TECHNICAL SUMMARY OF THE ECOSYSTEM PROFILETROPICAL ANDES
BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT
2021 Update

FINAL VERSIONJUNE 2021

Prepared by:

Pronaturaleza - Fundación Peruana por la Conservación de la Naturaleza
In association with:Panthera Colombia (Colombia)
Fundación Ecológica Arcoiris (Ecuador)
Practical Action (Bolivia and Peru)
Birdlife International (UK) as Secretariat of the KBA Partnership

Under the supervision and co-authorship of:Michele Zador, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund

Ecosystem profiling team:Rafael Antelo
Rocío Bardales
Judith Borja
Mónica Cuba
David Díaz
Mirella Gallardo
Sandra Isola
Maricruz Jaramillo
Arturo Jimenez
Melina Laporte

Alfredo López
Shirley Pazos
Elizabeth Peña
Fernando Regal
Daniel Toro
Antonio Tovar
Julieta Vargas
Rocío Vásquez
Claudia Vega

With the support of the Tropical Andes Regional Implementation Team (RIT):

Jorge Mariaca, Bolivia
Odile Sánchez, PerúMartha Silva, Colombia
Paola Zavala, Ecuador

1. INTRODUCTION
The Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot extends from the Andes Mountains of Venezuela,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and the northern sections of Chile and Argentina(Figure 1.1). It constitutes one of 36 biodiversity hotspots in the world that together
cover 16.7 percent of the Earth's land surface, but are home to an inordinate number of
threatened endemic species. Biodiversity hotspots contain at least 1,500 endemic plant
species and have lost at least 70 percent of their natural habitat. Most hotspots arelocated in tropical countries with complex political systems, major economic and humandevelopment challenges.

Figure 1.1. Location of the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot

The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) was established to channel funding to
non-governmental organizations to conserve critical ecosystems in biodiversity hotspots.
The investments are all the more significant because many hotspots serve as homes tomillions of impoverished and highly resource-dependent people. CEPF empowers people
to become stewards of the planet so that they and future generations will continue tobenefit from the resources that sustain them, such as biodiversity, clean air, fresh water,a stable climate, and healthy soils.
In 2019, CEPF's Donor Council approved a new investment phase for the Tropical Andes
Hotspot, to extend from 2021 to 2026. Prior to initiating the new investment phase,
CEPF commissioned the preparation of an update to the ecosystem profile to assess thecurrent state of the hotspot, identify conservation priorities, and develop an investment
strategy to guide grantmaking.
CEPF's accomplishments in the Tropical Andes during Phase I and II investments provide
a solid foundation, important lessons learned, and conservation results to beconsolidated, warranting the launch of a new phase of investment in the Andes that
requires updating the ecosystem profile approved in 2015.
This document constitutes a summary of the ecosystem profile of the Tropical Andes
Hotspot, a territory with global importance for biodiversity conservation and for criticalecosystems services for all humanity, but at the same time, threatened by a multitude offactors. A synthesis of the hotspot's geographic characteristics, biodiversity, threatened
species, KBAs and corridors is presented, as well as the main threats, thesocioeconomic, political, and civil society context, and an assessment of conservation
investment in the hotspot between 2015 and 2019. This contextual information forms
the basis of CEPF's investment strategy in the Tropical Andes for the period of 2021 to
2026. In addition, this information can assist other donors, government agencies, civilsociety organizations and private sector groups to prepare their conservation strategies
and programs, as coordinated efforts among multiple institutions are required to address
the challenges facing the hotspot today.

2. BACKGROUND
Three complementary processes supported the ecosystem profile update:•••

Between January and August 2020, CEPF conducted a strategic planning process
focusing on Ecuador that was led by the EcoCiencia Foundation in collaboration
with KfW Germany and the CEPF Secretariat. This resulted in a project profile tobe funded by KfW specifically for Ecuador.
Between July 2020 and March 2021, an alliance of civil society organizations
carried out a process to update this profile led by Pronaturaleza (Peru) andsupported by Panthera Colombia, Fundación Arcoiris (Ecuador), Practical Action(Bolivia) and BirdLife International in its role as manager of the Secretariat of the
KBA Partnership.
From August 2020 to March 2021, CEPF funded the development of the long-term
vision for the hotspot, which was carried out by Talking Transformation, a UKbased company with extensive experience in the Andes.

Updating the ecosystem profile required the compilation and analysis of technical datafrom scientific literature on the hotspot. To validate and complement the secondary
information, the Pronaturaleza alliance organized four levels of consultation with key
hotspot stakeholders: 1) 30 local experts from Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia wereinterviewed on socioeconomic, political and civil society aspects of working in theirrespective countries; 2) 146 stakeholders from the seven hotspot countries participatedin a digital survey, which covered a wide range of topics, including conservation
outcomes, KBAs, corridors, threats, civil society context, climate change, COVID-19
effects and KBA prioritization; 3) Between October 2020 and February 2021, 260
stakeholders from 103 organizations participated in four virtual national consultation
workshops and one regional workshop to provide recommendations for this profile andthe investment strategy; and 4) An external advisory committee comprised of threehigh-level experts provided strategic guidance on the profiling updating process andfindings.
The entire process of updating the ecosystem profile was supported and supervised by
the CEPF Secretariat, which reviewed and approved this document. The CEPF Donor
Working Group reviewed the draft profile on April 2, 2021. Comments were incorporated
and the updated draft was reviewed by the Working Group on April 15, 2021. The final
version of the ecosystem profile was presented to the CEPF Donor Council on April 23,
2021 and no-objection approval secured on June 10, 2021.

3. CEPF INVESTMENT IN THE TROPICAL ANDES
HOTSPOTThis ecosystem profile builds on the results achieved and lessons learned during
CEPF's previous investments in the Tropical Andes, which were divided between
Phase I from 2001 to 2013 and Phase II from 2015 to 2021.
In Phase I, CEPF approved 67 projects totaling $8.135 million. From 2001 to
2006, CEPF's support to the hotspot amounted to $6.13 million and focused on
the Vilcabamba-Amboró Conservation Corridor of southern Peru and northern
Bolivia, a 30-million-hectare territory of forested landscapes covering about 20
percent of the hotspot area, where conservation actions were at that time very
incipient. Investments from 2009 to 2013, known as the consolidation phase of
Phase I, totaled $2.185 million and focused on the smaller Tambopata - Pilón
Lajas sub-corridor between Peru and Bolivia. The objective under the
consolidation phase was to support local civil society groups to mitigate theexpected impacts arising from the construction of highways through the hotspot:
the Southern Interoceanic Highway in Peru and the Northern Corridor Highway in
Bolivia. CEPF's investments helped lay the groundwork for promoting conservationand mitigating the negative impacts of these infrastructure projects.
Mid-term and final assessments of Phase I revealed that partners recognized that
CEPF’s contributions that brought new areas under formal protection andstrengthened existing protected areas were major accomplishments. Local
partners were genuinely enthusiastic about gaining a regional perspective andshaping their conservation and development programs around a more integrated,
landscape-scale strategies. Prior to CEPF, conservation was tackled largely
through isolated initiatives and collaboration was generally weak. CEPF’s presence
stimulated collaboration among major stakeholders, both government agencies
and civil society organizations, bringing local and international missions andperspectives to the table.
Results demonstrated strong value-for-money and conservation results of global
impact:

•

•

•

•

•

More than 4.4 million hectares came under new protection with thedeclaration of nine new national parks, indigenous reserves, private
protected areas, and Brazil nut concessions. Seventeen existing protectedareas covering 9.9 million hectares came under improved management
through the development of management plans, establishment ofmanagement committees, strengthened park management capacity, andimproved infrastructure and equipment. These improvements allowed thecore areas of five protected areas covering 4.4 million hectares to remain
intact, withstanding threats from gold mining, agricultural encroachment,
and logging.
Livelihoods projects, though eco-tourism, sustainable Brazil nuts gathering,
micro-enterprise development and sustainable coffee and cocoa projects
reached 8,000 indigenous and mestizo communities while offering
incentives to maintain biodiversity. CEPF introduced innovative community
livelihood projects compatible with biodiversity conservation. For example,
CEPF was the first donor to provide significant support to Brazil nut(Bertholletia excelsa) gatherers in Madre de Dios, resulting in formal
property rights for 130 Brazil nut gatherers and the sustainable
management of 225,000 hectares of forest vital for landscape connectivity.
Eleven multi-stakeholder alliances were established and/or strengthened,
including alliances to monitor the construction of the two highways,
support improved protected areas management, and undertake regionallevel REDD+ policy development.
Civil society influenced eight policies and projects related to highway
development, dam planning, gold mining, private protected areas,sustainable financing, logging concessions, and REDD+. Community andstakeholder engagement offered new approaches to engage local people inroad development projects.
Environmental leaders and institutions developed new capacities to address
the region's conservation challenges. For example, support to the Peruvian
Society of Environmental Law (SPDA) led to Peru's first private protectedareas, which proved so successful that they have been adopted throughout
the country.

In Phase II, CEPF invested $9.5 million to implement 100 conservation projects inthe seven priority corridors located in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia,
achieving significant results:
•

•
•
•

•

More than 2.9 million hectares came under improved management. Of thisamount, 1.3 million hectares were located within 24 KBAs and 1.6 million
were in KBA buffer zones and biological corridors. A total of 26 newprotected areas were established covering 763,901 hectares. In total, CEPF
invested in 32 KBAs covering 2,661,642 hectares.
CEPF monitoring shows that 59,861 people living in 294 communities
across the far reaches of the Andes Mountains, some located in very
remote areas, derived direct benefits from CEPF projects.
Subnational governments with jurisdiction in six corridors adopted
conservation tools, strategies and actions to mainstream biodiversity
considerations in their development plans.
Nine indigenous ethnic groups experienced improved land management
and governance: Tsimané-Mosetene, Aymara and Quechua in Bolivia; Awá
and Emberá in Colombia; Awa, Shuar and Chachi in Ecuador; and Awajún,
Queros and Quechua in Peru.
100 networks and partnerships between civil society, government and theprivate sector were created and/or strengthened.

•
•
•

•
•

65 civil society organizations (55 local and national CSOs and 10
international CSOs) benefitted directly as CEPF grantees.
Three mining cooperatives in Bolivia adopted environmental and social
responsibility best practices and served as demonstration projects forresponsible mining.
73 globally threatened species experienced direct conservation attention.
Another 216 species also received direct benefits, and 74 species new toscience were identified, with 23 formally confirmed totaling 360 species
supported through CEPF projects.
Eight financing mechanisms were established for conservation andsustainable development.
CEPF enabled the leveraging of nearly $5 million from local governments
and donors, including GEF Small Grants Programme, MacArthur
Foundation, Andes Amazon Fund, Rainforest Trust, and Moore Foundation.

Lessons Learned from CEPF Investment
CEPF derived several lessons learned from Phases I and II that informed grant
making and provided useful guidance to develop the Phase III investment
strategy:
•

•
•

•

•

•

•

The critical advances through CEPF required reinforcement to ensure they
could be sustained over the long term. Continental-scale development
projects that included new frontier roads, dams and major water diversion
schemes, and the awarding of mining concessions with weakenvironmental and social oversight, posed existential threats to thehotspot’s biodiversity and cultures. CEPF partners therefore strongly
supported the need to reinforce the important foundation that CEPF
projects laid in Phases I and II.
Building the capacity of Andean CSOs continues to be a high priority tofulfill their role as the long-term stewards of biodiversity and sustainable
development in the Tropical Andes.
Collaboration with sub-national governments is critical because decisionmaking authority for natural resources management is decentralized to
local governments in the hotspot, and often local governments lack thetechnical capacity and funding to fulfill their responsibilities inenvironmental protection.
Despite continued violence against environmental and indigenous
defenders in Colombia, a key lesson learned is that local environmental
and indigenous CSOs remained well positioned to lead in grassroots
conservation and sustainable development activities.
COVID-19 and the resulting economic contractions exposed the vulnerable
state of finances for conservation in the Tropical Andes. Several national
environmental ministries encountered significant budget and staffing cuts,
making the role of civil society organizations ever more important to leadenvironmental and sustainable development efforts. At the same time, theenvironmental CSOs also experienced financial downturns due to the crisis,
exposing their own vulnerabilities to economic shocks.
Phase II demonstrated that Andean civil society groups generally lackexperience and capacity to work with larger private sector companies.
CEPF should reach out to new partners with experience and capacity towork with local CSOs and the private sector to advance conservation in the
hotspot.
To promote the sustainability of CEPF-funded initiatives, more focus needs
to be devoted to institutionalizing conservation plans and actions within thepolicies and programs of local governments, other donors, and the private
sector.

4. BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE HOTSPOTThe Tropical Andes Hotspot comprises the northern and central part of the longest
mountain range on Earth. It extends over more than 1.5 million km2 that include anenormous latitudinal and altitudinal range, from sea level to more than 6,000 m above
sea level. Its geographic characteristics favor the presence of a wide variety of climates,from hyper-humid to arid, and therefore of ecosystems. Its general topography ischaracterized by the presence of a low-lying coastal mountain range in Venezuela, threemountain ranges and the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in Colombia, the inter-Andean
valleys of Ecuador and Peru, the Altiplano of Peru and Bolivia, and the high ridges ofArgentina and Chile on the periphery. It also borders other hotspots of high biodiversity,
such as the Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena Hotspot to the northwest, the Amazon Wilderness
Area in the east, and the Chilean Mediterranean Forest and Valdivian Temperate
Rainforest Hotspot to the southwest. This set of factors has favored the evolution of
extraordinary biological richness.

Andean Habitats and Species
The Tropical Andes constitute a complex mosaic of more than 130 ecosystems that canbe generally characterized into seven categories: 1) Andean páramos; 2) montane andpremontane forests, pluvial, semi-deciduous and deciduous forests; 3) humid punas; 4)
xerophytic punas; 5) inter-Andean valleys; 6) salt flats; and 7) glaciers.
The region is the most species-rich hotspot on the planet, both in absolute numbers ofspecies and in the total number of endemic species (Table 4.1); except for reptiles, allother groups of terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates and plants reach higher values thanthose of any other hotspot.
Table 4.1. Species Diversity, Endemism and Global Threat Status in the Tropical
Andes Hotspot
Taxonomic group
Vascular plants
Fish
Amphibians
Reptiles
Birds
Mammals
Invertebrates
Fungi
Total

Species~30,000~900~1,120~700~2,000~600
No data
No data~35,320

Endemic
Species~15,000
666
800
275
600
80
No data
No data~17,421

Percentage of Threatened
Species
Endemism
~50.0
330
~74.0
79
~71.4
558
~40.0
125
~30.0
214
~13.3
88
-56
-1
~49.3
1,451

Importance of Ecosystem Services and Functions
The ecosystem services of the Tropical Andes are of global importance. Its eastern slope
is the source of major rivers that downstream feed the Amazon rainforest, one of thelargest freshwater reserves on the planet. The region is the second most important
hotspot in the world for irrecoverable carbon stocks, housing 314,291,735 metric tons ofcarbon, which, if lost, could not be restored by 2050.
Its ecosystems have supported human settlements for more than 13,000 years andcurrently provide air, water, hydropower and livelihoods for 59.7 million people living in
the hotspot. In addition, Andean waters irrigate some of the most important agricultural
regions of the continent. Other services provided by this hotspot include food, fuel,vegetables, climate regulation, pollination, flood control, soil formation, nutrient
recycling, recreational and religious services, spiritual values, and artistic inspiration, tomention the most important.

5. HOTSPOT CONSERVATION OUTCOMES
CEPF defines its conservation outcomes at three interrelated levels: species, sites andcorridors on which conservation actions should focus to prevent species extinction. The
sites where CEPF works correspond to key biodiversity areas (KBAs), considered themost important sites for life on Earth as custodians of threatened species. To maintainecosystem functions and services over the long term, corridors ensure the necessaryconnectivity between KBAs and their host landscapes.

Species Outcomes
The ecosystem profile identified 1,451 globally threatened species for the Tropical Andes(Table 5.1). Although this figure is higher than in any other hotspot, it is also a
substantial underestimate of the real number because some groups have not beenassessed in depth, especially fungi and protists, invertebrates, plants or fish.
Amphibians are the most threatened group in the hotspot, with more than a third of thetotal number of threatened species, followed by birds and reptiles, although the latter
two groups have a higher percentage of vulnerable species than amphibians. Even so,
the list also includes charismatic mammal species such as the spectacled bear, themountain tapir and the yellow-tailed monkey. Climate change and habitat loss caused byland-use change represent the main threats to Andean species, so orienting efforts toclimate change goals, establishing or strengthening protected areas and promoting
sustainable production alternatives will help to reduce these pressures.

Table 5.1. Globally Threatened Species in the Tropical Andes Hotspot
Taxonomic
group

Common name

CriticallyEndangered

Endangered

Vulnerable

Total

Actinopterygii

Fish

11

31

37

79

Amphibia

Amphibians

102

277

179

558

Birds

Birds

19

74

121

214

Mammalia

Mammals

8

25

55

88

Reptilia

Reptiles

19

48

58

125

159

455

450

1,064

Animalia
Vertebrates

Subtotal
Invertebrates
Bivalvia

Mollusks

1

1

2

Gastropoda

Snails and slugs

1

6

7

Insecta

Insects

Malacostraca

Crabs, lobsters andrelatives

7

Subtotal

9

23

23

16

46

1

1

24

56

Fungi
Sordariomycetes

FungusSubtotal

1

1

1

1

Plantae
Liliopsida

Monocotyledons

21

Lycopodiopsida

Aquatic lycophytes

2Magnoliopsida

Dicotyledons

39

14

74

4

6

47

108

95

250

Subtotal

70

147

113

330

Total

239

625

587

1,451

Percentage

16.5

43

40.5

Site Outcomes
As of August 2020, the Tropical Andes Hotspot contained a total of 474 KBAs, including
359 Important Bird Areas (IBAs), 103 Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites, and 51
candidate or proposed KBAs awaiting final validation. Together, the 474 KBAs cover
32,510,468 ha within the hotspot, or one-fifth of the hotspot, an area slightly larger than
the area of Norway (Table 5.2). The KBAs have an average area of 90,710 hectares, butrange from 63 hectares to 2,184,234 hectares.
Table 5.2. Summary of Site Outcomes for the Tropical Andes Hotspot

Country

Number of KBAs*
KBA area(nominated/(ha)proposed)

Area of KBA
within the
hotspot (ha)Area ofcountry
within the
hotspot (ha)Percentageof thehotspot area
covered by
KBAs

Argentina

76

4,302,130

2,398,807

14,872,835

16

Bolivia47 (7)

6,777,212

6,664,450

37,000,978

18

Chile

12

586,998495,771

7,384,220

7

Colombia

119 (14)**

7,878,654

6,743,033

35,028,997

19

Ecuador88 (16)

4,708,664

4,275,071

11,786,708

36

Peru

106 (14)

14,393,717 9,344,586

45,326,966

21

Venezuela

26

4,349,607

6,952,395

37

TropicalAndes
Hotspot

474 (51)

42,996,982 32,510,468

158,353,100

21

2,588,751( ) In brackets, KBAs nominated/proposed.
**Between August 2020 and December 2020, a new KBA was nominated for Colombia that has notbeen included in these calculations.

Venezuela
Venezuela is the country with the second lowest number of KBAs, with a total of 26
sites, covering an area of 2,588,751 hectares, equivalent to 37 percent of the
Venezuelan hotspot section. Fifteen of Venezuela's 26 KBAs have a very high relative
biodiversity value (RBV) and almost all of them are protected areas. Weak governance inthese areas is their main challenge. These KBAs are fundamental to protect the water
sources of the country's main cities, including Caracas, Maracaibo, Valencia and Maracay(Figure 5.1).

Colombia
Colombia has 119 KBAs in the hotspot, more than any other Andean country, yet its
KBAs barely cover one-fifth of the Colombian section of the hotspot. Twenty-nine and 57
of these sites have a very high and high RBV respectively. Several KBAs on the Pacificslope contain forests that transition to the Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena hotspot, while
several KBAs on the eastern slope include transition forests to the Amazon basin and areunder heavy deforestation pressure. Other KBAs in the northern section connect with thealmost extinct Caribbean dry forests. In several KBAs, there is the opportunity to workwith different indigenous groups. Some KBAs are particularly important for water supply
to major cities, including the three main cities of the country, Bogotá, Cali and Medellín,
as well as water supply for agriculture and hydroelectric dams (Figure 5.2).

EcuadorDespite its relatively small size, Ecuador has 88 KBAs, covering 36 percent of thehotspot portion of the country. Seventeen KBAs have a very high RBV, while 38
sites have a high RBV. As in Colombia, KBAs on the western and eastern slopes
transition with the Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena hotspot and the Amazon rainforest,
respectively. Many KBAs are inhabited by indigenous communities. They supply
water to all major cities in Ecuador, including Quito, Guayaquil, and Cuenca, in
addition to supplying water for agricultural regions and major hydroelectric dams
(Figure 5.3).

Peru
Peru contains the largest part of the hotspot, with 29 percent of the area, and ranks
second in number of KBAs with 106 sites, representing one-fifth of the Peruvian hotspot.
Two of its KBAs have a high RBV. Peru's KBAs, as well as the highest RBV KBAs for thecountry, are concentrated on the eastern flank of the Andes, with a few located on the
dry western flank or in the inter-Andean valleys. Due to Peru's dry coastal climate, watersupply from the Andean KBAs is a vital ecosystem service, including the capital city of
Lima (Figure 5.4).

Bolivia
Bolivia has 47 KBAs covering about one-fifth of the Bolivian hotspot area, three of whichhave a high RBV. As in Peru, the KBAs with the highest RBV are on the eastern slopes of
the Andes. The water supply of the main Bolivian cities depends on KBAs located in the
Altiplano and on the eastern slope of the hotspot (Figure 5.5).

Argentina
The southernmost portions of the humid montane forests and puna grasslands of thehotspot extend to Argentina where 76 KBAs are recorded covering 16 percent of theArgentine section of the hotspot. Although Argentina has a great diversity of habitats, allof its KBAs have low and very low RBVs, reflecting the wide distributions and low threat
status of their species, as well as lower biodiversity due to being in subtropical areas(Figure 5.6).

ChileIn Chile, the hotspot is located entirely in the semi-desert Altiplano where there are 12
KBAs. Chile's KBAs are small areas, some protected as parks, reserves and nationalmonuments. Although several endemic species are found in the sites, none reach amean RBV value (Figures 5.5 and 5.6).
Figure 5.1. KBAs in the Venezuelan Region of the Tropical Andes Hotspot

Figure 5.2a KBAs in the Northern Colombian Region of the Tropical Andes
Hotspot

Figure 5.2b KBAs in the Southern Colombian Region of the Tropical Andes
Hotspot

Figure 5.3. KBAs in the Ecuadorian Region of the Tropical Andes Hotspot

Figure 5.4a. KBAs in the Northern Peruvian Region of the Tropical Andes
Hotspot

Figure 5.4b. KBAs in the Southern Peruvian Region of the Tropical Andes
Hotspot

Figure 5.5. KBAs in the Bolivian and Chilean Region of the Tropical Andes
Hotspot

Figure 5.6. KBAs in the Argentine and Chilean Regions of the Tropical Andes
Hotspot

Relative Biodiversity Value (RBV)
To determine the relative importance of KBAs in the hotspot, an irreplaceability index
was used that assigns values to the hotspot according to the species' range and threat
category. The normalized sum of values over the area is what we call the relative
biodiversity value (RBV). Figure 5.7 shows a map of relative biodiversity value for theentire hotspot, with an inset showing the 92 KBAs of high threatened biodiversity thatwere considered from a value as of 0.4. In Ecuador, Abra de Zamora KBA stands out,
where 29 amphibian species have been reported, of which 11 are endemic and 11 are
new to science.
The KBAs were classified using the RBV natural cut-off method, so that 46 KBAs wereidentified as very high RBV, 115 high, 114 medium, 114 low and 85 very low. All KBAs

with very high RBV were found in Colombia and Ecuador (Figure 5.8).
Figure 5.7. Relative Biodiversity Value (RBV) of the Tropical Andes Hotspot

Figure 5.8. Relative Biodiversity Value (RBV) of KBAs in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot

Legal Protection of KBAs
Andean governments, local communities, international and national donors, private
landowners and conservationists have invested enormous efforts over the previous
decades in establishing new protected areas in the hotspot. Throughout the hotspot, theprofile identifies 2,960 protected areas that have international, national or subnational,
public and private designations established for biodiversity conservation and natural
resource management. These sites cover 43 million hectares, or 27 percent of thehotspot's surface area, an area larger than the size of Germany.
The protection status of KBAs is variable. About 63 percent of the area under KBA status
overlaps with a protected area, leaving the remaining 37 percent unprotected. Of the474 KBAs in the hotspot, about 42 percent, or 199 sites, have at least 80 percent of
their territory under some form of protection. These 199 KBAs include 75 sites of highand very high relative biodiversity value and 34 are Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE)
sites.

Ecosystem Services and Functions of the KBAs
Andean KBAs provide vital ecosystem services and functions to human populations at
multiple levels, supplying drinking water to small villages and major cities andagricultural lands. At the same time, they store carbon in vast tropical forests that help
regulate global carbon budgets. The ecosystem services and functions of KBAs ofdomestic and agricultural water supply and carbon storage should be highlighted.

Water Availability
To determine the importance of sites in their capacity to provide water in the Tropical
Andes Hotspot, KBAs were ranked according to total water availability. Of the 474 KBAs
assessed, 5 KBAs were rated with “very high” water availability, and 15 were rated“high”. The KBAs with very high water availability are located on the eastern slopes of
the Andes Cordillera in Peru, possibly due to their large area. High value KBAs arescattered in the Andes Mountains, mostly in Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia. In contrast,
all KBAs in Argentina and Chile are classified as low availability.

Carbon Storage
The Tropical Andes KBAs collectively store 7,345 million metric tons of carbon (t C) in
their plant biomass, which is equivalent to the amount of carbon emitted by 5,278
million passenger vehicles driven in a year, a volume that slightly exceeds Mexico's
carbon budget to comply with the Paris Agreement. The sum of carbon stored in each
KBA varies substantially depending on its vegetation, whereby KBAs dominated by highaltitude páramos, puna grasslands or shrublands have a lower permanent biomass ofcarbon per unit area than KBAs dominated by high canopy forests. Peru's KBAs store thelargest amount of carbon of all Andean countries, 3,358 million tC, or 46 percent of thetotal carbon stored in the hotspot's KBAs. KBAs in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia
average more than 150 tC ha-1, reflecting the dominance of forest habitats in theseareas. Carbon storage is lower in Chile and Argentina, where KBAs are characterized
more by shrublands and deserts than forests (Figure 5.9).

Corridor Outcomes
The ecosystem profile establishes 28 corridors that are designed to achieve threeobjectives: provide connectivity between KBAs with similar species, species
irreplaceability, and similar habitats; group KBAs that supply ecosystem services to thesame population centers; and address the needs of species with wide ranges at thelandscape level. Because much of the hotspot has been transformed into urban andagricultural landscapes, the delineation of corridors mostly conforms to mountain ranges
and KBAs along the eastern and western slopes. These corridors correspond to those
identified in the previous profile, but this update considered certain modifications to thecorridors suggested by experts who contributed to the gathering of related information
on both species and ecosystems, as well as the common socio-political context of theselandscapes that allows for the deployment of coherent and coordinated conservation
strategies. The 28 corridors cover 52.5 million hectares, equivalent to 33 percent of thehotspot. Of the 474 KBAs in the hotspot, 299 fall within a corridor, including the vast
majority of the highest RBV KBAs for each country. Nineteen of the corridors are
restricted to a single country, eight are binational, and one is tri-national.
Figure 5.9. Estimated Carbon Sequestration in KBAs in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot

6. THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY IN THE HOTSPOTIn the last 50 years, the countries that form part of the hotspot have doubled their
population, which in many cases is concentrated in the Andean region. This is the main
reason why the region today faces strong pressures that generate environmental andsocial impacts, in addition to the presence of a growing road infrastructure that offers
permanent access to agricultural centers, processing plants, local and regional markets
and airports. As a result, the fertile agricultural soils of the Ecuadorian, Colombian andnorthern Peruvian Andes are to some extent covered by pastures for dairy cattle andcrops for domestic and commercial consumption or export. As a consequence, thenatural vegetation of the inter-Andean valleys, slopes and adjacent high plateaus has
been lost, as has the associated biological richness and diversity, especially in thenorthern Andes.
The ecosystem profile quantifies the threats facing the hotspot during the period 20102020, taking into account spatial information on eight factors: livestock, agriculture,main roads, urban areas, hydrography, mining concessions, airports and hydrocarbon
concessions. The model shows higher levels of impacts for the sections located in
Colombia and Ecuador, as well as in northern and central Peru, while in the southern
Andes of Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Argentina, due to their adverse climate and higher
altitude, agricultural use is reduced and the concentration of human populations is lower(Figure 6.1). The road network stands out with a high impact index, since theconstruction of roads alone implies a transformation of the territory, but also catalyzes
other threats such as mining, agriculture, livestock and the establishment of population
centers.

Frequency of Threats in KBAs and Corridors
The profile analyzes the comparative vulnerability of the KBAs and characterizes theirthreats based on the opinion of 146 experts (Table 6.1). The results indicate that the
major threats to the KBAs and hotspot corridors are climate change, mining,
deforestation, agricultural encroachment, illegal land occupation and migration, hunting,trafficking of flora or fauna, and illegal logging. Minor threats include illegal crops (coca,
poppy, etc.), insecurity or violence, industrial agriculture, firewood collection anddisorganized tourism.
Deforestation is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss and is propelled by otherthreats such as the advance of agriculture, cattle ranching or human colonization. In the
period 2001 to 2019, 3.9 million hectares of forest were lost in the hotspot. Colombia isthe largest contributor to total deforestation in the hotspot (37 percent; 79,000 hectares
per year), followed by Peru (29 percent; 62,000 hectares per year) and Bolivia (15percent; 32,000 hectares per year). At the KBA level, the percentages of deforested areain the period 2010 to 2019 ranged from 22.5 to 0 percent.
Mining was identified as a major threat in both the previous profile and the present
profile so an analysis was conducted to assess its impact on the hotspot and KBAs. The
results indicate that 11 percent (17.2 million hectares) of the total area of the hotspot isunder mining concessions, of which 2.2 million hectares overlap with some KBAs,
equivalent to 7 percent of the total area of KBAs within the hotspot. In total, 266 KBAs
have some percentage of their area overlapping with a mining concession, of which 10
KBAs are in Argentina, 33 in Bolivia, 75 in Colombia, 65 in Ecuador, 81 in Peru and 2 inVenezuela. The percentage affected ranges from 0.00012 percent to 100 percent. Thesefigures represent an underestimate as they do not take into account illegal mining, which
has a strong presence in almost the entire hotspot (Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.1. Landscape Impacts in the Tropical Andes Hotspot

Venezuela

Peru

EcuadorColombia

Chile

Bolivia

Threat category

Argentina

Table 6.1 Update of the Prevalence of Threats in KBAs and Corridors by Country
according to the Opinion of 146 Experts

Relative
importanceof threats

Climate change

22

Mining

22

Deforestation

21

Agricultural encroachment

21

Illegal occupancy andinsecure land rights
Hunting and wildlife
trafficking

20
20

Illegal logging

20

Colonization

19

Infrastructure (roads and
dams)

19

Livestock grazing

19

Urban expansion

18

Illegal crops

17

Insecurity and violence

17

Industrial agriculture

16

Firewood collection

15

Unorganized or expanding
tourism

15

Source: National Consultation Surveys, 2020. *Purple is of very high importance; red is of highimportance; orange is of medium importance; and yellow is of low importance.

Illegal hunting and wildlife trafficking is another major threat to the hotspot's exuberant
biodiversity. All four national workshops identified KBAs suffering from this problem,
including those that are protected areas. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted theimportance of this threat, not only to wildlife, but also to human health. The
implementation and coordination of actions, such as strengthening the capacities of local
authorities and CSOs related to the issue, improving the understanding of the dynamics
of wildlife trafficking and incorporating society in educational processes on the issue, willcontribute to strengthening actions for the reduction of wildlife trafficking in the region,in order to prevent future negative impacts on the health and welfare of people, theeconomy and ecosystems.
Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the hotspot's traditional threats,such as mining and timber exploitation, mainly due to the lack of control andsurveillance in protected areas. This situation is expected to worsen due to the economiccrisis caused by the pandemic.
Figure 6.2. Distribution of Mining Concessions in the Tropical Andes Hotspot

7. SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOTThe ecosystem profile estimates that about 59.7 million people live in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot and many millions more outside the hotspot depend on its environmental
services and functions. Colombians make up 50 percent of the hotspot's inhabitants.
Nearly two-thirds of all Colombians (29.8 million people) and more than half of all
Bolivians (6.1 million) reside in the hotspot, as do about one-third of Ecuadorians (7.3
million) and Peruvians (9.3 million). Fifteen percent of Venezuelans (5.1 million), 4
percent of Argentines (2 million) and 0.8 percent of Chileans (160,000) live within the
hotspot.
The Andes are characterized by their great cultural diversity. Populated mainly by
Spanish-speaking mestizos, more than 50 indigenous groups are found in the Andes.
The indigenous population in the seven Andean countries constitutes 10 percent of thetotal, but their territories occupy at least 21 percent of the hotspot's area. Afrodescendants also contribute to the multiethnic composition of the hotspot, although they
are more abundant in the coastal regions of the Andean countries. Bolivia is the country
with the highest percentage of indigenous population (41.5 percent of its population),while only 2 percent of Argentines recognize themselves as indigenous.
In recent decades, all Andean countries have experienced a marked trend of rural-tourban migration and, to a lesser degree, rural-to-rural migration. The hotspot contains
at least 29 cities of more than 200,000 inhabitants, including the capital cities of
Caracas, Bogota, Quito and Sucre, which together account for 58.2 percent of thehotspot's population. The rural population has experienced a negative growth rate in all
countries except Bolivia. Major cities outside the hotspot, such as Lima, Guayaquil,
Barranquilla or Santa Cruz, depend on water emanating from the hotspot to supply theirlarge populations.
Although income redistribution has improved in the region since 1990, some countries
are among the most unequal in the world, both in terms of income and access toservices. In the hotspot countries, income inequality was lower in 2018 compared to2000. Bolivia has reduced inequality the most. Within the hotspot, there are large
disparities in the distribution of wealth and human well-being. Poverty reduction
measures have resulted in an increase in the middle class and its consumption capacity.
Even so, the national poverty rate ranges from 16.8 percent in Peru to 33.2 percent in
Bolivia, which in rural areas rises to 33.8 percent in Ecuador and 55.5 percent in Bolivia
as extreme values. Unfortunately, the economic downturn brought about by the
pandemic is reversing progress of past decades in poverty eradication.
In rural areas, especially in remote areas where KBAs are typically located, poverty andinequality are more extreme. People living in these areas have limited or no access tobasic services and are located at long distances from markets, secondary schools andhealth clinics. This situation makes conservation actions more difficult.

Economic Trends
The economic slowdown in the region, which dates back to 2015 due to the fall ofcommodity prices, suffered a severe blow in 2020 as a result of COVID-19. For SouthAmerican countries as a whole, in 2020 ECLAC projects an average drop in GDP of 7.7
percent due to the effect of the pandemic. In 2020, the economy contracted by 30.0
percent in Venezuela, 12.9 percent in Peru, 10.5 percent in Argentina, 9.0 percent in
Ecuador, 8.0 percent in Bolivia, 7.0 percent in Colombia and 6.0 percent in Chile.

Until 40 to 50 years ago, all Andean countries had economies based primarily on natural
resources, including agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, which continue to be important
today. All Andean countries experienced major economic growth in the 1990s with amarked shift towards the export of non-renewable resources, causing great concern due
to their social and environmental impacts.

Agriculture and Forestry
Agriculture is an important economic component in all hotspot countries. The sector
contributed 7.6 percent of the Andean countries' GDP in 2017 and accounted forapproximately 22 percent of jobs in the region. The agriculture sector (including
livestock and forestry) accounts for one of the largest contributions to GDP in Ecuador(10.6 percent), Bolivia (10.5 percent), and Argentina (7.3 percent).
Most remaining natural forests with forest species with high commercial value occur inthe most productive Amazonian regions (Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and
Bolivia) and the Chocó (Colombia and Ecuador) and, to a lesser extent, the humid
temperate forests (Chile). For this reason, most commercial logging operations in thesecountries operate outside the Tropical Andes Hotspot. In the hotspot, high levels of
informality and unsustainable forestry practices persist, usually resulting in forest
degradation that affects virtually all KBAs with forests between 500 and 2,000 m above
sea level.

Extractive Industries
Non-renewable resource extraction activities, particularly hydrocarbons (e.g., coal, crude
oil and natural gas) and mining, are important economic sectors in all hotspot countries.
The Andean region is home to major reserves. Venezuela is the largest oil producer with
1.5 million barrels per day and ranks 13th in the world. Chile remains by far the world's
largest copper producer, followed by Peru. In 2019, Ecuador reported the discovery of amajor mineral deposit in the hotspot with great potential for gold, copper and silver.
Due to its size, this new deposit would be among the largest in the world. Global lithium
resources are dominated by Bolivia. Gold mining has negative environmental impacts orthreatens KBAs in all hotspot countries, as all have significant reserves of this mineral.
Peru is among the top 10 producers in the world. The explosive growth of gold mining
has been driven by the increase in gold prices and exacerbated by the COVID-19
pandemic, where the price per ounce of gold surpassed $2,000, an all-time high. Thissituation has led to an extraordinary growth in illegal mining, which is well known toignore basic social and environmental safeguards.

Tourism
The performance of the tourism sector has been variable in most hotspot countries, withincreases between 2010 and 2018 of 11.1 percent and 9.6 percent in Argentina andPeru, to declines of 21.1 percent in Chile or 34 percent in Venezuela in this time period.
The signing of the peace agreements in Colombia allowed for a moderate but sustained
increase in the flow of tourists, including in protected areas. The tourist offerings arevaried: bird watching, nature tourism, rural tourism, adventure, cultural and extreme
sports. However, COVID-19 caused a dramatic decrease in the number of visitors. In
Argentina and Colombia, for example, there was a 99 percent decrease in arrivals in thefirst half of 2020. However, as the pandemic ends, the sector is expected to have astrong recovery, requiring tourism ventures to adopt biosecurity measures.

8. POLITICAL CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOTThe governments of the hotspot countries represent a diverse spectrum of political andeconomic systems and visions. Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina have focusedon increasing state control over key sectors, while Colombia, Peru and Chile haveemphasized private investment and the market economy. Despite the political diversityof the region's governments, all Andean countries are heavily dependent on exporting
natural resource and agricultural products as the engine of economic growth. Starting in
2015, with the problems derived from the instability of raw material prices such as gas,oil, copper and agricultural export products, the economic situation of the countries
deteriorated between 2018 and 2019, and become acute in 2020 with the COVID-19
pandemic.
Another aspect that the hotspot countries have in common is their chronic politicalinstability. In one week in November 2020 Peru had three presidents, the same as
Bolivia between November 2019 and November 2021.
Violence against environmental leaders has increased in the hotspot countries, mainly
due to threats coming from illegal mining, deforestation, or drug trafficking. Sixty-four
environmental defenders were killed in Colombia in 2019, the highest number globally.
Far from being solved, the problem persisted in 2020 and 2021 in both Colombia andPeru.

Biodiversity Financing Policies
The seven hotspot countries show a clear commitment to biodiversity conservation. To
this end, they have developed a variety of mechanisms and instruments for financing theconservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The region, with emphasis on
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Chile, has a robust catalog of financial solutions adapted tonational circumstances, which are being applied by the countries to close identified
financial gaps and meet national biodiversity conservation objectives.
Financing strategies for climate change management developed in the hotspot countries,
as part of the fulfillment of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under theParis Agreement, are equally important. Thus, climate finance constitutes a new windowof opportunity to achieve common objectives between the global agendas pursued by
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Protected Area Management
All Andean countries have made significant progress in establishing and consolidating
their national protected area systems in recent decades. Although each country has
established different categories, standards and nomenclature for their protected areas,
most of these are compatible with the categories established by IUCN. All countries havelegal frameworks favorable to protected areas and national agencies responsible for
conducting conservation policy, regulation, control, and administration of protected areasystems. While countries such as Venezuela and Chile have regional agencies and offices
in charge of protected areas, the other hotspot countries have a central agency thatcoordinates the management of subnational protected areas with regional, provincial, or
municipal jurisdictions. With some exceptions, mechanisms have been developed
throughout the hotspot to incorporate community and civil society participation inconservation actions, with particular importance in Colombia, where the profile

recognizes almost 700 private protected areas in the hotspot. Peru is perhaps the mostinnovative country and has applied a variety of management instruments, including
public land grant mechanisms for long-term conservation managed by privatecompanies, NGOs or communities. All countries have mechanisms for shared
management with indigenous and/or local communities where protected areas overlap
collective territories.
Regarding the decentralization of environmental management, particularly of
conservation policies, some countries have assumed decentralization as part of an
administrative process of efficiency and modernization of the State, while others havemaintained an orientation towards the construction of citizen power. This difference inapproaches is reflected in the institutional design which, in some cases, such as Chile or
Colombia, explicitly incorporates the collaboration of consultative councils and othermechanisms for citizen participation in the management of public policies.
Despite the progress, protected areas throughout the region are still vulnerable todevelopment pressures from private and public projects, including road construction,mining, oil, logging and hydro-generation concessions. Although significant progress has
been made, the integration of protected areas into territorial development models
remains a pending task, as do numerous cases of overlapping tenure and unfinisheddemarcation processes.

Infrastructure and Development Strategies
All hotspot countries have national development plans that emphasize poverty reductionand economic growth to guide their policies. Although development plans and strategies
make reference to the environment, the actual integration of environmental
sustainability with other development priorities remains a challenge. From theperspective of regional integration, infrastructure connectivity (roads, border crossings,
telecommunications, electric power) within and between countries is still quite poor.
Within the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) framework, South Americancountries established a series of ministerial-level sectoral councils, one of which is theSouth American Council for Infrastructure and Planning Council (Consejo Suramericano
de Infraestructura y Planeamiento - COSIPLAN). Despite the factual dissolution of
UNASUR, the countries of the region continue, within their jurisdictions, in theimplementation of the main infrastructure projects that were born within the frameworkof the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America (IIRSA by its acronym in
Spanish).
For 2017, COSIPLAN's project portfolio recorded a total of 562 projects with anestimated investment of $198.9 million. The portfolio of 147 projects that are part of the
Andean and Capricorn axes, which are the ones impacting the hotspot, reached an
estimated total investment of $33.795 million. The projects completed in the two axes
represent a total investment of $3.948 million that would have been executed up to
2017. These roads affect dozens of KBAs in the hotspot.
Between 2015 and 2020, Chinese investment in seven strategic sectors in the hotspot
countries increased to at least $25.1 billion. This figure is an underestimate and still 40
times higher than the total conservation investment in the hotspot between 2015 and2019.

9. CIVIL SOCIETY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOTCSOs working on environmental issues have played a prominent role in the countries of theTropical Andes for decades. In addition to the day-to-day operational difficulties of working in
the conservation sector in the hotspot, starting in 2020, NGOs had to deal with a sharp
decline in funding opportunities brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The ecosystem profile identifies 390 CSOs contributing to biodiversity conservation in the
hotspot, distributed among national NGOs, international NGOs, private universities, and local
community-based groups (Figure 9.1). In addition, the profile identified 82 citizen networks
and their associations, which were often based in extractive activities, and 60 indigenousorganizations.
Figure 9.1. Types of Civil Society Organizations Identified in Hotspot Countries(Total = 390)
100
90

# de organizaciones

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Argentina

Bolivia

ONG Nac.

ONG Int.

Chile

Colombia

PrivadoEcuador

Academia

Perú

Venezuela

Comunidad local

All hotspot countries have government agencies in charge of registering CSOs, although there
is not necessarily a formal process for monitoring and evaluating their performance. While in
Ecuador and Bolivia, CSO registration takes place in institutions dependent on the central
government (National Secretariat of Policy Management in Ecuador, Vice-Ministry ofAutonomies of the Ministry of the Presidency in Bolivia); in Colombia, registration takes placewith the Chamber of Commerce, while in Peru it takes place in the municipalities.
Consultations reveal the perception that Chile and Peru are the most favorable for the legal
incorporation and registration of CSOs.
In all hotspot countries, CSO missions and objectives are well aligned with the priorities
established in national development and sectoral policy plans. As subnational and local
governments strengthen their capacities and gain prominence in conservation efforts, CSOs
are required to establish formal mechanisms for collaboration with these subnational public
entities. Despite the good progress, additional attention is still needed for CSOs to engage inthe design and management of public policies. Consultations reveal that CSOs are notengaged in a meaningful way in policy development in sensitive sectors, such as extractive
industries and infrastructure. Colombia shows a markedly unfavorable security environmentand guarantees for citizen oversight, while Bolivia and Peru demonstrate somewhat morefavorability for CSO engagement, which Ecuador is incipient with respect to CSO engagement.

Indigenous Peoples and Community Organizations
The hotspot is inhabited by some 10 million indigenous people belonging to more than 50
nationalities and occupying at least 21 percent of the hotspot's surface area. The forms oforganization of indigenous communities, peoples and nationalities in the hotspot reflect thediversity of cultures, visions, interests and survival strategies. However, interculturality,
plurinationality and self-determination continue to be the main axes of the political action ofindigenous movements and community-based organizations in the hotspot.
The profile identifies 67 community and indigenous organizations of second and third levelworking in the hotspot (e.g., federations and confederations) (Figure 9.2). This figure is only
referential, as several hundred community-based organizations are located in the hotspot.
Figure 9.2. Number of Community and Indigenous Organizations Identified in the
Hotspot
17

18
15

16
13

No. organizaciones

14

12

12
10
8
6

6

4

2

2

2

0
Argentina

Bolivia

Chile

Colombia

Ecuador

Perú

Venezuela

Paises del hotspot

Civil Society Organizations’ Capacities
As in the previous profile, most NGOs focus on traditional conservation activities and less on
emerging areas, although approaches and methodologies related to climate change
management, sustainable production and economic instruments for conservation are
beginning to gain ground. The ecosystem profile shows that all countries have a wide varietyof NGOs, with sufficient human resources and good to very good institutional capacity. The
main gaps relate to financial resources (Table 9.1). In contrast, community-based andindigenous organizations reported insufficient human and financial resources and good tolimited institutional capacity. NGOs have strengthened their capacities in recent years, mainly
in technical and operational management aspects, as well as in inter-institutional coordination
mechanisms. However, there are still capacity gaps related to promoting social dialog towards
achievement of negotiated agendas with the public and private sectors. Faced with the socalled "new normal" triggered by the global health crisis, CSOs also note the need tostrengthen their capacities in the management of digital platforms, both in technologicalaspects and in the skills needed to make efficient use of them. A third priority for capacity
building is in financial sustainability. While Andean countries have advanced in establishinginnovative financial mechanisms, further effort is required to attract investment from theprivate and finance sectors, and from the international donor community.

Table 9.1 Institutional Capacity of NGOs consulted in the Hotspot Countries

Country

Has Sufficient
Human Resources

Has Sufficient
Financial Resources

Institutional Capacity

Yes Partial

Yes

Very
Good

No

Partial No

Good Limited

Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Source: 2020 consultation process.
> 60% of people consulted
between 20 and 60% of people
consulted< 20 % of people consulted

Most CSOs in Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia have a gender policy and thus an explicit institutional
mandate to incorporate gender in their projects. In turn, on analyzing how these capacities
developed by the CSOs have allowed them to achieve impact objectives, it is observed that
all the countries agree that the strengthening processes developed in the last five years, inmany cases with the support of CEPF, have made it possible above all to improve theeffectiveness of the organizations' management. Secondly, Ecuador and Peru indicate that
this strengthening has contributed to CSOs having a greater impact on public policies, whilein Colombia and Bolivia, it has allowed them to develop greater capacity for adaptation andinstitutional resilience in the face of the adverse context in which the organizations have had
to operate (Figure 9.3).
Figure 9.3. Impacts of CSO Capacity Building
6

Preference

5
4
3
2
1
Bolivia

Colombia

EcuadorPeru

Hotspot countries
Public policy impact
Adaptation and institutional resilience
Higher credibility

Improving management effectiveness
Reducing pressures and threats
Transformative conservation impact

Note: A value of 6 indicates a high preference, while 1 indicates a low preference of the people who participated in
the national consultation workshops

Impact of COVID-19
Financial survival and sustainability are an ever-present concern of all Andean CSOs, whicharises from the region’s longstanding economic uncertainties. This concern has come to thefore over the last year with the dramatic economic downturn during the pandemic.
Stakeholders expect that economic recovery in 2021 will require greater attention todevelopment approaches and capacities to diversify the range of funding sources to increase
their resilience.

10. CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT
The Andes are home to a wide variety of climates that are a product of their rugged
topography, their location along the western edge of South America, the influx of waters fromthe southeastern Pacific, cold in the south and warm in the north, and the continental tradewind system. The combination of varied climates and stable climate shelters has contributed
to the high diversity and endemism seen today in the Tropical Andes.
Land surface temperatures have increased throughout the Tropical Andes region since the1970s, albeit at a slower rate than the global average. Although precipitation has alsochanged in the Andes, climatologists have so far detected no consistent pattern to thechanges.

Projected Impacts of Climate Change on Human Populations andBiodiversity
The Tropical Andes Hotspot stores 314,291,735 tons of irretrievable carbon and is the second
most important hotspot in the world for irretrievable carbon. That is, carbon stocks that arepotentially vulnerable to release by human activity and, if lost, could not be restored by 2050,
the year in which the population needs to reach net zero emissions to avoid anunprecedented climate crisis.
The impacts of climate change are already noticeable in Andean biota. Birds, mammals,
reptiles, fish, plants and even insects are susceptible to habitat loss, changes in precipitation,
temperature and humidity, and increased water temperature, among other disturbances. The
retreat of glacier masses is undoubtedly the most evident change. In the Tropical Andes, therate of glacier retreat since 1950 has exceeded the global average, with a marked increase
after 1970. At this rate, Venezuela will be the first country on the continent to lose all its
glaciers.
The ecosystems most vulnerable to climate change, the páramos and cloud forests, are thosethat have had the relatively shortest history of human intervention. Aquatic systems are also
very sensitive to changes in precipitation patterns, as well as to the reduction in runoff
caused by a decrease in glacial mass in the Andes.
Human populations are also affected by climate change. The availability of water, whether too
much or too little, is a major concern. Higher evaporation rates in lakes and other wetlands
are expected due to temperature increases. Similarly, accelerated glacier melt will lead toincreased surface runoff and decreased water reserves stored in glacier ice. Changes in theseasonality of the rainy season, floods, droughts, landslides, hailstorms, cold or heat waves
are the most widespread meteorological events. In Bolivia, for example, droughts caused thedeclaration of national emergency in 2016 and 2020. Diseases such as dengue, zika andchikungunya, as well as malaria and yellow fever show a tendency to increase their incidence

in the countries of the region. The increase in global average temperature would extend thebreeding area of the Aedes aegypti mosquito and thus increase the possibility of more people
contracting these diseases. Climate change has been implicated in the spread of fungal
diseases in maize, potato, wheat and bean crops in Peru. The vulnerability of crops to disease
has led to great concern about the future food supply for Latin America's growing population.
Maintaining the health of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems is crucial to mitigating climatechange, as they act as major greenhouse gas (GHG) sinks, absorbing nearly 50 percent of
global emissions. This is particularly relevant for páramos, Andean forests and wetlands,
which represent the largest carbon reservoirs in the Tropical Andes. For this reason,
strengthening management and declaring new protected areas are excellent strategies formeeting climate change goals.
Bioclimatic diversity is a measure of vulnerability to climate change, so the ecosystem profile
assesses a parameter for determining the resilience of hotspot corridors based on thediversity of current climate regimes. Some of the hotspot corridors, mainly in areas of highrelative biodiversity value in Colombia and Ecuador, show medium-low diversity, which makes
them vulnerable to this phenomenon.

Policy Responses
All countries in the hotspot have joined the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC). One of the agreements signed by them in the context of said convention
is the Paris Agreement, which came into force in 2016 and aims to prevent the increase in theplanet's average global temperature from exceeding 2°C above pre-industrial levels and alsoseeks to promote additional efforts that will make it possible for global warming not to exceed
1.5°C. To achieve this, each country has prepared Nationally Determined Contributions(NDCs) that set out measures to reduce GHG emissions (mitigation) and promote actions toincrease adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability, as all countries arefacing the impacts derived from the increase in global temperature. To emphasize its
commitment, Chile chaired COP 25 in December 2019.

Role of Civil Society
Civil society groups have developed capacities at multiple levels by promoting technicalassistance to regional and national governments and local communities in Colombia, Ecuador,
Peru and Bolivia. Of particular interest are the multi-stakeholder REDD+ working groups
including the REDD+ roundtables in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. Civil society has also playeda particularly important role in the development of offset projects for the voluntary carbon
market since the beginning of the forest carbon market, with most REDD+ projects in andoutside the hotspot led by local and international NGOs. At the regional level, several CSO
networks are actively involved in climate change and REDD+ issues. Despite all theseadvances, local NGOs in the region expressed difficulties in participating in funding projects
related to climate change goals.

11. SUMMARY OF CURRENT INVESTMENT
The ecosystem profile shows that between 2015 and 2019, national governments andinternational donors channeled $676.6 million through 1,229 natural resourcesmanagement investments in the Tropical Andes Hotspot. Of this amount, $307.3
million went to activities that had biodiversity conservation as their main objective.
Within the context of the large size of the hotspot, these investments appear diluted,

with $0.38 invested per hectare of the hotspot per year in biodiversity conservation.
International donor funding for civil society groups amounted to $100.7 million, of
which $57.6 million was executed by national CSOs while $43 million was executed bylarge international CSOs (Figure 11.1).
Figure 11.1. Breakdown of Investment for Natural Resources Management andBiodiversity Conservation in the Hotspot, 2015 -2019

Funding for natural resources management was spread across 12 thematic areas (Figure11.2). Five thematic areas directly funded biodiversity conservation: protected area
management, landscape and biological corridor conservation, climate change-REDD+, species
protection, and biodiversity research. Funding for protected areas was not available for all
countries, and for those for which information was obtained, it was very disparate. Colombia
invested the most, followed by Peru.
Figure 11.2. Investment in Natural Resources Management in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot by Theme for the 2015 - 2019 Period (Total $676.6 million)
140.0

127.7

120.0

99.8

100.0

98.2
80.5

80.0

61.3

60.0

48.0

45.9

40.0

37.8

30.4

21.6

20.0

20.8
4.7
Capacity building

Biodiversity research andenvironmental monitoring

Economic incentives forconservation

Species conservation

Community development andlocal governance

Watershed conservation

Climate change REDD+

Planning, policy and institutional
strengthening

Conservation of landscapes andbiological corridors

Climate change: adaptation andmitigation

Sustainable management offorests and other natural
resources

Protected area management

0.0Sources of Investment
National and subnational governments represented the largest source of funding for natural
resources management, contributing almost 37 percent of the total investment, followed bymultilateral donors with 22.9 percent and bilateral agencies with 32.8 percent and the private
sector (Table 11.1). More than two-thirds (77.6 percent) of all conservation investment wereshared by Peru (28.4 percent), Colombia (25.6 percent) and Ecuador (23.7 percent), while
the other four countries together received 10.6 percent: Bolivia (10 percent), Venezuela(0.24 percent), Chile (0.02 percent) and Argentina (0.005 percent). Regional or multi-country
investments totaling $78.8 constituted the remaining 11.6 percent of total investment.
Table 11.1. Investment in Natural Resources Management by Source ofFinancing, 2015-2019

Investment sources

Donors

Total
Investment($million)

National governments

Gov’ts Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia

249.5 (36.9%)

Bilateral Agencies

Germany, United States, European Union (EU),
Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, Japan, France,
Denmark, Canada, Australia and Spain.
Global Environment Facility (GEF),
World Bank (WB), Inter-American Development
Bank (IDB), Development Bank (IDB), GEF Small
Grants Program (GEF SGP), Green Climate Fund,
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Funds (CEPFs),
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
Nordic Development Fund (NDF), Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), UN-REDD
Programme (UN-REDD), International Tropical
Timber Organization (ITTO)

221.9 (32.8%)

Multilateral Donors

Foundations

Others

155.0 (22.9%)

Moore Foundation, Rainforest Trust, Andes
45.8 (6.8%)
Amazon Fund, John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation, Tinker Foundation,
Rainforest Alliance, Overbrook Foundation,
The Conservation Fund, Mohamed bin Zayed,
JRS Biodiversity Foundation, The Nature
Conservancy, Mohamed bin Zayed, JRS
Biodiversity Foundation, Tinker Foundation, World
Wildlife Fund, InterAmerican Foundation and others.
4.4 (0.7%)
Walt Disney, Verde Canande,

Total

676.6

Conservation Endowments
To cover the long-term costs of protected areas and biodiversity conservation, four Andean
countries have established conservation endowments. These private or mixed and legallyindependent donor institutions provided $27.6 million between 2015 and 2019 to publicagencies and civil society groups for a wide range of activities within the hotspot. They areoften funded through debt swaps or grants. Colombia's two endowments, Fondo Patrimonio
and Fondo Acción accounted for 38 percent of all trust funding, followed by Ecuador's Fondo
de Inversión Ambiental Sostenible, with 35 percent. Peru and Bolivia's endowments together
accounted for the remaining 26 percent of total funding.

Investments in Civil Society
Civil society organizations, particularly local and subnational groups, had limited access toconservation funding and relied on private foundations as an important source of funds. The
sum of all direct funding to CSOs in the hotspot amounts to $100.7 million. However, thetotal value executed by local CSOs is $55.9 million over a five-year period. This figure is aminimum, as it does not include funds directed to civil society through government contracts,
subgrants from international NGOs or endowments for conservation. In any case, thisestimate is indicative of the limited amount of funds available to local and sub-nationalgroups.
During the ecosystem profile workshops, participants highlighted the challenges that national
and local groups routinely face in securing funds from bilateral and multilateral donors. Thissituation has undoubtedly been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Project funding for
CSOs for all countries in the hotspot has come almost exclusively from international donors(97.9 percent), while only 2.1 percent has been funded by public agencies, whichparadoxically invested the most in the hotspot. CSOs have received most funding fromprivate foundations ($38.1 million, 38.5 percent), followed by multilateral donors ($31.7
million, 32 percent), and bilateral sources ($23.3 million, 23.6 percent). Foundations include
the Moore Foundation ($16.9 million) and Rainforest Trust ($10.7 million). CEPF ($7.5
million1) and the GEF Small Grants Program ($9.7 million) are the two multilateral donors
that directly fund local and national groups.

Gaps and Funding Opportunities
Public sector agencies are important sources of funding for protected areas, and they arehighly dependent on international donor funding. In addition, planning documents on thesustainability of protected area systems have shown that in most of them there are still huge
gaps for their economic and environmental sustainability. This fact, added to the fact that$33.9 million less has been allocated for this area, would indicate the need to increase
funding for protected areas in the hotspot for the next funding period. It should also be notedthat there is no in-depth assessment of the efficiency of the investments, in the sense that
not only more funding, but also greater efficiency is needed.
Climate change has been identified as one of the greatest threats to the integrity of theHotspot. Thanks to international cooperation and large climate funding agencies such as GCF,
GEF and IKI, funds for climate change adaptation and mitigation increased by $7.1 million
over the previous period. For the next funding period, it would be beneficial to enhance thelinkage of REDD+ projects to the conservation of landscapes, corridors and protected areas,
increasing public investment in these areas. The return of the United States to the Paris
Agreement and the firm commitment of the European Union to climate change goals augur an
increase in the funds available for this issue, so it is strategic for Andean CSOs to strengthen
themselves to be able to manage this type of project.
CSOs had very limited access to conservation funding. National CSOs based in one of thehotspot countries were only able to access $57.6 million for the period 2015 to 2019 (8.1
percent of total investment in the hotspot). However, if the ten largest projects (over $1
million each) are not taken into account, funding for the remaining 400 plus CSOs with 575
projects has been only $36.1 million, which is equivalent to $18,050 per CSO per year. These
CSOs, on the other hand, are backbone entities of the territory since they are in directcontact with the local population and know the territory where they are often located. For thisreason, it would be of utmost importance to dedicate more funds to financing projects
1

The amount would be $9.5 million if the execution of projects for the entire Phase II CEPF implementationof period 2015 to 2021 is considered.

implemented by national CSOs based in the hotspot territories.
The extraordinarily threatened biodiversity of the Tropical Andes Hotspot is not matched by
the resources needed for its conservation, as only 4.5 percent of the resources allocated tothe entire hotspot are earmarked for species-specific conservation projects. CEPF can help
reduce this gap.
The $676.6 million funded in the hotspot in the period 2015 to 2019 is a very low amount inrelation to large mining or infrastructure projects, which cause multiple impacts on theenvironment. As a comparison, for 2017, COSIPLAN's portfolio of road infrastructure projects
registered a total of 562 projects with an estimated investment of $198 billion.

12. CEPF INVESTMENT NICHE
In light of the urgent needs created and/or exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis, the CEPF
niche for Phase III in the Tropical Andes channels support to civil society organizations tofoster the long-term sustainability and resiliency of the results achieved through previous
CEPF investments and to replicate the best conservation practices piloted to date to benefit
those new sites of exceptional levels of biodiversity that have crucial conservation needs
required to ensure their survival.
The niche builds on experience from the first two investment phases by focusing on
approaches that have demonstrated success, moving from pilot projects to longer-term
interventions, and integrating results more concretely into public policy and private sector
practice. It has been developed in consultation with local experts though national andregional consultations. The niche also supports with the recommendations of the long-term
vision for of the Tropical Andes hotspot.
Phase III continues CEPF support to four of the seven Andean countries: Colombia, Ecuador,
Peru and Bolivia. KBAs in Argentina and Chile are excluded because of their KBAs havesignificantly lower relatively biodiversity values in comparison to KBAs located in their
northern neighbors. KBAs in Venezuela are excluded from consideration due to thechallenging operating environment in the country. However, civil society organizations from
Argentina, Chile and Venezuela will be invited to participate in virtual capacity building andnetworking activities to be able to take advantage of CEPF support.
The niche seeks to support those critical enabling conditions required for sustainable andresilient approaches to curb the loss of global biodiversity at three levels: species, sites, andcorridors. In the short term, the niche seeks to support local communities to cope with
impacts of the pandemic and to stem environmental degradation impacting the priority KBAs
by supporting secure land tenure, fostering sustainable livelihoods, and combating wildlife
trafficking and hunting. For the long term, pursuing sustainability and resiliency objectives
are front and center of the niche, by solidifying the technical and project management
capacities of local civil society, diversifying funding streams for conservation over the longterm, and institutionalizing conservation outcomes into public and private sector strategies
and practice. Strengthening of indigenous and environmental civil society groups is also ahigh priority. Climate change was identified as the most important threat in the hotspot, andit offers the opportunity for funding future conservation projects. For these reasons, the newniche puts a stronger focus than in previous investments periods on integrating climatechange mitigation and adaptation and strengthening alliances with larger private sector
companies.
Recognizing that CEPF investment cannot realistically respond to the full range of

conservation issues at play in the hotspot, the CEPF niche focuses on actions where civilsociety organizations can add the greatest value, and addresses gaps in the overall landscapeof donor funding for conservation. The niche calls for working closely with public and private
conservation donors to ensure complementarity of funding priorities and to identify
opportunities for synergies.
The Phase III investment strategy builds on the significant accomplishments achieved by
CEPF and partners to date in the hotspot, while setting a new stage toward greater resiliency
and sustainability over the long term. Although ambitious, the investment strategy is realistic.
It represents an important opportunity to realize the potential of civil society in the hotspot tohelp overcome the current challenges of the hotspot, and to make a lasting contribution to
the conservation of the Tropical Andes’ unique and irreplaceable biodiversity and ecosystemservices of global importance. It also presents an opportunity to incorporate climate change
mitigation and adaptation.

13. CEPF INVESTMENT STRATEGYCEPF aims to leave a long-term legacy in which civil society groups can serve as effective
stewards and advocates to safeguard the hotspot's globally outstanding biological diversity,
while ensuring the health of its vital ecosystem services, its resilience in the face of global
climate change, and the welfare of its people. The investment strategy described in thischapter lays out an investment strategy to achieve this ambitious mission over the 2021 to2026 period.
The strategy is based on the three planning exercises described in Section 2. This strategy
reflects the priorities and aspirations of Andean civil society groups in the four countries
eligible for funding under Phase III: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. It is based on arigorous methodological process to identify conservation outcomes, analysis conducted inchapters 3 to 11, complemented by a participatory process that engaged 264 stakeholders
from civil society and government agencies throughout the hotspot. This chapter, therefore,
presents CEPF's investment strategy in recognition of these three planning processes.

KBA and Corridor Prioritization
Of the 474 KBAs identified in the hotspot, 52 KBAs have been selected as priorities forfunding under the investment strategy (see Table 13.1). These 52 KBAs cover 4,040,579
hectares, which equals 12.4 percent of the 32.5 million hectares that fall within theboundaries of hotspot’s KBAs. Collectively, the 52 KBAs represent the sites with the highest
biological value, are under the most threat, are in urgent need of management improvement,
are safe to work in, are locations where with CSOs are present, and where promising
opportunities exist for conservation at a landscape-scale. In addition, they fulfill national
conservation priorities, and they demonstrate important opportunities to build on andconsolidate previous CEPF investments.

Table 13.1. Priority Conservation Corridors for CEPF Investment in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot
Corridor

ParaguasMunchique/Páramo de Urrao-Tatamá(Colombia)

Awá-CotacachiIllinizas(ColombiaEcuador)

Northwest(Ecuador)

SangayPodocarpus(Ecuador)

KBA

KBA area (has)Corridor priority KBA area

825,103.39

Alto de Pisones

1,380.61

Bosque de San Antonio/Km 18

5,993.74

Bosques Montanos del Sur de Antioquia

200,574.65

Enclave Seco del Río Dagua

8,509.33

La Empalada

10,560.80

Parque Nacional Natural Farallones de Cali

220,153.48

Parque Nacional Natural Tatamá

59,414.17

Parque Natural Regional Páramo del Duende

32,136.29

Región del Alto Calima

21,917.65

Serranía de los Paraguas

259,592.27

Serranía del Pinche

4,870.40

Corridor priority KBA area

1,081,787.13

Reserva Natural El Pangán

7,726.93

Reserva Natural La Planada

4,519.83

Reserva Natural Río Ñambí

8,595.15

Bosque Protector Los Cedros

5,619.44

Corredor Awacachi

16,668.80

Intag-Toisán

63,884.53

Los Bancos - Milpe

3,316.05

Maquipucuna-Río Guayllabamba

21,069.58

Mashpi-Pachijal

39,525.55

Mindo and Western Foothills of the Pichincha Volcano

94,710.22

Reserva Ecológica Cotacachi-Cayapas

361,615.47

Los Illinizas Ecological Reserve and surroundings

169,316.06

Río Caoní

9,101.37

Río Toachi-Chiriboga

71,188.00

Awá Ethnic Territory and surroundings

204,930.15

Corridor priority KBA area

287,301.18

Cordillera de Huacamayos-San Isidro-Sierra Azul

169,316.06

Parque Nacional Sumaco-Napo Galeras

217,629.87

Corridor priority KBA area

310,691.47

1 km west of Loja

672.09Abra de Zamora

7,833.86

Acanamá-Guashapamba-Aguirre

1,994.67

Alrededores de Amaluza

109,051.44

Bosque Protector Moya-Molón

12,376.49

Gualaceo - Limón Indanza

20,315.81

Montañas de Zapote-Najda

9,699.60

Parque Nacional Podocarpus

142,945.61

Northeast of Peru
(Peru)

Cordillera de
Vilcanota (Peru)

Madidi-Pilón
Lajas-Cotapata(Bolivia)

Total

Reserva Tapichalaca

3,925.89

Saraguro Las Antenas

1,876.24

Corridor priority KBA area

261,935.82

Cordillera de Colán

134,874.13

Moyobamba

91,527.42

Río Utcubamba

35,534.28

Corridor priority KBA area

298,864.95

6 km south of Ocobamba

76,568.58

Abra Málaga-Vilcanota

31,083.45

Kosñipata Carabaya

96,492.93

Lagos Yanacocha

2,439.65

Quincemil

58,324.08

Río Azara

33,956.27

Corridor priority KBA area

974,895.62

Bosque de Polylepis de Taquesi

3,455.83

Cotapata

227,549.41

Parque Nacional y Área Natural de Manejo Integrado
Cotapata

57,238.61

Yungas Inferiores de Pilón Lajas

249,857.65

Yungas Superiores de Apolobamba

436,794.12

Priority KBA Area

4,040,579,80

Of the 52 KBAs, 17 sites are protected with more than 80 percent of their area overlappingwith a protected area, while 14 KBAs are unprotected with less than 10 percent that overlap
with a protected area. The size of these 52 priority KBAs ranges from 672 hectares in 1 km
west of Loja in Ecuador to 436,794 hectares in Yungas Superiores de Apolobamba in Bolivia,
with the average size being 177,703 hectares. Most priority KBAs provide vital ecosystemservices, supplying water to major cities and agricultural areas, while harboring vast tracts ofcarbon-rich forests. Of the 52 KBAs, 24 KBAs will consolidate processes supported in previous
CEPF phases, and 28 KBAs are new sites that offer important opportunities to adopt CEPF
best practices within the corridors where CEPF has worked previously.
To maintain the ecosystem services that depend on priority KBAs, CEPF will target
management improvements in seven priority corridors, which cover 15,378,844 hectares, orabout 19.7 percent of the entire hotspot area. CEPF will invest in seven corridors, with thelargest being the Madidi-Pilón Lajas-Cotapata corridor, which traverses the Peru-Bolivia
border, at 5,055,482 hectares. The smallest corridor is the Sangay-Podocarpus Corridor in
Ecuador at 927,212 hectares.
Most of the 52 priority KBAs are in Ecuador (24 KBAs) and Colombia (14 KBAs), with fewer in
Peru (9 KBAs) and Bolivia (5 KBAs). Several factors account for the higher prioritization
scores in the hotspot’s northern countries, with the most influential factor being the presenceof more threatened biodiversity in the KBAs of Colombia and Ecuador. The priority list does
not include KBAs in Argentina, Chile or Venezuela. Sites in Argentina and Chile have low
relative biodiversity values compared to their northern counterparts. In Venezuela, lowoperational feasibility makes CEPF engagement difficult.

Figure 13.1. Priority KBAs and Corridors for CEPF Investment in the Tropical
Andes Hotspot

Priority Species and Taxa
To maximize CEPF's contribution to conserve globally significant biodiversity, the investment
strategy calls for targeted interventions to safeguard the most globally threatened species,
which include species categorized as Critically Endangered (CR) and Endangered (EN) as well

as selected genera. CEPF seeks to enable investments for those globally threatened species
whose conservation needs cannot be adequately met by general habitat protection alone. The
profile shows that within the hotspot 1,451 species are globally threatened in the categories
of Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) and Vulnerable (VU), of which 183 species
are priorities for CEPF based on their locations within priority corridors and KBAs.

Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities
To respond to current crisis and to address longstanding threats to biodiversity and their root
causes, the Phase III investment strategy builds on the achievements and lessons learned
from previous phases by supporting five strategic directions and 22 investment priorities, aspresented in Table 13.2. The strategy seeks to address short-term conservation needs while
putting the hotspot on the trajectory toward achievement of the hotspot long-term vision, tobuilding local conservation capacity for civil society, securing more stable and diversified
sources of funding, institutionalize conservation outcomes, and foster strong private sector
engagement for conservation. It also seeks to take advantage of the opportunities that will
emerge in a post-COVID world. Building on the multi-stakeholder alliances established andstrengthening in previous investments, Phase III fosters multi-sectoral collaboration between
local communities, civil society, government, and the private sector.
The strategy adopts five cross-cutting themes regarded as essential to achieve CEPF’s overall
conservation objectives: 1) revival of COVID-19 impacted sites and economies based on
green objectives; 2) mainstreaming of gender equality into conservation strategies andprojects; 3) strengthening of capacities of indigenous peoples and local civil society; 4)fostering long-term financial sustainability; and 5) contributing to climate change adaptationand mitigation. CEPF will seek proposals that emphasis one or more of these themes.
The investment strategy is ambitious while also being realistic. The scale of the challengeahead is more than CEPF by itself can support alone. For this reason, CEPF will support
projects that demonstrate a high value for money and that demonstrate opportunities forleverage.
Table 13.2. CEPF Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities for the
Tropical Andes Hotspot
Strategic
Directions
1. Strengthen
protection andmanagement of 52
priority KBAs to foster
participatory
governance, green
recovery fromCOVID-19, climatechange resilience,
species conservation,and financial
sustainability.

2. In the sevenpriority corridors,
collaborate with

Investment Priorities
1.1 Facilitate the establishment, upgrading, and/or expansion of public
and private protected areas.
1.2 Prepare and implement participatory management plans and otherrelevant KBA management instruments that support broad stakeholder
collaboration.
1.3 Strengthen land tenure, management, and governance ofindigenous territories and campesino communities.
1.4 Enable local communities to enter and remain in incentive
programs that benefit biodiversity conservation.
1.5 Promote and strengthen bio-enterprises that support biodiversity
conservation and provide gender-equitable benefits to local
communities.
2.1 Support participatory land-use and development plans andgovernance frameworks to foster a shared vision of conservation andsustainable development to guide future investments.

public and private
sector stakeholders toenable biodiversity
conservation, a green
recovery fromCOVID-19, andenvironmental,
financial, and social
sustainability, in
benefit of the priority
KBAs.

2.2 Support the preparation of policies, programs, and projects that
foster biodiversity conservation, particularly at sub-national levels, andthat leverage funding for their implementation.
2.3 Support the dissemination and integration of the conservation
outcomes (threatened species, KBAs and corridors) in the strategicplans and public policies of governments, donors, and the private
sector.
2.4 Establish and strengthen traditional and innovative financial
mechanisms and leverage financing initiatives for conservation,
including payments for ecosystem services, carbon credits andcompensation mechanisms.
2.5 Promote and scale up bio-enterprises to benefit communities,
biodiversity, connectivity and ecosystem services.
2.6 Promote private sector actors and their associations to integrateconservation into their business practices and to implement corporatesocial responsibility policies and voluntary conservation commitments.
2.7 Integrate biodiversity conservation objectives into policies andprograms related to mining and infrastructure and promote related
demonstration projects.

3. Safeguard priority
globally threatened
species.

2.8 Strengthen local capacity, facilitate public consultation, andsupport partnerships to implement mitigation measures (assess, avoid,
mitigate and monitor impacts) in projects that present a risk to priority
KBAs, with a focus on mining and infrastructure.
3.1 Prepare, implement, and institutionalize conservation action plansthat include climate change resilience for 183 Critically Endangered(CR) and Endangered (EN) species, and for select genera, presented inAppendix 13.3.
3.2 Support strategies and information campaigns to combat illegal
wildlife trafficking and hunting.

4. Cultivate a welltrained, wellcoordinated andresilient civil society
sector at the local,
corridor, and hotspot
levels to achieve
CEPF's conservation
outcomes.

4.1 Strengthen the institutional capacities (administrative, financial,fundraising, communications, governance, and project management)of CEPF's strategic partners to implement biodiversity conservation
programs.
4.2 Strengthen the technical knowledge and skills of civil society
through short-term courses to implement practical conservation
actions based on an evaluation and training strategy.
4.3 Support a security strategy and alliance to safeguard at-risk
environmental and indigenous defenders.
4.4 Strengthen the strategic communication capacity of the media andcivil society networks to create conservation awareness among the
public and decision makers.
4.5 Strengthen the capacities and involvement of women in CEPF
initiatives.
4.6 Improve stakeholder cooperation and strengthen alliances, andfoster information exchange and lessons learned.

5. In the hotspot,
provide strategic
leadership andeffective coordinationof CEPF investment
through a regional
implementation team(RIT).

5.1 Create a broad community of civil society groups working acrossinstitutional and geographic boundaries, to strengthen their capacities
and promote their long-term resilience, to support CEPF's mission andconservation goals.

14. LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Portfolio
Objective
Engage civil society
in the conservationof globallythreatened
biodiversity throughtargeted
investments withmaximum impact
on the highest
conservation andecosystem services
priorities.

Targets
At least 60 CSOs, including at least 50 domesticorganizations, actively participate in conservation
actions guided by the ecosystem profile.

Means of Verification
Grantee and RIT progress
reports

At least 2.0 million hectares have new or strengthen
management in 30 priority KBAs.

Annual portfolio overview
reports; portfolio mid-term
and final assessment

At least 250,000 hectares of production landscapeswith strengthened management of biodiversity.

Protected Areas Tracking
Tool (SP1 METT)At least 50 alliances and networks formed among
civil society actors to avoid duplication of effort andmaximize impact in support of the CEPF ecosystemprofile.
At least 3 corridor development plans or policies
integrate biodiversity conservation goals.
At least five sustainable funding mechanisms
established or strengthened, to leverage $1.0 million
in sustainable funding for the conservation
outcomes.
At least 5,000 women and 5,000 of men receive
direct socioeconomic benefits through increased
income, food security, resource rights or othermeasures of human wellbeing.
At least eight indigenous and/or Afro-descendant
territories and their communities under improved
land management and governance.
At least 200 communities, totaling at least 12,500
people, receive non-cash benefits from the
management of their biological resources.

Important Assumptions
COVID-19 restrictions on travel andmeetings do not significantly limit
conservation action in the KBAs andcorridors.
Social, economic and political stability
facilitate implementation of conservation
initiatives and provide a safe operating
environment for civil society.
The CEPF grants portfolio effectively
guides and coordinates conservation
action in the Tropical Andes Hotspot.
Stakeholder interests remain stable orincrease with respect to working in
partnership with CSOs to achieve the
CEPF conservation outcomes.
Regulatory and institutional environment
for conservation, environmental
protection, and civil society engagement
remains stable or improves.
Investments by other donors supportcomplementary activities that reduce
threats to priority corridors, sites andspecies and improve the operating
environment for civil society.

Intermediate
Outcomes
Outcome 1:
Strengthen
protection andmanagement of 52
priority KBAs tofoster participatory
governance, green
recovery fromCOVID-19, climatechange resilience,
speciesconservation, andfinancialsustainability.
$6,500,000

Intermediate Targets

Means of Verification

Important Assumptions

At least 6 unprotected or partially protected KBAs,
covering at least 300,000 hectares, under new or
expanded protection.

Grantee and RIT progress
reports

Government agencies are supportive ofcivil society efforts to conserve KBAs andcorridors.

At least 15 protected areas experience, on average,
an improvement of at least 10 points in their METT
score.
15 protected areas experience a 10% improvementin their participatory management, based on
performance in questions 22 to 25 of the METT.
Co-management mechanisms that enablecommunity participation in site management andgovernance developed and/or strengthened for atleast 5 KBAs.
Climate change resilience integrated into 100% of
KBA-level management plans and related
management instruments.
10 planes de vida prepared and/or updated as
development and empowerment plans forindigenous communities.
6 KBAs with improved indigenous and campesino
land tenure.
At least 15 KBAs support successful small andmedium-level conservation enterprises with genderequitable sustainable livelihoods for communities.
In at least 5 KBAs, 30 communities receive cash
benefits from incentive schemes for the effective
management of biodiversity.

CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports
Protected Area Management
Effectiveness Tracking Tool
(SP1 METT)

Protected area managers are receptive to
involving local communities in zoning,
management and governance.
Local communities are willing to play anactive role in site-based conservation.

Formal legal declarations orcommunity agreements
designating new protected
areas

Indigenous and campesino communities
are receptive to form alliances with CSOs
to improve land tenure.

Management plans andreports on management
activities

Government policies provide forcommunity management of natural
resources.

Monitoring reports linked toincentive programs and bioenterprises with genderequitable benefits to local
communities.

CSOs have adequate capacity and areinterested in engaging in conservationand management of KBAs and corridors.

World Database of KBAs
Third-party impact evaluation
reports.

Suitable and sufficient funding sources
are available for conservation incentives
models.
Appropriate, cost-effective site-based
monitoring protocols for biodiversity andhuman wellbeing impacts can be
developed.

Outcome 2: In theseven priority
corridors,
collaborate withpublic and private
sector stakeholders
to enable
biodiversity
conservation, agreen recovery
from COVID-19,
and environmental,
financial, and social
sustainability, in
benefit of thepriority KBAs.
$2,600,000

At least 5 local development plans, projects,
policies, and tools mainstream biodiversity,
ecosystem services, and nature-based climate
solutions, with a focus on tourism, mining,
unsustainable agriculture, and infrastructuredevelopment.
Climate change resilience integrated into 100% of
sub-national development plans and policies
supported by CEPF.
At least five sub-national public entities in fivepriority corridors mainstream conservation tools andoutcomes into their policies and operations.
At least four sub-national governments in four
corridors provide funding or in-kind support to CEPFfunded projects.
Boundaries of KBAs in CEPF focal countries are
updated, disseminated, and integrated into local andnational public and donor conservation strategies.
Long-term sustainable financing mechanisms inplace for at least two CEPF priority KBAs and/or
corridors.
At least 10 conservation-friendly enterprises support
local community monetary and/or non-monetary
incentives for biodiversity in five corridors.
At least 3 demonstration projects created and/or
replicated with co-financing from the private sector,
that integrate conservation, ecosystem services,
and/or irrecoverable carbon into their production
practices.
At least two businesses and/or business associations
influenced to better incorporate biodiversity,
ecosystem services and irrecoverable carbon in theirbusiness and production practices, strategies, andpolicies in two corridors.
At least three mining or infrastructure projects in
two corridors integrate and co-finance social and

Grantee and RIT progress
reports
CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports
Official land-use anddevelopment plans andpolicies covering the priority
corridors.
Integrated management
plans
Subnational government
reports and budgets forconservation in priority
corridors.
Private sector reports.
Public-private partnershipagreements

Decision-makers are receptive to working
with CSOs and sympathetic toconservation and sustainable
development of the priority KBAs andcorridors.
Private companies in key natural resource
sectors appreciate the business case forbetter environmental and social practices.
CSOs with sufficient capacity to engage inadvocacy and decision-making.
CSOs are committed to maintaining lines
of collaboration and communication withthe private sector.
Suitable and sufficient funding sources
will be available for conservation
incentives models.
Markets for sustainably produced
commodities from the hotspot exist or
can be built.

environmental safeguards to prevent and/or
mitigate environmental hazards in their operations.
At least three mining or infrastructure projects in
two corridors implement and finance monitoring
protocols before and after their adoption of
improved environmental and social practices.

Outcome 3.
Safeguard priority
globally threatened
species.
$1,600,000

Conservation attention focused on at least 50
globally Endangered and Critically Endangered
species and/or their genera to improve their threat
status.
Conservation action plans developed, approved, andimplemented for at least 20 priority CriticallyEndangered and Endangered species, with in-kind ormonetary support provided by governmental and/or
private sector entities to promote their sustainability
after CEPF support.
Action plans developed, approved, and implemented
in two corridors to combat illegal wildlife trade andhunting, with in-kind or monetary support provided
by governmental and/or private sector entities topromote their sustainability after CEPF support.

Grantee and RIT progress
reports
CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports
IUCN Red List species
accounts
Species conservation plans
Strategic plans to combat
illegal wildlife trade andhunting.

Adequate capacity to implement speciesfocused conservation exists among civilsociety or can be built.
Governments and international donors
remain committed to species conservation
and are able to provide financial support
for long-term programs.
Innovative funding sources for species
and site conservation (e.g., privatecompanies, high net worth individuals,etc.) can be identified and accessed.
National and international laws provide anappropriate basis for species-focusedconservation action.

Outcome 4.
Cultivate a highlytrained, wellcoordinated andresilient civil society
sector at the local,
corridor andhotspot levels toachieve CEPF’sconservation
objectives.
$1,200,000

At least 80 percent of local CSOs demonstrate
improved capacity and performance on their CSTT
and GTT.
100 percent of CEPF projects working with
communities incorporate gender considerations andcapacity building to achieve gender equitablebenefits.
CSO sustainable financing strategies developed andimplemented by at least 10 partners, leveraging atleast $100,000 in sustainable funding.
At least 5,000 people, with 50 percent targeting
women, receive structured training.
One capacity needs assessment undertaken andimplemented to support capacity building on priority
conservation topics of direct relevance toimplementation of the CEPF investment strategy.
Baseline and final evaluation of virtual technical andadministrative courses demonstrate improved
capacity of at least 250 Andean conservation
practitioners to implement conservation projects andsecure new financing.
A security strategy to reduce threats to at-risk
environmental and indigenous defenders developed
and promoted to attract a broad coalition to support
strategy implementation.
Five of media outlets (newspapers, radio andtelevision stations, magazines) increase theircapacity and coverage on the importance of
biodiversity, ecosystem service values, and carbon
stocks.
At least 2 communication campaigns implemented
to link the KBAs and their ecosystem services withclimate resilience and human welfare.
Awareness of local conservation issues and rights
and opportunities related to natural resource
management raised among local communities within
at least 5 priority sites.

Grantee and RIT progress
reports and site visits
CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports
CEPF’s gender tracking tool
CEPF’s civil society
organizational capacity
tracking tool
National and regional policy
documents

The operating environment for civilsociety will remain constant or improveacross the hotspot.
Key capacity limitations of CSOs can beaddressed through grant support.
Civil society actors are able to work
collaboratively to respond to conservation
challenges.
Key media outlets demonstrate interest in
working with civil society to improveconservation reporting.
Sufficient civil society capacity toundertake biodiversity mainstreaming
exists or can be built.

Outcome 5.
In the hotspot,
provide strategic
leadership andeffective
coordination of
CEPF investment
through a regional
implementationteam (RIT).
$2,100,000

At least 60 CSOs, including 50 domesticorganizations, actively participate in conservation
actions guided by the ecosystem profile.
At least 20 CSOs leverage new funding to promote
the sustainability of CEPF grants.
At least 50 small grants and 50 large grants
successfully achieve their main conservation
objectives.
At least 30 small grantees and 20 large grants
consisting of grassroots and indigenous CSOs
demonstrate improvements in their CSTT and GTTscores following CEPF support.
One communication mechanism supported to enable
active sharing of CEPF results, reports, bestpractices, and lessons learned among CSOs
throughout the hotspot.
At least one alliance of CEPF partners in each of theseven conservation corridors and/or focal countries
coordinates conservation and sustainable
development projects to achieve synergies.
At least 2 participatory assessments undertaken andlessons learned and best practices from the hotspot
are documented and disseminated.

Total Budget:$14,000,000

RIT progress reports
CEPF Secretariat supervision
missions and monitoring
Post-project evaluation forms
Civil society organizational
capacity tracking tool

Qualified organizations will apply to serveas the RIT in line with the approved termsof reference and the ecosystem profile.
The CEPF call for proposals will elicit
appropriate proposals that advance thegoals of the ecosystem profile.
CSOs will collaborate with each other,government agencies, and private sector
actors in a coordinated regional
conservation program in line with theecosystem profile.