen
Zeyid Reservoir and Kelif Lakes

42

Figure 4.7. Map of KBAs in the Uzbekistan part of the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

43

Table 4.9. KBAs in Uzbekistan

Code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

KBA name

Code

Pskem River Basin
Karzhantau Ridge
ChimganAkbulak River Basin
Bashkyzylsay River Basin
Karabau and Dukentsay River BasinsAngren Plateau
Northern Slope of the Kuramin Ridge
Upper Reaches of Chadak and Chorkesar Rivers
Pap Foothills
Karatag
Ungor Tepa
Chartak Foothills
Akkum Sands
Syr Darya Upstream
Teshiktash Foothills
Chilustun and Kyrtashtau Mountains
Shakhimardan

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

44

KBA name

Sokh
Northern Slope of the Turkestan Mountains
Northern Aydarkul
Tuzkan Lake
Northern Piedmont Plain of Nuratau Ridge
Nuratau Ridge
Koytash Ridge
Aktau Ridge
Kattakurgan Reservoir
Western Zeravshan
Chimkurgan Reservoir
Talimarjan Reservoir
Western Hissar
Tarkapchigay River Basin
Kugitang and Baysuntay Ridges
Kelif-Sherabad Range
Khaudaktau
Uzbek Babatag

Figure 4.8. Overview map of KBAs in the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

45

4.3. 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 67 percent of the area of the hotspot (Appendix 5, Figure 4.9).
The 25 corridors include 154 of the 167 KBAs identified in the hotspot. The remaining 13 KBAs mostly
comprise isolated islands of habitat, such as wetlands.
The conservation corridors range in size by two orders of magnitude, reflecting variation in theappropriate scale of landscape-level conservation approaches in different ecosystem types. The smallest
corridor, the Upper Amudarya and Panj River, covers 1,600 square kilometers along the borders of
Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The largest corridor, the Pamir-Alai and Wakhan Mountains,covers 122,000 square kilometers centered on the Pamirs.
The Kelif-Talimarjan-Termez corridor, shared by Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, mainly consists ofwetlands. Its KBAs are important for threatened and wetland-dependent species. As is the case withseveral other corridors, CEPF could support coordinated efforts on both sides of the border so thatconservation actions are well aligned, effective and collaborative. Further upstream, cooperation in theUpper Amudarya and Panj River corridor may help to strengthen exchange of biodiversity informationand conservation experience between Afghanistan and Tajikistan.
Two other corridors on the edge of the hotspot are Aidarkul Lake and the Nuratau Mountains corridor in
Uzbekistan and the Karatau Mountains corridor in Kazakhstan. Both are important for the conservationof endemic plants and animals requiring sufficient area of habitat for dispersal and migration routes.
Linking fragmented habitats is very important for these species’s conservation needs.
A rich diversity of species and habitats is found in the Koytendag Mountains corridor, shared by
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, and good potential exists for cross-border collaboration. The Central
Tajikistan corridor includes broadleaf forests, wild-fruit-and-nut forests, steppes and cliffs. These
habitats are of high biological importance, with many threatened and endemic species. Agriculture andinfrastructure expansion threaten the KBAs here. Hence, better-coordinated conservation efforts andincreased engagement with the private sector and government land-use planning processes may help toreduce the growing pressures on these KBAs, complementary to any site-level actions that could be
implemented in parallel.
The Upper Talas River Basin and the Kyrgyz Mountains corridors are both shared by Kazakhstan andKyrgyzstan. These corridors host numerous endemics, including fishes, but receive little conservation
attention. Given that endemic fishes are distributed in a linear way along the rivers, the ecologicalcorridor approach is appropriate to their conservation. The local population in the Talas River basin isconcerned about possible pollution by planned mining developments and disruptions to water supply
due to river diversions for agriculture. The two countries have established the Chu-Talas River
Commission, which could be a possible mechanism for cooperation at higher levels across theinternational border. The ecosystem profile team informed the commission about KBAs and IBAs in thearea their biological importance. Both corridors require further research to identify KBAs and engage
stakeholders in their management.
46

Figure 4.9. Overview map of conservation corridors in the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot

Note: The representation of corridors in the figure above reflects three elements: biological and ecological (for migration routes, continuous habitat areas,
areas of connectivity between KBAs, already established cooperation landscapes – all largely analyzed and mapped by WWF ECONET); political (i.e., in terms of
viability); and otherwise-agreed-upon official corridors (e.g., snow leopard landscapes approved by ministers).

47

Table 4.10. Corridors in the Mountains of Central Asia
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Corridor name
Kelif-Talimarjan-Termez wetlands
Upper Amudarya and Panj River
Babatag and Karatau Mountains
Koytendag and Hissar Mountains
Central Tajikistan
Upper Zeravhan River Basin
Turkestan and Alai Mountains
Aidarkul Lake and Nuratau Mountains
Western Tien Shan
Kazakh Karatau Mountains
Upper Talas River Basin
Kyrgyz Mountains
Ferghana Valley Periphery(including KBAs inside the Ferghana Valley)
Ferghana Mountains
Pamir-Alai and Wakhan Mountains
Central Tien Shan
Issyk-Kul Lake Basin
Khan-Tengri and Tomur Mountains
Chu Ili Divide
Middle Ili River Basin
Upper Ili River Basin
Dzungaria
Bayanbuluke
Bogdashan Mountains
Barkolshan Mountains

48

The Turkestan and Alai Mountains corridor comprises several separate mountain ranges, which
comprise a single ecological network of mountain habitat with many endemic species and wellpreserved ancient juniper forests. While several KBAs have been identified in each country sharing thecorridor (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), further efforts at the landscape level are needed to
identify and confirm additional KBAs, refine the delineations and designations of existing ones, andexchange experience and information on the conservation of juniper forests. The main threats tobiodiversity within the corridor include overexploitation of wild plants, overgrazing (which causes soil
erosion and prevents forest regeneration), and illegal tree cutting.
The Western Tien Shan and the Pamir-Alai and Wakhan Mountains corridors area each shared amongfour countries: the former among Kazakhstan, Kysrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan; and the latter
among Afghanistan, china, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. They contain, between them, 38 KBAs, equivant to22 percent of the KBAs in the hotspot. Both corridors are characterized by high levels of endemism andare large enough to support viable populations of wide-ranging species, like snow leopard andungulates, into the long term. Landscape-level conservation approaches are very appropriate here, as
these can increase the efficiency of conservation efforts across national borders and increase resilience
to climate change, which may shift habitats to higher elevations, alter species composition and cause
other disruptions.
The Khan-Tengri and Tomur Mountains corridor, shared by Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and China, areequally important for snow leopard conservation, and provide opportunities to contribute to ongoingand planned conservation efforts. The high elevations (3,000 to 7,000 meters above sea level),remoteness, and complicated access make individual initiatives difficult, hence synergies with existing
programs are recommended.
The Ferghana Mountains corridor in Kyrgyzstan includes significant examples of the wild-fruit-and-nut
forests that are characteristic of this part of the hotspot. Considering that an estimated 200,000 people
live within these forests, which are spread over large areas, a landscape-level approach to conservation,
involving forest users and sustainable forest management associations, is appropriate.
The Ili River Basin is shared by Kazakhstan (middle and lower parts) and China (upper part). Due to thelarge size of each section and the number of important KBAs in each, a decision was made to define theupper and middle parts of the basis as separate corridors (the lower part being outside of the hotspot).
In this way, conservation actors in the two countries can work individually with clusters of KBAs, withthe shared task of sustainable use and development of the Ili River basin, while coordinating efforts onconservation of priority species and ecosystems they have in common, such as wild apple forests.
The Dzungaria corridor, shared by Kazakhstan and China, hosts endemic and threatened species, as well
as some of the best remaining examples of wild apple forests in the hotspot. Coordinated actions mayhelp to improve the persistence of the threatened and endemic species and prevent pressures growing.
The Bayanbuluke corridor is a UNESCO World Heritage site, famous for its iconic wetland ecosystem,
which is facing growing pressures from development. The landscape approach may help in better
integrating conservation objectives into development planning.
Areas around the Bogdashan Mountains corridor, near Urumqi city, are densely populated and more
and more industrialized. Industrial pollution, growth in infrastructure and mass tourism pose major
threats to ecosystems here. Given these threats, the potential exists for tackling land use and49

development issues at a landscape scale, an approach that will allow for greater connectivity in thecorridor, and address the challenges outside the KBAs, in addition to site-level actions within them.

4.4. Recommendations for Improving the Outcomes Analysis
The following actions are priorities for improving the effectiveness of the definition of conservation
outcomes:••••

Conduct new studies and publish existing studies to describe species and clarify the taxonomic
status of known species. Promote digitalization of the wealth of data from the Soviet period, inorder to integrate these with modern data.
Complete or update national Red List assessments that could be fed into the global IUCN Red
List for more species in the region, with special emphasis on those species groups that have notyet been widely assessed, data-deficient species with limited ranges, and assessments based ondata older than 10 years.
Carry out fieldwork to improve knowledge of the status, population size, and distribution of
threatened and narrowly endemic species. Identify restricted range species, and review how
well these are covered by the initial network of KBAs compiled by the profile team.
Develop a data sharing mechanism to locate, store and facilitate access to all relevant data on
species, sites and project activities, and use this to periodically reevaluate the conservation
outcomes and monitor progress.

50

5. SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOTThis chapter provides a socioeconomic overview of the hotspot and an analysis of how socioeconomic
factors affect conservation outcomes. The analysis covers population demographics, income andpoverty, the relationships between natural resources and the main economic sectors, and the culturaldifferences that have relevance to conservation.
The hotspot is a fragmented and sensitive region politically and socio-economically but all countries
share deep cultural links. The five former Soviet republics also 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 of Afghanistan,
Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan live in rural areas and are directly dependent upon natural resources.
Population growth and high population density causes increasing demand for land and water resources,and has the potential to increase fragmentation of habitats and increase overexploitation of biologicalresources. Conservation efforts in the region need to address population pressures on the land andresources by mitigating infrastructure development risks and supporting sustainable rural livelihoods.

5.1. Population
The Mountains of Central Asia hotspot is home to between 60 and 64 million people (Figure 5.1). Most
are young (median age 17-25) and living along the main rivers or oases. By 2050 the population in theregion may approach 90 million or more (UN DESA, 2015). The Ferghana Valley has the highest rural
population density in Central Asia. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are particularly noteworthy: their
populations in 1950 were each about 1.5 million, and today, they have 6 millon and 8.5 million people,
respectively. Their populations continue to grow rapidly due to high birth rates and improving quality oflife, with some predictions seeing Krygystan grow by another 25 percent and Tajikistan by another 75
percent by 2050 UN DESA (2015). Meanwhile, due to improved quality of life and migration, thepopulation of Xinjiang has grown from 4 million in 1950 to 20 million today.
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
2250-50020
Total60-63.570
Source: national and local statistics. Column 4/Annual Population Growth refers to growth nationwide, notpopulation growth exclusive in the hotspot.

51

Nomads work the high mountain pasture of Kyrgyzstan and China and the semi-desert areas of
Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan pursuing a centuries-old lifestyle reshaped by modern conditions. In
addition to the capital cities and other urban centers, some areas such as the Ferghana and Zarafshan
Valleys are a mix of urban and rural. The population in the rapidly growing Chinese area of the hotspot
has jumped from about 1.5 million in 2000 to more than 3 million today in Urumqi city alone. Notably,
the relative number of ethnic Han Chinese in the region has grown from six percent in the 1950s to 40
percent today.
Despite major urban centers in each of the countries, the population within the hotspot is
predominately rural and dependent upon agriculture. The use of agrichemicals and extensification ofagricultural land are both common, and rural needs are still supplemented by collection of firewood,
fruits and nuts, and medicinal plants.
Noted in Chapter 3, the region is the source of several major rivers, including the Amu Darya, whichfeeds the Aral Sea. Downstream from the mountains, and outside the hotspot, there were serious
droughts in the 1990s and again in 2000-2001, which led to population displacement (UNEP and ICSD
2006), and some people permanently moving back into the mountain regions (UNESCO 2013). The
relationship between population and water in the region remains dynamic and complex.
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).
The collapse of the Soviet Union changed the economic relationship of the newly independent
countries, leading to wholesale deficits and surpluses of employment. The result was that many
working-age men moved from rural Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to major cities in Russia andKazakhstan in search of work. In turn, that led to women in rural areas taking on new roles for income
generation and household and community leadership. Naturally, instability within any of the countries
has led to further population movement in search of work, and motivations are obvious: average wages
in Russia or Kazakhstan can be five to ten times higher than in Kyrgystan or Tajikistan, for example.
Xinjiang stands in contrast to the other parts of the hotspot, where government incentives have led toin-migration from other parts of China, and the province has booming agricultural and industrial sectors.
Also interesting is Chinese immigration into the five former republics, as people follow jobs in energy,
road construction, and mining (Azattyk 2013; Olimova 2012).
The collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent population movement changed the ethnic proportions
within the countries, particularly in Kzakhstan, Kyrgystan, and Tajikistan. Where the Russian language
was the official and dominant language only two decages ago, its use is becoming increasingly
uncommon. However, in the five former republics, written legislation, popular television, andinternational meetings are all still in Russian. In Xingjian, Chinese and Uyghur are the official languages
for meetings and legislation, but numerous minority languages are also spoken, and the business andacademic communities speak Russian and English.

52

5.2. Income
Post-independence in the 1990s led to rapid changes and overall economic decline in the region, and at
the same time, there was civil war in Afghanistan. However, in the 2000s, the countries stabilized andbenefited from global economic growth. The countries with fossil fuels grew even more, leading toincreased 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 a drop in
the prices of commodities, oil, and gas, state income in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan
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
$14,300*
Kazakhstan$10,500
Kyrgyzstan$1,100
Tajikistan
1,000
Turkmenistan$6,900
Uzbekistan$2,100Sources: World Bank and national statistics
Note: *Xingjian only

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

4,823.3
960
88.4
624.1
356.3
34.2
24.4

23.3
0
0
8.6
3.1
0.1
0.5

5.2.1. Poverty
With the fall of the Soviet Union, poverty in the region rose to as high as 80 percent (UNDP Kyrgyzstan
2002; UNDP Tajikistan 2012; UNECE 2013). Donor support was critical at the peak of the poverty andhumanitarian crisis, especially in the Tajik Pamirs. Subsequently, poverty has rapidly declined, but
Afghanistan, Kyrgystan, and Tajikistan are still worse off than their neighbors (in part due to past
conflicts, 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 15
percent (UNDP 2016).
As is typical in most countries, the areas that are the most remote and/or with the greatest remaining
natural habitat and biodiversity, are also the areas with the lowest income and literacy. Among the
hotspot countries, however, overall, only Afghanistan qualifies as “low” per the Human Development
Index (HDI) (Table 5.4).
Public engagement in environmental and policy is informed by the HDI – people are not highly informed,
motivated, or engaged, and while information might be available online, it is often incomplete ordifficult for lay-readers to understand.

53

Table 5.4. 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 Bank.

Life 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 data

5.2.2. Remittances
During Soviet times, the Central Asian republics enjoyed economic support that spread through all layersof society, including infrastructure, education, healthcare, science, and industry. The republics were partof a common market for sales and consumption. This allowed for subsidies that helped remote areas(for example, in the form of social security, employment, transportation, and commodity prices). With
independence, loss of subsidies, and population movement in search of work, remittances became a
new source of income that improve economic security in the short run (ILO, 2010). This is especially true
for Tajikistan, with a million people (12 percent of the total population) living and working in Russia;
Uzbekistan, with 1.5-2 million people (five percent of the total population) in Russia; and 500,000 Kyrgyz
citizens (10 percent of the total) in Russia. Tajikistan officially reported between $2.5-3.5 billion inremittances over the period of 2010-2015; Uzbekistan’s are twice that (although they contribute a
smaller proportion of GDP). Remittances from Russia to Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan combinedin 2013 were over $12 billion, showing the region’s continued reliance on this income. Economic
turbulence in Russia in 2008-2010 and again in 2015-2016 have had serious impacts on remotemountain communities in Central Asia.

5.3. Reliance on Natural Resources
The hotspot has abundant natural resources: rivers for hydropower and irrigation; canyons and plateaus
that allow for wind power; oil, gas, and coal in China, Kazkhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan.
Economic development has relied on these renewable and non-renewable resources; however,
exploitation of these resources has had environmental consequences in sensitive mountain ecosystems.
Irrigated agriculture has long been vital to food and fiber production. Extensive agriculturaldevelopment, mechanized development, and use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides has led topolluted discharge in new inland water bodies, called “solonchak” ecosystems, such as Aidar Lake in
Uzbekistan and Sarykamysh Lake in Turkmenistan. Where irrigation does return to the main rivers – theSyr Darya and Amu Darya – the downstream effects on ecology and human health have been dire. Inturn, concerns about water quality and quantity have led to interstate or inter-communal tensions.

54

The use of wildlife and conservation areas as a source of income does exist, but the system ofmanagement is mixed betweenpublic and private, individual and organizational. The governments tend
to view the value of protected areas as having low economic value (e.g., limited to the value of trophy
hunting), although these areas do have obvious value for their ecosystem services. Conflict between
competing interests – conservation of tracts of land versus its use for mining, energy, or infrastruce – iscommon (FLERMONECA, 2015).

5.3.1. Agriculture
The area of cultivated land rapidly increased in the five republics from the 1960s to 1990s, and more
recently in Xinjiang. The major zones of agriculture -- Ferghana, Tarim, Chu-Talas, Zeravshan – all rely on
irrigation. With climate change, the area is increasingly vulnerable to drought and soil degradation.
With independence, the five Central Asian governments transitioned collectively-owned farms to quasiprivate ownership and long-term private rental. As a result, the number of formal farming units
skyrocketed: over 350,000 private farms in Kyrgystan 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.
In rural parts of the hotspot, agriculture is still practiced at a household level, although in China,
Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, the state plays a much stronger role throughout the sector.
Historically, those in the Pamir raised more crops than livestock, while pastorialists in the Tien Shan and
Wakhan relied more on meat and dairy production. However, with changing economic patterns led tochanges in what people produce – and eat. There is now less land for livestock and dairy, and more land
devoted to production of grains and potatoes.
Capricious weather can have a big impact on those reliant on cash crops like apricots, wild forest
products, home gardens, or subsistence crops. Nomadic communities can suffer cattle losses from harsh
winters or dry weather. Rolling losses and crop unpredictability can affect entire provinces and lead togrievances and dissatisfaction.
The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region is well known for its fruits and other agricultural produce
including grapes, melons, pears, cotton, wheat, silk, walnuts and sheep. Around seven percent of theland is utilized for agriculture. Animal husbandry now accounts for nearly 30 percent of local agricultural
output value. Region-wide, the net annual per capita income of farmers was reported at around $500.
Some readers might associate the region with mechanized and industrial agriculture, thinking of theSoviet era or soy production in Brazil. This type of agriculture certainly exists in the seven countries, but
within the hotspot itself, much of this methodology has been replaced since the break up of the Soviet
Union. Many former cotton fields produced with industrial systems under state control now produce
grains under control of smaller-scale cooperatives. Of course, these farms represent a threat on
mountain slopes, but the incentives to which they respond are different than industrial farms. The
legacy of the past remains in the decimation of the Aral Sea, salinized soil, erosion, and the resettled
people who supported those systems. Otherwise, large-scale farming exists for irrigated agriculture in
the lowlands, and for large wool, dairy, and meat operations.

55

Some readers might also associate the region with the growth of poppy or illicit crops. Growing poppy
for opium production is a crime throughout the region, and historically has fallen under strict state
control measures in all but Afghanistan. Even within Afghanistan, while the province of Badakhshan(overlapping the hotspot) has an estimated 6,000 hectares of poppy (UNODC, 2016), the Wakhan Valley,itself, is considered poppy-free.

5.3.2. Mineral Resources and Mining
In terms of revenue, if not employment, mining is most noteable in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and China. In
Kyrgyzstan, most of the large mineral reserves are in the high mountains (above 2,500 meters), as they
are in Tajikistan, where the mining reserves are less developed and the resources are not as well known.
Mining and metallurgy contributes up to 50 percent of the national export earnings in Tajikistan(aluminum and gold) and up to 30 percent in Kyrgyzstan (mainly gold).
A series of changes in the operators of the mines, local perceptions of broken promises, dubious hiring
practices, compensation inequities, and environmental damage have all hardened resistance to mining
in Kyrgyzstan (Bogdetsky et al. 2012). The benefit-sharing arrangement between mining projects, central
government, and local communities, and the lack of transparency in the distribution of income remains
a lingering cause of resentment. The conflict between the use of land for traditional pasture and grazing,
nature conservation, and for mining activities is also a source of friction in Kyrgyzstan. The melting ofglaciers and permafrost in the mountains is complicating the infrastructure and waste management
requirements of mining operations (Torgoev 2013).
Kyrgyzstan has purposefully created conditions favorable to mining operators by enacting economic
reforms and by allowing access to geological information. Currently many companies in such territories
are licensed for mining activities. Tajikistan continues to consider its geological information semiconfidential, as in the Soviet era, and its legislation and the ease of doing business lags behind
Kyrgyzstan’s. As a result, Tajikistan has attracted fewer investors for the development of mineraldeposits. Tajikistan had been famous for silver mining from ancient times, and a recent geological audit
suggests that it has probably one of the largest silver reserves in world in the Kuramin, Western Tien
Shan (KBA). The government is now requesting expressions of interest from interested mining
companies.
Existing laws and regulations on mining sometimes contravene the goal of environmental protection.
For example, mining is sometimes allowed in riverbeds or even in the buffer zones of protected areas.
Local populations are sensitive to the negative impacts of mining, if not for biodiversity conservation,then definitely for the impacts on local human health. Further, there is a perception that agricultural
products from areas with mining are harmful. Local populations suffer because people from outside thearea demand to pay less for these crops.
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 of mining operaitons. However, EITI does not currently require disclosure ofdata on the environmental and social impact of mining on local communities.

56

Artisanal gold mining by local communities is not widespread in the hotspot due to tight governmental
control, but it exists in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and China. Artisinal mining tends to be used
as a supplement rather than as a primary source of income. However, as artisanal miners begin to use
machinery or mercury, the threats to the environment grow.
Kickstarted by a gold and oil rush in the 1990s, the extractive sector constitutes the largest share of GDP
in Xinjiang. Fueled by enormous domestic demand, both legal and illegal mining sites are common in theregion, even in areas of high conservation value.

5.3.3. Energy
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have the largest hydropower potential, and both countries are actively seeking
to exploit this. International financing institutions as well as Russia, China, and Iran are promoting
markets for energy generation and transfer, and in some cases, are investing directly in infrastructure.
China, Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan have all signaled to their Central Asian neighbors their interest in
buying hydropower-generated electricity. Currently, Kyrgyzstan has 2,700 MW of installed hydrowpower
and Tajikistan 5,000 MW, combined less than ten percent of their technically feasible hydropower
potential. Ongoing development and planning is taking place on Kyrgyzstan’s Naryn and Sary-Djaz rivers
and in Tajikistan’s Vakhsh, Panj, and Zeravshan.
The countries in the hotspot are using or exploring renewable sources (hydropower, solar, wind) tovarying degrees, and coal-fired plants are still common. Xinjiang has large deposits of oil, including
China’s second largest oil field, Karamay. Natural gas from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan flows to
Xinjiang and petrochemicals account for 60 percent of Xinjiang’s economy.
Like in the mining sector, major infrastructure development for hydropower attracts attention andcontroversy. This includes the 300-meter high Rogun Dam on Tajikistan’s Vakhsh River, withconstruction planned to be complete in 2025-2030 and which has caused tension with Uzbekistan. The
project has a lack of international investors and Tajikistan had been developing this project as a stateowned venture until July 2016 when it signed a $3.9 billion contract with Salini Impregilo, Italy.
Krygyzstan is facing similar tensions with its downstream neighbors and financial constraints to develop
its upper Naryn River cascade.

5.3.4. Water-agriculture-energy nexus
The tension between the highlands and the lowlands over the use of water for energy production andirrigated agriculture is a crucial issue in the region. Climate change is expected to only make a difficult
situation worse.
The water resources in the Aral Sea basin and Tarim River basin are already used to such an extent thatany significant stress resulting from weather extremes and climate change affects all users, especiallythose downstream. The water infrastructure in Central Asia was designed in the Soviet era for the region
as a whole, but since independence each country owns and maintains its infrastructure with the
exception of some cross-border canals, key reservoirs, and pumping stations still held in common oroperated jointly (ENVSEC 2011).
The downstream states prefer to maintain the status quo in regional water management, counting on
the historical hydrological baseline, water allocations, and arrangements. The upstream states would
57

prefer revision of the water management schemes in line with new political and economic realities(ENVSEC 2011). Individual countries now plan in their own interests instead of those of the Soviet Union,
leading to lack of agreement on the meaning of “sustainable” water use.
In the post-Soviet era, there has been a lack of coordination or willingness to balance the demands ofhydropower against irrigated agriculture, leading to downstream excess, or even flooding, in the winter(when the demands for power are high) and water deficits for irrigation schemes in the summer.
Conversely, upstream countries suffer from lack of hydropower generation due to limitations placed bytheir downstream neighbors. However, mutually beneficial solutions exist, including encouraging
markets for the trade of fossil fuels for electric power. Whether the countries pursue their national
interests or take a collaborative approach at the regional level may determine whether tensions escalate
or diminish (ENVSEC 2011).

5.3.5. Forest management
As table 5.5 shows, the percent of forest cover in the region is low, whether one looks at forests undernational boundaries or at more limited data for forest cover within the portions of each country that fallwithin the hotspot. Lowlands have low-density saxaul species that are well adapted to the arid
conditions, but are almost invisible on satellite images. There are patches of tugai forests along therivers. The mountains are home to forests consisting of coniferous and deciduous trees with anadmixture of shrubs. Most natural forests and plantations are state owned, although individuals andassociations can enter long-term leases with the state and often do so for fruit and nut forests and fortimber plantations. Leasing of plantations has led to increased reforestation, although there is the reiskof fencing and artificial barriers as leaseholders try to secure their holdings.
Table 5.5. 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
Sources: 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. Other challenges to forest managements are discussed in the Chapter 8.
Forest certification schemes do not yet exist, although the Forest Stewardship Council has initiatedefforts to promote sustainable, “eco-friendly” use and management of non-timber forest products(NTFPs). Overall figures on the value of the market for non-timber forest products are not available, buthousehold collection of such products is significant.

58

While plantation forests certainly use non-native species in various cases, within the hotspot in general,most community plantations use local species of poplars for building materials and fuelwood, or they
are using local species of fruit and nut trees. In Kazakhstan, in particular, there is even a movement toavoid using non-native apple to avoid cross-fertilization with the locally regarded native stock.

5.3.6. Tourism
With the exception Afghanistan, international and domestic tourism within the region is common, withdestinations based around hot springs, ski resorts, mountaineering, rock climbing, major lake-based
resorts, and cultural heritage sites. Hungting tourism is particularly important in Kyrgystan andTajikistan. Nature parks – lakes, forests, view-sites – are all extraordinarily popular and frequently sufferfrom too little investment in relation to the number of visitors. Standards for ecotourism have not yet
matched the need for the same.
About 80 percent of tourists are coming from within the hotspot countries. The largest source of foreign
tourists is Russia, followed by people from western Europe, Turkey, and eastern Asia. Tourism from theGulf states for niche products like falconry represent only a tiny fraction of tourism revenue. In terms ofnational revenue, of the seven countries, tourism represents the largest portion of the economy of
Kyrgyzstan, at approximately four percent of GDP over the last decade.
Xinjiang has nearly 500 designated scenic areas, many related to Silk Road history and culture. Tourism
management in China often emphasizes gross numbers of visitors instead of the quality of experience.
There are over 22 million domestic tourists per year in the region, with thousands per day visiting the
Tien Shan and Tianchi Lake National Nature Reserve, an hour’s drive from Urumqi, and close to one
million per year visiting Kanas Lake and Nature Reserve in the northern part of the province.
Authorities throughout the region see the value of nature-based tourism and understand theimportance of protecting the thing people are coming to visit. However, local capacity to manage
tourism is sometimes surpassed, with habitat disturbance being the negative side effect of too many
visitors.

5.4. Cultural Distinctions
5.4.1. Ethnicity
The main ethnic groups are Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Turkmen, Uyghur, Han, Tajik and Wakhi. The Kazakh,
Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Turkmen, and Uyghur live throughout the mountains and speak a series of Turkic
languages. Their distribution within the region is interesting. Kazakhs are often cattle breeders in theplains and lowlands, whereas the Kyrgyz are often cattle breeders in the middle and higher altitudes.
Uzbeks and Uyghurs are known for agriculture and trading. Tajiks are known for home gardens in thehigh mountains, and Turkmen (teke and nuhura) are known as are pastoralists of the desert. Tajiks
mainly live in the Pamir in Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and China and are subdivided into several ethnic
groups, including Wakhi-speaking communities in Afghanistan. Added to these are the many Eastern
Europeans – predominantly Russian and Ukrainian – who came in the last centuries, plus Koreans and
Han Chinese, especially in the major cities and industrial areas.

59

5.4.2. Religion
The dominant religion is Islam, which came to the region in the 6th-7th centuries, but was not firmly
established until the 12th century. Historic religions include Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Tengriism,and mountain communities continue to reflect elements of animism and living in harmony with nature.
During Soviet times, the practice of religion was not encouraged by the state, but with independence,
religiosity returned in widely varying degrees. Differences in belief regarding whether government
should be secular or theocratic have been a source of civil conflict and difficult relations. Extreme Islamicgroups in Central Asia and Afghanistan have used the mountains as hiding places. The rise of radical
movements has led to outbreaks of violence in some places, and the threat of fundamentalism remains
a common concern for regional security (Munster and Bosch 2012; Zarifi 2011).
The region is dotted with mazars – Islamic pilgrimage sites – and is also home to the sacred SulaimanToo Mountain in Osh, Kyrgyzstan, a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage site.

5.4.3. Language
Russian remains the international language of Central Asia and is even spoken in northwest China thanks
to trading links. In Kyrgyzstan, where the links to Russia are historically stronger, Russian is common inboth urban and rural areas. On the other hand, in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, there has been greater
cultural separation from Russia and a stronger national identity. This, plus legal mandates to use
national languages, mean that Russian is fading away in those two countries. Meanwhile, Chinese is
becoming more popular among students and people with business interests. English is rarely spoken
outside of major cities, and it is equally rare in government agencies or in local CSOs.
Each country in the hotspot has its own national language, in each case the language of the majority
ethnic group. English language skills are generally lacking, particularly in rural populations, ingovernment institutions and local CSOs.
Table 5.6. Ethnic Groups, Languages, and Religions 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

60

Table 5.6 summarizes the primary or notable ethnicities, languages, and religions within the hotspot
portion of each country. Certainly, there are dozens of languages and religions, and hundreds of
ethnicities, across these seven countries. Even in the limited fashion presented here, the tabledemonstrates the diversity of the region and suggests the need for specialized outreach andcommunication during implementation of a grants program.

5.4.4. Gender
The role of women varies across the region, and the differences in gender – in terms of genderdevelopment, inequality, and life-course gaps – are reflective of the varying levels of development ofeach country (UNDP 2016). A detailed analysis of gender in the context of biodiversity conservation ineach country is not possible within the scope of this document; however, the role of women (e.g., therelationship of women to decision-making on natural resources; barriers to women and women’sorganizations in organizational management) is certainly a factor in the CEPF investment priorities
discussed in Chapter 12. Further, summary data from the UNDP Human Development Report (2016) andthe most recent OECD Social Institutions and Gender Index (2014) provide a useful overview and insight
into the differences between the countries and some of the opportunities and limitations.
Table 5.7 shows selected indicators from the UNDP and OECD. Of note, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan bothhave relatively high inequality (UNDP Gender Inequality Index) and along with Kyrgyzstan, have a poordifferential in terms of women’s ability to control resources (SIGI restricted resource value scored as“high”). On the positive side, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan all show high rates offemale secondary education. Overall, the indices show that in each country, there are multiple issues
involved in terms of engaging women in conservation or in terms of promoting gender equity in natural
resources management. These issues include female education, acceptability of women to manage
natural resources, acceptability of women in the non-agricultural work-force, and acceptability ofwomen in leadership and managerial positions, at the least.

Country

Human
Development
Index Rank

GenderDevelopment
Index

Gender Inequality
Index

HDI Female

Female % of paid
employment in
non-agriculture

Female managers(% total)

Female secondary
education %SIGI Category

SIGI Restricted
Resources Value

Table 5.7. Selected Gender Indicators from the UNDP 2016 Human Development Reports and the OECD 2014
Social Institutions and Gender Index

Afghanistan
China
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

169
90
56
120
129
111
105

.609
.954
1.006
.967
.930
n.a.
.946

.667
.164
.202
.394
.322
n.a.
.672

.348
.718
.795
.648
.604
n.a.
.672

n.a.
37.7
50.6
42.3
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

n.a.
16.8
38.4
35.2
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

8.8
69.8
99.7
100
98
n.a.
99.9

High
MediumLow
MediumMediumn.a.
MediumHigh
MediumMedium
High
Low
Low
HIgh

61

5.4.5. Indigenous People
Other than in Afghanistan, the concept of “indigenous people” with enshrined legal rights is difficult toaddress and is informed by past and current state policies that promote national identities, even whilecelebrating ethnic differences. Thus, there remote mountain populations of Yagnobi in Tajikistan, andUyghurs and many others in Xinjiang, but by law, these people have no special privileges or limitations
as any others. On the other hand, in the Wkhan Valley and larger Badakshan Province, ethnicities of
Wakhi, Shugnani, Ishkashimi, and Yazgulyami may have special customary rights.
CEPF should not expect limitations to engagement based on ethnicity or a group’s status as“indigenous,” but will need to proceed cautiously if it tries to promote legal rights of a particular ethnic
group in a way that contravenes state policy.

62

6. POLICY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOTThis chapter reviews the main environment-related national, regional, and global policies andagreements being applied in the Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot, provides an overview of governancein each of the countries, and highlights national biodiversity strategies. Further discussion of policy isaddressed indirectly in the Risk Analysis table in Chapter 13.

6.1. Environmental Governance
While it is straightforward to identify the government agencies in each country directly and indirectly
responsible for natural resource management and conservation, it is more difficult to ascertain thepolitical “weight” that each has. Typically, there is a divide between ministries responsible for natural
resource use versus those responsible for conservation. In some countries, legislation, enforcement, andenvironmental control are integrated with policy making, while in others these functions are separated.
Tables 6.1 to 6.7 attempt to summarize the relative “weights” and roles of primary government agencies
in each country.
Decentralization presents its own complexities: often, strict nature reserves are controlled by national
authorities while species sanctuaries and landscape management zones are controlled by local
administrations. Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan have the most decentralized governance systems, which intheory, puts control over natural resources closer to the people who use them – a positive outcome.
However, it has led to situations where local authorities sometimes wish to exploit land for short-term
gain while national authorities are promoting conservation.

6.1.1. Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) is the government body withoverall regulatory power and policy making on environmental issues. It regulates, coordinates, monitors,
and enforces environmental laws. NEPA exercises an oversight role for the management of conservation
landscapes and protected areas (Table 6.1).
Table 6.1. Conservation-related governance arrangements and functions in Afghanistan
Function

NEPA

MAIL

MEW

Other

Local
authorities

Biodiversity policy

Major

MediumLesserLesserLesserSpecies monitoring

MediumMediumLesserMediumLesserSpecies protection

Major

Major

LesserLesserLesserProtected areas

Major

Major

LesserLesserLesserForests

MediumMajor

LesserLesserLesserWater
management

LesserMediumMajor

MediumMediumPollution control

Major

MediumMediumLesserLesserEnvironmental law
enforcement

MediumMediumLesserLesserLesser63

The Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Livestock (MAIL) includes a subordinate General Directorate
on Natural Resources Management that manages protected areas, forestry, and rangelands. The
Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW) is responsible for planning, management, and data collection ofwater resources, as well as facilitating water governance at the river basin level.
In many cases, responsibility for biodiversity conservation is divided among multiple state agencies;
consequently, overlapping powers and lack of cooperation between institutions are common.
Government structures mandated to protect biodiversity are understaffed and operate with insufficientbudgets, and employees, particularly in remote areas, often lack the knowledge and skills necessary for
effective conservation. Poor pay, difficult conditions, low motivation and training, and lack of incentive
mechanisms all lead to underperformance.

6.1.2. China
The part of China within the hotspot is formally known as the Uygur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang. In
Europe, historically it was known as Chinese Turkistan, as distinct from Russian Turkistan. It is the largest
sub-national administrative region in China and is broken down into prefectures, municipalities, andcounties, each of which has varying levels of autonomy. Thus, understanding whether decision-making
takes place in the provincial capital (Urumqi), Beijing, or elsewhere depends on the issue at hand. For
example, land areas along borders, or very large land areas with multiple resources, are often controlled
by Beijing, whereas smaller land units in less sensitive areas are typically controlled by provincial levelauthorities.
China’s State Council, appointed by the National People’s Congress, has ultimate responsibility for thecountry’s environment. The State Council authorizes the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) tocoordinate and monitor the management of biodiversity conservation. Its responsibilities include
formulating laws, regulations, compiling national programs and specifications, formulating management
regulations and standards for nature reserves, and supervising the conservation of rare and threatened
species. MEP is responsible for the implementation of international environmental conventions,
including the CBD (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2. Conservation-related governance arrangements and functions in China’s Xingjian
Ministry ofEnvironmentState Forest
Authorities

Ministry ofAgricultureState Water
Authorities

Biodiversity policy
Species monitoring
Species protection
Protected areas

Major
MediumMajor
LesserMediumMediumMediumMajor

LesserLesserLesserLesserLesserLesserLesserLesserOthers, incl.
Academy of
Sciences
MediumMajor
MediumLesserForests

LesserMajor

LesserLesserLesserMediumFish resources

MediumLesserLesserLesserLesserLesser

Water management

MediumLesserMediumMajor

MediumMajor

Pollution control

Major

LesserLesserLesserMediumMediumEnvironmental law
enforcement

MediumLesserLesserLesserLesserLesserSpatial planningMediumLesserLesserLesserMajor

MediumFunction64

Local
authorities
MediumLesserMediumMajor

Responsibility for managing the majority of forests and other protected areas lies with the State Forestry
Administration. Several other institutions also have biodiversity conservation responsibilities, including
the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Water Resources, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Xinjiang formulates nature reserve development plans at five-year intervals and submits the plans torelevant central governmental agencies for approval. Central government integrates the provincial plan
into the national plans.

6.1.3. Kazakhstan
In Kazakhstan, the two ministries responsible for biodiversity conservation are the Ministry ofAgriculture (MoA) and the Ministry of Energy (MoE). The Committee of Forests and Fauna in the MoA is
responsible for forests, protected areas system and enforcement of wildlife conservation. At the sametime, the Information and Analysis Centre in the Ministry of Energy has responsibility for managing
environmental records and the state cadastral records of natural resources, including protected areas,
forests, and species. Its core task is to provide information to support policy formulation and inform thepublic about the state of the environment, including biodiversity. However, both institutions remain
understaffed compared to the scope and geographic scale of work. Kazakh conservation CSOs often act
as consultants or advisers for the country’s biodiversity governance.
Table 6.3. Conservation-related governance arrangements and functions in Kazakhstan

LesserLesserLesserLesserLesserLesser

Ministry ofAgriculture
Major
Medium
Major
Major
Major
Major

Others(Academia, Research)MediumMajor
MediumLesserLesserLesserLesserMajor

LesserMediumMajor

LesserLesserLesser

Major

Major

LesserLesserMediumMediumMediumMediumFunction

Ministry of Energy

Biodiversity policy
Species monitoring
Species protection
Protected areas
Forests
Fish resources
Watermanagement
Pollution control
Environmental law
enforcement
Spatial planning

Local authorities
LesserLesserMediumMediumMediumLesser

6.1.4. Kyrgyzstan
The State Agency on Environment and Forestry under the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic is themain government authority responsible for policy implementation and regulation in the area of
biodiversity conservation. However, its political power is weak compared to other ministries. Most
protected areas and forests are managed by this agency. The Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Land
Reclamation has a leading mandate in land and water use issues. State Inspection for Environmental andTechnical Safety supervises and controls the implementation of legislation and regulations on theenvironment, water, land, mineral and other resources. The Academy of Sciences in Kyrgyzstan plays aprominent role in species research and conservation programs.

65Personnel movement and rotation within Kyrgyzstan’s civil service, whether by design or not, isfrequent. Such turnover means individuals are often new to their jobs, or agencies have multiple people
in transition, which then impedes the performance of the agency.
Cooperation among authorities, provincial administrations, and local self-government is weak, but thelevel of decentralization is remarkable in Kyrgyzstan. CSOs are key partners to the state authorities inrevision of legislation and policies, but contrary views and positions are not uncommon.
Table 6.4. Conservation-related governance arrangements and functions in Kyrgyzstan
Function
Biodiversity policy
Species monitoring
Species protection
Protected areas
Forests
Fish resources
Watermanagement
Pollution control
Environmental law
enforcement
Spatial planning

State Agency on
Environment
Major
LesserMediumMajor
Major
Lesser

Ministry ofAgriculture
MediumLesserLesserLesserLesserLesserOthers(Academia, Research)MediumMajor
MediumLesserLesserLesserLesserMajor

LesserMediumMediumLesserMajor (Inspection)

LesserMediumLesserMajor (Inspection)

LesserMediumMediumMediumMediumLocal authorities
LesserLesserMediumMediumMediumLesser

6.1.5. Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Committee on Environmental Protection along with the National Biodiversity and Biosafety
Center (NBBC) promote conservation, formulate biodiversity strategies, and implement conservation
projects. In 2013, the State Forestry Institution, Scientific-Research Institute for Forestry, and the State
Institution on Protected Areas were moved from the Committee on Environmental Protection to the
newly created State Forest Agency.
Table 6.5. Conservation-related governance arrangements and functions in Tajikistan

Function
Biodiversity policy
Species monitoring
Species protection
Protected areas
Forests
Fish resources
Watermanagement
Pollution control
Environmental law
enforcement
Spatial planning

Committee on
Environmental
Protection
MediumMediumMediumLesserLesserLesserNBBC

State Forest
AgencyMinistry ofEnergyWater

Major
MediumMediumMediumMediumLesserMediumLesser
Major
Major
Major
LesserLesserLesserMediumOthersLocalauthorities

LesserLesserLesserLesserLesserLesserLesserMediumMediumLesserLesserLesserLesserLesserMediumMediumMediumLesserLesserMajor

LesserMediumLesserLesserLesserLesserLesserMediumLesserMediumLesserLesserLesserMediumMediumMediumMediumLesserMedium66

NBBC is perceived as the only institution in Tajikistan in possession of comprehensive information on
biodiversity (most of which is publicly accessible) and is the focal point to the Convention on
Biodiversity. The Academy of Sciences provides information on the status of threatened species. The
Ministry of Energy and Water is in charge of energy and water policies in the country. The parliament
holds a working group on the environment and is active in drafting and revising legislation. Qualified
experts are in short supply, and information on the current state of species and ecosystems is generally
lacking.

6.1.6. Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan’s environmental governance structure, which had been stable for twenty years, wasreorganized in early 2016 when the Ministry of Nature Protection was transformed into the Committee
on the Protection of Nature and Land Resources under the Ministry of Agriculture and Water. This
Committee is now in charge of nature protection and use policies and includes departments on flora andfauna, forestry, ecological monitoring, research, and all national nature reserves. Turkmenistan also hasa formal Council of Elders that, along with the parliament, has a formal role on domestic and foreign
affairs.
Table 6.6. Conservation-related governance arrangements and functions in Turkmenistan
Function
Biodiversity policy
Species monitoring
Species protection
Protected areas
Forests
Fish resources
Water management
Pollution control
Environmental law
enforcement
Spatial planning

Committee on Nature
Protection
Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
LesserMedium
Major

Other

Local authorities

LesserLesserLesserLesserLesserLesserMediumLesserLesserLesserLesserMediumMediumLesserMediumLesserMajor

LesserLesserMediumMediumLesser

6.1.7. Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan’s State Committee for Ecology and Environmental Protection leads on biodiversity
conservation and the management of protected areas and species. However, actual control falls to
many bodies with poor coordination between them: the Cabinet of Ministers, the Ministry of Agriculture
and Water Resources, the State Committee for Geology and Mineral Resources, and local authorities.
Low salaries and a high rate of staff turnover complicate the situation.
The Academy of Sciences (Institute of Plants and Animals) is among the more capable research andconservation institutions. The Hydrometeorological Service under the Cabinet of Ministers(Uzhydromet) is home to the GEF Operational Focal Point. Uzhydromet leads on climate change
response and prevention of land degradation. The Uzbek Parliament formally tasks 15 of its 150
members to serve on an environmental working group.

67

Table 6.7. Conservation-related governance arrangements and functions in Uzbekistan

Function
Biodiversity policy
Species monitoring
Species protection
Protected areas
Forests
Fish resources
Water ecosystems
management
Pollution control
Environmental law
enforcement
Spatial planning

Major
MediumMediumMediumMediumLesser

Ministry ofAgricultureWater
LesserLesserLesserMediumMediumLesserLesserMajor

LesserMediumMediumMajor

MediumMediumLesserLesserMajor

MediumLesserLesserLesserMediumMediumLesserMediumMediumCommittee on
Ecology

Uzhydromet

Academy of
Sciences

Local
authorities

LesserLesserLesserLesserLesserLesserMediumMediumMediumLesserLesserLesserLesserLesserMediumMediumMediumLesser

6.2. Environmental Policy
Each of the seven countries has established law and policy that theoretically supports biodiversity
conservation, including legislation on creation and management of protected areas, wildlife protection,
environmental regulation, and pollution controls. All have some form of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Ecological code / framework environmental legislation
Protected areas law and associate regulations on management
Flora and fauna law
Forestry code
Water code
Hunting law
Environmental impact assessment law and regulations
Pollution prevention laws

In general, legislation in the region is robust and clear, but implementation is conducted by a diverse
array of government agencies that may not be coordinated or motivated.

6.3. Protected Areas
Formal protected land within the hotspot varies by country from four percent in Turkmenistan to 22
percent in Tajikistan. The first protected areas in the region were created in the 1930s, but the system
was upgraded considerably with the independence of the five former republics. During the Soviet era,
protected areas were managed by Moscow, where authorities created protected areas based on
geographic representation or to target specific species. Some protected areas were created in areas ofdense population, which to this day creates conflicts between land users and authorities. Over time, thefunctioning of reserves has ebbed and flowed with economic fortunes of the Soviet Union and then the
independent countries, and also based on conflict or stability in each of the seven countries (see Figure
6.1).

68

Figure 6.1. Protected Areas in the Mountains of Central Asia

69

Protected areas in the region range in size from the 1,200 hectare Gongliuyehetao Chinese Walnut
Reserve to the massive Wakhan National Park in Afghanistan (1 million hectares), Taxkorgan Nature
Reserve in China (1.4 million hectares), and Tajik National Park in Tajikistan (2.6 million hectares). The
hotspot is also home to well-functioning legacy reserves from the Soviet era, such as Kazakhstan’s AksuZhabagly and Almaty reserves, Uzbekistan’s Chaktal reserve, Kyrgyzstan’s Sary-Chalek reserve and IssykKul Biosphere Reserve, Tajikistan’s Tigrovaya Balka, and Turkmenistan’s Koytendag in Turkmenistan.
In addition to formally declared protected areas and national parks (corresponding to IUCN categories III), the region has five common designations for land with some form of conservation.
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.” They often lack legal status (particularly in Kazakhstan) and their management is oftendelegated to local authorities, although a recent trend is for oversight to be assigned to nearby
national parks. This category is applied in areas with particular species or natural features. Thereis serious need for these areas to have greater official recognition or national-level support,better management, or changed status. They would benefit from better local citizen anddecision-maker awareness about their importance and KBA status.
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. These areas tend to have well-defined boundaries, although digitized data is only
available for Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Several separate leskhoz could be managed as a single
KBA.
3. Hunting concessions are supervised and licensed by the state environmental authorities, andincreasingly, are managed privately. These areas are valuable for conservation, but managementof them varies. Not all concessions are managed for the long-term, and some are managed topromote high-value trophy species, as opposed to species that make the area important forbiodiversity. On the other hand, these concessions are good at preventing poaching, withnotable examples from the Dashtijum and Khushvoritan KBAs in Tajikisan leading to substantial
increase in the population of the morkhur goat (Capra falconeri) between 2010-2015. Workremains to build trust and align priorities between concessions, communities, and government
stakeholders. Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are frequented by wealthy visitorsfrom Gulf countries practicing falconry hunting on Houbara Bustard. Over the last 15 years, theKazakh government has allowed for the hunt of 80-170 birds per year on the condition that
hunting fees finance species rehabilitation and conservation, and the United Arab Emirates
supported a bustard nursery in 2008. Kyrgystan allows for a ceremonial hunt – the Salbuurun –but this appears to have no significant negative impact on vulnerable species.
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. In theory,these units form the basis of possible KBAs. These areas are at risk for small-scale gold mining
and gravel extraction; juniper forests tend to be over-grazed; wild fruit and nut forests tend tobe overexploited.

70

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. They are protected forspecific purposes, but not necessarily for conservation (e.g., for drinking water). In the context
of conservation, they are important for enforcement of regulations and restrictions on land use.
In addition to these, there are other land designations that, while not targeted at conservation, still havea conservation effect. These include natural resource extraction sites, infrastructure sites, andagriculture and pasture land concessions that can sometimes prevent poaching or protect uniquelocations by excluding people or other development.
Non-protected state land is typically leased to households for pasture or farming on a 30-year basis.
Over vast and sparsely populated areas, it is difficult for the government to control what happens onthese lands.
In the five former republics and in China, “protected areas” are, by definition, state land: there are no
privately-owned protected areas and there is no system of private management over areas designatedfor conservation, except for hunting concessions with selective conservation targets. Afghanistan isunique in the region for having community-based management as a formal element in the managementof Band-e-Amir National Park and Wakhan National Park.
In 2013, Tajik National Park, in the Pamir, and three sites in the Tien Shan Mountains of China became
UNESCO World Heritage sites, and in 2016, a similar designation was applied to several protected areasin the Western Tien Shan shared by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.
Appendix 4 defines the protection status of each KBA. Of note:•••

In Afghanistan, the entire Wakhan valley is now a national park, but the presence of snow
leopard in significant numbers and density really distinguishes the area.
Xinjiang’s protected areas are managed by the Forestry Department of the autonomous region
and cover 11 million hectares. The provincial government plans to double this amount by 2013.
Turkmenistan has received significant support for its Koytendag reserve from BirdLife
International and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

6.4. Regional and International Environmental Agreements and Initiatives
Table 6.8 shows the status of ratification or participation by each of the countries to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS), the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Ramsar Convention
on Wetlands (Ramsar), the World Heritage Convention (WHC), the Central Asian Countries Initiative forLand Management (CACILM), the Global Snow Leopard Programme (GLSEP), and the Central Asian
Mammals Initiative (CAMI). Table 6.9 shows membership in regional agreements.

71

Table 6.8. 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 6.9. Membership in regional environmental agreements and cooperation mechanisms
Country

Caspian Sea
convention

Aral Sea basin
IFAS

X
X

X
X (suspended)
X
X
X

Afghanistan
China
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

X

UNECE Water

UNECE Aarhus

EU-CA platform

X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

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. Since 2016, Kyrgystan
has suspended its participation in IFAS processes and bodies, including ICSD.

6.5. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans
The Convention on Biological Diversity requires countries to prepare and regularly revise National
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) as the principal instruments for implementing theConvention at the national level. The main elements of each country’s NBSAP are summarized here.

6.5.1. Afghanistan
Afghanistan’s NBSAP includes the following elements.
1. To continue ongoing assessments of Afghanistan’s floral and faunal communities, with theoverall aim of improving understanding of Afghanistan’s biodiversity resources and theirconservation requirements.
2. To expand the protected areas system to ensure that it is representative of all major ecosystems
and areas of outstanding conservation or natural heritage value.
72

3. To develop and implement the support mechanisms (incentives, rules, regulations,environmental education, public awareness) necessary for the effective conservation of
biodiversity and other natural resources.
4. To develop the mechanisms required for effective conservation of important species.
5. To develop and implement mechanisms to ensure sustainable use of biodiversity resources,
including funding, capacity and policy considerations.
6. To prevent the illegal or unsustainable use of biodiversity resources.
7. To develop and implement mechanisms for preventing damage to natural ecosystems frominvasive alien species.
8. To control impacts on biodiversity resources resulting from climate change, desertification andpollution.
9. To develop and implement mechanisms and plans for maintaining goods and services obtained
from critical ecosystems, focusing on forests and woodlands.
10. To maintain cultural diversity by recognizing and valuing traditional knowledge.
11. To manage genetic resources for the benefit of all citizens of Afghanistan.
12. To ensure that government organizations have sufficient capacity and resources to carry out
Afghanistan’s obligations as a signatory to the CBD and other Multilateral Environmental
Agreements.

6.5.2. China
China’s NBSAP highlights the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Further improve related policies, regulations and systems on biodiversity conservation.
Promote mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation into related planning processes.
Strengthen capacities for biodiversity conservation.
Strengthen in-situ conservation of biodiversity and rationally carry out ex-situ conservation.
Promote sustainable development and use of biological resources.
Improve benefit sharing of biological and genetic resources and traditional knowledge.
Improve capacities to cope with new threats and challenges to biodiversity.
Raise public awareness and strengthen international cooperation and knowledge exchange.

China’s NBSAP further highlights the Tianshan-Jungar Basin and the Tarim Basin with priorities for
Xinjiang including:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Establish and integrate nature reserves to expand the network of nature areas, taking into
consideration bio-geographical units such as mountains, watersheds, and deserts.
Strengthen protection of desert and grassland ungulates such as wild camels, argali, as well as
rare birds and their habitats such as bustards, crane, stork, gull.
Improve the conservation of rare and endemic fish and their habitats.
Reinforce protection of the gene resources of wild fruit trees, including wild apple and apricot.
Provide protection of unique desert species such as haloxylon, poplar diversifolia, tetraena,savin juniper, and herba cistanches.
Document and research on the traditional medical knowledge of minorities.

736.5.3. Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan’s NBSAP highlights the following:
1. In-situ conservation of biological diversity.
2. Accounting for and socio-economic assessment of the country biological capacity and its
balanced use in the legal framework.
3. Expanding the genetic fund, and providing genetic independence and biological safety.
4. Establishing conditions for conservation of the genetic fund of agricultural crop varieties,
including for agricultural animals and for making agricultural land more productive.

6.5.4. Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan views the conservation and sustainable use of its biodiversity in terms of service to thesustainable socioeconomic development of the country. The NBSAP identifies four strategic targets:
1. Integrate biodiversity conservation issues into the activities of state bodies and publicorganizations by 2020, as the basis of human well-being and the sustainable economic
development of the Kyrgyz Republic.
2. Reduce the impact on biodiversity and promote its sustainable use.
3. Improve the protection and monitoring of ecosystems and species diversity.
4. Improve the social importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services, increase the benefits ofsustainable ecosystem services, and traditional technologies.

6.5.5. Tajikistan
The main goal of Tajikistan’s strategy is “to preserve and manage biodiversity and to conserve
ecosystems, thus providing for the sustainable economic and social development of Tajikistan.” The
NBSAP includes the following elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Biodiversity conservation in-situ and ex-situ.
Regeneration and conservation of the genetic pool of plants and animals.
Providing biological safety of the country.
Sustainable use of biological resources to reduce poverty and to improve quality of human life.

6.5.6. Turkmenistan
The overall aim of Turkmenistan’s NBSAP is “to conserve, restore and sustainably use the biologicaldiversity of Turkmenistan for present and future generations.” The strategy highlights the following:
1. To integrate biodiversity conservation into all relevant governmental programs.
2. To revise and develop nature protection laws in accordance with the CBD.
3. To reduce the relative level of environmental pollution by 20 percent through the revision andimprovement of nature protection laws.
4. To halt the process of degradation of natural landscapes in 30 percent of Turkmenistan.
5. To preserve the existing state of the forests and restore 5 percent of their area.
6. To increase the level of public awareness on the importance of biodiversity to 50 percent andincrease level of ecological education by 10 percent.
74

7. To increase improve the management of protected areas and increase coverage by six percent.
8. To improve the conservation of agricultural biodiversity and ex situ conservation.
9. To develop and introduce economic incentives to increase local people’s interest in biodiversity
conservation.
10. Increase investment by 30 percent for the scientific capacity of institutions related tobiodiversity conservation.

6.5.7. Uzbekistan
According to Uzbekistan’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the country’s
NBSAP has the following objectives:
1. Improvement of the system of the protected areas, including organization of an ecologicallysustainable and diverse protected area system, with coverage of at least 10 percent.
2. Awareness of society, public participation, and education to achieve adequate understanding
and recognition of the importance of biodiversity for sustainable development.
3. Sustainable use of biodiversity resources to achieve the maximal meeting of economic,
scientific, recreational, and cultural demands of all people in Uzbekistan, providing simultaneousconservation of biological diversity and viability of ecosystems in the long-term.
4. Implementation of regional and local Action Plans on biodiversity in the context of the generalframework of the Action Plan for development, including development of provincial actionplans, which reflect more specifically regional and local demands and problems.
5. Coordination of international relations and assistance in the sphere of biological diversity
through development of an organizational structure on professional and managerial issues
compatible with international and regional legislation and agreements on biodiversity75

7. CIVIL SOCIETY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOTCEPF was founded with an understanding that the engagement of civil society leads to more effective
and sustainable conservation outcomes, and CEPF’s fundamental role is to make grants to civil society
organizations who then implement conservation programs. This chapter summarizes civil society“sector” in the region and the possible roles that CSOs might play in conservation.
CEPF defines civil society as all the national and international nongovernment actors that are relevant tothe achievement of conservation outcomes and strategic directions. This includes, at least, local andinternational conservation NGOs; economic and community development NGOs; scientific, research andacademic institutions; professional organizations; producer and sales associations; religiousorganizations; media; advocacy groups; outreach, education and awareness groups; formal and informal
schools; social welfare agencies; indigenous groups and indigenous rights groups; land reform groups;
and the parts of the private sector concerned with the sustainable use of natural resources.
The capabilities, niches, and areas of activity of civil society organizations vary among the hotspot
countries. Conservation- and mountain-focused organizations in Central Asia have a rich history. With
climate change becoming a more prominent issue internationally, many CSOs have started to integrate
green energy, landscape and ecosystem adaptation, climate-resilient development, and agricultural
practices into the scope of their activities. Because of CSO engagement, the Important Bird andBiodiversity Areas of Central Asia have been mapped; multiple national parks, reserves and lake shores
have been better cared for; and, flagship species have been better protected and monitored.
In general, the trend in the region is one of greater government control over CSOs, particularly since ahigh point of civil society engagement following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The reasons for thisare many and can be sensitive, but include issues of democratic governance, ethnicity and religion, andperceived and real 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 demonstrate “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 prescribed 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 and 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).
76Those focused on the mountain environment are in Almaty and south-east Kazakhstan (Shymkent,
Taraz, Ustkemen), in the foothills of the Tien Shan and Altai Mountains. Many have offices in the capitalcity, Astana, outside the hotspot, to maintain links to the government and donors. Kazakh CSOs play anactive role play an active role in environmental regulation and legislation, implement field projects, andconservation efforts and maintain regional and international 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 anddevelopment 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 low capacity and suffer the mostfrom geographic distance and instability.
Table 7.1 lists a sample of national-based (i.e., “local”) CSOs by work area and country.
Table 7.1. Selected CSOs with Links to Biodiversity Conservation
Technical Area

Land, Water and Nature
Resources Rights; Rightof Access to Justice andEnvironmental
Information

Local development

Artisans and traditional
craftsChildren and youth

Women and gender

Examples of CSOs
Kazakhstan: Green Salvation, Burabay and Almaty Aarhus centres, Eco-Atameken,
Farmer of Kazakhstan, Eco-Forum Kazakhstan, Ecom
Kyrgyzstan: Independent Ecological Expertise, Lesik-South, Akbulak, Osh and Bishkek
Aarhus Centres, Rural Development Fund
Tajikistan: Association of smallholder farmers, Azal, Surkhob, all Aarhus centres in
the country (seven Aarhus centres in total)
Uzbekistan: Union for the Defense of the Aral Sea and Amudarya, Armon, Zarafshan,
Shakhimardon, Salomatlik-Ecology, Tinchlik Suv, Chashma Suv, Okar Bulok, Obi
Zam Zam, Fergana Canal Water Users Association, CSO “For ecologically clean
Fergana”
Kazakhstan: Biogen
Kyrgyzstan: CAMP Alatoo, AGOCA, numerous jamaats
Tajikistan: Shifo, Jovid, CAMP Kukhiston
Tajikistan: Komroni
Kyrgyzstan: CBT (Community Based Tourism) network, numerous organizations
around Issyk Kul Lake, One Village One ProductTurkmenistan: Тoranny
Kazakhstan: Almaty Aarhus Centre, Ak-Bulak, Ecology-Youth-Initiative-Development
Foundation, Human Health InstituteTajikistan: Dushanbe Aarhus Centre, Globe, Little Earth, Parastor, Youth EcologicalCenter, Youth of the new century, Zumrad
Uzbekistan: Rodnichok, Eko-maktab
Kazakhstan: Association of Women of the Orient, Kazakh National Committee of the
UNESCO Man and BiosphereTajikistan: Alternative, Avesto, Bonu, Elyor, Women for Science and Progress, Zan va
Zamin
Uzbekistan: Zienur

77Technical Area
Ecological tourism andbusiness opportunities

Biodiversity
conservation

Mountain development

Environmental
education andawareness

Examples of CSOs
Kazakhstan: Avalon, Kazakhstan Agro-Forestry Association, Kazakhstan Hunters andFisherman Society and Kansonar, Business Arsenal, Thetis Society
Kyrgyzstan: CBT (Community Based Tourism) network, numerous organizations
around Issyk Kul Lake, One Village One ProductTajikistan: Ruhafzo
Afghanistan: Wildlife Conservation Society, Rupani Foundation
China: Institute of Geography and Ecology and numerous nature societies andassociations (geographic, botanic, wildlife, tourism)
Kazakhstan: Association for Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan (ACBK),
Naurzum, Jabagly-Manas, Institute of Zoology, GIS-Terra, Thetis Society, Snow
Leopard Foundation in Ust-Kemen, Institute of sustainable development
Kyrgyzstan: Kyrgyz Association of Land and Forest Users, Kyrgyz Wildlife
Conservation Society, BIOM, Ecological movement Аleyne+, GLIP, Academy of
Sciences, Kyrgyz society of hunters and fishermen, Tabyat-South, Plateau
Perspectives, numerous jamoats
Tajikistan: Nature protection team, Kukhiston, Tajik Association for the Protection ofForests and Wildlife, Noosfera, CSO “Genetic Resources,” Tajik Hunters Society
Turkmenistan: Turkmen Society of Nature Protection, Turkmen Society of Hunters
and Fishermen, Institute of deserts
Uzbekistan: Uzbekistan Society for the Protection of Birds (UzSPB), Eko-maktab,
Institute of plants and animals under Academy of Science
Kazakhstan: Eco-Gradient
Kyrgyzstan: Central Asian Mountain Partnership, Alliance of Central Asian Mountain
Communities (AGOCA), Regional Mountain Centre
Tajikistan: Hamkori Bakhri Taraqiyot, Tajik Social and Ecological Union, CAMP
Kukhiston, CAMP Tabiat
Kazakhstan: Green Salvation, Almaty and Burabay Aarhus Centres, Institute ofsustainable development, Jabagly-Manas
Kyrgyzstan: Tree of Life, Independent Ecological Expertise, Regional Center ofexpertise for education for sustainable development, Muras Bashaty, Bishkek
and Osh Aarhus Centres
Tajikistan: “Foundation for Support of Civil Initiatives (FSCI), Little Earth, Youth
Ecological Center, Youth of the new century, Zumrad
Turkmenistan: Arhus Centre of Turkmenistan, Tebigy Kuwwat
Uzbekistan: “For ecologically clean Fergana” Association, Logos, Uzbek Society for
the Protection of Birds, Eko-Maktab

The text below addresses CSOs in each country, although there are commonalities in the “sector” ineach. All have “local” CSOs covering smaller parts of the country, “national” CSOs covering the majorityof the country, “regional” CSOs with offices or partners in multiple countries, and “international” CSOs
that are 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.

78

7.1. Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, where community-based approaches are a fundamental component of political andinstitutional structures (e.g., via formal Community Development Councils, or CDCs), and are enshrinedin environmental legislation, CSOs are partners in all types of development and conservation strategies.
As a result, and despite some policy and the practical limitations of remoteness, there are many small
CSOs working in concert with international NGOs and government.
The Natural Resource Management Department of Aga Khan Foundation in Afghanistan is supporting
poverty reduction, improving rural livelihoods, and environmental conservation, all via communitybased natural resource management groups working under CDCs. Similarly, the Rupani Foundation
works supports community forestry and environmental education in Badakhshan. The challenge for
CEPF is that the groups supported by Aga Khan and Rupani are typically very small and typically do notmeet CEPF organizational requirements for receipt of funds.
There are various national NGOs based in Kabul, like Environment Watch Afghanistan and theAfghanistan Environmental Society, both of which conduct environmental awareness campaigns in
Kabul and have access to national government, although they are far from the Wakhan Valley, the focusof this hotspot investment.
The major international conservation NGO, and the only one with a long-term presence in Kabul and in
the Wakhan Valley, is the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), which has been in the Wakhan since2006. WCS helped establish the community based Wakhan Pamir Association and the Band-e-AmirCommunity Council, helped draft ten of the country’s environmental laws and policies, and has been
providing training to government and CSOs on conservation techniques, wildlife monitoring and surveys,
and controlling illegal hunting. WCS is working with the government and local communities on researchand conservation of snow leopards and mountain ungulates including Marco Polo sheep, markhor, ibex,
and other species. WCS continues to support the management of Band-e-Amir and Wakhan National
Parks.
In addition to Afghan and international groups, Tajik CSOs based in Khorog, the capital of Pamir, workwith Afghan counterparts on environmental education and training.

7.2. China
Civil society and its legal framework have become more complex in China in recent years. However, therange of nonprofit and social organizations has expanded and CSOs are moving gradually from themargins of society into the mainstream. The Overseas NGO Law, which came into effect in January 2017,has raised the barriers for international NGOs seeking to work in China. Further, Chinese organizations
raising funds from abroad may face additional requirements for reporting on their international contacts
and may require approval to receive donations or visitors.
There are several forms of CSOs in China: social associations (shehui tuanti), which are the equivalent ofmembership associations; social service organizations (shehui fuwu jigou); and foundations (jijinhui).
There are also various informal CSOs, small community-based organizations, and rural cooperatives.

79

Civil society engaged in conservation in Xinjiang are mainly nested within or associated with scientificinstitutions. The Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, within the Chinese Academy of Sciences, isthe largest and the most important player in environment protection and natural resourcesmanagement. The major science-based CSOs are:
•

•

•

•
•

•

The Xinjiang Botanical Society was established in 1962 and today has 680 members including
botanical experts and volunteers. The society conducts teaching and research, popularizes plantscience and protection, provides advisory services, participates in decision-making, conducts
international and local botanical expeditions, leads workshops, and disseminates knowledge.
The Xinjiang Geographical Society was established in 1965 and today has over 700 members. It
leads geographical expeditions, and promotes geographical knowledge, technology, andeducation. The society is active consulting and technical services and popularization ofknowledge.
The Xinjiang Wildlife Conservation Association was established in 1985 and is a member of the
China Wildlife Conservation Association. It is engaged in wildlife conservation, research,education, and nature reserve planning. The association has 13,000 members from throughout
the province and it works frequently with local forestry offices.
The Xinjiang Zoological Society was established in 1963 and is active in animal science, training,
and research.
Xinjiang Ecology Institute was established in 1993 by the Xinjiang Environmental Protection
Bureau and other partners to disseminate ecological knowledge, popularize ecological books,
produce audio-visual materials and support the ecological education across the Xinjiang region.
Xinjiang Tourism Institute established in 2014 is providing support in tourism development inXinjiang.
The Xinjiang Institute of Zoology, Xinjiang Soil and Fertilizer Society, Xinjiang Natural Resources
Society, and Xinjiang Tourism Institute are all also important in biodiversity initiatives andinternational projects implemented in the province.

WWF, WCS, BirdLife, and Conservation International, among others, work in China, although not within
the hotspot.
It is to be determined, but the Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography might be required to serve as
the official hub for CEPF grants at the local level.

7.3. Kazakhstan
The early 1990s saw the rapid entry of many groups into the CSO sector in Kazakhstan primarily forhuman rights and environmental issues, such as nuclear non-proliferation, clean-up of the Semipalatinsk
nuclear test site, and the Aral Sea. The country has as many as 30,000 CSOs which fall under the formal
supervision of the Ministry of Culture and Sport. Various restrictive provisions on CSOs were passed in
2014-2015, but were then lifted in response to popular pressure.
Of the 30,000 CSOs in the country, there are approximately 150 which conceivably could become
engaged in CEPF-funded work in the Kazakh portion of the hotspot. Many of these are members of the
Ecological Forum of NGOs of Kazakhstan. Environmental activitists have banded together, most notably
in 2008, when under the banner of “Green Salvation,” there was a successful campaign to block highvoltage power lines from being routed through national parks.
80

There are many science-oriented CSOs that conduct ecological research, hunters’ associations that dowildlife surveys, and groups that promote access to environmental information, particularly in regard to
reduction of pollution. The largest conservation-focused group within the Kazakh portion of the hotspot
is the Association of Biodiversity Conservation of Kazakhstan (ACBK), a BirdLife network partner. ACBK
mapped Important Bird Areas, helped to establish several nature reserves, and has ongoing work on
biodiversity monitoring, legislation reform, public awareness campaigns, and cross-border initiatives.
International funding for CSOs tends to focus on charismatic species, like the saiga antelope, snow
leopard, and argali. Limitations for donors are minimal, but there are gaps and contradictions in thelegislation regulating CSOs activities, which can cause delays.

7.4. Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan has probably the most diverse and active civil society community in the hotspot. Legislation
on CSOs is very liberal and even local jamoats (small people’s associations) can register in local
government offices and gain legal status. The country has a relatively good banking system that allows
for the easy movement of cash and culture of democratic spirit that encourages CSO engagement. Likeelsewhere, there is sometimes a gap between enthusiasm and implementation ability, but the overall
sector is strong.
There are about 200 conservation CSOs, including jamoats, which could conceivably become engaged in
CEPF work. The largest is the Kyrgyz Association of Forest and Land Users, with 7,000 members andoffices in every province in the country. The Alliance of Central Asian Mountain Communities (AGOCA) is
another large network that unites 57 villages from Kyrgyzstan along with others from Tajikistan andKazakhstan to promote rural capacity building, small enterprise, sustainable agriculture, and local
governance.
Notable conservation CSOs include the Aleine Environmental Movement, which contributed topreparation of the Red List of Kyrgyzstan; the BIOM Youth Ecological Movement, which is active inenvironmental education, awareness, and research; the group known in English as “Independent
Ecological Expertise,” which is famous for environmental law and crime investigation; and the Kyrgyz
Wildlife Society, active in bird conservation. The scientific and senior staff from many NGOs also holdpositions within the Kyrgyz Academy of Sciences and its institutes, which can make formal proposals for
new protected areas to the State Agency on Environmental Protection.
The strength and diversity of the CSO sector allows for ideas seen in other hotspots, like creation of CSOmanaged micro-reserves and nurseries growing endemic species. However, groups struggle withacquiring appropriate skills, providing match funds to receive grants, proposal submission in foreign
languages.

7.5. Tajikistan
CSOs in Tajikistan are engaged in a wide range of activities, including humanitarian work andenvironmental protection. They are normally registered as non-commercial organizations and operate
under the Law on Public Associations (2007). They are split into public associations or public
foundations, both of which register with the Ministry of Justice. In 2016, the Government passed new
regulations on humanitarian aid that, among other things, required groups receiving funding from81

abroad to formally notify the Ministry of Justice within ten days and to register on a Registry of
Humanitarian Aid. This and similar restrictions have created a challenging operational environment for
CSOs. The recent bank and cash crisis in the country has made financing more difficult for local groups,
as well.
There are about 3,000 CSOs overall, but perhaps only 50 have an environmental focus or significant
expertise in conservation. Of these, the Tajik Socio-Ecological Union is one of the oldest; it helped create
Tajik National Park and Shirkent Natural Park. Others include the Youth Eco-Center, Nature Protection
Team, Kukhiston, and Noosfera. Various groups in the Pamirs promote engagement with colleagues andcommunities in Afghanistan, and support for conservation-friendly enterprise and sustainableagriculture are common areas of work. Many CSOs are active in promoting the role of women inresource management. In recent years, field-based conservation work, particularly on ungulates andsnow leopards, has been dominated by international CSOs and the Tajik Society of Hunters.
Funding for climate change dominates current donor priorities, which has forced CSOs to shift theirfocus and limit actions for conservation. The literal, physical work environment in Tajikistan can bedifficult – high mountains, remote locations, border zones that require special permissions – making
work for CSOs expensive and slow, a condition that is only exacerbated by the increasing dominance of
Tajik, meaning that even scientific text or donor bidding documents in Russian need to be translated.

7.6. Turkmenistan
The Constitution of Turkmenistan states that citizens have the right to establish public associations andthat the government should support civil society. The Law on Public Associations (2014) regulates civilsociety activities, including requiring registration of any project receiving foreign funding or technicalassistance. The registration process can be long and complex, regardless of the size of the grant.
Because of this law, people often do not bother creating formal public associations, and instead try tosolve problems collectively through other means. The result is that there are relatively few CSOs, all thatare well-established, with close relations with the government and a clear mandate for their work.
The Turkmen Society of Nature Protection is the oldest and largest nature conservation group in the
country. Its activities cover and broad array of work: combating desertification; environmental
education; the protection of wildlife; the protection of forests; conservation of natural and cultural
heritage; the environment and health of children; alternative energy; and water, sanitation, and theprotection of water resources. The second largest group is the Turkmen Society of Hunters andFishermen, which focuses on wildlife conservation and management. There are others that comment onenvironmental legislation and on environmental impact assessments.
Foreign donors to local CSOs must consult with authorities in advance or funds can be blocked by banksreceiving international transfers. Similarly, CSO access to nature reserves must be negotiated inadvance. However, if the donor and CSO comply with all requirements, then implementation tends to gosmoothly. A notable example is the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has been successfully
working in Koytendag Nature Reserve, building local staff capacity and helping in the nomination of thesite as a UNESCO World Heritage site.

82

7.7. Uzbekistan
Civil society does not have an active presence in Uzbekistan, in general, or in the environmental arena,in particular. The government does not encourage foreign-funded projects, but instead supports
Government-NGO partnerships via competitive bidding. Since 2016, CSOs seeking foreign funds mustget advance approval from the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Banking
Commission of Uzbekistan. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs must approve, in advance, any official
meeting between a CSO and international parties, including for seminars or field visits. If all
requirements are followed, implementation tends to go smoothly. However, an additional challenge isthat all international funding is converted by the recipient bank at the official rate of exchange, typicallyhalf of the actual rate of exchange, meaning that the purchasing power of grants is also halved.
Those CSOs that do manage to operate actually have relatively high capacity. The Institute of Animals
and Plants (under the Academy of Science), the Uzbek Society for the Protection of Birds, and the Uzbek
Zoological Society are all prominent. There are other CSOs that focus on the Aral Sea, desertification,
alternative energy, water and sanitation, environmental education, public awareness, and conservationof natural and cultural heritage that could conceivably become involved in CEPF-funded work. Lastly,
there are large, government-controlled NGOs, like the Ecological Movement of Uzbekistan.
The GEF-SGP is well-established, and while technically, its funds are not “foreign,” it may offer synergies
or avenues for reaching small groups. For larger grants in the country, the pool of applicants will likely
be limited by those that already have formal permissions.

7.8. Regional Organizations and Networks
The University of Central Asia, based in Bishkek, hosts the Mountain Partnership Central Asia, which
consists of 40 organizations from eight countries – the seven in the hotspot plus Pakistan. The Mountain
Partnership promotes sustainable development, networking, and capacity building. It offers tools andplatforms for use by regional stakeholders and provides technical support to countries and theirgovernments for the mainstreaming of the mountain agenda into policy and planning processes. The
University of Central Asia, a private entity with campuses in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, isthe only university in the region that focuses on mountain areas and issues.
The Central Asia Regional Environmental Center (CAREC) was established in 2001 by the five Central
Asian countries and international donors, including the EU. CAREC is headquartered in Almaty and has
offices in each of the five capitals, as well as a project office in Kabul. CAREC formally addresses regional
environmental issues of all types, as well as conducting pilot programs on payment for ecosystemservices and awareness campaigns. CAREC has well-established links with government in each country
and experience in grant-making.
ACTED (Agence d'aide à la Coopération Technique et au Développement, a French NGO) and the Aga
Khan Development Network work on humanitarian issues and sustainable natural resourcesmanagement in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.
BirdLife International does not maintain a program office in the region, but instead works through its
national country partners in all the countries other than Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Its United Kingdom
partner, the RSPB, is working directly on several projects throughout the region.
83

Biodiversity International (the “rebranded” name of the combined CGIAR centers: the International
Plant Genetic Resources Institute; and the International Network for the Improvement of Banana andPlantain) has a team in Tashkent that works on agricultural ecosystems, forests, and wild crop relatives
throughout the region. Tashkent also hosts ICARDA.
The Aarhus Convention under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) establishes
rights of the public to access environmental information, to participate in environmental decisionmaking, and to challenge public decisions made without regard to these rights. In cooperation withUNECE and the Environment and Security Initiative, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe (OSCE) supports a growing network of Aarhus Centres in Central Asia. These centers assist civilsociety organizations in building coalitions and working with governments at the local, national andcross-border levels. The centers are registerested as local CSOs, but they rely on international funding.

84

8. THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY IN THE HOTSPOTThis chapter presents an overview of the main threats to biodiversity and natural habitats in the hotspot
and is closely linked to Chapter 5 (socioeconomic profile). Humans have influenced terrestrial
biodiversity over much of the region for millennia, particularly in terms of farmland, grazing land, andpredator control. However, as in the rest of the world, industrialization, political change, population
grown, population movement, and economic development have escalated threats to an extreme level.
Current information on threats to biodiversity and their causes in the hotspot is scattered, and there are
no overviews for the region. There are various sub-regional summaries for particular issues (e.g., climatechange, desertification), and there are national overviews of threats in each of the NBSAPs and byinternational development agencies, but these vary considerably in quality and how current they are.
All documents were reviewed as part of the hotspot profiling process, and key 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 fromprevious exercises per Table 8.1. In the table, upward arrows indicate increasing threats, downward
arrows indicate increasing threats, and straight arrows indicate continuing threats.
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

↘

→

→

↗

↘

→

↗

↗

↘

→

→

↗

→

→

→

↗

→

↗

→

↗

↘
↗
→
↗

→
↗
↘
↘

→
→
→
↗

↗
↗
↗
↗

Invasive
Species↗

↗
→↗

The trends for the fragile landscapes of the high mountains are negative (i.e., increasing threats) andclimate change is a threat to every ecosystem. (Climate change is addressed separately in Chapter 9.)
Positive trends (i.e., decreasing threats) are primarily in areas where the state or motivated local actors
have seen it in their economic self-interest to act (e.g., reduced pollution of freshwater; avoided
conversion of valuable forests).

8.1. Habitat Change
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. In this region, most lowland semi-deserts and foothills
have long been converted to agricultural use, mainly for cultivation of cotton and cereals. Conversion ofland for grazing is also historical in the lowlands and foothills in the winter and uplands in the summer.
85

This conversion has resulted in the loss of grasslands and semi-dessert grass-wormwood communities,
with decreased loss in soil fertility. Poor water management and irrigation practices have led tosalinization of soils, and the overuse of fertilizers and pesticides has caused downstream pollution(USAID 2013).
Threats from infrastructure, urbanization, and the changes resulting from economic development are allserious. Construction of roadways – either for human transport, movement of freight, or forconnections to resource extraction sites – are all national priorities, particularly with China’s One Belt –One Road initiative. Much of this work is slated directly within or around KBAs or important landscapes,
promising for destruction of breeding grounds or disruption of migratory movement.
Hydropower dams, with their disruption of river flows, and irrigation schemes, with their excessive
withdrawals of water, are both a historical legacy and a continuing threat that spreads well beyond thehotspot boundaries to the Aral and Caspian seas. Species in tugai (riparian) forests have been
particularly affected. Of course, it is not only dams that represent a threat, but also the associatedtransmission lines and the broader development of power-generation infrastructure.

8.2. Overexploitation of Species and Ecosystems
8.2.1. Poaching, Excessive Hunting and Collection of Plants
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. This type of hunting is done for profit, with relatively large amounts of money to be madeby people leading these illegal enterprises. In turn, this creates a disincentive for local people to protectthese species, rather than joining in the behavior for short-term gains while they are still available.
During the Soviet era, with greater state control, poaching was less of an issue. Today, withdecentralization of government and limited national revenues, enforcement is rare.
The most notable story is of the Saiga antelope, once widespread on the steppes and almost hunted toextinction. It is still critically endangered, but at least in Kazakhstan, government controls and popularsupport have led to a small recovery. Nonetheless, the small population is vulnerable to disease.
Similar to excessive 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 remote areas where plants arecollected for medicinal use, people often do not realize that the species is threatened. Apart fromawareness campaigns and promotion of alternative products, options exist for creation of cooperatives,
nurseries, and cultivation of certain species.

8.2.2. Overgrazing
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), although to a lesser extent in the high altitudes above86

2,500 meters. Degradation from overgrazing is apparent around settlements, but its impact is muchwider. Overgrazing leads to soil erosion and reduces fresh grass yields and species compositions, leading
to growth of less palatable or inedible grasses, and consequent extensification by herders. The
overgrazing of preferred grasses then leads to less fodder for native ungulates, such as the argali(mountain sheep).

8.2.3. Human-wildlife Conflict
Human-wildlife conflict is primarily a threat in Afganistan’s Wakhan Valley, where there is retaliatory
killing, trapping, and poisoning of snow leopards by herders trying to protect livestock. In the othercountries, the fines and criminal penalties for killing a snow leopard seem to serve as sufficient deterent.
However, for other predators, such as wolves, authorities encourage an even reward trapping andhunting.

8.3. Invasive and Alien Species
Invasive and alien species (IAS) are a serious threat to freshwater ecosystems and fragile mountainlandscapes. In the past, commercial fish species were introduced to Lake Issyk Kul in Kazakhstan and thebroader Talas River Basin with immediate impacts on endemics. More typical than purposeful
introduction, however, has been the spread of invasives due to habitat change. IAS plants have moved
into overgrazed areas, parasitic plants have grown off of excessive fertilizers in freshwater systems, andvarious birds, like the Common myna, have displaced natives.

8.4. Pollution
Pollution is of greatest threat in the most industrialized parts of the hotspot, or downstream from these.
Xinjiang, with rapid economic growth, stands out for being at risk from industrial discharge, tailings,
hazardous waste, and uncontrolled dumping, although it is not alone. The main freshwater basins of
Lake Issyk-Kul, the Ferghana Valley, and the Ili Basin also are at risk from persistent organic pollutants
and toxic waste.

8.5. Indirect Drivers of Threats
8.5.1. Demographic Pressures
Pressure from demography is inevitable. More people require more land, fuel, food, and water. Within
the hotspot boundaries, about 42-44 million people live in the former Soviet republics and Afghanistan,
and an additional 17-20 million people live in the Chinese part, with many more in the adjoining plains.
Overall population density is about 70 people/km2, lower than in neighboring hotspots in the Himalayasor Caucasus, and varies with altitude and access to water. Densities are as low as 5-10/km2 in the highmountain plateaus, which should be advantage for conservation, but the landscapes are so fragile thateven this many people – and related development – can cause problems. For example, the Murgab
district of Tajikistan has fewer than 15,000 people spread over 38,000 km2, yet suffers from excessive
collection of teresken bushes (Ceratoides papposa and Artemesia spp.) for fuel, overgrazing, and overhunting. Similarly, the Afghan Wakhan only has 20,000 people (less than 4 people/km2), but they sufferfrom extreme poverty that drives them to intensive use of natural resources. On the other hand, parts87

of the Ferghana Valley and Tarim Oasis have 400 people/km2 making predictable demands on thelandscape.

8.5.2. Socio-Economic Factors
As addressed in Chapter 5, economic change has been a driver of land conversion. Much of the region
was only accessibly by foot or on horseback until the mid-twentieth century. Since then, roads haveopened wide areas to disturbance or exploitation. Even in areas without significant resources, there arescenic areas and ski resorts that draw increasing tourism and associated infrastructure.
Contrary to the former Soviet republics and Xinjiang, Afghanistan, in general, and the Wakhan Valley, inparticular, have missed out on economic development. Civil conflict and insecurity have certainly set thecountry back. Because of its remoteness, Wakhan was luckily able to avoid some of the violence, but forthe same reason, has received nominal support over the years. Poverty and low education create limited
opportunities to promote sustainable long-term resource plans.

8.5.3. Weak Institutions, Regulations and Enforcement
Multiple institutional factors contribute to poor management of natural resources throughout theregion. At a basic level, low salaries make it difficult for government agencies to attract the best
personnel. There is also a generational disconnect, where science and conservation are seen as
something done by the older, Soviet-trained generation. At a higher level, there are structural
disconnects, if not competing priorities, between central and local authorities. Agencies responsible for
agriculture, oil and gas, minerals, and water compete against one another and have more power thanconservation agencies.
The result is that other than in the foremost national parks and reserves, protected areas lack staff thatare appropriately paid, trained, or equipped to perform their jobs. Overall, there is little institutional
capacity in many of the countries to properly manage a multi-unit system of protected areas, andbiodiversity conservation is not well integrated into development planning or private sector activities.
At the regional level, cooperation remains challenging. Some of the countries do not trust theirneighbors or put their own economic interests ahead of the regional good. There is also a long-standing
conviction from many of the region’s leaders that economic development and conservation cannot
happen at the same time.

8.6. Summary of Threats by Country•

Afghanistan’s NBSAP identifies threats nationwide rather than for the Wakhan Valley alone.
These threats include land conversion for agriculture and housing, illegal hunting, deforestation,
overgrazing, shrub collection, dryland farming, water diversion, and climate change (Fifth
National Report 2014). The underlying issues are population growth, a low level ofdevelopment, and widespread poverty. Within the Wakhan Valley, the threats are overgrazing
and the poaching of wild sheep for meat.

88•Threats in Xinjiang, China are from extractive industries, infrastructure development, andincreasing consumption that comes with the rapid creation of a middle class. Uncontrolled
domestic tourism is threatening particular sites and species.

•

Kazakhstan’s report on the NBSAP cites overgrazing, illegal hunting, over collection of wild
plants, increasing tourism, and agricultural expansion as the primary threats (Fifth National
Report 2014).

•

Primary threats in Kyrgyzstan are over-exploitation of forests containing fir, juniper, and trees
bearing wild fruits and nuts; over-exploitation and degradation of Lake Issyk-Kul; freshwaterpollution; and degradation of steppes, foothills, and grassland corridors that are important forendemic species (Fifth National Report 2013).

•

Tajikistan suffers from a declining knowledge base in science and academia that cannot provide
basic information on biodiversity or its status; low capacity of state actors responsible forconservation; rapid population growth combined with poor economic prospects of communities
in forest and pasture areas; agricultural expansion right to the borders of protected areas; andlack of clear title to land (Fifth National Report 2014).

•

The portion of Turkmenistan in the hotspot is limited to the Koytendag Ridge, a spur of the
Pamir-Alay Mountains. Primary threats in this area are expansion of agriculture,
overexploitation of certain species, and recreational tourism.

•

The portion of Uzbekistan that lies in the hotspot includes the highly populated areas of greater
Tashken and the Ferghana, Kashkadarya, and Zeravshan Valleys. These areas rely on freshwaterlakes and wetlands that are important for birds. Loss of habitat, agricultural expansion,
agriculture-related pollution, unregulated tourism, and infrastructure development are also
major threats (Fifth National Report 2015).

89

9. CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report states that each of thelast three decades were successively warmer than any previous decade since 1850, and that multiple
independent datasets show warming in the range of 0.6°C to 1.0°C over the period of 1880-2012. This
global impact is being felt in the hotpsot, where temperature increases range from 0.2°C to 0.4°C per
decade over the last 40 years. The spring and fall seasons have exhibited the largest warming trends.
Winter temperatures increased in the southern lowlands and mountains of Central Asia, but the cold
spells of 2008 and 2012 have reduced the significance of this trend. In the Tarim basin of China,
precipitation increased by 20 percent between 1960 and 2000 (Rumbaur 2015). Higher surface
temperatures have resulted in increased evaporation and reduced soil moisture content, especiallyduring the dry summer months, thereby amplifying the risk of droughts in lowlands and reducing theamount of surface run-off in mountains.
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. Small and low altitude
glaciers are expected to vanish completely. The glaciers of Bogda Peak, outside of Urumqi, shrank by 20
percent between 1962 to 2006, and “Glacier Number One,” Urumqi’s primary source of water, has
shrunk by 17 percent between 1962 to 2014 (Wang, et. al., 2014). In response, the Chinese governmenthas banned tourism to Glacier Number One and restricted vehicle use, grazing, and mining nearby.
The high-altitude glaciers of the Pamir and Tien Shan sit at the top of the Vakhsh and Panj river basinsthat form the Amu Darya River. These glaciers could reduce by half in a scenario with 2° of warming. The
Fedchenko and Zeravshan glaciers have not yet shown significant loss of ice volume, yet, butnonetheless, Tajikistan has launched a state program on glacier monitoring and protection.
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. Experts predict glacier loss, warming, and unstable ecosystems.

9.1. Impact on Human Populations and the Economy
The number of days with temperature above 40°C has been increasing in the densely populatedsouthern areas of Central Asia. This has a negative impact on agriculture and rural and urban
populations affected by heatwaves.
The climate effects on water regimes are highly variable. As glaciers retreat and snow cover patternschange, 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 insummer, for example in the Sary-Dzjaz and Aksu in the Tien Shan Mountains (Kundzewicz et al, 2015;
Krysanova et al, 2015).
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 of flooding is when rain falls onsnow or frozen ground in flat areas, leading to standing water and damage to infrastructure. Projectwarming will likely affect the stability of mountain permafrost and glacial moraines, which may lead toan increased risk of glacial lake outburst floods.
90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.
Climate variability is expected to allow for new insect pests to colonize the region, and for existing pests
to increase in population. Countries are rightfully afraid of examples like the 2007 locust outbreak that
destroyed 35,000 hectares of crops and the 2008 cotton budworm outbreak in Tajikistan that halved theharvest.
Human health will be directly affected by extreme heat in the summer, including for agricultural
workers, the elderly, the very young, and pregnant women. As average temperatures increase, diseases
are likely to spread more easily, thus adding threats to both animal and human health. Heat stresscontributes to cardiovascular disease, and warming patterns can increase the risk of malaria outbreaks.
Heavy rainfall in areas with inadequate water supplies and substandard sanitation can increase the riskof infections such as typhoid, salmonellosis, cholera, and dysentery.
The increase in extreme weather events is likely to cause short-term population displacement andmigration, and the degradation of the ecosystems that sustain livelihoods is expected to accelerate bothseasonal and long-term migration.

9.2. Impact on Biodiversity
Various studies expect mountain forests and pastures to move up in elevation and 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. Table 9.1 summarizes information from the studies and the
profiling team’s stakeholder consultations.
The hotspot is important for both rare and endangered species as well as for agro-biodiversity (Vavilov,
1926), from which cultivated plants have originated. The hotspot harbors wild relatives (landraces) ofimportant agricultural crops and domesticated fruit and nut trees that possess resistance and tolerance
to pests, diseases, and climatic stress; thus, are of incredibly high value.
Research in Tajikistan predicts an increase in temperature of 3°C in 2050. Given that air temperaturescool by 0.6°C per 100 meters, climatic conditions at any given site today will be 500 meters higher inelevation in the future. Forest sites today can potentially grow at these new elevations, but only if soil
conditions and precipitation/moisture allow. Conservation planners will need to devise in situ and ex situ
measures to allow for adaptation.
The number and intensity of wildfires is expected to increase, placing remnant forests at risk. At thesame time, relict and paleoendemic species have fire-resistant traits that make them more valuable forconservation.
With shrinking habitat, there will be greater conflict between humans (and domesticated animal
species) and wildlife, further decreasing wildlife populations.

91

Table 9.1. Climate Change Effects on Biodiversity
Possible effects

Earlier bird arrival, earlier appearance of insects

Shift in habitat extent for some plant species andanimal ranges

Increase in pressure levels for threatened species,
endemic species, and unique ecosystems

Changes in water quality and quantity and impacts on
freshwater species and ecosystems

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 theCentral Asian region (Kreuzberg-Mukhia 2002).
Elevation changes in the spread of the mountain
forests and changes in bird and mammal habitats(Juniperus turkestanica, Malus sieversii, Juglans regia,
Cursorius cursor, Phalacrocorax pygmaeus)
Climate change combined with fragmentation andoveruse of the mountain ecosystems has alreadydriven gazelle (Gazella subguttarosa) and bustard (Otis
tarda) off the Western Tien Shan Mountains. Other
species, including tortoise and jerboa (Allactaga
jaculus, A. severtzovii, A.vinogradovi) have diminishedin numbers and extent of occurrence.
Deterioration of water quality. Impacts of water deficit
on delta ecosystems. Increase in irrigation demand
due to higher evaporation and, consequently, higher
stress on available water resources.

9.3. Mitigation and Adaptation Opportunities
Resilience and the capacity to adapt will determine the response to climate change in the region. Strong,stable economies and effective governance improve adaptive capacity. Healthy ecosystems ensure
higher resiliency.

9.3.1. Regional Responses
Several organizations at the regional level have the potential to contribute to Central Asia’s collective
capacity to respond to climate change. As the only regional organization with all five Central Asia states
as members, the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS) serves as a political structure fordiscussion and management of regional environmental issues. The organization has launched regional
climate assessments and has sponsored the Fedchenko glacier research, but its efforts to secureinternational 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 wasbeing written, CAMP4ASB was in the inception and planning phase of regional and country-specificresponses.
Other regional responses are being hosted by IFAS for hydrology, UNESCO for glaciers, the Regional
Mountain Centre of Central Asia (part of the ICSD) for mountain ecosystems, and the Bishkek-based
92

Central Asia Institute of Applied Geosciences (CAIAG) for monitoring. There are also plans to create theCentral Asian Centre for Disaster Risk Reduction, the Regional Drought Management Centre, and theRegional Centre on Climate Technologies, all of which will address climate change.
The Aarhus Centres, discussed in Chapter 7, should allow civil society to gain access to information on
climate change.
In May 2016, the Kazakh government hosted a ministerial conference with the five former republics andChina discussing how to increase forest cover, reduce forest loss, and cooperation for firefighting andthe stopping of illegal logging.
If fully funded and successful, each of the above measures will have a direct or indirect positive effect on
biodiversity conservation. Efforts on glacier conservation, watershed protection, better forest
management, and monitoring all will protect the natural areas in which key biodiversity areas andcorridors are found, and those civil society organizations that become more involved in climate change(due to the Aarhus Centres) may also become more involved in biodiversity management.

9.3.2. National Responses
All the hotspot countries have submitted their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) to
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, with Afghanistan, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, andTurkmenistan ratifying the 2015 Paris Agreement at the time of writing.
China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the hotspot, but at a national level, it is planningmajor domestic actions to improve energy efficiency, install renewable energy sources, curb carbon
emissions, and expand afforestation programs. This includes work in Xinjiang, which has one of thelargest wind generation sites in the world and where wind is responsible for a quarter of the energy
generated in the province.
Kazakhstan’s GHG emissions reached their highest level in 1990 at 357 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent,and in 2014 were 20 per cent below that level. GHG emissions in the energy sector account for morethan 85 per cent of total emissions. The government has adopted a green economy strategy and haslaunched carbon emissions trading through permits and caps. There are incentives for renewable energy
and energy efficiency projects and the country is hosting the international Astana EXPO-2017 on “Future
Energy.” Several wind and solar energy parks are under development, mainly in the windy steppes anddeserts of the country, and small hydropower is expanding in the mountains.
Kyrgyzstan’s climate-related activities include a national strategy for sustainable development for 20132017 and a national program and laws for improving energy efficiency and developing renewableenergy. The country has identified priority directions for adaptation to climate change with sectoral
action plans, and has established a high-level inter-sectoral and inter-institutional climate dialogue
platform.
Tajikistan has adopted a national climate change mitigation action plan and climate adaptation strategy.
Other climate-related national initiatives include strategies on glaciers, energy efficiency, small-scalehydropower, disaster risk reduction, and forests.

93

In Turkmenistan, the National Climate Change Strategy of 2013 lays out the policy framework forbuilding climate resilience and a low-emission economy. The country has invested significant efforts to
reduce GHG emissions by adopting several mitigation policies. In terms of adaptation, Turkmenistan has
initiated policies that aim to improve its agricultural and land management practices and advancesocioeconomic reforms.
Uzbekistan is leading on Clean Development Mechanism projects, and investments are planned for solar
energy development and improving energy efficiency in the residential sector and industries. Its INDC
focuses on the reduction of carbon intensity of GDP and a number of adaptation measures.
Afghanistan has developed national adaptation measures and is implementing climate projects, but
none yet in the Wakhan Valley. In 2009, Afghanistan completed its first National Adaptation Programs of
Action for Climate Change and National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment for Global Environmental
Management. In 2013, the Government ratified the Kyoto Protocol (valid until 2020) and submitted its
Initial National Communication under the UNFCCC. In April 2016, Afghanistan signed the Paris
Agreement, submitting its “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” paper, which gives an
overview of what Afghanistan aims to do for mitigating climate change as well as highlighting its
adaptation needs. The Government is currently preparing its Second National Communication for
submission to the UNFCCC and finalizing its national Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan andNational Adaptation Plan.
Since the passing of the Environmental Law (2007) and Environmental Strategy (2008) for theAfghanistan National Development Strategy (ANDS), Afghanistan has issued a number of policy
responses and climate change initiatives. In collaboration with the United Nations Development
Programme, the Government is developing a draft National Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan.
Upon completion, this strategic document will serve as the framework for the ANDS climate changecommitments both on the national and local levels.
In the context of ANDS, the environment is “a cross-cutting issue that underpins the entire social andeconomic development framework for the country.” As mandated by the strategy, the National
Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) serves as the overall coordinating organization forenvironmental management in Afghanistan. NEPA works with other line ministries and agencies toadvocate for and ensure the requisite policies and measures are in place to enable environmental andclimate conscious development outcomes.
As with the regional responses to climate change, each of the national responses, if successful, should
positively affect biodiversity. The measures above will, variously, reduce pressure on threatened species
by reducing fragmentation inoverused and fragile mountain ecosystems; better protect KBAs that are
refuges as climate changes; and conserve riverine flow vital for freshwater species.

9.3.3. Responses at the Household Level
A relatively well-educated Central Asian population is one positive legacy of the Soviet era, and the
population of Xinjiang also is well-educated. This allows households to generate income and to better
prepare for climate change. Income from diverse sources adds to economic resilience by protecting
households from the loss of income from a single source (World Bank SDU SDN 2011).

94

The people of Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and the Wakhan Valley are most at risk. It is important to raiseawareness and provide incentives for climate change response. CSOs are important for making thishappen.
Building household resilience to climate change should have an indirect effect on biodiversity
conservation. In theory, more resilient households will have lesser impetus to engage in destructive
practices (e.g., cutting of firewood) or illegal activites (e.g., poaching of threatened species, whether formeat or for sale).

9.4. Review of Major Climate Change Initiatives
Financial assistance for climate change projects across different sectors in Central Asia is becoming amore prominent part of the work of development banks, the United Nations, and the bilateral donors.
China and Kazakhstan are promoting low-carbon development paths. Tajikistan has received funding via
the Pilot (Strategic) Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) and Kyrgystan is in the process of PPCR
programming. The largest regional climate initiative is the World Bank’s CAMP4ASB.
As members of the UNFCCC, each of the Central Asian countries has nominated institutions to meet its
convention obligations. China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have each created climate change
centers or departments, all of which work with domestic partners to meet the UNFCCC requirements.
Some countries have developed national strategies and actions plans, and have launched projects on
mitigation and adaptation, such as Kyrgyzstan’s Climate Change Coordination Commission.
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is expected to provide new strategic and large-scale opportunities for
hotspot countries to address climate change concerns while strengthening their economies, reducing
poverty and improving environmental performance. The first GCF investement within the hotspot wasallocated to Tajikistan through the EBRD in 2017 to strengthen climate resiliency of the energy sector
with a focus on the Kairakum dam and hydropower station on the Syr Darya River. Another GCF projectis likely to cover natural disaster-prone southern provinces of Kyrgystan.

95

10.ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS
Funding for biodiversity conservation in the hotspot comes from governments, donors, multilateralfunds, foundations, and the private sector. This chapter summarizes funding sources and most relevant
projects to help determine the niche for CEPF investment.
Across multiple countries, it can be difficult to fully assess the source or amount of all funds. For
example, a large NGO like WWF might implement a single program with multiple bilateral or private
donors. Similarly, ongoing programs like Environmental Remediation Account for Central Asia mightstart with funds from one donor (i.e., the EBRD), but then transition to another. Nonetheless,consultations with stakeholders suggest, across all sources of domestic, international, and private
funding, that between US $20 million – $30 million per year is allocated to biodiversity conservation andrelated topics (e.g., watershed management, forestry, research, monitoring). 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.
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

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 for the
Aral 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, their economies are massive in relation to the amount offoreign funding. Nonetheless, all are eager to accept technical assistance and introductions newtechnologies or best practice.
Not properly accounted for here is Chinese investment into the other six countries. The AsianInfrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt Road initiative will both invest money into infrastructureand energy, perhaps with some of this being used for impact assessments, biodiversity surveys, or landor 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), as shown in Table 10.2.

96

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

10.1. Government Funding
It is difficult to fully assess the amount of public revenue or domestic funding for conservation. Not all
the countries make such information easily available, and countries like Kazakhstan, which have moretransparent online systems, do not necessarily provide all the relevant details or sub-categories ofspending. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are both members of the German and Swiss-supported
Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN), which supports review of biodiversity expenditures and helps
determine the cost of implementing NBSAPs. Kazkahstan joined BIOFIN in 2014 and Kyrgyzstan joined in2016, so they are still generating data. Table 10.3 shows preliminary results for Kazakhstan in terms of
the whole country, not the hotspot portion alone.
Table 10.3. Indicative Proportion of Conservation Financing in Kazakhstan (BIOFIN estimates)
Funding sources

Proportion

National budget

73%

Local governments budget
International organizations, donors
Hunting concessions
Private sector

13%
7%
4%
3%

Comments
Reforestation, pest and wildfire control, new forest belts,
flora and fauna, nature reserves, landscapes
Nature reforestation, nature reserves
Various projects
Rental fees, trophy fees, etc
Programs in the Caspian Sea region, mining, etc.

Table 10.4. 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

97

Forest protection
and reforestation

Landscapes andnon-flagshipspeciesMarginal
SufficientSufficient
LimitedLimitedSufficientSufficient

No funding
LimitedLimitedMarginal
Marginal
LimitedLimited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 (Table 10.4). The BIOFIN analysis indicatesthe gaps and scenarios for change (e.g., how much funding could be raised by increasing trophy fees orcollection from fines). Across the hotspot, governments provide only nominal amounts for civil society
to become engaged in conservation activities.

10.2. Multilateral and Bilateral Donors
The major single source of international aid for conservation in the region is the GEF working via its
implementing agencies, the UNDP, UNEP, FAO, and the World Bank. This includes both funding foroutright conservation as well as for conservation-related elements of climate change projects (e.g.,
ecosystem resiliency, sustainable financing, landscapes).
Whereas the vast majority of GEF funding goes to national government entities, the GEF Small Grants
Programme (SGP) is targeted at civil society. SGP makes grants of up to $50,000 and is active in each of
the countries other than Turkmenistan. Challenges facing CSOs seeking access to SGP money are varying
requirements for matching funds and application procedures that can be difficult for nascent groups.
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 fororganizations 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 (community-based organizations) in thesouthwestern parts of the country, where CEPF plans to work, too. Across the hotspot overall, there arepossibilities for CEPF and the GEF SGP to collaborate on grant-making or find procedural synergies (e.g.,in Uzbekistan).
Table 10.5 summarizes GEF-6 STAR Allocations, including SGPs and multiple major projects, while Tables
10.6 and 10.7 provide overviews of funding via multilateral and bilateral agencies, respectively.
Examples of specific projects relevant to the planned CEPF investment are given in Table 10.8.
Table 10.5. 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

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
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.
Meanwhile, as part of One Belt-One Road, China established the Central Asian Centre for Ecology and98

Environment – hosted in Urumqi by the Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography – with satellite
offices and monitoring stations in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. China is also
actively attracting students from the region for higher university study.
Table 10.6. Overview of Investments by Multilateral Agencies
Donor

Countries
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Uzbekistan, Afghanistan

FAO (with GEF)
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 and its 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 Kyrgystan)
Medium-sized biodiversity-related projects in the
hotspot (see table 10.8); small grants to local CSOs:
sustainable use of natural resources, support toprotected areas, access to clean energy, ecologicaleducation and awareness, ecotourism

Table 10.7. 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

99

Areas of support
Research and training, environmental
monitoring, infrastructure (Belt and Road)
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

Table 10.8. Selected Projects Relevant to CEPF Investments
Donors andpartners

DurationUzbekistan

GEF-UNDP

2016-2020

Tajikistan

GEF-UNDP NBBC

2016-2020

Conservation of globally
important biodiversity, land andforests of the Western Tien Shan

Kyrgyzstan

GEF-UNDP

2017-2021

Integrated forest ecosystemmanagement

Kyrgystan

GEF-WB

2016-2021

Zeravshan River basin natural
resources management project

Tajikistan

EU ACTED, AKDN

2016-2020

Biosafety in Central Asia

Afghanistan,
Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan,
Uzbekistan

EU ISTC

2017-2020

Enhanced competitiveness of
Tajik agribusiness

Tajikistan

EU

2014-2019

Strengthening the management
effectiveness of the protectedareas in Altai mountains andwetlands, Xinjiang

China

GEF-UNDP

2014-2018

Project Name
Sustainable natural resource use
and forest management in key
mountain areas
Conservation and sustainable useof Pamir and Tien Shan
ecosystems for snow leopard
protection

Country

100

Project aims and scope

Budget (USD)

To enhance conservation, and sustainable
use of natural resources in the mountainecosystems of Uzbekistan (Chatkal-Pskem).
Conservation and sustainable use of Pamir
Alai and Tien Shan ecosystems for snow
leopard protection and sustainable
livelihoods.
To promote a landscape approach forprotection of internationally importantbiodiversity, land and forest resources in
the Western Tien Shan.
To promote reforms of the national andjeskhoz-level forest governance, introduce
innovative natural resource management
planning, and improve information about
the state of forests (updated inventory)
Sustainable water, forest and pasturemanagement and rural development

6M GEF (25M
co-financing)Training on bio-safety and bio-security andstrengthening the national legal framework
Enhancing Tajik agri-food value-chains,products quality and competitivenessStrengthening the provincial legal andinstitutional capacity for enhanced
protection of wetland ecosystems andmore effective protected areas planningand management and developing
community co-management approach in
Liangheyuan reserve (Altai region is outsideof the hotspot boundaries)

5M GEF (20M
co-financing)

4M GEF (24M
co-financing)

4M GEF (12M
co-financing)

10-50M

5M

5M

3.5M GEF (20M
co-financing)Project NameCountry

Donors andpartners

Duration

Xinjiang Turfan water
conservation project

China

WB

2010-2017

Integrated nature resource
management in agricultural
production landscapes of Central
Asia (CACILM-2)

Regional

GEF-FAO

2017-2021

Community-based managementof walnut forests and pastures inSouthern Kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyzstan

Germany (BMZ)– GIZ

2014-2018

Regional programme forsustainable and climate sensitive
land use for economic
development in Central Asia

Regional

Germany (BMZ)– GIZ

2016-2019

Biodiversity protection in thetransboundary Northern TienShan

Kazakhstan

Germany (BMZ)
NABU andAVALON

2013-2016

Ecological production by women
handicraft cooperatives

Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan

EU UMBRIA

2014-2015

Uniting and strengthening
community based tourism (CBT)associations

Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan

EU ACTED

2014-2015

101

Project aims and scope
Rehabilitation of modern and traditional
canals delivering water, drip irrigation, landleveling, improved drainage,
evapotranspiration-based integrated water
management
To enhance multi-country collaboration,
adoption of climate-smart agriculture
practices, pilot interventions, WOCAT andknowledge exchange. Pilot areas include
piedmont parts of Hissar
To introduce modern and rational models
of sustainable forest and pasturemanagement and promote conservation of
biodiversity, and climate adaptation.
Land users, government agencies and theprivate sector in Central Asia adopt
integrated, economically and ecologicallysustainable forms of land use, taking
climate change into account.
The development of integrated
management system for protected
territories in the transboundary region of
Northern Tien Shan in Kazakhstan andKyrgyzstan. Geographic scope: Almaty
reserve, Ile-Alatau park, Kolsai Koldery park
(KZ) and Chon-Kemin park (KYR).
Creation of ecological production by
women handicraft cooperatives andmarketing in Asia and Europe
Reinforcing the roles and competencies of
CBTs in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan andestablishing agro-tourism

Budget (USD)

100M

10M GEF (65M
co-financing)

5M

10M

1M

0.5M

0.5M

Project NameCountry

Donors andpartners

Duration

Kazakhstan

UNDP
Switzerland
Germany

2013-2017

Biodiversity conservation throughsustainable use of wildlife

Kyrgyzstan

Germany (BMZ)– GIZ

2010-2017

Conservation and sustainable useof agricultural biodiversity to
improve regulating andsupporting ecosystem services

Uzbekistan

GEF-UNEP

2015-2018

Ensuring socio-ecologicalresilience and wild crop relatives
conservation

Tajikistan

Christensen
Fund

2015

Improving capacity for protectedarea management in Tajikistan

Tajikistan

FFI

2014-2016

Mainstreaming ecosystemservice into country's sectoraland macroeconomic policies

Kazakhstan

UNEP

2013-2015

Kazakhstan

OrnithologicalSociety of the
Middle East, theCaucasus,
Central Asia

Regional

EU, GIZ, HessenForst, UBA,
CAREC

Biodiversity financing
management (BIOFIN)

Monitoring key sites for whiteheaded duck in Kazakhstan
Forest and biodiversity
governance including
environmental monitoring(FLERMONECA)

Project aims and scope
To build policy and develop new
biodiversity and ecosystems financing
mechanisms in order to address financing
gap.
Improvement of knowledge and monitoring
for better management of mountain
ungulates and cooperation under the CITES
and CMS.
To mainstream the conservation and use offruit tree biodiversity to enhance
ecosystem services and improve thetraditional agricultural systems.
Continuing support for the Small Grants
Program linking traditional knowledge,
landscapes and livelihoods aroundrestoration of endangered varieties offruits and wild crop relatives.
To improve conservation impact byincreasing the capacity of current andfuture conservation professionals.
To develop national capacity to integrate
ecosystem services considerations into themacroeconomic policies and programs.

Budget (USD)

0.5M

1M

1M GEF (4M cofinancing)

0.25M

0.5M

0.5M

2013-2015

To gather new data on the conservation
status of White-headed Duck in Kazakhstan
and update the National Single Species
Action Plan.

0.1M

2013-2015

To promote cooperation and build capacity
in forest and pasture management and theshared environmental information systems
and environmental monitoring

5M

102

Project NameCountry

Donors andpartners

Duration

Sustaining agricultural
biodiversity in the face of climatechangeTajikistan

GEF-UNDP,
NBBC

2009-2015

Integrated river basin
management in the Tigrovaja
Balka reserve

Tajikistan

MFA Norway,
WWF Russia

2007-2012

Mainstreaming biodiversity into
oil-and-gas sector policies andoperations

Uzbekistan

GEF-UNDP

2010-2015

Demonstration of sustainablepasture management

Kyrgyzstan

GEF-UNDP

2013-2015

Sustainable management of
natural resources in GornoBadakhshan (Pamir Mountains)

Tajikistan

Germany (BMZ)– GIZ

2008-2013

Sustainable management ofendemic fish fauna of the IssykKul Lake

Kyrgyzstan

GEF-UNDP

2010-2015

Improving the coverage andmanagement effectiveness of
PAs in the Central Tien Shan

Kyrgyzstan

GEF-UNDP

2013-2017

Building the capacity of theZorkul Reserve

Tajikistan

FFI

2012-2015

103

Project aims and scope
Conservation and sustainable use of
globally significant and local agricultural
biodiversity, as well as the development of
the market for sustainable agricultural
practices in the face of climate change.
Restoration of the threatened floodplain
habitats and water management in the
Tigrovaya Balka nature reserve
To enable a policy, legislative andinstitutional environment to mainstream
biodiversity into the oil-and-gas sector, andto demonstrate the use of biodiversity
mainstreaming technologies in oil-and-gas
operations in the Ustyurt.
Development plans and programs forenvironmentally sustainable solutions in
the Susamyr Valley
Improve living conditions through thesustainable management of natural
resources and dissemination of energy
technologies.
To strengthen the policy and regulatory
framework and support endemic fish
conservation.
To improve the coverage and effectivenessof protected areas in the Central Tien Shan
Mountains to better cover threatened
species habitats (snow leopard).
Staff training and developing the basic skills
to manage the reserve and monitor species(Bar-Headed Goose).

Budget (USD)

1M

0.3M

1M

1M

2M

4M

5M

0.2M

Project NameCountry

Donors andpartners

Duration

Project aims and scope

Budget (USD)

Darwin Initiative,
FFI

2009-2012

To improve conservation impact inTajikistan by increasing the capacity ofcurrent and future conservation
professionals through conservation skills
program and promoting conservation
research.

0.2M

Water management

Developing a national
biodiversity conservation training
program

Tajikistan

Sustainable management andbiodiversity conservation in theLake Aibi Basin

China

GEF-WB

2011-2016

Xinjiang meadows and livestock
management and desertification

China

JICA

2007-2012

Conservation and sustainableutilization of wild crop relatives

China

GEF-UNDP

2007-2013

Strengthening sustainability of
the national protected areasystem in Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan

GEF-UNDP

2008-2012

Strengthening the protectedareas system in Turkmenistan

Turkmenistan

GEF-UNDP

2008-2014

Community-based conservationand management of mountain
ungulates

Tajikistan

Germany (BMZ)– GIZ

2008-2012

In-Situ on-farm conservation anduse of agricultural biodiversity

Uzbekistan,
Turkmenistan

GEF Biodiversity
International

2007-2014

Tracking the sociable lapwing:
conservation beyond thebreeding grounds

Kazakhstan

Darwin Initiative,
BirdLife

2009-2011

104

Improved livestock management, reductionof grazing pressures and combating
desertification
Involvement of farmers in conservation ofwild relatives (focus on wheat in Xinjiang)
The project objective is to demonstrate
new management approaches for
expansion of protected area system of
Uzbekistan.
Enabling environment for a functional,
effective and ecologically coherent systemof protected areas.
The direct involvement of local people into
protection and use of the species forconservation efforts.
To provide farmers, institutes andcommunities knowledge, methods andpolicies to conserve globally significant wild
crops and fruit species.
To extend and develop local capacity tobetter understand and improve theconservation of the Sociable Lapwing.

3M GEF (9M cofinancing)
3M
8M GEF (13M
co-financing)
2M

3M

1M

5M

0.2M

Project NameCountry

Donors andpartners

Duration

Project aims and scope

Budget (USD)

3M GEF (20M
co-financing)

30M GEF(125M cofinancing)

In-Situ conservation of
Kazakhstan's mountain agrobiodiversity

Kazakhstan

GEF-UNDP

2005-2012

To conserve and sustainably use agrobiodiversity (wild apple forests) by
developing and applying new methods andtools for conservation, building
partnerships among conservation agencies,
local governments, communities and theprivate sector.

Central Asian Countries Initiative
for Land Management (CACILM)

Regional

ADB

2006-2012

Restoration and enhancement of the
productive functions of land in Central Asia.

Biodiversity conservation andsustainable development in the
Gissar Mountains

Tajikistan

GEF-UNDP

2005-2011

Dashtidzhum biodiversity
conservation project

Tajikistan

GEF-WB

2003-2007

ECONET - web for life

Regional

GEF-UNEP WWF
Russia2003-2006

Establishment of the NuratauKyzylkum biosphere reserve as amodel for biodiversity
conservation

Uzbekistan

GEF-UNDP

1998-2006

Central Asia biodiversity project
on conservation of the West Tien
Shan Western Tien Shan-2

Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan,
Uzbekistan

GEF-WB GEF-WB

2001-2006,
2012 -on hold105

To conserve the global biodiversity of theGissar Mountains by strengthening
protected areas and increasing thesustainability of the livelihoods of the rural
population around them.
To demonstrate and replicate in-situ
conservation of globally significant
biodiversity in Dashtidzhum
Creation of ECONET and integration into
the regional and national plans ofsustainable development
To enhance conservation of the area's
globally important biodiversity and the longterm sustainable development through theestablishment of an integrated
conservation and local development
program
Conservation of the biodiversity of theWestern Tien Shan, including coordinationof national policies and institutionalarrangements. Alternative incomegenerating activities for local communities
to reduce pressure on nature reserves.
Improved regional cooperation.

1M

1M

2M

1M

13M

The European Union is the leading donor in Central Asia with overall assistance for 2014-2020 budgetedat €1 billion. Noteworthy projects include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Mass media for improved reporting on the environment and natural resources in Central Asia,
implemented by Internews, €1.5 million.
Zeravshan Valley natural resources management (EU Delegation in Tajikistan), implemented by
ACTED, AKDN and other organisations, €10-50 million.
Support to Kazakhstan’s transition to a Green Economy (EU Delegation in Kazakhstan),
implemented by UNDP, €7 million.
Support to the introduction of sustainable development policies in natural resourcesmanagement and energy-environment sectors of Turkmenistan, implemented by Human
Dynamics (ended in 2016), €2 million.
Coordination and support for the EU-CA regional cooperation on environment, water andclimate change (WECOOP II), implemented by MWH, €2 million.
Raising awareness for sustainable water and environment development in rural areas of
Uzbekistan, implemented by CAREC, €2 million.
Environmental Remediation Account (ERA) for Central Asia to clean up the uranium mining
legacies in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan implemented by EBRD, €18 million.

Looking back, the EU has a legacy of efforts, for example the EU-China Biodiversity Programme (20052011) invested $80 million into 18 projects throughout the country, including three in Xinjiang. Looking
ahead, 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 (5M), the Integrated Forest Ecosystem Management in Kyrgyzstan (total 16M, with 4M GEF
financing), the East-West International Transit Corridor Project between Almaty and Korgos, China, andseveral agricultural, road and water projects in Uzbekistan. The Bank supports regional efforts like theCentral 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 andcoordinated ecosystem adaptation efforts. The Bank also supports national hydrometeorological service
modernization projects and regional disaster risk management efforts. Finally, the Bank also supports
the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan,which could lead to improved collaboration with national mining associations and individual companies.
Germany is the largest single country contributor to conservation in the five former republics. Much ofits funding is implemented by GIZ, or sometimes by German NGOs like NABU. Funding focuses on
pastures and forest use, wildlife management (including hunting), water resource management,
economic development, capacity building for state institutions, and education. There are plans to bringmajor investments into the forest sector via the Green Climate Fund, German climate initiatives, andbanks. The Kazakh-German University supports students from all Central Asia and Afghanistan to study

106

natural resource management, and Germany supports PhD candidates at the Central Asia Geosciences
Institute in Bishkek.
Japan supports work throughout the region, but its biodiversity focus is in Kygyzstan. 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.
Switzerland is a long-time donor in the Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The KYRFOR projectmapped forests in Kyrgzstan and supported mountain-focused CSOs, leading to the creation of networks
like CAPM and AGOCA. Today, Swiss money flows via SECO/EBRD, SDC, and through international Swiss
CSOs such as the Red Cross and Helvetas. The Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) has
funded preparation of climate change, biodiversity, and waste and chemical syntheses, contributed tocapacity building and preparation of the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) of
Tajikistan through UNITAR, and modernization of the State of the Environment report of Turkmenistan
via CAREC. Several pilot projects on Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) were sponsored by
Switzerland and implemented by CAREC in the mountains of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan. As
the GEF Council, Switzerland leads the constituency for Central Asia and Azerbaijan.
USAID biodiversity funding was more significant in the past. Currently, Afghanistan is receiving the mostsignificant conservation funding, with WCS being the primary implementer. US Government policy
supports a “New Silk Road” and “C5+1” agenda to increase connectivity between the five former
republics and Afghanistan and to foster greater stability. There are numerous projects on agriculture
and food security, governance, trade, education, health, water and sanitation, while in Kyrgyzstan USAID
supports WWF efforts on the snow leopard. USAID also supports initiatives on improved water
management and glacier research.
Russia is a traditional biodiversity science and conservation cooperation partner for Central Asia
countries. Many students from Central Asia and some students from Afghanistan study in Russian
universities, and Russia invests in schools and universities within the region. The Russian Bat ResearchGroup, the Botany Institute (BIN), and others promote expert networks, knowledge exchange, fieldresearch, and applied conservation. Russia also contributes significant funds via UNDP, UNECE, andother UN agencies for environmental activities and cooperation in the region.
The Turkish Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA) offers assistance in Central Asia andAfghanistan in social and economic development with a focus on infrastructure and the enhancement of
production sectors, including forestry. Turkey supports many university students and professionals forstudy and training in Turkish colleges.
Korea is active in forest and plant research via the Korea National Arboretum (KNA). In Uzbekistan, KNA
supported extensive work on and publication of the flora of the Western Tien Shan, and has ongoingcollaborations in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
The UK Darwin Initiative funds UK organizations to work with partners on biodiversity. The Darwin
Initiative has supported several projects implemented by BirdLife and FFI in Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.

107

Norway and Finland provide targeted support to climate and water projects in Kyrgyzstan andTajikistan, where CSOs are actively participating. In the past Norway has funded several tugai ecosystemconservation projects in the region.
AFD (L’Agence Française de Développement / French Development Cooperation Agency) has worked
in the hotspot countries, but not typically on biodiversity or within the hotspot, itself.
There are, of course, other major donors to the region, but the contributions are not directly forbiodiversity conservation, or the donors do not include environmental concerns as significant input toprogram design. For example, money for the Gulf States is primarily for religious and cultural issues(e.g., construction of mosques, support of pilgrimage) or for infrastructure (e.g., landmark buildings,
roads).

10.2.1. Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection Program (GSLEPP)The GSLEPP is a significant regional initiative. Its partner and funding entities include the GEF, World
Bank, UNDP, and several other donors, and implementers, who via the program, have joined under thebanner of the governments of all the snow leopard range countries (i.e., twelve countries overall,including all the hotspot countries other than Turkmenistan). Together, they support a common agenda– the Biskek Agenda of 2013 – that has identified desired portfolios in each country (i.e., identified
programs that require funding). Fully implementing the GSLEPP portfolios will require tens of millions ofdollars. Nonetheless, the CEPF program purposefully considers GSLEPP and, in various areas,
complements its approach or helps to achieve its objectives.

10.2.2. Collaborative Efforts under the Convention on Migratory Species
Under UNEP, the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) provides a global platform for theconservation and sustainable use of migratory animals and their habitats (UNEP CMS, 2017). Under CMS
are:•

The Central Asian Mammals Initiative (CAMI), which includes action plans to address threats tospecific species, as well as the removal of barriers to migration, the maintenance andrestoration of transboundary ecological networks (e.g. Resolution 10.3) and the preservation ofanimal migrations in the Central Asian region as one of the last global “migration hotspots”(CAMI, 2017).

•

Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Birds of Prey in Africa andEurasia (Raptors MoU), which lists 93 raptors as part of an action plan to reverse population
decline, protect species from unlawful killing and taking, improve scientific knowledge, enhancecooperation, econource research, increase public awareness, and address human threats(Raptors MoU, 2017).

Under these initiatives are single species action plans, such as for the Argali that highlight responses tothreats, including minimizing impacts or disturbance from linear infrastructure (International Single
Species Action Plan for the Conservation of the Argali, Action 2.4). The CEPF program purposefully
considers these initiatives and attempts to complement them, particularly as they highlight the role of
NGOs.
108

10.3. International Funds and Private Foundations
The International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS), currently based in Ashgabat, receives funding
support from the five Central Asian members and international donors, and then grants money for
afforestation and reforestation in the Aral Sea basin. This includes a small amount of support invulnerable mountain areas. IFAS reviews its strategy every 5-7 years.
The Aga Khan Foundation is perhaps the highest profile foundation in the region. While it does not havea focus on conservation, it supports sustainable mountain development (particularly in Afghanistan,
Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan), reforestation, and disaster risk reduction. Aga Khan was the primary funderof the University of Central Asia and its campuses in Kazakhstan (Tekeli), Kyrgzstan (Bishkek and Naryn),
and Tajikistan (Khorog).
The Economic Cooperation Organization’s Science Foundation (ECO SF) promotes scientific andtechnical collaboration between the 10 ECO member countries (including Afghanistan and the fiveformer republics) by providing travel grants and sponsoring conferences and exchange programs acrossits member countries. It focuses on alternative and renewable energy and land management with strong
links to the Tehran Secretariat for Low Forest Cover Countries and the Institute for Environment, Scienceand Technology.
The Fund for Biodiversity Conservation of Kazakhstan (locally known as FSBK) was established in 2007
via a UNDP-GEF project and is now an independent legal entity. The fund is designed to raise moneyfrom private companies (e.g., (Kazakhmys, Air Astana) and channels it into grants for conservation, butawards and dispersals have been limited in recent years.
The Open Society Foundation (Soros Foundation) has been active in Central Asia for many years. Its
contribution for conservation is nominal, but instead builds the capacity of CSOs that focus on health,education, mass media, human rights, and accountability. Many CSOs that have received support fromthe Soros Foundation could viably implement grants related to CEPF priorities.
The Rufford Foundation has about 25 small projects supporting individual conservationists and groups
working on Snow Leopard, Menzbir Marmot, Pallas’s Cat, nurseries for endemic species, conservation of
walnut forests, and IBA management in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.
The Mohamed bin Zayed (MBZ) Species Conservation Fund provides grants for focused work on theconservation needs of threatened and important species. Its major initiative covering the region is for
crane conservation and hunter education through the Western and Central Asian Site Network for
Siberian Cranes and Other Waterbirds (WCASN) established under the Convention of Migratory Species.
The Christensen Fund has been active in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan supporting organic
farming, conservation of agro-biodiversity, projects that link traditional knowledge with landscaperestoration, and cross-border cooperation on better management of crop wild relatives. It supports
popular efforts like the “Blooming Apricot Festival” in Kyrgyzstan, and with The Leonardo DiCaprio
Foundation, provides support to community-based groups on snow leopard protection.
The Michael Succow Foundation, with support from the German Government, has been active mostrecently in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan to improve protected area networks. It coorganized a regional conference on ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change in 2015.
109

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is present in the five Central Asian countries and China. It uses
the majority of its funding to support its own efforts on species conservation (Persian leopard, theBukhara deer, gazelle, snow leopard) and their habitats, plus its landscape-level conservation concept,
ECONET. It does channel microgrants to communities and CBOs.
The Snow Leopard Trust (SLT) has staff and projects in the five Central Asian countries. It works closelywith the GSLEPP Secretariat and with local affiliates like the Kyrgyz Snow Leopard Foundation. It
conducts and supports research, community-based conservation programs, and education activities inand around the Sarychat-Ertash Nature Reserve and the Shamshy wildlife sanctuary (zakaznik). It also
provides staff and expertise directly to the GSLEPP Secretariat in Bishkek.
The Panthera Foundation is devoted exclusively to the conservation of the world’s wild cats. In Xinjiang,
it works with the Beijing Forestry Institute on snow leopard surveys and threat analysis. In Kyrgystan andTajikistan, it works with the Academy of Sciences and government authorities on issues of humanwildlife conflict, anti-poaching, illegal wildlife trade, habitat protection, and protection of snow leopard
prey species like the ibex.

10.4. Assessment of Funding Opportunities and Gaps
In terms of funding for civil society in the conservation space, CSOs receive money to work on traditionaland broadly accepted 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 less money to support CSOs in more complex field-based conservation of KBAs.
In terms of funding for species and site conservation, most money has gone into planning – the plans arequite robust – but less has gone into implementation. Thus, there are well-developed plans from
GSLEPP, the Argali action plan, and the Central Asian Mammal Initiative (CAMI). In theory, donors canselect from the menu of options that these plans present. Within the countries, if not the hotspot, areongoing implementation efforts targeted at saiga antelope, kulan (Transcaspian wild ass), and sturgeon,
all of which can provide models and lessons for work within the hotspot. Overall, there has been
relatively little funding to support CSOs engage in more complex, field-based conservation of KBAs.
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.

11011.CEPF NICHE FOR INVESTMENT
The preceding sections of this document have described the species, sites, and corridors of greatest
need, the constraints or limits of governance and the demands of economic development, the primary
threats, the capacity of CEPF’s core constituency – civil society organizations – and an analysis of current
funding. Understanding these in concert allows for the definition of where CEPF fits – where it should
give money, to whom or to what types of groups, for what types of work, to what end – in other words,
the niche for CEPF investment.
CEPF is a biodiversity conservation fund. Since 2008, it has adhered to a methodology of identifying,prioritizing, and working to conserve KBAs: sites that contribute significantly to the global persistence of
biodiversity. In 2016, a group of leading international conservation NGOs formed the KBA Partnershipand agreed to follow an updated methodology, the IUCN Global Standard for the Identification of Key
Biodiversity Areas. This ecosystem profile represents the first ever wide-scale application of this new
standard. During the profiling exercise, many stakeholders (i.e., CSOs, scientists, government partners,etc.) learned about the global KBA Standard for the first time and endorsed its use in the seven hotspot
countries.
The KBA methodology identifies areas that can be managed – for conservation – as a unit. The
methodology does not prescribe that KBAs should be formally protected, nor does it state that an area
has less significance if it is used for some economically productive activity. The methodology leaves
those choices to the stakeholders, and certainly allows for decisions that allow for both conservationand sustainable use. The methodology also does not detract from a model well known in the region,
where the focus is on a flagship species, a unique species, or a pristine location. Prioritization of KBAs
can be done to ensure habitat conservation of multiple species, not just one, and prioritization of KBAs
can be done to create a matrix of connectivity across a landscape. In this context, the KBA methodology
supports national economic goals and the specifics outlined in NBSAPs. The niche for CEPF investment isbased on this KBA methodology and will reinforce its use in the Mountains of Central Asia.
The niche of working in KBAs is refined by prioritization of KBAs for those that are in trans-borderareas, those that allow for resilience to climate change, and those that allow for linkages acrossproductive landscapes. CEPF will match its grantmaking to the capacity and authority of its civil society
partners, which might not work at the transboundary or landscape scale. However, we can prioritize
paired KBAs that face each other across borders, KBAs that are along altitudinal gradients, or KBAs
within forest or grassland corridors. Such an approach complements existing species-focused strategies
and the regional initiatives of other major international NGOs and donors.
The niche in this hotspot is also defined by the management and operational environment for making
grants in each country. There are political realities and issues of peace and stability that will require
purposeful collaboration with others. In order to operate, it is important that CEPF is aligned withalready approved strategies or major programs soon to be presented to national authorities, including
the GEF SGP, GSLEPP, the EU Cooperation Platform on Water and the Environment in Central Asia, andthe EU’s Larger than Tigers strategy for wildlife conservation in Asia.
Further, the niche allows for purposeful synergy with possible future funders and is responsive to new
threats. Economic development driven by Chinese investment could place overwhelming pressures onnatural resources and ecosystems. On the other hand, funding from China for conservation could easily
dwarf all other donors combined and be a considerable force for good. A good investment strategy is111

one that guides, or at least informs, the investments of other donors. Thus, in addition to China, theniche considers the interests of other possible players, including Switzerland, GIZ, and various
foundations.
One niche in which CEPF will fit is ensuring that biodiversity conservation fully supports local andnational economic development agendas. This includes grants that support conservation enterprise,that encourage the sustainable management of productive landscapes, and that guide infrastructure
and private sector activity to minimize impact. CEPF’s niche is to promote a common agenda between
decision-makers/politicians, private developers, and civil society.
Another niche is for CEPF to complement public sector managers of protected areas. Funding from thestate is low, meaning many reserves exist only “on paper.” CEPF will not pay for public sector
responsibilities, but will support the engagement of civil society that has an equal stake in better
management of these sites.
Finally, a niche for CEPF is to build the capacity of CSOs to engage in conservation in the hotspot. CSO
engagement in the environment sector is not as robust as in most other hotspots. However, the politicalsituation is not uniform across the seven countries, and in some, the situation is quite dynamic. There
are several places where there is scope for CSOs to become involved as: implementers; monitors;
educators; and raisers of awareness. CEPF grants will find the balance to build capacity within thepolitical space appropriate for each country.
CEPF defines its niche by the positive actions that can be taken via grant funding. Similarly, CEPF defines
its niche in terms of actions that it cannot take. In other words, as described in the preceding chapters,some threats go beyond the scope of a program like CEPF, which makes relatively small grants to civilsociety, and there are some places where civil society does not have the freedom to engage with aninternational donor on biodiversity conservation. Thus, the investment strategy only responds to thesubset of opportunities and threats appropriate for CEPF. For example, no grants are anticipated toaddress threats from energy-related infrastructure, because stakeholders advised against this issue
being taken up by CEPF-funded CSOs. Similarly, while priority sites might include geographicallycontiguous KBAs separated by international borders, CEPF will not promote grants in geographies thatwill create or exacerbate political tensions.

11.1. Theory of Change for CEPF Investment in the Mountains of Central
Asia Hotspot
The theory of change for CEPF investment does not vary dramatically from one hotspot to the next, sosome of the text here is similar to that of other Ecosystem Profiles, although there are nuances to theMountains of Central Asia.
The fate of biodiversity and the overall environment, along with the multitude of services it provides insupport of economic and social elements of livelihoods, is determined by three broad groups ofstakeholders: state actors; private sector actors; and civil society. These groups include resource
managers, decision makers, and interest groups, and include organizations that are likely to become
CEPF grantees. The relative influence and importance of these groups varies among sites and countries
across the hotspot but they are assumed to be present in some form at every site where CEPF makes
grants. The overall Theory of Change for the program is based around influencing the behavior of these112

groups, to encourage and enable them to use their influence for the benefit of biodiversity andecosystem sustainability. The specific changes that are hoped for in each of these groups, and the role of
CEPF grantees in achieving these changes, are described below.
The state plays multiple roles, from local to international levels, but two roles are of particularimportance in the context of the objectives of the CEPF program: the state as a direct manager (orowner) of ecosystems (e.g., forests, high mountains); and the state as a planner and regulator of the
management of natural resources. The most direct role of the state in biodiversity conservation is as amanager of protected areas. Earlier chapters showed that many KBAs are not in protected areas andthat even where protected areas have been created, there are significant problems with funding andmanagement effectiveness in many countries. Improving the management effectiveness of existing
protected areas is essential, however, and the niche argues for creation of coalitions of protected areas
staff, local government, and interest groups with a common agenda.
In addition to managing protected areas, state agencies are typically responsible for management ofsignificant areas of land as forests, water protection zones, and grazing and agricultural tracts. CEPF
engagement should aim to work with these agencies to accommodate the needs of threatened
biodiversity and ecosystems into their management practices. The role of CSOs may be direct,
identifying high priority locations and appropriate changes to management and then working withgovernment staff on the ground, or indirect, influencing the funding, regulations and policies that
determine the way that these agencies manage the land under their control.
The second crucial role of the state is as legislator and regulator of natural resource use, using legal andeconomic tools. Here, the objective of CEPF engagement should be to support governments to be morestrategic and effective in this role. The state’s role in enacting and enforcing legislation on land-use
planning, environmental impact assessment, protected species and sites could be supported andstrengthened with civil society’s input on the basis of field work and site-based demonstration projects.
This is a difficult area for civil society intervention, as some of the governments in the region havetraditionally been rather closed to input from civil society. However, this is changing, and one of theroles of the CEPF Regional Implementation Team is to help promote wider understanding of the positiverole that CSOs can play in support of government policy formulation. Nevertheless, many local CSOs lackthe capacity and experience to undertake the kind of long-term, intensive work required to influencenational policies and programs.
In this context, CEPF will take a two-pronged approach to helping CSOs engage more deeply with state
actors. At site level, the RIT will work with grantees (directly, or through facilitating mentoringarrangements involving more experienced NGOs) to assist them to package their work and results in aform that will attract the attention of local governments. This might entail demonstrating how work atsites enhances the economic value of ecosystem services, addresses food security issues, or increases
tourism revenues. At the same time, CEPF will use its regional role to identify opportunities andfacilitate the engagement of local CSOs with national, regional, and international processes, including
conventions and agreements, through which CSOs can increase their visibility and promote theirexperience and knowledge, including to their own country delegations.
The private sector is a diverse group with significant impacts on resource management. Where private
sector actors directly manage land and resources, then the potential role for CSOs, as with government
agencies, is to identify priority sites and engage with the companies to improve the way they manage
113

biodiversity as part of their business operations. For other companies, action may involve reducing theirenvironmental footprint (for example, through reduced water use or improved waste management),
where these actions are a direct threat to a priority site, or it may involve the company providing
financial or in-kind support to conservation efforts. Establishing long-term relationships of support
between companies and particular sites or species has the potential to be an important way to address
the problem of sustainable funding for conservation efforts. Relevant voluntary industry schemes
promoting, for instance, sustainable tourism may provide an entry point for discussion with companies.
Companies that buy and sell products from traditionally managed, high biodiversity landscapes also arepotential development partners for grantees addressing the conservation of priority KBAs.
Civil society encompasses a diverse range of stakeholders but the most relevant for the CEPF program
are those who directly manage or exploit threatened biodiversity or the ecosystems on which it
depends. The generic objective of CEPF engagement with these stakeholders is to minimize harmful
behavior, and optimize contributions to biodiversity conservation from their activities. Examples might
include: assisting hunters to secure rights over resources that allow them to regulate offtake; assisting
farmers to put in place more sustainable land management systems and benefit from improved accessto markets; and working with tourism guides to minimize disturbance to rare species and enhance
visitor experience. Strategies to do this will generally involve a combination of individual interest (e.g.,
improved income, long-term security of access) and mobilizing public and social opinion, exercisedthrough formal and informal rules and norms (e.g., local regulations to maintain ecosystems which havea value as a public good). It can also involve working with other stakeholders who have an interest insites and species, such as university departments, water-user groups, and recreational user groups. CEPF
grantees often originate from these civil society groups, and typically have strong networks andexperience working with them. In addition to financial support, the role of the RIT will be to assist CSOs
become more strategic and effective in their work with civil society, and then to build on the results as abasis for influencing the state and private sector actors described above.

114

12.CEPF INVESTMENT STRATEGY
Based upon an analysis of conservation outcomes (Chapter 4), an assessment of the capacity of civilsociety actors (Chapter 7), an overview of direct and indirect threats to biodiversity (Chapter 8), a
consideration of projections for climate change (Chapter 8) and a review of trends in conservation
investment (Chapter 10), this chapter recommends specific investment priorities grouped into broad
strategic directions. These are areas where CEPF can add most value or complement existing
investments in biodiversity conservation, justified in terms of the current context for conservation, pastexperience with conservation initiatives, and opportunities to complement and build upon current
conservation investment.
To maximize the contribution of CEPF grant-making to global biodiversity conservation within the
Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot, it was also necessary to refine the full lists of species, site andcorridors outcomes (Appendices 1, 4 and 5) into a focused set of priority outcomes for investment(priority species, sites and corridors) over a five-year period. The purpose of selecting priority sites andcorridors was to enable investment by CEPF in site-based and landscape-scale conservation actions tofocus on geographic areas of the highest priority and feasibility, while the purpose of selecting priority
species was to enable investments in species-focused conservation actions to be directed at those
globally threatened species for which conservation needs cannot adequately be addressed by general
habitat protection (site-scale or landscape-scale) actions alone.
For all priority outcomes for CEPF investment, the most important selection criteria were urgency forconservation action, feasibility within the scope of CEPF funding, and opportunity for additional
investment. Priority species, sites and corridors were selected only where current threats, if not
mitigated, were predicted to cause their extinction (in the case of species) or the loss of key elements of
biodiversity (in the case of sites and corridors) within the next 10-20 years. In addition, priority species,
sites and corridors were selected where there were considered to be great opportunities for CEPF andother organizations to invest in conservation actions by civil society that complement or improvetargeting of investments by governments and other donors. Further, the set of priorities is flexible. CEPF
conducts annual reviews of its portfolios and formal mid-term assessments in consultation withstakeholders: strategies and priorities can be adapted to new threats, new opportunities, or the capacityof the implementing CSOs.
When translating the conservation strategy outlined in this chapter into a portfolio of grants, it will be ofparamount importance to take into account the specificities of the hotspot and the individual countries
within it, as outlined in the other chapters of the profile. While there are common issues that lendthemselves to a common approach (with attendant opportunities for collaboration and experienceexchange), the context for conservation varies considerably among countries, especially between theCentral Asian republics, China and Afghanistan, particularly with regard to the way civil society isorganized and active. This calls for common but differentiated approaches across the hotspot.

12.1. Priority Species
National consultations and the processing of the stakeholder questionnaires provided the basis forprioritization of the species outcomes. The list of priorities 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, for which CEPF may be the only source of investment. While CEPF focuses115

on globally threatened species, the national consultations identified some taxa in need of conservation
attention that are not currently assessed as globally threatened (Appendix 3). Some are close to meetingthe criteria for globally threatened, some are particularly distinctive sub-specific taxa, and some are
geographically distinct populations. If any of these taxa are recognized 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). This includes gray wolf, Eurasian lynx, and brown bear, allof which are not globally threatened but may have local sub-species that are threatened.
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

14 Ranodon sibiricus
Fishes14 Aspiolucius esocinus
Pseudoscaphirhynchus
15
kaufmanni

EN
VU

VU
EN
VU
EN
CR

116

+
+

+
+

+
+

+

+

+
+

+

+

+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
+

+

+
+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
+
+

EN

+
VU

CR

Uzbekistan

+
+

+

+

VU

Semirechensk (Xingjian)Salamander
Pike Asp
Amudarya Shovelnose
Sturgeon++

VU

Strauch’s Toad Agama

+
+

+

EN

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

Turkmenistan

China
+

Tajikistan

7 Aquila heliaca
8 Aquila nipalensis
9 Columba eversmanni
10 Neophron percnopterus
11 Vanellus gregarius
Reptiles
12 Phrynocephalus strauchi
Amphibians+
VU

Kyrgyzstan

Anser erythropus

EN

Kazakhstan

6

Bukhara Deer
Menzbier’s Marmot
Ili Pika
Urial
Snow Leopard

Distribution by Country

Afghanistan

Mammals
1 Cervus hanglu
2 Marmota menzbieri
3 Ochotona iliensis
4 Ovis orientalis*
5 Panthera uncia
Birds

Common Name

Vulnerable

Scientific Name

Endangered

No.

CriticallyEndangered

Global Threat
Status

+
+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Uzbekistan

Turkmenistan

Tajikistan

Kyrgyzstan

Kazakhstan

China

Distribution by Country

Afghanistan

Common Name

Vulnerable

Scientific Name

Endangered

No.

CriticallyEndangered

Global Threat
StatusPlants16 Amygdalus bucharica
Wild Almond
VU++
17 Armeniaca vulgaris
Wild Apricot
EN+++
18 Betula talassica
birch species
EN+
19 Betula tianschanica
birch species
EN+++
20 Calligonum calcareumsmartweed species
CR+
21 Crataegus darvasica
hawthorn speciesCR+
22 Crataegus knorringiana
hawthorn species
CR+
23 Crataegus necopinata
hawthorn species
CR+
24 Malus niedzwetzkyana
wild apple species
EN+++
25 Malus sieversii
wild apple species
VU
+
+
+
+
26 Polygonum toktogulicum smartweed species
CR+
27 Populus berkarensis
poplar speciesCR+
28 Pyrus cajon
wild pear speciesEN+
29 Pyrus korshinskyi
wild pear speciesCR++
30 Pyrus tadshikistanica
wild pear speciesCR+
31 Ribes malvifolium
currant species
CR
32 Sibiraea tianschanicarose species
CR++
33 Swida darvasica
dogwood species
CR+
Note: * = includes both Bukhara urial (Ovis orientalis bocharensis) and Laddakh Urial (Ovis orientalis vignei).

+
+
+
+

+
+

+
+

12.2. 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, and politicalsensitivity). In view of the expected level of CEPF investment in the hotspot, this shortlist of sites wasconsidered too many, even allowing for some redundancy, which is essential for mitigating the politicaland security risks that can restrict access to parts of the hotspot. Consequently, the following additional
criteria were applied by 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).

117

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

118

•
•
•

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 prefered 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.

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.
Table 12.2. Priority sites for CEPF investment
Code
Name of KBA
Afghanistan
1

Wakhan National Park

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

119

Code

Name of KBA

Possible actions (indicative only)

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.

Kyrgyzstan
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)

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.

120

Code

Name of KBA
Bashkyzylsay River Basin(part of Chatkal
Biosphere Reserve UNESCO WHS)
Karabau and Dukentsay
River Basins

Possible actions (indicative only)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.

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.

56

It should be noted that participants at the regional consultation in Almaty agreed in principle to adopt
flexible 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 assome redundancy to mitigate risks, 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.

12.3. 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. They also cover
agglomerations of many identified and potential KBAs.
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
23,60047,400121Countries
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

12212.4. CEPF Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities
Sections 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3 have identified a series of priority conservation outcomes for species, sites,
and corridors to be addressed with the support of CEPF. This section defines how CEPF will address thechallenges of conservation to achieve these outcomes. Some strategic directions and investment
priorities are specifically directed at species, sites, or corridors. Which direction or priority is relevant fora particular priority species, KBA or corridor depends on specific local ecological, social, and economic
circumstances. In developing proposals, potential grantees must show that they have an adequate
understanding of these local circumstances and which of the strategic directions and investment
priorities are relevant to their situation. Strategic directions are summarized in Table 12.4 and describedin greater detail below.
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

123

CEPF Strategic Directions

3. Support sustainable management and biodiversity
conservation within priority corridors

CEPF Investment Priorities
3.1. Develop protocols and demonstration projects for
ecological restoration that improve the biodiversity
performance and connectivity of KBAs
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
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
5.5. Support action-oriented environmental education

124

CEPF Strategic Directions

6. Provide strategic leadership and effective
coordination of conservation investment through a
Regional Implementation Team

CEPF Investment Priorities
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

Stakeholders discussed potential strategic directions extensively during the various workshops. The listof six shown here 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. Still, CEPF respects the inputs and desires of the stakeholders andconsiders the framework above to be responsive to their needs. Specifically:•

During consultations, stakeholders suggested several investment priorities focused on science,research, and monitoring. Generation of knowledge is integral to CEPF work and is an inherent
part of many of the investment priorities.

•

Stakeholders suggested a Strategic Direction exclusively for mountain and riverbed forests, withpriorities that included reforestation and alternative energy development. In this version of theframework, instead of focusing on such ecosystems, they factored into the prioritization of KBAs
and corridors. CEPF does not have the funding magnitude to support corridor-level
reforestation, but may support pilot projects where appropriate.

•

During consultations, stakeholders suggested creation of a revolving fund that makes microloans to support conservation enterprises. CEPF supports this conceptually, and can make grants
directly to entrepreneurs and associations, and can make grants that help with the organizationand management of a fund, but CEPF cannot directly capitalize such funds.

•

During consultations, stakeholders suggested a strategic direction devoted to higher educationand professional development and an investment priority to support individual attendance atinternatonal meetings. Certainly, these are important activities. However, CEPF views support
for this to be a means to an end – a way to build civil society capacity – but it is not an end in
itself. Investement Priority 5.5 allows for this in a limited context.

•

During consultations, stakeholders suggested a strategic direction dedicated to climate change
response. Instead of having this as a stand-alone focus area, the team prioritized sites andcorridors that provide opportunities for enhancing climate resilience.

•

During consultations, stakeholders suggested a strategic direction dedicated to cross-bordercollaboration. Instead of having this as a stand-alone focus, the team prioritized geographicallycoincident KBAs that are separated by borders. SD 2 (sites) and SD 3 (corridors) both anticipate
grants to CSOs working on either side of a border, and as possible, the RIT will be in a position topromote coordination. CEPF will also be in a position to support regional or thematic discussions
between parties from multiple countries and will support information exchange. At the same

125

time, CEPF recognizes the political context and will not engage in grants that create orexacerbate tensions between countries.

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, are less resilient to habitat disturbance, and are less able tocompete with invasive alien species.
Some species may be able to withstand limited exploitation, and this may be an effective conservation
strategy where exploitation rights can be defined, managed and policed. Where a species or product isimportant for local livelihoods and economies, it may be possible to find alternatives or to incentivize
changes of behavior. For many species, however, legal protection and enforcement of bans on
exploitation are required. Enforcement of regulations, quotas and species-focused programs and actionplans may be complex, and often depends on the cooperation of local stakeholders. Ultimately, ofcourse, habitat needs to be protected at a viable scale.
The investment priorities here specifically complement actions highlighted for civil society by the Global
Snow Leopard Program, the Convention on Migratory Species, the Central Asian Mammals Initiative, andthe Raptors MoU.
Investment Priority 1.1: Improve enforcement and develop incentives and alternatives for nature users
and collectors
Enforcement occurs on a continuum of education – prevention – interdiction – punishment. Withlimited government capacity to perform all these roles, CSOs can provide support at the first two levels:
they can inform the citizenry why collection or hunting of a species is harmful, they can put up signs andboundary markers, and they can conduct patrols. Grants could provide funding for transportation,equipment, planning, monitoring, data collection, and reporting, among others.
People who are used to collecting or hunting a species may be doing so out of economic need, or
species might be threatened due to seemingly benign causes, such as too many visitors to a nature park.
In this case, grants could support CSOs that provide alternatives for collectors – perhaps collecting a
different plant species, ex situ cultivation of a species, or improved pricing schemes for trophy hunting.
Nurseries could support recovery of plant endemics and wild fruit trees. CSOs could also help park
managers with visitor control, develop alternative sites, and promote best practice in visitor
management.
Investment Priority 1.2: Promote improved regulation of collecting, hunting, and fishing
While the legal framework for species protection in the region is well-developed, people do not always
know the law or implementing procedures may be lacking. There are further opportunities within thelegal structure for local authorities or communities to create licensing schemes. CSOs could analyze
policy gaps, inform people about their legal rights and responsibilities, facilitate consultations between
communities and legal authorities, use ecological research to set reasonable quotas, use economic
research to set prices, and provide inputs to governments and international bodies for improved
understanding and traceability of illegally collected species.

126Investment Priority 1.3: Support the development of species-specific reserves and conservation
programs
Many priority species are found outside existing protected areas. While legislation allows forcommunity-based reserves, there is little precedent for these being created or managed. Grants could
support CSO exploration of the legislation to create pilots, could support identification of viable reservesites, and could twin communities to share best practice. Grants could also help develop action plans forconservation of specific species.
Investment Priority 1.4: Prevent human-wildlife conflict by addressing killing, poisoning, and trapping
CEPF will make grants that specifically address the issue of human-wildlife conflict by making grants togroups that change popular awareness and behavior of relevant communities. This could include grants
for training on non-lethal predator control and training on predator-safe animal husbandry.
Investment Priority 1.5: Maintain populations of priority species beyond those solely affected bycollection, hunting, fishing, poisoning, and nature users
There are priority species that are not just those under direct threat from local anthropogenic sources.
CEPF will support activities that enable a better understanding and protection of breeding grounds or
population dynamics. This includes support for biodiversity monitoring and action-oriented research.
Limitations to Strategic Direction 1•

For projects that seek to strengthen enforcement or change human behavior in relation topriority species, CEPF will not award grants that lead to involuntary restriction on access to landor resources.

•

For projects that seek to strengthen legal protection for species, CEPF will only award grants incountries that are amenable to such work being undertaken by civil society.

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 or hunting that is not incompatible with conservation. CEPF will support actions thatmaintain the conservation value of these KBAs by working with regulations, incentives and technicalsupport to encourage stakeholders managing natural resources (communities, district forest agencies,
license holders, etc.) to incorporate biodiversity into their management practices.
Pressure from unsustainable local natural resource use is a threat to KBAs across the hotspot. Models ofsustainable, community-based management in a variety of situations are important to convince127government and local stakeholders that such approaches are possible. Likely activities include
identification of links between livelihoods and resources, strengthening of local institutions for
management, creating links to markets and economic opportunities that give the sustainable
management greater value, and building networks of support for the community-based initiatives.
Investment Priority 2.1: Facilitate effective collaboration among CSOs, local communities, and park
management units to enhance protected area networks
In most protected areas, legal protection and management bodies reduce the threats from exploitationand development, but are not always able to prevent encroachment, unauthorized grazing, plantcollection, or illegal hunting. Funding from the state is often too little in relaton to the size or needs ofthe protected area. CEPF will support actions that address these challenges, including by working with
communities that live around the borders of protected areas and by collaborating with CSOs that canenhance management efficiency by coordinating with the official managers. Grants could support
monitoring activities, as well, in relation to the functioning of protected areas (e.g., monitoring of fire orof invasive species).
Several protected areas in the region are along international borders, either along high mountain ridges
or along rivers. Grants under this investment priority could be purposefully complementary, where CSOs
on either side of a border work with one another and with respective protected area managers. Grants
within this investment priority can also purposefully create a better “network” of separate KBAs within
one country to allow for possible linkages in a corridor or along an altitudinal gradient.
Investment Priority 2.2: Develop and implement management approaches to sustainable use in KBAs
outside official protected areas
KBAs outside protected areas are typically threatened by a combination of licensed exploitation andunlicensed use. Interventions to protect these KBAs are complex because multiple stakeholders andrights may be involved, and because the objective of management is, in most cases, profit rather thanprotection. Success is likely to be the result of long-term engagement, not a single grant, and so CEPF
will support initiatives in which there is a clear stakeholder, community, or company, with management
control and rights over the area and commitment to conservation. Conservation actions might include
promotition of improved grazing practices, promotion of alternative energy sources to reduce firewood
collection, timber certification, and better management of hunting or tourism operations.
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 community-based initiatives.
Investment Priority 2.3: Build support and develop capacity for identification and recognition of KBAs
CEPF anticipates grants with various objectives under this investment priority, both those that help
strengthen the scientific basis to promote formal recognition of sites and those that promote the KBA
concept as a means for conservation. First, CEPF expects that some grants will promote recognition ofpriority sites and the KBA concept (which is new in the region), building on the momentum and capacityof the many stakeholders that participated in the ecosystem profiling process. Second, CEPF anticipates
grants that promote recognition of KBAs as part of official policy and regulations. These efforts may
include public consultations, enabling experts from universities and CSOs to assist policymakers in128

understanding the issues, or engaging influential stakeholders to build support for recognition of KBAs.
CEPF will also support the dissemination of information on laws, policies and training necessary to assist
enforcement agencies or affected stakeholders in ensuring that the policy produces the intended effect.
Monitoring can help demonstrate this effect, and can provide important feedback that policymakers canuse to show that their decisions have benefited communities and conservation.
The recognition of KBAs may appear in local or national biodiversity strategies and development andspatial plans, and CEPF will support efforts to encourage adoption of conservation outcomes withinthese documents. This support might include studies to value ecosystem services from KBAs, goodpractice examples from other areas, and dissemination of information on polies and laws.
Limitations to Strategic Direction 2•

For projects that seek to strengthen the management of KBAs or formalize the status ofprotected areas, CEPF will not award grants that lead to involuntary restriction on access to landor resources.

•

For projects that seek to work in or around public lands (e.g., in national parks or reserves), CEPF
will only award grants in places where local and national officials are amenable to such work
being undertaken by civil society.

•For projects that seek to work in KBAs near to sensitive national boundaries, CEPF will takespecial precautions, in terms of more pre-award due diligence and requests for official
endorsement of grantee activities, to ensure that CEPF-supported work does not exacerbate or
create political tensions.

Strategic Direction 3: Support sustainable management and biodiversity conservation
within priority corridors
A defining feature of this hotspot is its large, uninhabitated landscapes across which roam iconic
ungulates and carnivors. The hotspot is also home to wild relatives of cultivated fruit and nut grees,
including apple, pear, walnut, apriocot, 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.
Investment Priority 3.1: Develop protocols and demonstration projects for ecological restoration that
improve biodiversity performance and connectivity of KBAs
The priority corridors for CEPF investment include forested areas that are home to high-value genetic
resources, such as wild apple, walnut, pear, apricot, pistachio, and that also allow for movement ofanimal species of conservation concern. CEPF will support CSOs that develop better management plansfor corridors of a scale appropriately matched to CEPF funding. Thus, this could be in in critical links ofhabitat between KBAs, or in appropriately-sized areas within priority corridors. The point being, CEPF
will not work on largescale restoration, which is beyond its funding scope, but instead promotenurseries growing indigenous species and promote pilot restoration and reforestation efforts. CEPF will129

also support monitoring of species and ecosystem services to demonstrate the value and functioning ofthese corridors.
Investment Priority 3.2: Evaluate and integrate biodiversity and ecosystem service values into land-use
and development planning
The hotspot is at the center of major investments related to trade and energy, drawing the engagementof the private sector, the government, CSOs, and donors. At the community level, these investments are
not necessarily planned in advance, and when participatory planning exercises are undertaken, theyrarely consider biodiversity conservation objectives.
At the same time, a holistic approach of future development paths at the local level is necessary. Forest
corridors and grassland landscapes are sometimes seen as having low value in relation to alternatives.
CEPF is a position to support projects that promote integration of biodiversity into local planning andpolicies, and in particular to ensure that such plans and policies take into consideration the long-termsustainable benefits of biodiversity conservation as a means to reduce poverty, improve livelihoods andachieve health and food security.
This investment will encourage existing and incoming development projects with a focus on ruralenergy, sustainable forestry, and sustainable livestock management, and the government agencies that
invite and or approve their presence, to include activities that contribute to the conservation of priority
corridors. This could include support for CSOs and communities to engage in planning and direct support
for demonstration efforts.
Investment Priority 3.3: Support civil society efforts to analyze development plans and programs;
evaluate their impact on biodiversity, communities and livelihoods; and, propose alternative scenarios
and appropriate mitigating measures
Building on the previous investment priority, which focuses on the community/local level, this priority
focuses on the need to engage directly with the wider development agenda, but again in relation topriority corridors. A key objective of this investment priority is to ensure that corridor conservation is
integrated into national/district land use and development plans by providing the opportunity for civilsociety to engage with planning processes led by government and donors. Civil society organizations will
be supported to provide information to decision makers in a form useful for planning, for example
decision support tools. Civil society organizations will also be supported to develop alliances andpartnerships—in particular with stakeholders from the development sector—in pursuit of joint planningobjectives with other stakeholders (for instance, when there is the potential to secure benefits throughplanning for both biodiversity and livelihoods). Funding could also support civil society organization
participation in the preparation of environmental assessments of specific activites (e.g., road
construction, mining) and enable civil society organizations to put environmental considerations into
policies, plans, and programs. Grants could support CSO-government partnership, CSO-CSO alliances,
citizen engagement, ecological monitoring around large development projects, and mainstreaming of
biodiversity into landscape level planning (e.g., encouraging reforestation, creating buffer areas aroundprotected areas through agroforestry, etc.)
Limitations to Strategic Direction 3•

For projects that seek to influence economic development plans, CEPF will take special
precautions, in terms of more pre-award due diligence and requests for external endorsement130

of grantee activities (e.g., from local government or from the managers of a private sector
project), to ensure that CEPF-supported work is consonant with local development goals.

Strategic Direction 4: Engage communities of interest and economic sectors, including theprivate sector, in improved management of production landscapes (i.e., priority sites andcorridors 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 landscape
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. This strategic direction will
support activities that show that economic activities need not be in conflict with sustainable
management. Work will take place in priority KBAs, in areas that affect priority KBAs, or in the arena ofdecision-making about productive practice and could include discussions of agricultural lands (pastureand crop and plantations); forested areas (timber production, non-timber forest products); concession
lands (hunting, mining, tourism); and lands set aside for infrastructure development (roads, canals for
irrigation, water reservoirs, rail, power transmission lines, pipelines and urban expansion). Work will
have a direct impact on priority species, sites, and corridors.
Investment Priority 4.1: Engage hunting associations, tourism operators, and mining companies inconservation management and establishing valuation mechanisms for biodiversity and ecosystemservices
Hunting associations, tourism operators, and mining companies that operate in and around KBAs havethe potential to become vital partners in conservation. CEPF will support CSOs to engage these groups
by educating them about the species and habitats that they affect, by supporting them in the design ofbetter management schemes, and by promoting appropriate mitigation measures (not only measures by
individual companies but also grants that support development of voluntary or mandatory standards forcertain industries or sectors). Furthermore, a typical problem is that ecosystem services are not properly
valued (e.g., trophy prices, park prices, or mineral extraction rights are too low, leading to too muchofftake or too little reinvestment in the site) and those values are not incorporated into decision-making
or pricing. Grants could assist in valuation and pricing mechanisms that lead to reduced degradation,
while still allowing for profitable use. Grants could also support expansion of hunting or tourism that
directly supports or leads to improved conservation outcomes.
Investment Priority 4.2: Promote mainstreaming of conservation into livestock and farm management
practices
Agriculture and livestock management are integral elements of Central Asian and mountain cultures andeconomies. However, whether in highly cultivated areas that are expanding up slopes in the Ferghana
Valley, or in open access pastureland, poor practice can destroy critical habitats. CEPF will support
projects that work at both local levels and in terms of policy. At the local level, CEPF will not support“sutainable grazing” or “sustainable farming” in general. Rather, the purpose of this investment priority
is to support grants that demonstrate the causal link between better practice and improved
conservation outcomes. This could include projects that encourage moving herding out of forests,
actions that allow for forest and grassland regeneration, and the use of crop or livestock species that areless resource intensive (e.g., yaks as opposed to goats). At the policy and planning level, grants could
include education on soil and biodiversity conservation practices, introduction of technologies of131sustainable use of water in agriculture, information exchanges, and coaching by practitioners, provided
the work is targeted at priority species, sites, and corridors.
Investment Priority 4.3: Promote sustainable forest certification and value chains for non-timber forest
products
The legitimate use of mountain forest resources can actually help sustain the forests and support local
livelihoods and trade. Forest products that are certified as being sustainably produced gain preferential
access to global and regional markets (Blackman and Rivera, 2010), and for many countries andconsumers, sustainable forest certification is a requirement. The certification itself confers on the
products a legitimacy that makes them more attractive and valuable on domestic and foreign markets.
Programs and actions that promote certification of timber and non-timber products, improve value
chains, and introduce modern forest products processing technologies may improve the forest
conditions and generate benefits for communities.
Investment Priority 4.4: Engage with the government and private sector to incorporate site safeguards
into infrastructure development
As the economy in the region develops, KBAs are coming under increasing threat from development
projects. Environmental impact assessment legislation is in place in all the countries in the hotspot. Yet
enforcement and implementation are weak everywhere, and there are cases of flagrant disregard forenvironmental legislation. The capacity to conduct environmental impact assessments is limited, and thestandards are often low. Given their scientific and conservation expertise, and the political space forindependent action in some of the hotspot countries, civil society organizations can play an importantrole in bridging the gap between good law and bad practice. Further, civil society advocacy and alliances
can support government agencies to maintain and perform their legal mandates to protect biodiversity
and ensure that environmental safeguards are applied. This is an emergent role for civil society in the
hotspot, and it represents a clear niche for CEPF when funding is not available from other donors andwhen an ability to respond rapidly is frequently required.
This complements, in particular, the specific role highlighted for civil society in international initiatives
like the Convention on Migratory Species and Central Asian Mammals Initiative in relation to linear
infrastructure: fences, power lines, and roads.
Alongside national environmental impact assessment legislation, many financing institutions use one ormore KBA criteria in the application of site safeguard policies in order to avoid, minimize, or mitigate theimpacts of projects on natural habitats. These include the World Bank (through its Natural Habitats
Policy), the International Finance Corp. (through Performance Standard 6), as well as more than 100
private sector banks (which have adopted the Equator Principles and follow International Finance Corp
Standards). Other tools for protecting KBAs and biodiversity in relation to various developments include
existing and emerging certification and accreditation schemes (such as those relating to fair trade andsustainability in production of commodities, and the development and implementation of carbon
finance projects as applied by the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance). Civil society
organization input can ensure that biodiversity safeguards and standards are effectively applied, andthat government and industry are aware of them before they commit to investments that could beenvironmentally damaging.
Advocacy and technical input to environmental impact assessments, review of such assessments,
support for consultations with local stakeholders, the building of alliances across different interest

132

groups, and the development of economic alternatives are all interventions that may be supported by
CEPF in response to any KBA coming under threat.
Investment Priority 4.5: Engage the media as a tool to increase awareness about globally threatened
species and KBAs, and inform public debate of conservation issues
The hotspot has a diverse range of media and public information centers and services, andgovernments, CSOs, and donors make provisions for public participation in decision-making and for
improved awareness. Significant though these steps have been, they have proven insufficient to fully
explain and convey biodiversity concerns to the grassroots level and catalyze responses and behavioral
changes. Major CSOs and public environmental information centers as well as civil society networks andservices are well-placed to spread information and knowledge about KBAs and inform public debate on
biodiversity. One successful approach has been use of the media festivals, expositions, and “Marches forParks” as tools for raising awareness about conservation issues. Past public awareness campaigns
conducted by CSOs on wild apples, tulips, charismatic species have contributed to public debate,interest, and improved knowledge. This investment priority will consolidate and amplify these and otherapproaches.
Limitations to Strategic Direction 4•

For projects that seek to engage with the private sector, CEPF will be careful to award grants to
CSOs with appropriate capacity and in the context of work in which the typical CEPF grantee canbe successful. It may be inappropriate, therefore, for grantees to engage with certain sectors inany given country.

•

For projects that seek to engage with the private sector, CEPF will take special precautions, interms of more pre-award due diligence and requests for external endorsement of grantee
activities (e.g., from local government or from the managers of a private sector project), to
ensure that CEPF-supported work is consonant local national economic priorities.

•

For projects that seek to foster public awareness and inform debate around species, sites, andcorridors, CEPF will ensure that grantee work is appropriate to local political conditions toincrease likelihood of success.

Strategic Direction 5: Enhance civil society capacity for effective conservation action
Chapter 7 notes the need of CSOs for strengthened management, fundraising, and skills, and also notesthat they often lack the knowledge and experience to tackle some of the most important threats to thebiodiversity in the hotspot. Furthermore, many CSOs working on issues indirectly related toconservation, such as pasture management, disaster risk reduction or community development, havedifficulty making the link between their work and environmental considerations or benefits forconservation. Creating sustained improvements in civil society capacity for conservation is an important
aim of CEPF, alongside direct conservation impacts. CEPF will support capacity-building to ensure that
local CSOs make effective use of grants, and that their actions have a sustainable impact.
The scope for engagement of CSOs is not equal throughout the seven countries of the hotspot.
Kygyzstan has a diverse collection of local CSOs that operate independently from the government, andin 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
133arena and can collaborate with public sector authorities on areas of mutual interest (e.g., in a protectedarea) provided they act appropriately with government mores. Uzbekistan has a strong cadre of CSOs
that promote conservation: 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, thestrongest CSOs are related to academia, geographic and nature protection societies or associations offorest users, hunters and fishermen.
Investment Priority 5.1: Enable and enhance communication and collaboration between civil society,communities, and government agencies responsible for implementing national biodiversity strategies
At a basic level, citizens and CSOs need “a place at the table,” to be informed and to give information, toparticipate in decisions, and to assist in action. It is unrealistic for citizens and CSOs to expect
government to do everything and they must accept responsibilities. Conversely, if government wants
CSO assistance, government needs to include CSOs in the decisions.
CEPF grants will support informing citizens and CSOs to their rights and responsibilities. This could
involve local information campaigns (on government strategies, laws, rules, regulations), local
workshops, or national events so that CSOs and authorities can better work together. Grants will also
support efforts to communicate concerns of citizens to authorities, making use of Aarhus centers, ruralcommunity (jamoat) development centers, and other credible conduits of information.
Investment Priority 5.2: Enhance civil society organizations’ capacity for planning, implementation,outreach, sharing of best practice, fund-raising, and communication
A specific issue repeatedly highlighted by CSOs is the lack of capacity to assess the state of theenvironment, unsustainable exploitation, and the status of key species and habitats. In the absence of
information, they find it difficult to ensure that their work is focused and effective. CEPF will support
training in simple techniques for assessment of key species, their habitats, environmental variables, andplanning conservation interventions.
CSOs with skills in community development and agriculture, and natural resource-based businesses suchas tourism, non-timber forest products, and responsible hunting are likely to be important for the
success of conservation activities. CEPF grantees are thus likely to be organizations that are working on
livelihoods and social and development issues, and that are aware in a general way of the importance of
natural resources and ecological services but lack the knowledge to define these links clearly or toaddress environmental issues in their programs. CEPF will fund capacity building activities that assist
CSOs in understanding conservation outcomes and enable them to link their work to biodiversity
conservation. Priority for this kind of support will be CSOs with a clear commitment to work in priority
sites.
CEPF will also support:••

Basic managerial and organizational strengthening for CSOs that are engaged in conservation inpriority sites and corridors, including providng skills training in business operations and fundraising.
The documenting and sharing of best practice for species, site, and corridor conservation.

134

Investment Priority 5.3: Catalyze networking and collaboration among civil society organizations andbetween them and public sector partners
Stakeholders report the need to build constituencies for action. Subsectors within the CSO community(e.g., conservation groups, forest and land user and hunting associations, public information centers,
mountain development) tend to be better at networking within their own subsector than with others,
and good opportunities for alliances and collaborative working may be missed as a result. There areexisting alliances (e.g., the Central Asia Mountain Partnership; the Alliance of Mountain Communities ofCentral Asia) that have played crucial roles in targeted support and innovations in sustainable mountain
development. CEPF will support existing networks and provide mechanisms to communicate initiatives,
results and problems between, for example, different CSOs around a KBA. Linking local CSOs to national
and international networks will enhance access to sources of information and funding, and thus improve
the sustainability of actions.
Investment Priority 5.4: Promote greater sources of funding for civil society to become engaged inconservation action
Access to funding is a key constraint for many CSOs in the hotspot. Some smaller CSOs become active
only when funding is available, and are unable to undertake long-term financial planning. Others “follow
the money,” adopting new agendas in response to donor priorities and funding. Neither situation
supports the development of a knowledgeable, effective CSO community that can take action in supportof conservation outcomes. CEPF will support locally appropriate, viable, and innovative mechanisms toincrease the broader pool of funding available to civil society. CEPF may support pay-for-performancelinks between the private sector and CSOs for conservation activities, the creation of innovative funding
mechanisms, and schemes that generate sustainable funding for civil society and conservation activities.
Investment Priority 5.5: Support action-oriented environmental education
In certain political contexts, the most appropriate grants will be for support of environmental education,
provided it relates to conservation of species or sites. Possible activities include:•••

In communities living in KBAs or adjacent to protected areas, grants could support developmentof curriculum for schools to teach children about environmentally sustainable behavior.
Support for research on species or sites, within the context of an advanced degree programfrom a university within the region, the results of which can then be used by a sponsoring NGO.
Within the framework of an existing university or training institute in the region, provide
advanced training to multiple indviduals in the fields of applied biodiversity science.

Limitations to Strategic Direction 5•

CEPF recognizes that the “state of civil society” varies across the seven countries in the hotspot.
Similarly, the expectation is that award of grants under this Strategic Direction will also vary.
CEPF will be careful to award grants under this Strategic Direction in a way that enables thegrowth of individual CSOs and the sector, at large, but not in a way that goes against national
priorities.

Strategic Direction 6: Provide strategic leadership and effective coordination ofconservation 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 and135

sustainable 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,competitive process, and selection criteria available at www.cepf.net. The team will operate in atransparent and open manner, consistent with the CEPF mission and all provisions of the CEPF
Operational Manual. Organizations that are members of the RIT are not eligible to apply for other CEPF
grants within the same hotspot. CEPF accepts grant applications from formal affiliates of the RIT
organizations, provided the applicant has an independent operating board of directors; suchapplications then receive additional external review.
Investment Priority 6.1: Build a constituency of civil society groups working across institutional andpolitical boundaries toward achieving the shared conservation goals described in the ecosystem
The RIT provides strategic leadership and local knowledge to build a broad constituency of civil society
groups working across institutional and political boundaries toward achieving the conservation goals
described in the Ecosystem Profile. Given the size and the complexity of the Mountains of Central Asia
Hotspot, and considering the Strategic Directions named above, where mainstreaming conservation intodevelopment and promoting participation of a wider group of partners is going to be required, the RIT
will play a crucial role supporting the consolidation of region-wide networks and identifying regional
funding opportunities to leverage and complement CEPF’s investment. Major functions of the team will
include, but not be limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Act as an extension service to assist civil society groups in designing, implementing, andreplicating successful conservation activities.
Review all grant applications and manage external reviews with technical experts and advisorycommittees.
Award grants up to $20,000 and decide jointly with the CEPF Secretariat on all otherapplications.
Lead the monitoring and evaluation of individual projects using standard tools, site visits, andmeetings with grantees, and assist the CEPF Secretariat in portfolio-level monitoring andevaluation.
Widely communicate CEPF objectives, opportunities to apply for grants, lessons learned, andresults.
Involve the existing regional program of the RIT, CEPF donor and implementing agency
representatives, government officials, and other sectors within the hotspot in implementation.
Ensure effective coordination with the CEPF Secretariat on all aspects of implementation.

The RIT will play a critical role in ensuring sharing of lessons between grantees and the replication of
success. The expectation of CEPF is that many groups will be trying innovative efforts, either new to theplace or new to them. The RIT’s job is guide these groups and make connections between them.
In the context of this investment priority, the RIT will undertake the many activities that turn thisecosystem profile into action, including addressing the capacity constraints of many local CSOs,
designing CSO engagement methods (e.g., calls for proposals) to yield grant-funded projects that areappropriate within the local political context, and, significantly, incorporating gender into grantee
136

project design. In much of the discussion to this point (i.e., prioritizing species, sites, and corridors, anddesigning strategies to ensure their conservation), gender itself has not been explicitly addressed.
Rather, it needs to be considered in response to these priorities. In other words, the RIT will:••

In considering local responses to issues of species and KBA conservation, consider the different
ways men and women relate to and use the environment. The RIT will design RfPs to solicit, or
work directly with applicants to design, projects that address female constraints to participation,
ensure gender equitable access to information and decision-making, and promote gender
equitable distribution of resources.
Work with partner CSOs (i.e., grantees) directly to improve gender equity within theirorganizational structures.

The CEPF Secretariat will work with the RIT, if it does not have its own gender guidelines, to adopt thefollowing best practices (Conservation International 2017):
1. Using gender analysis to understand and examine gender dimensions of individual grant
projects and their setting. This includes documenting a project’s structure and assessing thecapacity of the implementer; exploring gender norms, roles, values, and standards; andidentifiying gender-based constraints and opportunities.
2. Adapting and developing project elements and activities.
3. Adapting or developing project indicators for monitoring gender integration.
4. Building the core organizational capacity of the grantee to mainstream gender into its
operations (Conservation International 2017).
Investment Priority 6.2: Act as a liaison unit for relevant networks throughout the hotspot toharmonize investments and direct new funding to priority issues and sites
The RIT will act as a hub between a network of CEPF grantees, other CSOs in the region, and donors,
helping raise more money and leverage more resources for conservation. The RIT will be a resource for
CEPF donors, other donors, and governments to refine the areas throughout the entire hotspot (notonly the priority species, sites, and corridors named here) that require additional financial support.

13713. LOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND RISK ANALYSIS
Table 13.1. Logical Framework for the Mountains of Central Asia Biodiversity Hotspot
Objectives

Targets

Means of Verification

15 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), covering 600,000
hectares, have improved management
60,000 hectares of protected areas are created or
expandedEngage civil society
in the conservationof globallythreatened
biodiversity throughtargeted
investments withmaximum impact on
the highest
conservation
priorities

2 initiatives launched with private sector stakeholders
resulting in adoption or maintenance of biodiversityfriendly practices
10 land-use plans or land-use management practices
incorporate provisions for biodiversity conservation
5 partnerships and networks formed or strengthened
among civil society, and with government andcommunities, to leverage complementary capacities
and maximize impact in support of the ecosystemprofileAt least 20 local organizations receiving CEPF grants
demonstrate improved organizational capacity
Number of women receiving direct socio-economic
benefits through increased income, food security,
resource rights, or other measures of humanwellbeing from CEPF grants is no less than 40% thenumber of men

Grantee and Regional
Implementation Team (RIT)
performance reports
Annual portfolio overview
reports; portfolio midterm
and final assessment reports
Protected Areas Tracking
Tool (SP1 METT)
Official decrees of creationof new protected areas
Civil Society Tracking Tool
(CSTT)

138

Links to Aichi Targets

Target 2: Biodiversity
values have been
integrated into national
and local development
and poverty reduction
strategies and planning
processes

Important
Assumptions

The evolving
political andsecurity situation
Target 4: Governments,
in parts of thebusiness and stakeholders
hotspot does not
at all levels have taken
require a
steps to achieve or havecomplete
implemented plans foroverhaul ofsustainable production
geographic
and consumption
priorities for CEPF
investment
Target 7: Areas under
agriculture, aquaculture
and forestry are managed
sustainably, ensuringconservation of
biodiversity

Intermediate
Outcomes

Intermediate Indicators

Means of Verification

Main threats to at least 4 globally threatened species
are reduced
1. Address threats topriority species

4 globally threatened species benefit fromstrengthened regulation of extractive uses

$1,000,000
7 informal species-specific reserves are created600,000 hectares of KBA have improved management
2. Improve
management of Key
Biodiversity Areas
with and without
official protection
status$2,300,000

3. Support
sustainable
management andbiodiversity
conservation withinpriority corridors$1,500,000

5 KBAs with official protection status have improved
management

Target 2: Biodiversity
Grantee and RIT performancevalues have beenreports
integrated into national
and local development
CEPF Secretariat supervisionand poverty reduction
mission reports
strategies and planning
processes.
Scientific reports andpublished assessments
Target 12: The extinctionof known threatened
Published coastal zone landspecies has been
use and management plans
prevented.
Grantee and RIT performance
reports
CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports
SP1 METT

10 KBAs without official protection status have
improved management
Ecological restoration techniques that improve thefunctioning of forest ecosystems demonstrated in atleast two priority corridors
5 local level land use plans incorporate biodiversity
conservation as a management objective

1 major development project, sub-national plan, or
national plan incorporates biodiversity conservation
as a management objective

Links to Aichi Targets

Scientific reports andpublished assessments

Important
Assumptions
Drivers of
threats tospecific species
can beaddressed within
the hotspot
countries or
throughpartnerships
with others (e.g.,
for international
trade chains)

Target 2: Biodiversity
values have been
integrated into national
and local development
and poverty reduction
strategies and planning
processes

Populations ofpriority species
at target sites
are not below
the threshold fora viable
population

Target 14: Ecosystems
that provide essential
services, including water,
and contribute to health,
livelihoods and wellbeing, are restored andsafeguarded

Increased
income will leadto decisions tomaintain
traditional landuse practices.

Published management plans
Grantee and RIT performance
reports
CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports
Scientific reports andpublished assessments
Local government plans
Media articles

139Intermediate
Outcomes
4. Engage
communities ofinterest andeconomic sectors –including the private
sector – in improved
management of
production
landscapes; that is,priority KBAs andcorridors that are notformally protected$1,000,000

5. Enhance civilsociety capacity for
effective
conservation action$1,000,000

Important
Assumptions
Technically and
Grantee and RIT performance
economicallyreports
feasible options
exist which allow
CEPF Secretariat supervision
private sector
mission reports
Target 4: Governments,
operations tobusiness and stakeholders
proceed while
Revised protected areaat all levels have taken
causing no net
management plans
steps to achieve or havebiodiversity loss
implemented plans for
Published articles andsustainable production
A market for ecoassessments
and consumption
labelled products
exists that is
Decrees for official
willing to pay arecognition of protectedsufficiently large
areas
premiumIntermediate Indicators

Means of Verification

3 private companies adopt biodiversity-friendly
practices
Farming or grazing areas, covering at least 50,000
hectares, incorporate biodiversity conservation into
operations
10,000 hectares of forest fall under certification
schemes, eco-labeling programs, or other marketbased management methods
Site safeguard requirements are incorporated intodevelopment projects in or around 5 KBAs or
landscapes

At least 5 conservation issues of concern to civilsociety are the subject of public debate
At least 10 local organizations demonstrate increased
knowledge of international and regional conservationagreements and take steps to engage in action at the
local level
At least 5 regional thematic experience sharing events
allow for informal and formal networking in the
hotspot
5 new networks or partnerships for conservation are
created and/orstrengthened
Information on at least 5 funding opportunities forcivil society disseminated to relevant organizations,
resulting in at least 5 successful funding proposals forcontinuation or extension of CEPF-funded work
Programs delivered to primary/secondary learners in
at least 3 priority KBAs
10 advanced degree students receive structured
training in applied biodiversity science and/or support
for research that leads directly to Intermediate
Outcomes 1, 2, or 3

Links to Aichi Targets

Grantee and RIT performance
reports
CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports
Meeting minutes andparticipant lists
Press articles in specialized
media
Signed grant agreementswith other donors

140

Target 18: Local
knowledge and practiceused, respected, andintegrated

Civil society willcontinue to see
biodiversity
conservation asa valid goal towhich tocontributeIntermediate
Outcomes

Intermediate Indicators

Means of Verification

At east 25 local organizations actively participate inconservation actions guided by the ecosystem profile
6. Provide strategic
At least 20 local civil society organizations receiving
leadership andgrants demonstrate improved organizational capacity
effective coordination
At least 10 local civil society organizations receivingof CEPF investment
grants demonstrate improved understanding of andthrough a Regional
commitment to gender issues
Implementation
At least 2 participatory assessments undertaken,Teamdocumenting lessons learned and best practices fromthe hotspot.
$1,200,000
Performance of the RIT assessed as satisfactory during
the Mid Term and Final Assessments
Funding Summary
AmountTotal Budget$8,000,000

Grantee and RIT performance
reports
CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports
CSTTs
Gender Tracking Tool
Mid-term and Final
Assessment Reports

141

Links to Aichi Targets

Important
Assumptions

Target 20: The
mobilization of financial
resources for effectively
implementing theStrategic Plan for
Biodiversity 2011-2020
from all sources should
increase substantiallyfrom the current levels

Suitableorganizations areinterested andapply to serve as
the RIT for the
hotspotTable 13.2. Risk Analysis
Risk

Likelihood and severity
Likelihood: medium; the possibility of not working
in between 1-3 countries is highProgram objective: The evolving political andsecurity situation in parts of the hotspot requires
a complete overhaul of geographic priorities for
CEPF investment

Severity: The impact on the CEPF program inthese countries would be severe, with
postponement or minimal grant disbursement.
Nevertheless, the risk of problems across all ormost of the eligible countries is very low, and so
the risk of a complete overhaul of geographic
priorities is low
Political risks also include the GEF focal points
being unable to give a no-objection to theplanned program.

Mitigation measures
Program level: Planning for grant-making acrossall eligible countries reduces the impact ofproblems in one country on the overall program.
Ensuring that the RIT has flexibility in timing andfocus of calls for proposals and disbursement ofgrants allows it to respond to changing situations.
Grant level: Grants in countries considered highrisk will be subject to careful review, anddisbursement timetable and monitoring schedules
will be adjusted depending on the security
situation.
Neither grantees nor the RIT will be funded or
asked to undertake activities in high-risk areas.

Likelihood: Medium
SD1: Political or security situation prevents
engagement of CSOs at location of priority
species

Severity: Medium. Even if a particular CSO cannot
engage in site-based work, there are ways to
influence conservation of the species, including
engagement with the government, via the value
chain, or via public awareness campaigns

Grant level: Analysis by RIT of species, location,and viable applicants prior to release of RfPProgram level: Multiple priority sites allow CEPF
multiple opportunities for engagement

Likelihood: Medium.
SD2: Political or security situation prevents
engagement of CSOs at location of priority sites

Program level: Multiple priority species allow
CEPF multiple opportunities for engagement

Severity: Severe for relevant sites. Site-based
engagement of civil society is fundamental to
CEPF approach

142

Grant level: Analysis by RIT of sites, possible
interventions, and viable applicants prior torelease of RfP; engagement between RIT andgovernment authorities prior to release of RfP

Risk

Likelihood and severity

Likelihood: Medium.
SD3: Public and private sector stakeholders
decline to engage in discussions to mainstream
biodiversity because political or economic
demands

Severity: Severe for relevant sites and corridors.
CSOs have limited leverage to force discussions tohappen or to outweigh political or economic
forces; CEPF does not operate at a financial
magnitude to command or demand engagementfrom host-country government or private sector

Likelihood: High
SD4: Conservation enterprises and biodiversityfriendly private sector practices do not generate apremium to change behavior

Severity: Medium. While creating viable orprofitable business models is difficult, actors likely
to adopt better practice will not necessarily
abandon it and will have positive impact duringpilot phase

Grant level: Grants under this strategic direction
must be to CSOs with high capacity andestablished credibility with government, and may
be greater than the average size
Program level: RIT understanding of opportunities
by country and sector prior to release of RfP
Grant level: Selection of grantees with detailed
understanding of business practice and value
chain
Program level: RIT understanding of threats andengagement of government partners throughout
the CEPF investment period

Likelihood: Medium
SD4: Civil society prevented from effectively
engaging site safeguard practices

Mitigation measures
Program level: RIT resourced and mandated toliaise closely with host-country governments, toensure good alignment between CEPF investments
and national priorities; grant making under thisstrategic direction will focus on countries with agreater opportunity to engage with and influence
public and private sector actors

Severity: High. Infrastructure development that
ignores EIA procedures will have extreme impact
on species, sites, and corridors

143

Grant level: Grants under this strategic direction
must be to CSOs with appropriate understandingof political process

Risk

SD5: The political situation in parts of the hotspot
limits engagement of civil society

SD6: No suitable organizations are interested andapply to serve as the RIT for the hotspot.

Likelihood and severity
Likelihood: Medium.
Impact: Medium. The openness of governments
to working with civil society is varies across the
hotspot, with positive and negative trends in
different countries. Future trajectories are
difficult to predict. The impact of a negative
situation depends on its severity. With mostgrants expected to be focused on site-based
action, immediate grant activities may not be
severely affected, except where receiving funds
from external sources becomes problematic.
However, the intended scaling up of site results toachieve policy impact, by the RIT together with
grantees, is likely to be affected by reduction inopportunities to engage with governments.
Likelihood: Low.
Impact: High. The success of the program is highly
dependent on the recruitment of an effective RIT
with relevant skills and networks

144

Mitigation measures
Program level: Grant-making across the eligible
countries will reduce the overall risk to theprogram. The RIT will liaise with grantees andpartners (including, for example, World Bank
missions and EU delegations) to monitor changing
circumstances and develop appropriate responses.
Grant level: Only a ban on receipt of funds fromforeign sources would result in cancellation of
grant making in a country. Other limitations might
require redesign of project objectives andstrategies, for example from being formal
managers of protected area to being a partner of agovernment agency.
Program level: This is a pre-condition for thecommencement of the program, not anassumption for successful program delivery. CEPF
will manage the process to ensure that suitable
candidates are aware of the call for proposals.

14. SUSTAINABILITY
The prospects for the sustainability of the conservation outcomes of this ecosystem profile arepromising. Two completed CEPF biodiversity hotspot projects in nearby regions provide a glimpse ofwhat may occur in the mountains of Central Asia. In the Caucasus, other donors stepped in at theconclusion of CEPF funding, and supported numerous initiatives. Funding came from local and outside
sources both large and small. In Southwestern China, the government took over, and local communities
kept projects moving forward. These results bode well for what may occur in Central Asia.
At the institutional level, the project’s support for capacity building will enhance the professionalism of
CSOs across the region. Strategic Direction 5 supports this development, provides valuable experience
for local staffs, and prepares the project participants to replicate the project results. In similar fashion,
Strategic Directions 3 and 4 mainstream biodiversity into practice among private and public sector
agents and at landscape scales. Strategic Direction 6 in turn, provides the opportunity to establish
cooperation on an ongoing basis. The Alliance of Central Asian Mountain Communities (AGOCA), withtwenty member communities in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan, stands as a shining precedent
for this type of success. Established in 2003 with outside funding, AGOCA continues to bring village
matters to the attention of regional and national policymakers long after the initial grant ran out.
In light of the vast opportunities and challenges related to the conservation of biodiversity in themountains of Central Asia, CEPF may decide to continue investing in the region after the completion of
the first phase of the grant program. Based on the success of the projects and the continuing needs,
CEPF has remained in some regions after the first five-year term, and may find reasons to take the same
approach in this hotspot. Financial performance and project management will likely improve under CEPF
procedures, which are streamlined, and could be adjusted to local circumstances. CEPF can also bringnew ideas for sustainable finance mechanisms from other regions and expand experience exchange
between the countries.
Identifying and protecting sites that harbor populations of globally threatened species and their key
habitats is a cornerstone of the CEPF approach highlighted in Strategic Directions 1 and 2. Small grants
targeted at conservation of globally threatened species would ensure that these species receive theattention of the conservation community and serve as indicators for conservation success in the region.
While not all KBAs are subject to legal or other forms of protection yet, the new international weightand status of KBAs should attract attention of numerous development players and open theopportunities for conservation by a broad range of actors – from local communities and CSOs toauthorities, businesses and donors. Increased cross-frontier cooperation under the Strategic Direction 2
will promote effective conservation at regional scale, which is important since landscapes, species
movements and distributions, and threats transcend national boundaries. Given that the impacts ofclimate change cross national borders and open up new funding prospects to conserve importantbiodiversity by responding to climate change, work under Strategic Direction 2 and 3 will contribute tosustainability of the CEPF investments, too.
Some CEPF grants may support the development of enterprises that subsequently generate income
sufficient to sustain themselves, perhaps in combination with other funding sources. Under Strategic
Direction 4, for example, grantees may develop product-based projects – marketing local honey or
responsibly harvested fruits and nuts from the wild forests for instance – that spin into ongoingenterprises. Grantees under Strategic Direction 4 may develop tourism and responsible hunting that
support communities and become commercially viable and self-sustaining. Model projects to promote
145alternative income generation for communities and sustainable use of natural resources areinvestments that become self-financing in the long run. The Regional Implementation Team (Strategic
Direction 6) can also serve as a force for financial sustainability by assisting grantees across all activities
to identify funding sources for successive phases. The RIT will also facilitate the sharing of lessons
learned and the replication of best practice between grantees.
The potential influence of CEPF on the sustainability of the project extends far beyond assisting grantees
in the search for funding, particularly with respect to KBAs. Strategic Direction 2 establishes the base for
improved KBA management and for the development of legal and policy instruments. Official
conservation maps and regulations can identify and acknowledge the presence of KBAs, andgovernmental regulations can rely on the designation in prescribing and proscribing activities. This
contribution alone could insure the sustainability of the conservation efforts in the mountains of Central
Asia. Each addition to policy, legislation and regulations increases the chances of long-term success, justas the more of sites with successful conservation management, the higher chances for overall successacross the region.
Given the young median age of the population in the biodiversity hotspot, the sustainability ofconservation investments is linked to conservation awareness and education. Limited awareness of the
global importance of nature, the means for conservation, and the alternatives may limit theeffectiveness and long-term viability of investments. Cross-cutting activities on awareness and education
will deepen the sustainability prospects.
The engagement of communities, the private sector, and CSOs across the region lays the groundwork forcontinuing support for the conservation of biodiversity. The potential for ongoing alliances fostered by
CEPF grants and strategic leadership, the increased capacity and professionalism of conservation NGOs,
and the adoption of the KBA designation in policies and business practices all support the prospective
sustainability of the CEPF investment program in the mountains of Central Asia.

146

ABBREVIATIONS
ACBK
ADB
AFD
AKF
CACILM
CAMI
CBD
CEPF
CIS
CITES
CMS
CPI
CR
CSO
EBRD
EITI
EN
EU
FAO
FFI
G200
GDP
GEF
GHG
GIZ
GNI
GSLEP
IBA
IPBES
IPCC
IUCN
JICA
KBA
MAB
MEA
MoU
MSRI
NABU
NBSAP
NDC
NGO
PA
PES
REC CARIT
RSPB

Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan
Asian Development Bankl’Agence Française de Développement
Aga Khan Foundation
Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management
Central Asian Mammals Initiative
Convention on Biological Diversity
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
Commonwealth of Independent States
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
Convention on Migratory Species
Corruption Perceptions Index
Critically Endangered (IUCN Red List status)
Civil Society Organization
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
Endangered (IUCN Red List category)
European Union
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
Flora and Fauna International
Global 200 Eco-regions
Gross Domestic Product
Global Environmental Facility
Greenhouse gases
German Agency for International Cooperation
Gross National Income
Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection Program
Important Bird and Biodiversity Area
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Key Biodiversity Area
Man and Biosphere Reserve
Multilateral Environmental Agreement
Memorandum of Understanding
Mountain Societies Research Institute of the University of Central Asia (UCA)
Naturschutzbund Deutschland (German Nature Conservation Union)
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
(Intended) Nationally Determined Contribution
Non-Governmental Organization
Protected Area
Payment for Ecosystem Services
Regional Environment Centre for Central Asia
Regional Implementation Team (CEPF)
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
147

SLC
SLF
SLT
UK
UCA
UNDP
UNECE
UNEP
UNESCOUNFCCC
UNFF
USAID
VU
WCS
WCR
WHC
WWF

Snow Leopard Conservancy
Snow Leopard Foundation
Snow Leopard Trust
United Kingdom
University of Central Asia
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
United Nations Environment Programme / UN Environment since 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
United Nations Forum on Forests
United States Agency for International Development
Vulnerable (IUCN Red List status)
Wildlife Conservation Society
Wild crop relative, also applicable to fruits and nuts
World Heritage Convention
World Wide Fund for Nature

148

REFERENCES
References for the region or multiple countries
Amphibian Survival Alliance. Amphibian Survival Alliance. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://amphibians.org/
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.aiib.org/en/index.html
Biodiversity Finance Initiative. BIOFIN. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.biodiversityfinance.net/
BirdLife International Sites & Habitats (IBAs and KBAs). Sites & Habitats (IBAs and KBAs) | BirdLife.
[accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/programmes/sites-habitats-ibas
Blackman A, Rivra J. 2010. The evidence base for environmental and socioeconomic impacts ofsustainable certification. Resources for the Future.
Central Asia Regional Environment Centre (CAREC). [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.old.carecnet.org/about/Central Asian Mammals Initiative. Introduction | Central Asian Mammals Initiative. [accessed 2017 June30]. http://www.cms.int/cami/en/about-cami
Civic Freedom Monitor. ICNL. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.icnl.org/research/monitor/index.html
Conservation GIS Data - The Nature Conservancy. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://maps.tnc.org/gis_data.html
Conservation International. Guidelines for Integrating Gender into Conservation Programming.
http://www.conservation.org/publications/Documents/CI_Gender-Integration-Guidelines-EN.pdf
Conservation Science Data and Tools. WWF. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/conservation-science-data-and-tools
Convention on Migratory Species | CMS. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.cms.int/en/legalinstrument/cms
Corruption Perceptions Index 2016. www.transparency.org. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016
Countries with Biocapacity Reserve. Global Footprint Network. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/documents/ecological_footprint_nations
Crop Wild Relatives Global Portal. Crop Wild Relatives: Crop Wild Relatives Homepage. [accessed 2017
June 30]. http://www.cropwildrelatives.org/
Duysebayeva, TN. The population monitoring of Ranodon sibiricus Kessler. [accessed 2017 June 30].
https://www.zin.ru/journals/trudyzin/doc/vol_317_2/TZ_317_2_Duysebaeva.pdf
ECO Science Foundation. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.eco4science.org/
Ecoregions. Freshwater Ecoregions of the World. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.feow.org/ecoregions
FAO projects. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.fao.org/in-action/fao-projects/en/
Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Free and Open Access to Biodiversity Data | GBIF.org. [accessed2017 June 30]. http://www.gbif.org/
Global Environment Facility GEF. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.sgp.undp.org/
Hsu. 2007. Environmental Performance Index - Development. Data | Environmental Performance Index Development. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://epi.yale.edu/country-rankings
International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2016. A Global Standard for the Identification of Key
Biodiversity Areas. Gland. Switzerland.
LakeNet - World Lakes Website. LakeNet - World Lakes Website. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.worldlakes.org/
149

Langhammer P, Bakarr MI, Bennun LA, Brooks TM, Clay RP, Darwall W, De Silva N, Edgar G, Eken G,
Fishpool LDC, et al. 2007. Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas: Targets forComprehensive Protected Area Systems. Gland: IUCN.
Olson DM, Dinerstein E. 2002. List of Ecoregions. WWF. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/ecoregion_list/
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Country Programmable Aid.
[accessed 2017 June 30]. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CPA
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD Development Centre. Social
Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI). [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.genderindex.org/
Projects. Global Environment Facility. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.thegef.org/projects
Protected Planet. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.protectedplanet.net/
Russian bat research group. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://zmmu.msu.ru/bats
The Atlas of Global Conservation. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://maps.tnc.org/globalmaps.html
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. [accessed 2017 June30]. http://www.iucnredlist.org/
The Plant List — A working list for all plant species. Home - The Plant List. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.theplantlist.org/
Uetz P, Hallermann J. The Reptile Database. The Reptile Database. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.reptile-database.org/
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2017 Jun 30. Submitted National
Communications from Non-Annex I Parties. Submitted National Communications from Non-Annex I
Parties. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://unfccc.int/national_reports/nonannex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/653.php
United States Geological Survey. USGS Global Ecosystems: Home. [accessed 2017 June 30].
https://rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov/ecosystems
Vavilov. National Geographic Magazine - NGM.com. National Geographic Magazine - NGM.com.
[accessed 2017 June 30]. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2011/07/food-ark/siebert-text
What are KBAs & how are they identified? World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. [accessed 2017
June 30]. http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/what-are-kbas
References for Afghanistan
Afghanistan National Environmental Protection Agency [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.nepa.gov.af/
Wildlife Conservation Society Afghanistan. [accessed 2017 June 30]. https://afghanistan.wcs.org/
References for China
Ito M, Jiang W. 2010. Molecular Phylogeny of the Subfamily Gerbillinae (Muridae, Rodentia) with
Emphasis on Species Living in the Xinjiang-Uygur Autonomous Region of China and Based on the
Mitochondrial Cytochrome b and Cytochrome c Oxidase Subunit II Genes. BioOne. [accessed 2017
June 30]. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2108/zsj.27.269?journalCode=jzoo
Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology and Desert Environment, CAS----Xinjiang Institute of Geography andEcology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://english.egi.cas.cn/rh/rd/kloo/
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People's Republic of China. Ministry of Environmental
Protection of the People's Republic of China. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://english.mep.gov.cn/

150Mori Station for Wildlife Survey and Monitoring, XIEG, CAS----Xinjiang Institute of Geography andEcology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Mori Station for Wildlife Survey and Monitoring, XIEG, CAS---Xinjiang Institute of Geography and Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. [accessed 2017 June30]. http://english.egi.cas.cn/rs/sr/mmes/
National Field Station for Grassland Ecosystem in Ordos, Inner Mongolia, China (CERN Station) -Instituteof Botany, The Chinese Academy Of Sciences. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://english.ib.cas.cn/Research/Supporting_System/201303/t20130322_100016.html
School of Geography Science Nanjing Normal University. Home | School of Geography Science of NNU.
[accessed 2017 June 30]. http://schools.njnu.edu.cn/geog/
State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology----Xinjiang Institute of Geography and Ecology, Chinese
Academy of Sciences. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://english.egi.cas.cn/rh/rd/hmlzs/
Xinjiang Agriculture University College of Grassland and Environment. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://chxy.xjau.edu.cn/en/
Xinjiang Institute of Geography and Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://english.egi.cas.cn/et/intro/201303/t20130313_99660.html
Xinjiang Institute of Geography and Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Publications. [accessed 2017
June 30]. http://english.egi.cas.cn/pub/Xinjiang Institute of Geography and Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Publications. [accessed 2017
June 30]. http://english.egi.cas.cn/soci/zrzyxh/
References for Kazakhstan
Aarhus Centre of Almaty Public Foundation. [accessed 2017 June 30]. www.aarhus-almaty.kz
Aarhus Centre of Burabay Public Foundation. [accessed 2017 June 30].
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011147589610
Aksu-Zhabagly Nature Reserve. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.aksu-jabagly.kz/
Almaty Forest Center. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://fhc.kz/
Almaty Province, Department for Nature Protection. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.almatyeco.gov.kz/
Almaty State Nature Reserve. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://almaty-zapovednik.kz/index.php?lang=ru
Altyn-Emel National Park. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.altyn-emel.kz/
Association for Biodiversity Conservation of Kazakhstan (ABCK). [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.acbk.kz/en/
Avalon Public Foundation. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.guide.kz/en/about.shtml
Biogen NGO. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.register-ngo.kz/ru/
Charyn National Park. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://naturkaz.info/?nacionalmznye_parki/park_charyn
Eco Forum Kazakhstan NGO. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://eco-forum.kz
European Union Delegations in Central Asia. [accessed 2017 June 30].
https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/kazakhstan_en
Gavrilov ECCI, Gavrilov AE. 2005. The birds of Kazakhstan. Almaty: Tethys.
GEF Small Grant Programme. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.econet.unesco.kz/r_gef.htm"Green Academy NGO. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.green-academy.kz/en/"Green Orda NGO. [accessed 2017 June 30]. www.greenorda.kz
Green Salvation NGO. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.greensalvation.org/en/index.php?page=publications
Green Women NGO. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.greenwomen.kz/
Gvozdev EV, Strautman EI. 1984. Mammals of Kazakhstan. Alma-ata: Nauka of Kazakh S S R.
Ile-Alatay National Park. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.alataupark.kz/?p=44
151

Institute of Botany. [accessed 2017 June 30]. www.istc.int/ru/institute/13906
Institute of Ecology and Sustainable Development. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://cadinetwork.org/
Institute of Geography. [accessed 2017 June 30]. https://ingeo.kz/
Institute of Soil Science and Agronomy. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://kazatu.kz/en/faculties/agronomic-faculty/the-department-of-soil-science-and-agrochemistry/
Institute of Zoology. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://instzool.kz/
Jabagly-Manas Public Association. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://oo-gornyy-klub-zhabaglymanas.taraz.bizzlist.kz/
Kansonar association. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://kansonar.kz/ruKaratau State Nature Reserve. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.karatau-gpz.kz/
Kazakh National Committee of UNESCO Man and Biosphere. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biospherereserves/asia-and-the-pacific/kazakhstan/mab-national-commitee-kazakhstan/
Kazakhstan Agro-forestry Association. [accessed 2017 June 30].
https://www.gfar.net/countries/kazakhstan
Kazakhstan Hunters and Fisherman Society. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://ohotairibalka.kz/forum.html
Kazakhstan National Agrarian University. [accessed 2017 June 30]. www.kaznau.kz/
Kazakhstan Research Institute on Forestry. [accessed 2017 June 30]. www.gfar.net/.../kazakh-agroforestry-research-institute
Khrokov VV. 1977. Sociable lapwing in the Tengiz-Kurgaldzhin basin. In: Rare and endangered birds andbeasts of Kazakhstan. Almaty.
Kilsay Kolderi National Park. [accessed 2017 June 30]. www.kolsay-kolderi.kz
Lukanovsiy OY, Sklyarenko SL, Meldebekov AM, Grachev UA, Grachev AA, Loginov OV. 2014. The studyof snow leopard populations status in Kazakhstan in order to develop conservation measures.
Report of the Committee for Forestry and Wildlife Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of
Kazakhstan
Makhaon NGO. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.machaon.eu/altai/
Medeu Nature Park. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://parkmedeu.kz/ru/
Ministry of Agriculture. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://mgov.kz/en/
Ministry of Energy. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://kz.energo.gov.kz/index.php?id=3
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.mfa.kz/index.php/en/
Naurzum NGO. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.greensalvation.org/old/Russian/Publish/14_rus/14_11.htm"Sairam-Ugam National Park. [accessed 2017 June 30]. www.kolsay-kolderi.kz
http://www.sugnpp.kz/index.php/kz/"
Skli︠︡arenko SL, Welch GR, Brombacher M. 2008. Important bird areas in Kazakhstan: priority sites forconservation. Almaty: Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan (ACBK).
Snow Leopard Foundation NGO. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://slf.org.pk/
The Red List of Republic of Kazakhstan. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.redbookkz.info/en/
United Nations Development Programme. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.kz.undp.org/content/kazakhstan/ru/home.html
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). [accessed 2017 June 30].
https://www.usaid.gov/kazakhstan
Vasiliev VN. 1970. New species of birches (Betula L.) in Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Systematic News of
Embryophyte 7:97–141.
Yashchenko RV. 2006. The reserves of Central Asia and Kazakhstan. IUCN.
Zhongar-Alatau National Park. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://visitkazakhstan.kz/ru/guide/places/view/528/
152

References for Kyrgyzstan
︠ rin P. C., I︡︠Akovleva I.D, Kydyraliyev A, Semenova NI. 1959. Birds of Kyrgystan. Frunze,
I︡︠Anushevich AI, Ti︡u
Izdatelstvo Akademii nauk Kirgizskoĭ SSR.
Kasybekov ES. 1993. The birds of eastern part of Issyk-Kul region: (Kyrghyzstan, Central Asia). Bishkek:
Kyrghyz ornithological society.
Lazkov GA, Sultanova BA. 2014. Cadastre of the Flora of Kyrgyzstan. Bishkek.
Solomeshch A. 1997. Red data book of plant communities in the former USSR. Lancaster: Unit of
Vegetation Science, Lancaster University.
Umralina AR. 2008. Endemiki i redkie vidy rastenij Kyrgyztana: atlas = Endemic and rare plant species of
Kyrgyzstan: atlas. S.l.: s.n.
"Academy of Sciences, Institute of Biology and Soil. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.nas.aknet.kg/eng/index.php?menu=0""Academy of Sciences, International Institute of Mountains. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.nas.aknet.kg/eng/index.php?menu=0""Academy of Sciences, Tien Shan Mountain Centre. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.nas.aknet.kg/eng/index.php?menu=0""Alliance of Central Asian Mountain Communities (AGOCA). [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://agoca.kg/""American University in Central Asia. [accessed 2017 June 30]. https://www.auca.kg/ru"
Archa Initiative Public Foundation. [accessed 2017 June 30].
https://www.facebook.com/archa.initiative/"Association of Forest and Land Users. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.landcoalition.org/en/regions/asia/member/kaflu""Beyme-Bet Newspaper. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.mvd.kg/index.php/rus/contentnews/itemlist/category/130-betme-bet""Biom Ecological movement. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.biom.kg/""Bishkek Aarhus Centre Public Foundation. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://aarhus.kg/ru/orhusskietsentry""CAMP Alatoo. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://camp.kg/""Central Asia Institute of the Applied Sciences. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.caiag.kg/ru/""Central Asia Regional Environment Centre. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.old.carecnet.org/about/stranovye-ofisy/kyrgyzstan/""Chintamani Public Foundation. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://ofchintamani.kyrgyzmedia.com/"
Chon-Kemin State Nature Park. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://about.kg/nacionalnij-park-chonkemin#/home
Department Agricultural Sector and Ecology. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.cawaterinfo.net/water_world/kyrgyzstan_e.htm"Ecological Information Portal EKO-IS. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://ekois.net/english-translationsfor-kyrgyz-environmental-news-service-ekois/""European Union. [accessed 2017 June 30]. https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/kyrgyzrepublic/1396/eu-delegation-kyrgyz-republic_en""GEF Small Grant Programme. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://94.126.173.140/web/countries/KYR/kyrgyzstan.html""Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection Program (GLEPP) Secretariat. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.globalsnowleopard.org/""Institute of Biology and Soil, Academy of Sciences. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.nas.aknet.kg/eng/index.php?menu=0"

153

"Kyrgyz Climate Change Network. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.climatenetwork.org/profile/member/unison""Kyrgyz Wildlife Conservation Society. [accessed 2017 June 30]. https://www.wildlife.kg/""Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University, Sustainable Nature Use Association. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.krsu.edu.kg/index.php?lang=ru"
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.mfa.gov.kg/
Naryn State Nature Reserve and Bugu Maral. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.open.kg/aboutkyrgyzstan/nature/national-parks-and-reserves/54-narynskiy-gosudarstvennyy-zapovednik.html
Osh Aarhus Centre NGO. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://aarhus.kg/ru/orhusskie-tsentry"Osh State University, Zoology and Ecology Department. [accessed 2017 June 30]. https://oshtu.kg""Osh Technical University. [accessed 2017 June 30].
https://oshtu.kg""Public Ecological Expertise. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://eco-expertise.org/""Regional Center of Expertise. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://rcenetwork.org/portal/rce-kyrgyzstan2016""Rural Development Fund. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.rdf.in.kg/""Tien-Shan Research Centre, Academy of Sciences. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.nas.aknet.kg/eng/index.php?menu=0""Tree of Life. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://treelife.org.kg/""United Nations Development Programme. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.kg.undp.org/content/kyrgyzstan/ru/home.html"
References for Tajikistan"Academy of Agricultural Sciences. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://taas.tj/en/""Academy of Sciences, Centre of Innovative Biology. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.anrt.tj/index.php/en/""Academy of Sciences. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.anrt.tj/index.php/en/""Agency on Forests and Hunting, Department of Protected Areas. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.cawater-info.net/water_world/tajikistan_e.htm""Asian Development Bank. [accessed 2017 June 30]. https://www.adb.org/projects/tajikistan""Association for the Protection of Forests and Wildlife. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.wildlifetajikistan.org/policies-and-legal-framework""Avesto. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://istc.int/en/institute/9367""CAMP Kukhiston. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://camp.tj/?language=eng""Center on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/members/members-detail/en/c/43689/""Central Asia Regional Environment Centre. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.old.carecnet.org/about/stranovye-ofisy/tadzhikistan/""Committee on Environmental Protection, Department on Flora and Fauna. [accessed 2017 June 30].
https://cites.org/eng/cms/index.php/component/cp/country/TJ""Committee on Environmental Protection. [accessed 2017 June 30].
https://cites.org/eng/cms/index.php/component/cp/country/TJ""Dushanbe Aarhus Centre Public Foundation. [accessed 2017 June 30].
https://aarhus.osce.org/tajikistan/dushanbe""Elyor. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.tajikngo.tj/en/-mainmenu-1/item/1468-nazvanieorganizatsii-oo-elyor/1468-nazvanie-organizatsii-oo-elyor.html""European Union. [accessed 2017 June 30]. https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/tajikistan_ru"

154

GEF Small Grant Programme. [accessed 2017 June 30].
https://sgp.undp.org/index.php?country=105&option=com_countrypages&view=countrypage&Item
id=204"International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS), Tajik Branch [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://ecifas.waterunites-ca.org/aral_basin/institutions/ifas/index.html""Interstate Commission on Water Coordination (ICWC), Tajik Branch. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.icwc-aral.uz/statute4.htm""Kulob Botanical Garden. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.bgci.org/garden.php?id=5166&ftrCountry=&ftrKeyword=&ftrBGCImem=&ftrIAReg=""Lab for Nature Protection. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://enrin.grida.no/htmls/tadjik/soe2/eng/htm/nilop.htm""Little Earth. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.climatenetwork.org/profile/member/little-earth""Mercy Corps. [accessed 2017 June 30]. https://www.mercycorps.org/countries/tajikistan""National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.biodiv.tj/en/page?cat=11""National Cartography Centre. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.gst.tj/geologiya/natsionalnyjnauchnyj-tsentr.html""Nature Protection Team. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.wildlife-tajikistan.org/policies-and-legalframework""Parastor. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.parastor.iweb.tj/index.php/ru/""Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR), Tajik Secretariat. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.ppcr.tj/""Shifo. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.tajikngo.tj/ru/ngo-info/-othermenu-48/item/949-nposhifo/ngo-shifo.html""Tajik National University, Zoology Department. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.tnu.tj/index.php/ru/en/component/content/article/8-english-categories/50-rector"
The Flora of Tajikistan. USSR NSAPBC RT2003. Volume 7. 1977.
The Flora of Tajikistan. USSR NSAPBC RT2003. Volume 6. 1979.
The Flora of Tajikistan. USSR NSAPBC RT2003. Volume 6. 1980.
The Flora of Tajikistan. USSR NSAPBC RT2003. Volume 6. 1981.
The Red Book of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2015. Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences of the
Republic of Tajikistan. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.anrt.tj/index.php/en/
Wilcox BA. 1988. 1988 IUCN red list of threatened animals. Gland (Switzerland): International Union forConservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
"Youth Ecological Center. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.tajikngo.tj/en/ngo-info/item/1405molodyozhnyiy-ekologicheskiy-tsentr-tadzhikistana.html""Youth of the New Century. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://ef-ca.tj/ngoyonc_eng.html""Zan va Zamin. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://zanvazamin.tj/single?cat=63&id=12"References for Turkmenistan
Biogeography and Ecology of Turkmenistan. 2013. Springer Verlag.
Desert Institute, State Committee on Nature Protection. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.science.gov.tm/en/organisations/desert_institute/
Saparmuradov, J. 2002. The Siberian Crane Migration in Turkmenistan. – Cranes of Eurasia (distribution,
numbers, biology). Eds. V. Morozov and E Ilyashenko. Moscow. P. 183-185 (in Russian with English
summary).
"Tebigy Kuwwat. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://tebigykuwwat.org/"
155

References for Uzbekistan
Mitropolski, O. V. and Kashkarov, R. D. 2000. Information on size of the population of commercial andhunting species of land vertebral animals in the arid region of Uzbekistan. Pp. 21-30 In: Theile, S.
2002. Ranching and breeding Testudo horsfieldii in Uzbekistan - Report to TRAFFIC Europe.
Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://academy.uz/uz?mod=sub_sad"Academy of Sciences, Institute of the Gene Pool of Plants and Animals. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.academy.uz/en/site/slideview/30"
Akhangaran Forest, Uzbekistan Committee on Nature Protection. 2016.
Aramov B. 2011. Proceeding of nature reserves of Uzbekistan. Tashkent. (1).
Beshko N. 2015. Acantholimon zakirovii Beshko (Sect. Staticopsis Boiss., Plumbaginaceae), a new species
from north-western Pamir-Alay. Turczaninowia 18:19–26.
Botman E. Forest Rehabilitation in the Republic of Uzbekistan. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.iufro.org/
Brichmullinsk Forest, Uzbekistan Committee on Nature Protection. 2016.
Bukhara deer conservation and restoration. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.wwf.ru/about/where_we_work/asia/closed/bukhara_deer/eng
Chatkal Reserve, Uzbekistan Committee on Nature Protection. 2016.
Conservation and sustainable use of major ecosystems of Uzbekistan. 2014. Tashkent: Uzbekistan
Society for the Protection of Birds.
Donald, Azimov, Ball, Green. 2016. A globally important migration staging site for Sociable Lapwings
Vanellus gregarius in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Sandgrouse 38: 82–95.
Eastwood A, Lazʹkov GA, Newton AC. 2009. The red list of trees of Central Asia. Cambridge, UK: Fauna &Flora International.
Eastwood A, Lazʹkov GA, Newton AC. 2009. The red list of trees of Central Asia. Cambridge, UK: Fauna &Flora International.
Forest and Biodiversity Governance and Environmental Monitoring in five Central Asian Countries(FLERMONECA) Final Narrative Report. 2016. DCI-ASIE/2013/312-322.
"GEF Small Grant Programme. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://sgp.uz/"
Hissar Nature Reserve. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.uznature.uz/en
Kashkorov RD, Turaev MT, Azimov N, Ten AG. 2012. New data on the autumn migration Plover Chettusia
gregaria in Uzbekistan. 20:138–141.
Kaškarov RD. 2008. Important bird areas in Uzbekistan: priority sites for conservation. Tashkent:
Uzbekistan Society for the Protection of Birds (UzSPB).
Khabibullaev AS. 1998. Ŭzbekiston Respublikasi qizil kntobi: noëb va ĭŭqolib ketish khavei ostidagi
ŭsimlikva khaĭvon turlari = Krasnaia kniga Respubliki Uzbekistan redkie i nakhodiashchiesia pod
ugrozoĭ ischeznoveniia vidy rasteniĭ i zhivotnykh = Red data book of the Republic of Uzbekistan: rareand endangered species of plants and animals. Toshkent: Chinor ENK.
Korshunova EN, Korshunov EN. 2006. TheBlackVultureintheNurataumountains,Uzbekistan. Raptor
Conservation:50–60.
"Logos. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://sreda.uz/index.php?newsid=82"
Management plan of Nuratau-Kyzylkum state biospheric reserve to 2005-2010. State NatureManagement Committee, State Biological Control, Society for Avifauna Protection.
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, Republic of Uzbekistan. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://agro.uz/uz/"Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://mfa.uz/en/"156

Nomination Dossier - Western Tien Shan, Proposal for inscription on the UNESCO World Cultural andNatural Heritage List. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1490.pdf.
"Phasianus Student Ornithological Club. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.uzspb.uz/clubs_e.html"
Pimenov M, Tojibaev K. 2011. Kuramosciadium (Umbelliferae): A New Genus from the UzbekistanianPart of the Western Tian Shan Mountains. Systematic Botany 36:487–494.
Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan No. 142 from 27.05.2013 on the Environment
Action Programme 2013-2017.
Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan on Tourism Development in the Tashkent Region
2013-2015.
Sennikov A. 2016. The Flora of Uzbekistan Project. Phytotaxa 282.
Shenbrot G, Sokolov V, Heptner V. 2008. Jerboas: Mammals of Russia and Adjacent Regions. CRC Press.
Shoyakubova R. 2013. the species composition of algoflora and higher plant-hydrophytes of the AydarArnasai lake system.
"State Committee for Nature Protection. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.uznature.uz/en"Strengthening Sustainability of the National Protected Areas System by Focusing on Strictly Protected
Areas. 2013. UNDP.
Surkhan Nature Reserve. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.uznature.uz/en
Tojibaev K, Beshko N, Azimova D, Turginov O. 2015. Distribution patterns of species of the genus
Astralalus L. (sect. Macrocystis, Laguropsis and Chaetodon) in the territory of Mountain Middle
Asian province. Turczaninowia 18:17–38.
Tojibaev K, Beshko N. 2014. Reassessment of diversity and analysis of distribution inTulipa(Liliaceae) in
Uzbekistan. Nordic Journal of Botany 33:324–334.
Tojibaev K, Karimov F. 2016. A new species and new records of Allium (Amaryllidaceae) for Uzbekistan(Central Asia). Phytotaxa 177.
Tojibaev KS, Groot JJD, Naralieva NM. 2014. Tulipa intermediasp. nov. (Liliaceae) from the Ferghana
Depression, Uzbekistan. Nordic Journal of Botany 32:546–550.
Tojibaev, Beshko, Azimova, Turginov. 2015. Specific features of species distribution from theMacrocystis, Laguropsis and Chaetodon sections of the genus Astragalus L. in the territory of theGorno-Median Asian Province. Turczaninowia 18.
"Union for the Defense of the Aral Sea and Amu Darya. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.civilsoc.org/nisorgs/uzbek/aralsea.htm""Uzbek Hydrometeorological Service. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.meteo.uz/#/uz""Uzbek Society for Birds Protection. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.uzspb.uz/"
Ŭzbekiston Respublikasi qizil kitobi = Krasnai︡︠a kniga Respubliki Uzbekistan = The Red data book of the
Republikc of Uzbekistan. 2006. Toshkent: Chinor.
Ŭzbekiston Respublikasi qizil kitobi = Krasnai︡︠a kniga Respubliki Uzbekistan = The Red data book of the
Republikc of Uzbekistan. 2006. Toshkent: Chinor.
Vvedensky, A.I. (1971) Determinant Plants of Central Asia. V. II. Tashkent
What is Econet? Development of the Econet for long-term conservation of biodiversity in the Central
Asia Ecoregions. [accessed 2017 June 30].
http://www.wwf.ru/about/where_we_work/asia/closed/econet/eng/doc897/page1
Williams S, Ibrakhimov M. 2013. Strengthening Sustainability of the National Protected Area System by
Focusing on Strictly Protected Areas.
Zeravshan Nature Reserve. [accessed 2017 June 30]. http://www.uznature.uz/en157

APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Species outcomes

Anser erythropus

2

Aquila heliaca

34Aquila nipalensis
Aythya ferina
Chlamydotis
macqueenii

56

Clanga clanga

7
8
9

12
13
14
15

Columba eversmanni
Falco cherrug
Haliaeetus leucoryphus
Marmaronetta
angustirostris
Neophron
percnopterus
Otis tarda
Oxyura leucocephala
Pelecanus crispus
Podiceps auritus

16

Streptopelia turtur

17

Vanellus gregarius

10
11

VU
VU

+

VU
VU

+
+
+

EN

+
+

EN

Lesser Whitefronted Goose
Eastern Imperial
Eagle
Steppe Eagle
Common Pochard

4

VU
12

Egyptian Vulture

+
+
+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Uzbekistan

+
+

+

+
+
+

Kyrgyzstan

+

+

+

+
+
+
+
+

+

+

+

+

VU

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

VU

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

VU

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

VU
VU

+
+
+

+
+
+

+
+
+

+
+
+

+
+
+

+
+
+

+
+
+

VU

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

VU
VU

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

VU

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

VU
EN

158

+
+

+

EN

CR

+
+

+
+
+
+

+

EN

Marbled Teal

+

VU
EN

Greater Spotted
Eagle
Yellow-eyed Dove
Saker Falcon
Pallas’s Fish Eagle

+

+

VU

Asian Houbara

+
+
+
+

+

CR
1

Great Bustard
White-headed Duck
Dalmatian Pelican
Horned Grebe
European Turtle
Dove
Sociable Lapwing+

Kazakhstan

5

China

4
EN
EN

Afghanistan

1

Turkmenistan

1

Bukhara Deer
Przewalski’s Horse
Goitered Gazelle
Menzbier’s Marmot
Ili Pika
Urial
Leopard
Snow Leopard
Saiga
Marbled Polecat

Distribution by Country

Tajikistan

MAMMALS
1
Cervus hanglu
2Equus ferus
3
Gazella subgutturosa
4
Marmota menzbieri
5
Ochotona iliensis
6
Ovis orientalis*7
Panthera pardus
8
Panthera uncia
9
Saiga tatarica**
10 Vormela peregusna
BIRDS

Common Name

Vulnerable

Scientific Name

Endangered

No.

CriticallyEndangered

Global Threat
Status+REPTILES
Phrynocephalus
1strauchi2

Testudo horsfieldii

Ranodon sibiricus

Acipenser nudiventris

2
3

Aspiolucius esocinus
Cyprinus carpio
Luciobarbus
brachycephalus
Luciobarbus capito

4
5
6

Pseudoscaphirhynchus
kaufmanni

INVERTEBRATES
1
Parnassius apollo
2
Parnassius autocrator
3

Saga pedo

PLANTS
1
Aldrovanda vesiculosa
Ammopiptanthus
2
nanus
3
Amygdalus bucharica
4
Armeniaca vulgaris
Atraphaxis
5muschketowi
6Berberis iliensis
7
Betula talassica
8
Betula tianschanica
9
Calligonum calcareum
10 Calligonum elegans
11 Crataegus darvasica
Crataegus
12knorringiana
13 Crataegus necopinata
14 Lonicera karataviensis

VU
1

0

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Uzbekistan

Turkmenistan

+

+

+

+

+

+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

0

EN
2

Tajikistan

Kyrgyzstan

Kazakhstan

VU

0Fringebarbel
Sturgeon
Pike Asp
Wild Common Carp

China

2

Semirechensk(Xingjian)Salamander

FISHES
10Strauch’s Toad
Agama
Central Asian
tortoise

AMPHIBIANS
1

0Distribution by Country

Afghanistan

Common Name

Vulnerable

Scientific Name

Endangered

No.

CriticallyEndangered

Global Threat
Status

4

CR
VU
VU

+

Roundhead Barbel

VU

+

+

+

+

+

+

Turkestan Barbel
Amudarya
Shovelnose
Sturgeon

VU

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

CR
0

+
0

Mountain Apollo
Pamir Parnassius
Common Predatory
Bush-cricket
15

10
EN

+

+
+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

4
+

CR

+

Wild Almond
Wild ApricotEN

Shrubby BuckwheatENbarberry species
birch species
birch species
smartweed species
smartweed species
hawthorn species

+
+

VU

Waterwheel
legume species

3
VU
VU

+

VU
+

VU
EN
EN

+
+

+

+

+
+

+

+

+
+
+

CR

+

+
+

+
+
+

EN
CR

hawthorn speciesCRhawthorn species
honeysuckle species

CR
CR

159

+
+
+
+

+
+

15
16
17

Lonicera paradoxa
honeysuckle species
EN++
Malus niedzwetzkyana wild apple species
EN+++
Malus sieversii
wild apple species
VU
+
+
+
+
Polygonum18
smartweed speciesCR+
toktogulicum
19 Populus berkarensis
poplar speciesCR+
20 Pyrus cajon
wild pear speciesEN+
21 Pyrus korshinskyi
wild pear speciesCR++
22 Pyrus tadshikistanica
wild pear species
CR+
23 Rhus coriaria
Sumac
VU
+
24 Ribes malvifolium
currant species
CR
25 Sibiraea tianschanicarose species
CR++
Spiraeanthus
26rose speciesEN++schrenkianus
27 Swida darvasica
dogwood species
CR+
Zygophyllum
28
caltrop speciesCRbucharicum
Zygophyllum
29
caltrop speciesCR+darvasicum
Notes: Bold denotes priority species for CEPF investment; * = includes both Bukhara urial (Ovis orientalis
bocharensis) and Laddakh Urial (Ovis orientalis vignei); ** = occurs mainly outside of the hotspot boundaries.

160

Uzbekistan

Turkmenistan

Tajikistan

Kyrgyzstan

Kazakhstan

China

Distribution by Country

Afghanistan

Common Name

Vulnerable

Scientific Name

Endangered

No.

CriticallyEndangered

Global Threat
Status

+
+
+

+
+
+

+

Appendix 2. Globally threatened species no longer present in the Hotspot
No.
Scientific nameCommon name
Global threat status
1
Panthera tigris virgata
Caspian Tiger
EX
2
Cuon alpinus
Dhole
EN
3
Myotis bucharensis*
Bukhara Whiskered Bat
DD
4
Pseudoscaphirhynchus fedtchenovii
Syr-Darya Shovelnose Sturgeon
CR
5
Pseudoscaphirhynchus hermanni
Dwarf Sturgeon
CR
Note: * = endemic to hotspot.
Note that the Year of Last Occurrence for each species is not included here because it varies by country and istypically a disputed figure.

161

Appendix 3. Candidate species outcomesNo.
Scientific name and status
MAMMALS
1
Allactaga vinogradovi, LC
2
Canis lupus, LC
3
Capra falconeri heptneri, NT
4
Lutra lutra seistanica, NT
5
Lynx lynx isabellinus, LC
6
Lynx lynx wardi, LC
7
Otocolobus manul, NT
8
Ovis ammon karelini, NT
9Ovis ammon polii, NT
10 Ovis ammon severtzovi, NT
11 Ovis ammon nigrimontana, NT
12 Rhinolophus bocharicus, LC
13 Ursus arctos, LC
BIRDS
14 Acrocephalus orinus, DD
15 Aegypius monachus, NT
16 Gypaetus barbatus, NT
17 Gyps himalayensis, NT
FISHES
18 Alburnoides oblongus **19 Cottus jaxartensis **20 Cottus spinulosus **21 Glyptosternum reticulatum **22 Leuciscus lindbergi **PLANTS
23 Abies sibirica semenovii, LC***
24 Astragalus abolinii*
25 Astragalus auratus*
26 Astragalus baranovii*
27 Astragalus bobrovii*
28 Astragalus butkovii*
29 Astragalus lasiocalyx*
30 Astragalus rubrivenosus*
Astragalus
31
subschachimardanus*
32 Picea schrenkiana, LC***
33 Pistacia vera, NT
34 Saussurea involucrate****35 Tulipa affinis*
36 Tulipa butkovii*
37 Tulipa dasystemon*
38 Tulipa dasystemonoides*
39 Tulipa ferganica*
40 Tulipa fosteriana*
41 Tulipa greigii*
42 Tulipa ingens*

Common nameVinogradov’s Jerboa
Gray Wolf
MarkhorEurasian Otter
Turkestan Lynx
Altai Lynx
Pallas’s Cat
Argali
Marco Polo Sheep
Severtzov’s Sheep
Karatau Sheep
Bokhara Horseshoe Bat
Brown Bear
Large-billed Reed Warbler
Cinereous Vulture
Bearded Vulture
Himalayan Griffon

AFG
7

CHI
7

+
+
+
+

+

+

+
+
+
+
+

KAZ
10
+
+

KRG
9
+
+

+
+
+
+
+

+
+

TJK
8
+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+

+

TKM
6
+
+
+
+

+
+

+
+
4
+
+
+
+
0

+
3
+
+
+
0

Tashkent riffle bleak
Chatkal Sculpin
Turkestan Sculpin
Turkestan Catfish
Talas Dace
1
Tien Shan Fir
milkvetch species
milkvetch species
milkvetch species
milkvetch species
milkvetch species
milkvetch species
milkvetch species

3
+

+
+
+
4
+
+
+
+
4
+
+
+
+
2
+

+
+
3

+
+
3

+
+
1

+
+
3

+
+
+
4

+
+
+
0

+

+
+
+
4
+
+
+
+

1

1

+
+
+
+
3
+

0

162

25
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

milkvetch species
Schrenk’s Spruce
Pistachiosnow lotus species
tulip species
tulip species
tulip species
tulip species
tulip species
tulip species
tulip species
tulip species

UZB
9
+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+

+
+
+

+

+

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

No.
Scientific name and status
Common name
AFG CHI KAZ KRG TJK TKM UZB
43 Tulipa intermedia*
tulip species+
44 Tulipa lanata*tulip species+
45 Tulipa mogoltavica*
tulip species+
46 Tulipa orythioides*
tulip species+
47 Tulipa scharipovii*
tulip species+
48 Tulipa tubergeniana*
tulip species+
49 Tulipa uzbekistanica*
tulip species+
50 Tulipa vvedenskyi*
tulip species+
Notes: * = narrow endemic assessed by experts in Uzbekistan as meeting the criteria for globally threatened but
assessment not yet submitted to the IUCN Red List criteria; ** =narrow endemic; *** = regional endemic, iconic
and culturally important; **** = endemic, high-value medical plant, assessed as threatened by overharvesting in
China and Kyrgyzstan.

163

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

Plants

KBA name

Global KBA
criteria met

Code

HectaresAppendix 4. Site outcomes

KBA trigger species

Y

Panthera uncia, Acrocephalus orinus, Parnassius autocrator, Epilobium
thermophilum, Astragalus bahrakianus, Echinops wakhanicus,
Acantholimon diapensioides, Holosteum kobresietorum, Artemisia
leucotricha, Nepeta subincisa, Allium pamiricum, Hymenolaena
badachshanica, Cousinia takharensis, [Ovis orientalis], [Falco cherrug]

AFGHANISTAN

AFG 1Wakhan National Park

1,000,000

A1, B1

+

+

+

+

Y

CHI 1

Pamir Plateau Nature
Reserve

670,000

A1, B1

+

+

Y

CHI 2

Tuomuer Nature Reserve 570,000

A1, B1

+

+

Y

Y

CHI 3

Bayanbuluke andKaidu River Valleys

240,000

B1, [D1]

Y

Y

CHI 4

Kunes Forest

90,000

B1

CHINA

CHI 5
CHI 6
CHI 7

CHI 8
CHI 9
CHI 10Nalati Prairie Nature
280,000
Reserve
Tangbula Forest
200,000
Gongliu Wild Fruit Forest
Nature Reserve (Kalajun220,000
Kuerdening forests andgrasslands)
Ili River Basin
Yining Xiaoyebaila
Nature Reserve
Xitianshan Nature
Reserve+++A1, B1Panthera uncia, Ammopiptanthus nanus, Myricaria pulcherrima

Y+Y

Panthera uncia, Picea schrenkiana, [Aquila heliaca], [Clanga clanga],[Otis tarda], [ Columba eversmanni], [Saussurea involucrate]
Aspiorhynchus laticeps, [Aquila heliaca], [Falco cherrug], [Haliaeetus
leucoryphus], [Podiceps auritus], [Anthropoides virgo], [Grus grus]
Picea schrenkiana, Fritillaria walujewii, [Aquila heliaca], [Clanga clanga],[Columba eversmanni], [Haliaeetus leucoryphus]
Ochotona iliensis

B1

+

+

Picea schrenkiana

B1

+

Y

Y

Picea schrenkiana, Iljinia regelii, [Juglans cathayensis], [Aquila heliaca],[Clanga clanga], [Columba eversmanni], [Otis tarda], [Malus sieversii]

25,000

B1

+

Y

Y

Betula tianschanica, [Aquila heliaca], [Aythya baeri], [Clanga clanga],[Falco cherrug], [Haliaeetus leucoryphus], [Otis tarda], [Malus sieversii]

14,000

B1+

Y

Fraxinus sogdiana

215,000

A1, B1+Y

Ochotona iliensis, Picea schrenkiana, [Panthera uncia], [Haliaeetus
leucoryphus]+

164

Xiaerxili Nature Reserve

28,000

B1+

CHI 13

Tianshan Tien Chi Lake
(Bogdashan) Nature
Reserve

150,000

A1, B1+

CHI 14

Jiangbulake Forest

60,000

B1

+

+

Y

Ranodon sibiricus, Saxicola insignis, Sarcozygium kaschgaricumY

Picea schrenkiana, Gymnocarpos przewalskii, Saussurea involucrate[Falco cherrug], [Otis tarda], [Haliaeetus leucoryphus]

+
+

+

Y

IBA overlap

CHI 12

Protected
area overlap+

Amphibians

A1, B1

Fish

Plants80,000Insects

Global KBA
criteria met

Wenquan Nature
Reserve and River Basin

ReptilesHectares

CHI 11Birds

KBA name

MammalsCodeY

KBA trigger species

Ochotona iliensis, Picea schrenkiana, Teratoscincus roborowskii, [Aquila
heliaca], [Clanga clanga], [Haliaeetus leucoryphus]
Picea schrenkiana, [Oxyura leucocephala], [Clanga clanga], [Aquila
heliaca]

KAZAKHSTAN

KAZ 1Karatau

39,000

B1

+

+ +

KAZ2

Kyzylkol

4,000

A1, D1+

KAZ 3

Arystandy

16,000

A1

+

KAZ 4

Turkestan

58,000

B1

Y

+

Y

Y
Y

+

Y

165

Dryopteris mindshelkensis, Aquilegia karatavica, Eremogone turlanica,
Populus berkarensis, Acantholimon inczevskii, Arabis mindshilkensis,
Stroganowia robusta, Oxytropis echidna, Hedysarum karataviense,
Hedysarum mindshilkense, Eryngium karatavicum, Schrenkia kultiassovii,
Prangos equisetoides, Karatavia kultiassovii, Rubia pavlovii,
Dracocephalum karataviense, Cousinia mindshelkensis, Saussurea
mikeschinii, Rhaponticum karatavicum, Tanacetopsis pjataevae, Tulipa
alberti, Dracocephalum karataviense, Pseudoeremostachus sewerzowii, ,[Vormela peregusna], [Aquila nipalensis], [Aquila heliaca], [Neophron
percnopterus], [Falco cherrug], [Otis tarda], [Columba eversmanni],[Streptopelia turtur], [Parnassius apollo], [Saga pedo]
Aythya ferina, Oxyura leucocephala, Pelecanus crispus, Tadorna
ferruginea, [Streptopelia turtur], [Saga pedo]
Otis tarda, [Aquila heliaca], [Streptopelia turtur], [Vormela peregusna]
Botschantzevia karatavica, Cotoneaster karatavicus, Cousinia grandifolia,
Ferula leucographa, Fraxinus sogdiana, Lepidolopha karatavica,
Pseudosedum karatavicum, Rhaphidophyton regelii, Rhaponticum
karatavicum, Scutellaria karatavica, Spiraeanthus schrenkianus, Stipa
karataviensis, Stroganowia robusta, Thesium minkvitzianum, [Aquila
heliaca], [Columba eversmanni], [Neophron percnopterus], [Streptopelia
turtur], [Testudo horsfieldii], [Saga pedo], [Malus sieversii]

KAZ 5

Ugam

11,000A1, B1

+

+

Y

KAZ 6

Tolebi

17,000A1, B1

+

+

Y

KAZ 7

Boraldai

8,000

B1

+

Y

KAZ 8

Aksu-Zhabagly

70,000

B1

+

Y

KAZ 9

Chakpak Pass and TersAshchibulak Reservoir

13,000

D1+

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

KBA name

Hectares

Code

Y

Y

166

KBA trigger species

Marmota menzbieri, Aconitum talassicum, Arabis popovii, Allium
lutescens, Bergenia ugamica, Betula talassica, Lepidolopha karatavica,
Oxytropis ugamica, Rhaphidophyton regelii, [Panthera uncia], [Neophron
percnopterus], [Falco cherrug], [Streptopelia turtur], [Parnassius apollo],[Saga pedo]
Marmota menzbieri, Stroganowia robusta, Ligularia pavlovii, Stipa
karataviensis, [Panthera uncia], [Neophron percnopterus], [Falco
cherrug], [Streptopelia turtur], [Parnassius apollo], [Saga pedo]
Rhaphidophyton regelii, Betula talassica, Lepidolopha karatavica,
Stroganowia robusta, Pseudosedum karatavicum, Bergenia ugamica,
Cotoneaster karatavicus, Oxytropis talassica, Schrenkia kultiassovii,
Rhaponticum karatavicum, Karatavia kultiassovii, Ferula leucographa,
Rubia pavlovii, Fraxinus sogdiana, Scrophularia nuraniae, Dracocephalum
karataviense, Cousinia grandifolia, Ligularia pavlovii, Allium lutescens,
Pseudoeremostachus sewerzowii, Anaphalis racemifera, [Vormela
peregusna], [Aquila heliaca], [Falco cherrug], [Neophron percnopterus],[Streptopelia turtur], [Saga pedo], [Malus sieversii]
Lepidolopha karatavica, Dryopteris mindshelkensis, Malus
niedzwetzkyana, Rhaphidophyton regelii, Betula talassica, Betula
tianschanica, Oxytropis talassica, Schrenkia kultiassovii, Karatavia
kultiassovii, Lactuca mira, Cousinia grandifolia, Trichanthemis
aulieatensis, Iris alberti, Juno kuschakewiczii, Tulipa alberti, Stipa
karataviensis, Aconitum talassicum, Anaphalis racemifera, [Panthera
uncia], [Aquila nipalensis], [Aquila heliaca], [Neophron percnopterus],[Falco cherrug], [Streptopelia turtur], [Parnassius apollo], [Saga pedo],[Malus sieversii], , [Columba eversmanni]
Anthropoides virgo, Columba eversmanni, Tadorna ferruginea, Tetrax
tetrax, [Aquila nipalensis], [Neophron percnopterus], [Falco cherrug],[Otis tarda], [Streptopelia turtur]

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

KBA name

HectaresCode

KAZ 10Berikkara

16,000A1, B1+Y

KAZ 11

Merke

65,000B1+

Y

KAZ 12Aksay

100,000

B1

+

Y

Y

KAZ 13

Almaty Nature Reserve

65,000A1, B1+YY

KAZ 14Issyk

85,000A1, B1+Y

KAZ 15Assy Plateau

37,000B1+

Y

KAZ 16

Kolsai130,000

B1

+

Y

167

Y

KBA trigger species

Populus berkarensis, Scutellaria karatavica, Lonicera karataviensis,
Fraxinus sogdiana, Schtschurowskia margaritae, Malus sieversii, [Aquila
heliaca], [Falco cherrug], [Neophron percnopterus], [Streptopelia turtur],[Parnassius apollo], [Saga pedo]
Abelia corymbosa, Betula tianschanica, Bupleurum rosulare, Tulipa
zenaidae, [Panthera uncia], [Aquila heliaca], [Falco cherrug], [Neophron
percnopterus], [Streptopelia turtur], [Parnassius apollo], [Malus sieversii]
Atraphaxis muschketowi, Euphorbia jaroslavii, Armeniaca vulgaris,
Oxytropis almaatensis, Iris alberti, Gagea neo-popovii, Malus
niedzwetzkyana, Malus sieversii, Tulipa ostrowskiana, Betula
tianschanica, [Aquila heliaca], [Streptopelia turtur], [Parnassius apollo],[Saga pedo]
Atraphaxis muschketowi, Pastinacopsis glacialis, Hieracium kumbelicum,
Malus niedzwetzkyana, Armeniaca vulgaris, Oxytropis almaatensis,
Erysimum croceum, Jurinea almaatensis, Eutrema pseudocordifolium, Iris
alberti, Tulipa ostrowskiana, Sibiraea tianschanica, [Panthera uncia],[Parnassius apollo], [Saga pedo], [Malus sieversii]
Draba microcarpella, Betula tianschanica, Atraphaxis muschketowi,
Oxytropis almaatensis, Eutrema pseudocordifolium, Malus
niedzwetzkyana, Armeniaca vulgaris, Hieracium kumbelicum,
Pastinacopsis glacialis, Jurinea almaatensis, Nepeta transiliensis,
Ikonnikovia kaufmanniana, Sibiraea tianschanica, [Panthera uncia],[Streptopelia turtur], [Parnassius apollo], [Saga pedo], [Malus sieversii]
Betula tianschanica, Jurinea almaatensis, Oxytropis almaatensis, [Aquila
heliaca], [Falco cherrug], [Neophron percnopterus], [Streptopelia turtur],[Parnassius apollo], [Saga pedo]
Stipa kungeica, Betula tianschanica, Erysimum croceum, Hieracium
kumbelicum, Jurinea almaatensis, Stelleropsis tianschanica, Picea
schrenkiana, [Panthera uncia], [Streptopelia turtur], [Neophron
percnopterus], [Parnassius apollo], [Aquila heliaca]

KAZ 17

Toraigyr

150,000

B1+

KAZ 18

Narynkol

100,000

B1+

KAZ 19Tuzkol3,000

D1

KAZ 20Charyn Park

85,000B1+

KAZ 21

Altyn-Emel

480,000

A1, B1+

KAZ 22

Koksu

240,000

A1, B1++Y

KAZ 23

Zhongar-Alatau

350,000

A1, B1++Y

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

KBA name

Hectares

Code

Y

+

Y

Y

+

Y

168

KBA trigger species

Silene tianschanica, Ikonnikovia kaufmanniana, Jurinea robusta, Oxytropis
niedzweckiana, Ferula iliensis, Ferula sugatensis, Heliotropium parvulum,
Tanacetopsis goloskokovii, Galatella saxatilis, Tulipa ostrowskiana,[Gazella subgutturosa], [Vormela peregusna], [Falco cherrug], [Neophron
percnopterus], [Streptopelia turtur], [Aquila nipalensis]
Betula jarmolenkoana, Erysimum croceum, Stipa kungeica, [Panthera
uncia], [Aquila heliaca], [Streptopelia turtur], [Parnassius apollo]
Tadorna ferruginea, [Falco cherrug], [Streptopelia turtur]
Fraxinus sogdiana, Oxytropis niedzweckiana, Lonicera iliensis, Ferulailiensis, Ferula sugatensis, Galatella saxatilis, Berberis iliensis, [Gazellasubgutturosa], [Vormela peregusna], [Aquila nipalensis], [Aquila
heliaca], [Neophron percnopterus], [Streptopelia turtur], [Saga pedo], ,[Falco cherrug]
Equus ferus, Tschulaktavia saxatilis, Ferula iliensis, Lonicera iliensis,
Gentiana dshungarica, Lepechiniella michaelis, Asterothamnus fruticosus,
Fritillaria pallidiflora, Tulipa brachystemon, Berberis iliensis, [Gazellasubgutturosa], [Aquila nipalensis], [Aquila heliaca], [Neophron
percnopterus], [Pelecanus crispus], [Aythya ferina], [Oxyura
leucocephala], [Chlamydotis macqueenii], [Otis tarda], [Columba
eversmanni], [Streptopelia turtur], [Parnassius apollo], [Saga pedo],[Equus hemionus]
Ranodon sibiricus, Gentiana dshungarica, Malus sieversii, [Panthera
uncia], [Aquila heliaca], [Falco cherrug], [Streptopelia turtur], [Parnassius
apollo], [Saga pedo]
Ranodon sibiricus, Malus niedzwetzkyana, Malus sieversii, Stelleropsis
tianschanica, Gentiana dshungarica, Senecio pyroglossus, Fritillaria
pallidiflora, Tulipa alberti, [Panthera uncia], [Aquila nipalensis], [Aquila
heliaca], [Neophron percnopterus], [Streptopelia turtur], [Parnassius
apollo], [Saga pedo]

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

KBA name

HectaresCode

KBA trigger species

KYRGYZSTAN

KYR 1

Besh-Aral

90,000A1, B1

+

+

Y

KYR 2

Chandalash

14,000

B1

+

KYR 3

Sumsar

2,000

B1

+

KYR 4

Kassan-Sai

75,000

B1

+

KYR 5

Aflatun-Padyshata

60,000

B1

+

Y

KYR 6

Sary-Chalek

20,000

B1

+

Y

Y

169

Marmota menzbieri, Crataegus knorringiana, Crataegus tianschanica,
Juno zenaidae, Potentilla kamelinii, Thesium minkwitzianum, Primula
eugeniae, Tulipa kaufmanniana, Viola allochroa, [Panthera uncia],[Aquila heliaca], [Falco cherrug], [Betula tianschanica], [Malus
niedzwetzkyana], [Malus sieversii], [Pyrus korshinskyi]
Astragalus sandalaschensis, Betula czatkalensis, Calophaca pskemica,
Hedysarum santalaschi, Psychrogeton adylovii, Seseli tenellum, [Betula
tianschanica], [Falco cherrug]
Acantholimon karabajeviorum, Primula eugeniae
Hyalolaena intermedia, Saussurea gorbunovae, Seseli giganteum,[Neophron percnopterus], [Malus niedzwetzkyana], [Malus sieversii],[Pyrus korshinskyi], [Vormela peregusna]
Abies semenovii, Allium dodecadontum, Allium viridiflorum, Androsace
aflatunensis, Bunium sary-cheleki, Bupleurum ferganense, Corydalis
subverticillata, Elisanthe fedtschenkoana, Ferula czatkalensis, Lathyrus
dominianus, Primula eugeniae, Pseudosedum ferganense, Silene fetissovii,
Malus niedzwetzkyana, Malus sieversii, [Panthera uncia]
Abies semenovii, Allium dodecadontum, Allium spathulatum, Allium
viridiflorum, Androsace aflatunensis, Bunium sary-cheleki, Campanula
eugeniae, Crataegus knorringiana, Crataegus tianschanica, Elisanthe
fedtschenkoana, Exochorda tianschanica, Ferula czatkalensis, Ferula
inciso-serrata, Hedysarum chaitocarpum, Hyalolaena intermedia,
Leibnitzia knorringiana, Malus niedzwetzkyana, Malus sieversii, Onosma
brevipilosa, Oxytropis fedtschenkoana, Oxytropis masarensis, Phlomoides
urodonta, Pseudosedum ferganense, Saxifraga vvedenskyi, Scutellaria
knorringiae, Scutellaria urticifolia, Scutellaria xanthosiphon, Seseli
giganteum, Silene eviscosa, Silene fetissovii, Tanacetopsis ferganensis,
Tulipa anadroma, [Panthera uncia]

KYR 7Besh-Tash

50,000B1

KYR 8

Talas River

2,000

B1

KYR 9

Nyldy

15,000

B1+

KYR 10Chychkan

30,000A1, B1+

KYR 11

Torkent-Kara-Jygach

16,000

B1+

KYR 12

Sargata

4,000

B1

+

KYR 13

Karasu

1,000

B1

+

KYR 14Kurp-Sai

4,500

B1

+

KYR 15

Bekechal

12,000

B1+

KYR 16

Dashman

42,000

B1

+

+

Y
+

Y

Y

Y

170

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

KBA name

HectaresCode

KBA trigger species

Abies semenovii, Bupleurum ferganense, Campanula eugeniae, Cousinia
margaritae, Draba sarycheleki, Kosopoljanskia turkestanica, Neuroloma
korovinii, Neuroloma pulvinatum, Onosma trachycarpa, Pyrethrum
sovetkinae, Scutellaria popovii
Leuciscus lindbergi, Dzihunia turdakovi, Triplophysa coniptera
Allium dasyphyllum, Kosopoljanskia turkestanica, Neuroloma pulvinatum,
Tulipa talassica, [Betula tianschanica]
Abies semenovii, Allium chychkanense, Cotoneaster cinovskisii, Crataegus
knorringiana, Draba sarycheleki, Juno zenaida, Leibnitzia knorringiana,
Salvia vvedenskyi, Seseli korshinskyi, Silene sussamyrica
Polygonum toktogulicum, Pyrethrum sovetkinae, Pyrethrum
sussamyrense, Salvia vvedenskyi, Scutellaria botbaеvae
Phlomoides korovinii, Phlomoides milkoi, Tanacetopsis korovinii
Acantholimon linczevskianum, Allium dodecadontum, Allium formosum,
Delphinium knorringianum, Festuca tzveleviana, Phlomoides kurpsaica,
Scutellaria andrachnoides, Seseli galioides, Seseli korshinskyi, Silene
fetissovii, Silene neoladyginae
Cousinia abolinii, Phlomoides adylovii, Phlomoides kurpsaica, Scutellaria
andrachnoides, Silene fetissovii
Allium bekeczalicum, Phlomoides kurpsaica, Pyrethrum
brachanthemoidesAсantholimon knorringianum, Astragalus irisuensis, Campanula eugeniae,
Chesneya quinata, Elisanthe fedtschenkoana, Exochorda tianschanica,
Hedysarum chaitocarpum, Onosma brevipilosa, Oxytropis masarensis,
Pseudosedum ferganense, Primula eugeniae, Salvia schmalhausenii,
Scutellaria knorringiae, Scutellaria xanthosiphon, Tanacetopsis
ferganensis, [Pyrus korshinskyi]

KYR 17

Kyzyl-Unur

48,000

B1+

KYR 18

Bazar-Korgon

24,000

B1+

KYR 19

Leilek

66,000B1+

Y

KYR 20Isfairam-Shakhimardan

220,000

B1+

Y

KYR 21Tuz

55,000

B1+

KYR 22

Alai Valley

270,000

B1

+

+

+

171

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

KBA name

HectaresCode

KBA trigger species

Astragalus irisuensis, Campanula eugeniae, Exochorda tianschanica,
Geranium sophiae, Hedysarum chaitocarpum, Juno zenaidae, Onosma
brevipilosa, Oxytropis masarensis, Phlomoides adylovii, Phlomoides
cordifolia, Pseudosedum ferganense, Salvia schmalhausenii, Scutellaria
xanthosiphon, Silene fetissovii, Seseli korshinskii, Ungernia ferganica,[Malus niedzwetzkyana], [Malus sieversii], [Pyrus korshinskyi]
Astragalus irisuensis, Astragalus kugartensis, Delphinium ferganicum,
Elisanthe fedtschenkoana, Exochorda tianschanica, Hedysarum
chaitocarpum, Hylotelephium tianschanicum, Juno zenaidae, Oxytropis
masarensis, Phlomoides cordifolia, Pseudosedum ferganense, Silene
fetissovii, Ungernia ferganica, Eminium regelii, Primula eugeniae, Viola
allochroa
Acantholimon strictiforme, Astragalus neobotschantzevii, Seselopsis
pusilla, Incarvillea olgae, Tulipa korolkowii, Corydalis pseudoadunca
Acantholimon langaricum, Astragalus khassanovii, Bupleurum
isphairamicum, Cousinia jassyensis, Сrataegus isfajramensis, Eremuruszenaidae, Ferula alaica, Ferula subtilis, Incarvillea olgae, Nathaliellaalaica, Neuroloma botschantzevii, Neuroloma tianschanicum, Pedicularis
popovii, Phlomis drobovii, Phlomoides pulchra, Phlomoides stellata,
Physochlaina alaica, Saussurea schachimardanica, Scutellaria nepetoides,
Seseli alaicum, Semenovia alaica, Stubendorffia botschantzevii,
Stubendorffia curvinervia
Draba alajica, Iskandera alaica, Littledalea alaica, Paraquilegia
scabrifolia, Pulsatilla kostyczewii, Rindera alaica, [Betula tianschanica]
Acantholimon alaicum, Artemisia knorringiana, Draba alajica, Hedysarum
daraut-kurganicum, Iskandera alaica, Littledalea alaica, Prangos
gyrocarpa, Pulsatilla kostyczewii, Sorbaria olgae, Gloydius rickmersi,
Ellobius alaicus, [Panthera uncia], [Falco cherrug]

KYR 23

Alai-Kuu

165,000

B1+

KYR 24

Ak-Sai90,000

B1+

KYR 25Chatyr-Kul Lake

22,000B1, D1+

12,000B1+

32,000B1, D1+

134,000

A1, B1+67,000A1, D1+300,000

A1, B1+68,000D1

50,000B1, D1+

KYR 29Kavak-Too and MoldoToo
Son-Kul Lake
Kumtor and SarychatErtash
KarkyraKYR 30Sary-Djaz

KYR 26KYR 27KYR 28Eastern Issyk-Kul
Lakeshore
Western Issyk-Kul
KYR 32
Lakeshore
TAJIKISTANKYR 31

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

KBA name

Hectares

Code

Y

+

Y

Y

+

Y

Y

+

Y
+

Y

+

Y

Y

+

Y

Y

+

Y

Y

Y

Y

TJK 1
TJK 2

AktashAsht

12,00050,000

B1
B1

+
+

+

TJK 3

Kayrakkum

100,000

B1

+

+

Y

172

KBA trigger species

Acantholimon karadarjense, Acanthophyllum coloratum, Allium
zergericum, Crataegus knorringiana, Hedysarum chaitocarpum,
Helichrysum ferganicum, Nepeta pseudokokanica, Neuroloma
tianschanicum, Olgaea vvedenskyi, Onosma azurea, Oxytropis
masarensis, Phlomoides cordifolia, [Panthera uncia]
Allium semenovii, Taraxacum syrtorum, Anthropoides virgo
Tadorna ferruginea, Tianschaniella umbellifera, [Falco cherrug], Anser
indicus
Acantholimon linczevskianum, Cousinia schischkinii, Mogoltavia
narynensis, Nepeta narynensis, Seseli luteolum
Tadorna ferruginea, Taraxacum syrtorum, [Falco cherrug], [Aythya ferina]
Panthera uncia, Berberis kaschgarica, Saussurea involucrate, Taraxacum
syrtorum, [Falco cherrug]
Sibiraea tianschanica, Anthropoides virgo
Panthera uncia, Asterothamnus schischkinii, Astragalus dschangartensis,
Artemisia saposhnikovii, Artemisia nigricans, Chorispora insignis, Cuscuta
syrtorum, Oxytropis chantengriensis, Oxytropis piceetorum, Saussurea
involucrata, Saussurea kara-artscha, Seseli kaschgaricum, Sibiraea
tianschanica, Taraxacum syrtorum
Anthropoides virgo, Netta rufina, Tadorna ferruginea, [Otis tarda],[Chlamydotis undulate], [Numenius tenuirostris]
Netta rufina, Chesneya villosa, [Gavia arctica], [Vanellus gregarius],[Aythya ferina]
Phrynocephalus strauchi, Ferula mogoltavica, [Falco cherrug]
Amygdalus bucharica, Rhus coriaria, [Falco cherrug], [Malus sieversii]
Phrynocephalus helioscopus, Eremias scripta pherganensis, Carex
bucharica, Cousinia darwasica, Cousinia leptocampyla, Lonicera
paradoxa, [Columba eversmanni], Anas platyrhynchos, Grus grus,[Chlamydotis undulate], [Otis tarda]

Upper Zeravshan

33,000

B1

+

TJK 6

Yagnob

2,000

B1

+

TJK 7

Upper Gissar

30,000A1, B1

+

TJK 8

Ramit

66,000

B1

+

Y

TJK 9

Sarikhadang

18,000

B1+

Y

TJK 10

Kondara

1,000

B1

+

TJK 11

Shirkent

8,000

A1, B1+

TJK 12

Karnay

8,000

B1

+

TJK 13

Tajik Babatag

85,000

B1+

TJK 14Gazimalik

70,000

B1+

TJK 15

Sarsaryak

20,000

B1+

TJK 16

Ayvaj

22,000A1, B1

+

+

+

Y

+

+

+

173

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

TJK 5

Fish

+

Insects

B1

ReptilesPlants

50,000

Birds

Global KBA
criteria met

Turkestan Mountains
Southern Slope

KBA name

Mammals

Hectares

TJK 4

Code

KBA trigger species

Iskandera hissarica, Lonicera paradoxa, [Neophron percnopterus], [Malus
sieversii], [Falco cherrug]
Blanfordimys bucharensis, Carex bucharica, Cousinia darwasica, Cousinia
leptocampyla, Lonicera paradoxa, Blanfordimys bucharensis, [Panthera
uncia]
Acantholimon komarovii, Iris hoogiana, Rochelia claviculata, Roegneria
carinata, [Falco cherrug], [Neophron percnopterus], [Streptopelia turtur]
Amygdalus bucharica, Iskandera hissarica, [Panthera uncia], [Malus
sieversii],
Dracocephalum formosum, Eremurus tadshikorum, Iris hoogiana,
Polygonum baldshuanicum, Thuja orientalis, [Clanga clanga], [Falco
cherrug], [Testudo horsfieldii]
Amygdalus bucharica, Cousinia splendida, Lagochilus kschtutensis, Rhus
coriaria, [Panthera uncia], [Falco cherrug], [Malus sieversii], [Aquila
nipalensis]
Allium flavellum, Allium lipskyanum, Dracocephalum formosum,
Stubendorffia aptera, Thesium gontscharovii, Tulipa praestans, Sorex
buchariensis
Amygdalus bucharica, Lonicera paradoxa, Rhus coriaria, Juniperus
semiglobosa, [Falco cherrug], [Neophron percnopterus], [Testudo
horsfieldii], [Malus sieversii]
Astragalus tashkutanus, Gagea holochiton, Gagea villosula, Juniperus
semiglobosa, Cousinia splendid [Falco cherrug], [Neophron percnopterus]
Calligonum griseum, Gypsophila tadshikistanica, Gypsophila vedeneevae,
Stipa longiplumosa, Stipa ovczinnikovii, Tulipa tubergeniana, Testudo
horsfieldii, [Neophron percnopterus]
Allium gypsodictyum, Anemone bucharica, Circaetus ferox, Tulipa
tubergeniana
Salvia baldshuanica, Tulipa maximowiczii, Tulipa subpraestans, [Testudo
horsfieldii], [Haliaeetus leucoryphus]
Allium gypsodictyum, Alsophylax tadjikensis, Pseudoscaphirhynchus
kaufmanni, [Aspiolucius esocinus], [Chlamydotis macqueenii]

Protectedarea overlap

IBA overlap

Amphibians

60,000

B1+

TJK 19Khojamumin

3,000

B1

+

TJK 20

Kushvoristan

83,000A1, B1+

TJK 21

Baljuvan

94,000A1, B1+

TJK 22

Muminabad

46,000

B1+

Y

TJK 23

Dashtijum

40,000A1, B1+YTJK 24

Darvaz93,000A1, B1+YTJK 25

Kamarou

20,000

B1+

Y

TJK 26

Tavildara

300,000

A1, B1+

TJK 27

Vanj

7,000

A1, B1+

TJK 28Rushan

5,000

B1

+

TJK 29Shakhdara

3,000

A1, B1+TJK 30

Kudara30,000

B1

+

Fish

Tajik Karatau+

Insects

TJK 18+

ReptilesA1, B1,
D1

Birds

62,000Mammals

Tigrovaya Balka

KBA name

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

Y

HectaresY

TJK 17

Code

+

Y

Y

+
+

174

Y

KBA trigger species

Cervus hanglu, Netta rufina, Pseudoscaphirhynchus kaufmanni,[Columba eversmanni], [Falco cherrug], [Neophron percnopterus],[Aspiolucius esocinus]
Anemone bucharica, Ferula decurrens, Tulipa maximowiczii, Tulipa rosea,
Tulipa tubergeniana, [Testudo horsfieldii]
Amygdalus bucharica, Crocus korolkowii, Ostrowskia magnifica, Rhus
coriaria
Amygdalus bucharica, Amygdalus vavilovii, Crataegus darvasica,
Ostrowskia magnifica, Rhus coriaria
Crataegus necopinata, Iris hoogiana, Pyrus cajon, Pyrus tadshikistanica,
Ranunculus baldshuanicus, Salvia baldshuanica, Tulipa praestans, Malus
sieversii
Arabidopsis bactriana, Crataegus necopinata, Ostrowskia magnifica,
Tulipa praestans, Iris hoogiana, Ranunculus baldshuanicus, Pyrus
tadshikistanica, [Malus sieversii]
Amygdalus bucharica, Amygdalus vavilovii, Arabidopsis bactriana,
Ostrowskia magnifica, Swida darvasica, Ungernia tadshikorum, Rhus
coriaria, [Columba eversmanni], [Falco cherrug]
Crataegus darvasica, Crataegus necopinata, Diospyros lotus, Irisdarvasica, Kudrjaschevia korshinskyi, Pyrus tadshikistanica, Rhus coriaria,
Tulipa anisophylla, Tulipa linifolia, Ungernia tadshikorum, Zygophyllum
darvasicum, [Falco cherrug]
Lonicera heterotricha, Taraxacum srtizhoviae, Ungernia tadshikorum,
Aquila chrysaetos
Iris darvasica, Iris hoogiana, Juno popovii, Juno tadshikorum, Lonicera
paradoxa, Rosa longisepala, Panthera uncia
Nepeta badachschanica, Parnassius autocrator
Cicer garanicum, Cicer macracanthus, Hordeum brevisubulatum, Triticum
aestivum
Lonicera pamirica, Myrtama elegans, Pyrus korshinskyi
Artemisia kuschakewiczii, Cephalopodum badachschanicum, Lonicera
pamirica, Taraxacum murgabicum, Taraxacum tzvelevii, [Falco cherrug],

B1+

TJK 33

Zorkul Mountains

100,000

B1, D1++TJK 34

Shorkul Lake

65,000

D1++

TJK 35

Tajik National Park

2,300,000

A1, B1,
D1

+

+

Y

IBA overlap

6,500

Protected
area overlap

Alichur Valley

Amphibians

TJK 32

Fish+

Insects

B1

ReptilesPlants

3,500

Birds

Global KBA
criteria met

Ishkashim

KBA name

Mammals

Hectares

TJK 31

Code

Y
Y

+

Y

Y

KBA trigger species

Acrocephalus orinus, Cicer garanicum, Hordeum brevisubulatum,
Hordeum turkestanicum, Triticum aestivum, [Falco cherrug]
Desideria pamirica, Myrtama elegans, Taraxacum jaschilkuliense, [Falco
cherrug]
Tadorna ferruginea, Acantholimon alexeenkoanum, Acantholimon
varivtzevae, Artemisia kuschakewiczii, Astragalus alexeenkoi, Desideria
pamirica, Taraxacum murgabicum, Taraxacum tzvelevii, [Panthera
uncia], Anser indicus, [Vanellus gregarius], Charadrius mongolus
Tadorna ferruginea, Anser indicus, Charadrius mongolus
Panthera uncia, Tadorna ferruginea, Arabidopsis ovczinnikovii, Astragalus
alexeenkoi, Clematis hilariae, Desideria pamirica, Piptatherum
purpurascens, Potentilla borissi, Pulsatilla kostyczewii, [Clanga clanga],[Falco cherrug], Anser indicus, [Aquila heliaca]

TURKMENISTAN

TKM 1Koytendag

68,000

B1

TKM 2

Tallymerjen
Zeyid Reservoir and Kelif
Lakes

150,000

D1+

78,000

D1

+

TKM 3

+

+

Y

Y

Y
Y

175

Y

Astragalus aemulans, Astragalus kahiricus, Astragalus kelifi, Astragalus
kuhitangi, Astragalus leiosemius, Astragalus plumbeus, Astragalus
rubrigalli, Astragalus willisii, Artemisia tenuisecta, Bunium kuhitangi,
Carabus fedtschenkoi, Chesneya tribuloides, Cleome gordjaginii, Cousinia
bobrovii, Cousinia dimoana, Cousinia glabriseta, Echinops multicaulis,
Echinops praetermissus, Haplophyllum vvedenskyi, Hedysarum
plumosum, Hymenocrater incisodentatus, Jurinea tapetodes, Lagochilis
nevskii, Lepidolopha fedtschenkoana, Melanoides kainarensis, Melanotus
dolini, Onobrychis nikitinii, Oxytropis megalorrhyncha, Pentanema
parietarioides, Phlomis spinidens, Rosa bellicosa, Scutellaria heterotricha,
Scutellaria leptosiphon, Scutellaria nevskii, Scutellaria squarrosa, Silene
nevskii, Tanacetopsis kraschenninikovii, Xylanthemum rupestre,
Troglocobitis starostini, [Falco cherrug], [Clanga clanga], [Streptopelia
turtur], [Panthera pardus]
Grus grus, Tadorna ferruginea, Vanellus gregarius, [Anser anser]
Netta rufina, [Pelecanus crispus], Pelecanus onocrotalus, Anasplathyrhynchos, [Aythya ferina], [Leucogeranus leucogeranus]

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

KBA name

HectaresCode

KBA trigger species

UZBEKISTAN

UZB 1Pskem River Basin

255,000

A1, B1

+

+

UZB 2

Karzhantau Ridge

15,000

B1

+

Y

UZB 3

Chimgan

20,000

B1

+

Y

UZB 4

Akbulak River Basin

65,000A1, B1+

UZB 5

Bashkyzylsay River Basin

16,000B1

UZB 6

Karabau and Dukentsay
River Basins

32,000

B1

+

+

Y

Y

Y

Y

+

Y

Y

+

Y

176

Cottus jaxartensis, Glyptosternum reticulatum, Acantholimon pskemense,
Allium aflatunense, Allium pskemense, Armeniaca vulgaris, Astragalus
abolinii, Astragalus lasiocalyx, Astragalus michaelis, Astragalus
pskemensis, Bergenia ugamica, Betula tianschanica, Cousinia
dolichophylla, Cousinia pterolepida, Dimorphosciadium gayoides,
Dracocephalum adylovii, Dracocephalum spinulosum, Eremuruslactiflorus, Erysimum aksaricum, Hedysarum drobovii, Jurinea mariae,
Malus niedzwetzkyana, Oxytropis maidantalensis, Pseudoglossanthis
simulans, Pyrus asiae-mediae, Tulipa dasystemon, Tulipa dubia, Tulipa
dasystemonoides, Tulipa greigii, [Panthera uncia], [Neophron
percnopterus], [Malus sieversii]
Cousinia dolichophylla, Eremurus lactiflorus, Tulipa dubia, Tulipa greigii
Acantholimon ekatherinae, Astragalus abolinii, Astragalus baranovii,
Dracocephalum spinulosum, Eremurus lactiflorus, Hedysarum drobovii,
Nanophyton botschantzevii, Oxytropis fedtschenkoi, Parrya
tschimgamica, Phlomoides tschimganica, Tulipa dubia, Tulipa greigii,[Malus sieversii]
Marmota menzbieri, Cottus jaxartensis, Allium aflatunense, Allium
dodecadontum, Allium pskemense, Astragalus abolinii, Astragalus
rubrivenosus, Betula tianschanica, Dimorphosciadium gayoides,
Dracocephalum komarovii, Dracocephalum spinulosum, Ferula juniperina,
Tulipa butkovii, Tulipa dasystemon, Tulipa dubia, [Malus sieversii]
Adonis leiosepala, Allium pskemense, Astragalus nucleosus, Astragalus
pseudoamygdalinus, Astragalus rubrivenosus, Bunium angreni,
Dracocephalum komarovii, Euphorbia mucronulata, Ferula juniperina,
Oxytropis fedtschenkoi, Rindera fornicate, Salsola titovii, Salvia
tianschanica, Thesium minkvitzianum, Tulipa dubia, Tulipa greigii,[Neophron percnopterus], [Falco cherrug], [Malus sieversii]
Allium pskemense, Astragalus rubrivenosus, Betula tianschanica,
Euphorbia mucronulata, Kamelinia tianschanica, Salsola titovii, Tulipa
mogoltavica, Tulipa vvedenskyi, [Malus sieversii]

UZB 7Angren Plateau

70,000A1, B1+UZB 8Northern Slope of theKuramin Ridge

68,000

B1

+

UZB 9

Upper Reaches of
Chadak and Chorkesar
Rivers53,000B1+

UZB 10Pap Foothills

24,000B1+

UZB 11

Karatag

4,000

B1

+

UZB 12

Ungor Tepa

2,000

B1

+

UZB 13Chartak Foothills

3,000

B1

+

UZB 14

Akkum Sands

11,000A1, B1+UZB 15UZB 16

Syr Darya Upstream
Teshiktash Foothills
Chilustun and Kyrtashtau
Mountains

4,000
27,000

B1
B1

+

6,000

B1

+

UZB 17+

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

KBA name

Hectares

Code

Y

Y

+

Y
+

177

KBA trigger species

Marmota menzbieri, Vormela peregusna, Adonis leiosepala, Bunium
angreni, Dimorphosciadium gayoides, Dracocephalum komarovii, Ferula
juniperina, Hedysarum angrenicum, Hedysarum popovii, Oxytropis
fedtschenkoi, Parrya kuramensis, Parrya saxifraga, Scutellaria angrenica,
Tulipa dasystemon, Tulipa dasystemonoides, Tulipa dubia, Tulipa
vvedenskyi, Helianthemum songaricum
Acantholimon laxiusculum, Acantholimon margaritae, Allium
praemixtum, Allium pskemense, Astragalus dolonus, Astragalus
nucleosus, Astragalus pseudoamygdalinus, Bunium angreni, Cicer
mogoltavicum, Eremurus korovinii, Rindera fornicate, Salsola titovii,
Tulipa mogoltavica, Tulipa vvedenskyi, [Falco cherrug], [Malus sieversii]
Acantholimon laxiusculum, Dracocephalum komarovii, Euphorbia
mucronulata, Kuramosciadum corydaliifolium, Tulipa dasystemon, Tulipa
dasystemonoides, Tulipa dubia
Allium haneltii, Allium isakulii, Allium kuramense, Anthochlamys
tianschanica, Astragalus austroferganicus, Astragalus pseudodianthus,
Dorema microcarpum, Mogoltavia sewerzowii, Salsola drobovii, Tulipa
intermedia, Tulipa scharipovii
Acantholimon nabievii, Allium filidentiforme, Mogoltavia sewerzowii
Allium filidentiforme, Allium tatyanae, Allium viridiflorum, Tulipa
ferganica
Acantholimon nabievii, Hedysarum gypsaceum, Lamyropappus
schakaptaricus, Mogoltavia sewerzowii
Phrynocephalus strauchi, Astragalus rubellus, Astragalus subauriculatus,
Calligonum elegans
Cottus spinulosus
Salsola drobovii, Tulipa ferganica
Allium alaicum, Astragalus rhacodes, Ferula vicaria, Salsola drobovii,
Tulipa ferganica

UZB 18

Shakhimardan

4,000

B1

+

UZB 19Sokh

20,000B1+

UZB 20

Northern Slope of theTurkestan Mountains

135,000

B1+

UZB 21UZB 22UZB 23

Northern Aydarkul
140,000
Tuzkan Lake
93,000
Northern Piedmont Plain
270,000
of Nuratau Ridge

Y

A1, D1A1, D1++

B1+

UZB 24

Nuratau Ridge

96,000B1+

UZB 25

Koytash Ridge

18,000

B1+

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

KBA name

Hectares

Code

Y

Y
Y

+

Y

178

Y

KBA trigger species

Acantholimon katrantavicum, Acantholimon muchamedshanovii,
Acantholimon schachimardanicum, Allium backhousianum, Allium isakulii,
Allium schachimardanicum, Astragalus auratus, Astragalus borissianus,
Astragalus dianthoides, Astragalus rhacodes, Fergania polyantha,
Fumariola turkestanica, Iskandera alaica, Lepidium curvinervium,
Lonicera paradoxa, Salsola drobovii, Salvia margaritae, Tulipa
dasystemon, Tulipa ferganica
Astragalus auratus, Astragalus dianthoides, Calligonum calcareum,
Calligonum elegans, Ferula vicaria, Tulipa ferganica
Astragalus belolipovii, Astragalus knorringianus, Amygdalus bucharica,
Cousinia haesitabunda, Dracocephalum komarovii, Eremurus chloranthus,
Ferula fedtschenkoana, Ferula sumbul, Lonicera paradoxa, Oxytropis
kamelinii, Parrya olgae, Serratula lancifolia, Silene paranadena, Tulipa
affinis, Tulipa dasystemon, Tulipa dasystemonoides, [Malus sieversii]
Pelecanus crispus, Fulica atra, Microcarbo pygmaeus
Pelecanus crispus, Tadorna ferruginea
Allactaga vinogradovi, Astragalus kelleri, Tulipa lehmanniana, [Testudo
horsfieldii]
Acantholimon nuratavicum, Acantholimon subavenaceum, Acantholimon
zakirovii, Allium isakulii, Allium praemixtum, Allium svetlanae, Amygdalus
bucharica, Anura pallidivirens, Armeniaca vulgaris, Astragalus kelleri,
Astragalus knorringianus, Astragalus leptophysus, Astragalus stipulosus,
Cicer grande, Cousinia dshisakensis, Eremurus nuratavicus, Erysimum
nuratense, Ferula sumbul, Helichrysum nuratavicum, Jurinea zakirovii,
Lagochilus olgae, Lagochilus proskorjakovii, Lepidium olgae, Lepidolopha
nuratavica, Nanophyton saxatile, Oxytropis pseudorosea, Parrya olgae,
Parrya sarawschanica, Phlomis nubilans, Phlomoides anisochila, Salvia
submutica, Seseli turbinatum, Silene paranadena, Tulipa affinis, [Falco
cherrug], [Neophron percnopterus], [Malus sieversii]
Acantholimon nuratavicum, Anura pallidivirens, Astragalus kelleri,
Astragalus knorringianus, Cousinia dshisakensis, Erysimum nuratense,
Helichrysum nuratavicum, Seseli turbinatum, Tulipa affinis

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

KBA name

HectaresCode

KBA trigger species

+

Y

D1

+

Y

Allium eremoprasum, Allium isakulii, Allium praemixtum, Anura
pallidivirens, Astragalus kelleri, Astragalus nuratensis, Cicer grande,
Cousinia pseudolanata, Ferula nuratavica, Helichrysum nuratavicum,
Nanophyton saxatile, Parrya sarawschanica, Salsola titovii, Vicoa
krascheninnikovii
Anthropoides virgo
Astragalus chrysomallus, Astragalus stipulosus, Amygdalus bucharica,
Cerastium borisii, Cousinia adenophora, Cousinia butkovii, Cousinia
dshisakensis, Dianthus uzbekistanicus, Ferula sumbul, Hedysarum
amankutanicum, Jurinea asperifolia, Komarovia angiosperma, Lepidium
minor, Oenanthe heterococca, Oxytropis lipskyi, Parrya olgae, Salsola
titovii, Serratula lancifolia, Silene oreina, Silene popovii, Tulipa fosteriana,
Tulipa ingens, [Malus sieversii]
Anser anser, Tadorna ferruginea

A1, D1+Y

Anser anser, Vanellus gregarius

UZB 26

Aktau Ridge

36,000B1

UZB 27

Kattakurgan Reservoir

13,000D1

UZB 28Western Zeravshan

115,000

B1

UZB 29Chimkurgan Reservoir

4,000

UZB 30

Talimarjan Reservoir

78,000

+

Y

+

179

UZB 31

Western Hissar

500,000

A1, B1+UZB 32

Tarkapchigay River Basin

70,000

B1

+

+

Y

180

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

KBA name

HectaresCodeY

KBA trigger species

Panthera uncia, Acantholimon annae, Acantholimon gontscharovii,
Acantholimon hissaricum, Acantholimon taschkurganicum, Acantholimon
vvedenskyi, Allium brevidentiforme, Allium dolichomischum, Allium
hexaceras, Allium majus, Allium tytthanthum, Amygdalus bucharica,
Astomaea galiocarpa, Astragalus bobrovii, Astragalus butkovii,
Astragalus komarovii, Astragalus massagetowii, Astragalus
pseudanthylloides, Astragalus schutensis, Astragalus stipulosus,
Astragalus terrae-rubrae, Astragalus tupalangi, Bergenia hissarica,
Cephalopodum hissaricum, Cicer incanum, Cousinia allolepis, Cousinia
campyloraphis, Cousinia subcandicans, Cousinia vvedenskyi, Dianthus
uzbekistanicus, Dimorphosciadium gayoides, Dionysia hissarica,
Dracocephalum formosum, Eremurus aitchisonii, Eremurus iae, Eremuruspubescens, Erysimum nabijevii, Euphorbia kudrjaschevii, Ferula
fedtschenkoana, Ferula pratovii, Ferula sumbul, Hedysarum bucharicum,
Hedysarum kudrjaschevii, Hedysarum magnificum, Iskandera hissarica,
Jurinea asperifolia, Jurinea pjataevae, Jurinea sangardensis, Lepidium
minor, Ostrowskia magnifica, Oxytropis lasiocarpa, Oxytropis microcarpa,
Oxytropis tyttantha, Parrya pjataevae, Pedicularis grandis, Rhus coriaria,
Ribes malvifolium, Saponaria gypsacea, Scutellaria guttata, Scutellaria
holosericea, Scutellaria villosissima, Seseli merkulowiczii, Silene
michelsonii, Sphaerosciadium denaense, Tanacetopsis botschantzevii,
Thesium ramosissimum, Tulipa carinata, Tulipa ingens, Tulipa lanata,
Tulipa orythioides, Tulipa tubergeniana, Ungernia victoris, Vvedenskia
pinnatifolia, Zeravschania regeliana, Xylanthemum rupestre, [Falco
cherrug], [Neophron percnopterus], [Malus sieversii]
Allium botschantzevii, Allium ophiophyllum, Crambe gordjaginii, Eremurussuworowii, Eversmannia botschantzevii, Hedysarum bucharicum,
Hedysarum magnificum, Heliotropium bucharicum, Jurinea gracilis,
Phlomoides gypsacea, Salsola lipschitzii, Salvia lilacinocaerulea,
Scutellaria colpodea, Spirostegia bucharica, Tulipa uzbekistanica

UZB 33

Kugitang and Baysuntay
Ridges180,000

B1+

UZB 34

Kelif-Sherabad Range

95,000B1+

UZB 35

Khaudaktau

44,000

B1++

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

KBA name

Hectares

Code

Y

Y

181

KBA trigger species

Glyptosternum reticulatum, Acantholimon butkovii, Acantholimon
majewianum, Allium decoratum, Allium dolichomischum, Allium
giganteum, Allium tytthanthum, Amygdalus bucharica, Astragalus
bobrovii, Astragalus bucharicus, Astragalus juniperetorum, Astragalus
plumbeus, Astragalus pseudanthylloides, Astragalus rotundus, Astragalus
subschachimardanus, Astragalus terrae-rubrae, Astragalus willisii,
Calispepla aegacanthoides, Calophaca reticulata, Cicer grande, Cleome
tomentella, Cousinia glabriseta, Cousinia glaphyrocephala, Cousinia
gnezdilloi, Cousinia haplophilla, Cousinia leptocladoides, Cousinia
platystegia, Cousinia rhodantha, Cousinia vvedenskyi, Dionysia hissarica,
Dracocephalum formosum, Eremurus aitchisonii, Eremurus alberti,
Eremurus baissunensis, Eremurus iae, Eremurus pubescens, Eremurussuworowii, Euphorbia densiuscula, Ferula tuberifera, Halothamnus
schurobi, Hedysarum bucharicum, Hedysarum magnificum, Heliotropium
bucharicum, Jurinea gracilis, Jurinea sangardensis, Lepidium minor,
Lepidolopha fedtschenkoana, Otostegia bucharica, Oxytropis
megalorrhyncha, Oxytropis pseudoleptophysa, Oxytropis tyttantha,
Oxytropis vvedenskyi, Pyrus korshinskyi, Ribes malvifolium, Salvia
lilacinocaerulea, Scutellaria colpodea, Scutellaria fedtschenkoi, Seseli
nevskii, Silene nataliae, Spirostegia bucharica, Tulipa carinata, Tulipa
ingens, Tulipa lanata, Tulipa orythioides, Tulipa tubergeniana,
Xylanthemum rupestre, [Neophron percnopterus], [Malus sieversii], [Ovisorientalis]
Allium giganteum, Allium margaritiferum, Allium ophiophyllum, Allium
rhodanthum, Astragalus alexeji, Astragalus rubrigalli, Chesneya
tribuloides, Cleome gordjaginii, Cleome tomentella, Cousinia platystegia,
Eremurus alberti, Eremurus baissunensis, Euphorbia densiuscula,Hammada eriantha, Heliotropium bucharicum, Phlomoides baburii,
Plocama botschantzevii, Spirostegia bucharica, Tulipa tubergeniana,
Zygophyllum bucharicum
Allium ophiophyllum, Allium rhodanthum, Climacoptera oxyphylla,
Dipcadi turkestanicum, Euphorbia triodonta

UZB 36

Uzbek Babatag

98,000

B1

IBA overlap

Protected
area overlap

Amphibians

Fish

Insects

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

PlantsGlobal KBA
criteria met

KBA name

HectaresCode

KBA trigger species

Allium giganteum, Allium gypsodictyum, Allium margaritiferum, Allium
sulphureum, Amygdalus bucharica, Astragalus bucharicus, Astragalus
pseudoeremophysa, Astragalus pseudorhacodes, Cousinia candicans,
Cousinia stricta, Echinops babatagensis, Echinops brevipenicillatus,
Eremurus alberti, Halothamnus babatagi, Lagochilus botschantzevii,
Oxytropis babatagi, Reaumuria babataghi, Salvia insignis, Scutellaria
colpodea, Tulipa lanata, Tulipa tubergeniana, [Neophron percnopterus],[Panthera pardus]+

Notes on Column 2 (KBA name): bold denotes priority sites for CEPF investment.
Notes on Column 14 (KBA trigger species): bold denotes priority species for CEPF investment; underlining denotes other (non-priority) species outcomes;
brackets denote globally threatened species that are not confirmed to meet the threshold for any global KBA criterion.

182

Appendix 5. Corridor outcomes
Code

6,800
1,600
6,800
28,80015,3004,800
24,30017,00035,30012,7005,400
12,100No. of
KBAs
3
2
6
11
7
1
5
6
22
6
1
2

TKM, UZBUZB, AFG, TJK
UZB, TJK
TKM, UZB, TJK
TJK
TJK, UZBKYR, TJK, UZB
UZB
KAZ, UZB, KYR, TJK
KAZ
KYR, KAZ
KYR, KAZ

17,6008

UZB, TJK, KYR

14,200123,500
33,70020,50024,9007,200
38,80048,50029,50023,200
11,10013,200

7
10
4
3
4
0
8
6
4
1
2
1

KYR
KYR, TJK, AFG, CHI
KYR, CHI
KYR
KYR, KAZ, CHI
KAZ, KYR
KAZ
CHI
KAZ, CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI

Area (km2)Conservation corridor name

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Kelif-Talimarjan-Termez wetlands
Upper Amudarya and Panj River
Babatag and Karatau Mountains
Koytendag and Hissar Mountains
Central Tajikistan
Upper Zeravhan River Basin
Turkestan and Alai Mountains
Aidarkul Lake and Nuratau Mountains
Western Tien Shan
Kazakh Karatau Mountains
Upper Talas River Basin
Kyrgyz Mountains
Ferghana Valley Periphery (including KBAs inside13
the Ferghana Valley)
14
Ferghana Mountains
15
Pamir-Alai and Wakhan Mountains
16
Central Tien Shan17
Issyk-Kul Lake Basin
18
Khan-Tengri and Tomur Mountains
19
Chu Ili Divide
20
Middle Ili River Basin21
Upper Ili River Basin
22
Dzungaria
23
Bayanbuluke and Kaidu River Basin
24
Bogdashan Mountains
25
Barkolshan Mountains
Note: bold denotes priority corridors for CEPF investment.

183

Countries