ECOSYSTEM PROFILE

Tropical Andes
Biodiversity Hotspot
2021 UPDATEEcosystem Profile

BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTOF THE TROPICAL ANDES
2021 Update

FINAL VERSION
June 2021

Prepared by:

Pronaturaleza – Fundación Peruana por la Conservación de la Naturaleza

In association with:Panthera Colombia (Colombia), Practical Action (Bolivia and Peru),
Fundación Ecológica Arcoiris (Ecuador), and
BirdLife International (UK)

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

Advisory Committee:

Marc Dourojeanni
Lilian PainterAlberto GalánWith the support of theTropical Andes Regional Implementation Team (RIT):

Jorge Mariaca
Odile Sánchez
Martha Silva
Paola ZavalaiiWith supported from the following experts:
ARGENTINA
Malizia, Sebastián
Paolasso, Pablo

Cantillo, Guillermo
Carvajal, ConsueloCastro, Álvaro
Cepeda, Belisario
Chávez, Adolfo
Chiquito, Santiago
Cifuentes, Yanira
Cortés, Alex
Cortés, Mariana
Cuellar, Andrés
De la Zerda, Sussy
Duarte, Sebastián
Echeverri, David
Elfi, María
Flores, ChristianFranco, César
Gallego Beatriz
Galvis, Marcela
García, Stefanía
Gensini, Giraldo
Giraldo, Paula
Giraldo, Jorge
Gómez, Natalia
Granobles, Jonathan
Guaramato, Fabiana
Gutiérrez, Victoria
Hernández, Olga
Hernández, Raúl
Hinestroza, Lina
Hirche, Armin
Laina, Alejandra
Lara, Sara
Lentijo, Gloria
Matallana, Clara
Mosquera, Claudia
Mosquera, Mario
Nadachowski, Erika
Orjuela, Mónica
Ortega, Luis
Oyola, Fabián
Palacio, Rubén Darío
Paredes, Gisela
Paz, Karen
Paz, Liliana
Piedrahita, Mario
Pineda, Ruth
Proaño-Castro, Carolina
Quintero, Andrés
Ramírez, Diego
Range, FelipeRivera, Mauricio
Rodríguez, José
Saavedra, Carlos
Salinas, Nelson
Sánchez, Gustavo
Sánchez, Claudia
Santamaria, Marcela

BOLIVIA
Altamirano, Cesar
Aparicio, James
Arteaga, Luis
Arze, Marcelo
Barrera, Soraya
Bloomfield, Henry
Flores, Percy
Forno, Eduardo
Herzog, Sebastián
La Torre, Maritza
Pazos, Shirley
Loayza, Óscar
López, Ramiro
Marca, Sandra
Medina, Jorge Luis
Meneses, Rosa Isela
Roca, Claudia
Romay, Ebelio
Salinas, Manuel
San Cristóbal, Mónica
Siles, Lizette
Soria, Rodrigo W.
Soria-Auza, Rodrigo
Terán, Marcos
Valdéz, Adolfo
Valenzuela, Marcos
Vargas, Edwin
Vilela, Martín
Villanueva, Gabriela
Villarroel, Miguel
CHILE
Casale, Jean
Chávez, Cesar
Contreras, Juan Mauricio
Vega, Carolina
Yáñez, José
COLOMBIA
Arana, Ana Elvira
Arias, Jony
Bermeo, Diana
Bisbicus, Olivio
Bolívar-García Wilmar
Borrero, Andrea
Búch, SvanhildCabrera, Wilson
Cáceres, Andrea
Cadena, Carlos Fernando
Caicedo, Juan Carlos
Caicedo, Miguel
Camargo, Pedroiii

Serrano, Germán
Sierra, Santiago
Silva, Liliana
Valencia, Diana
Vela, Liliana
Velásquez, Jorge
Vieira, SebastiánZamudio, Jeisson

Santander, Tatiana
Santin, Jaime
Serrano, Felipe
Soria, Paulina
Szekely, Diana
Terán, Andrea
Ulloa, Roberto
Valarezo, Juan Carlos
Valdivieso, Sebastián
Varea, Anamaría
Velásquez, Mauricio
Waliczky, Zoltan

ECUADOR
Andino, Marcela
Añazco, Mario
Arcos, Inty
Arnal, Hugo
Armijos, Diego
Burbano, Adriana
Camacho Jaime
Collaguazo Germán
DeCoux Josef
Domínguez Diana
Durán, María Belén
Galeas, Raul
Greene, Natalia
Granizo, Tarsicio
Guarderas, María Dolores
Guzmán Henrry
Hofstede Robert
Jaime, Camacho
Jaramillo, Alicia
Jaramillo, Nelson
Jiménez, Marcos
Jintiach, Juan Carlos
Josse, Carmen
Katan, Tuntiak
Krohnke, Brian
Laporta, Denis
Lescano, Max
Levy, Santiago
Levy, Elisa
Lloret, Pablo
Martínez, Christian
Miagua, Marcelo
Moreira, Henry
Nastacuaz, Olindo
Obando, Eduardo
Ordóñez, Luis
Ordóñez-Delgado, Leonardo
Paredes, TelmaPeña, Jaime
Peralvo, ManuelProaño, Carolina
Prieto, Francisco
Ramírez, Diana
Ramírez, Marcelo
Redin, Gustavo
Riera-Vite, Trotsky
Rodas, Fabián
Romero, Juan Carlos
Sánchez, Didier

PERU
Allauja, Elvis
Alvarado, Lleydy
Alzamora, Mónica
Antezano, Salomé
Aragón, José
Arenas, Marco
Aucca, Constantino
Bellota, MiguelBerrospi, Luis
Bustamante, María Gracia
Chevarría, Marco
Chimatani, Fermín
Chulla, Elizabeth
Cornejo, Fanny
Díaz, Henry
Durán, Patricia
Escalante, Ernesto
Espejo, Ana
Espinel, Luis
Espinoza, Jessica
Fernández-Baca, Jaime
Flores, Lorenzo
Flores, Luis
Franco, Oscar
Fuentealba, Beatriz
Gammie, Gena
García, Claus
Gómez, Elvira
Gordillo, Rosa
Heredia, Pedro
Herrera, Jorge
Hidalgo, Max
Hoyos, Marlon
Huamaní, Walter
Ita, Walter
Kalinowski, Bronislaw
Laporte, Melina
Leo, Mariella
Leslie, James
Mavila, ManuelMedina, Margarita
Mendizábal, Paul
Mendoza, Eddy
Mendoza, Wilfredo
Montoya, Marianaiv

Noningo, Shapion
Núñez, Elio
Núñez, Noelia
Ochoa, Patricia
Olivera, Christian
Oliveros, Jessica
Ortiz, Enrique
Ortiz, Floro
Palomino, Wily
Pérez, ChristianPilares, Rafael
Quijandría, GabrielRaez, Ernesto
Ramírez, Frank
Ramos, Viviana
Rondón, Marco
Rubio, Heidi
Samaniego, Cesar
Sánchez, Alan
Sánchez, Silvia
Scheske, Christel
Silva, Juvenal
Tapia, Pedro
Usuriaga, Silvia
Valdivia, María Claudia
Vargas, Juan Carlos
Vargas, Víctor

Vega, Zoila
Verde, Milton
Zárate, Claudia
UNITED KINGDOM
Bensted-Smith, Robert
Heylings Pippa
UNITED STATES
Tognelli, Marcelo
Upgren, Amy
VENEZUELA
Bautista, Jayme
Chacón, Eulogio
Cuyckens, Erica
Gámez, Luis Enrique
Hidalgo, Marcos
Jiménez, Luis
Llambí, Luis
Luy, Alejandro
Niño, Miguel
Pelayo, Roxibell
Peñaloza, Rafael
Torres, Denis
Vivas, IladWorkshop and survey support:

Antelo, Rafael
Borja, Judith
Cuba, Mónica
Fernández, Yara
Franco, Sandra
Frías, Yolanda
Isola, Sandra
Jaramillo, Maricruz
Jimenez, Arturo
Laporte, Melina

Lizon, Leon
López, AlfredoPeña, Elizabeth
Romero, Chiara
Tovar, Antonio
Vargas, Julieta
Vásquez, Rocío
Vega, Claudia
Villavicencio, DanielEnglish translation:

Sheila Gratton
Technical editing in English:

Nicole A. Brown
Maricruz Jaramillo
Claudia Vegav

ACRONYMS
ABRAE
ABT
ACUS
AECID
AFD
AHN

Áreas Bajo Régimen de Administración Especial (Venezuela) [Areas Under
Special Administration Regime]
Autoridad de Bosques y Tierras (Bolivia) [Forest and Land Authority]Áreas de Conservación y Uso Sustentable (Ecuador) [Conservation andSustainable Use Areas]
Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo [Spanish
Agency for International Development Cooperation]
L’Agence Française de Développement [French Development Agency]

ANM

Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos (Colombia) [National Hydrocarbons
Agency]Proyecto de Adaptación a los Impactos del Cambio Climático en Recursos
Hídricos en los Andes [Adaptation to the Impacts of Climate Change on
Water Resources in the Andes Project]
Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración [Latin American Integration
Association]
Autoridad Nacional de Licencias Ambientales (Colombia) [National
Environmental Licensing Authority]
Agencia Nacional de Minería (Colombia) [National Mining Agency]

ARA

Articulación Regional Amazónica [Amazon Regional Articulation]

AZE

Alliance for Zero Extinction

BADEHOG

Banco de Datos de Encuestas de Hogares [Household Survey Data Bank]

BCB

Banco Central de Bolivia [Central Bank of Bolivia]

BIOFIN

Finanzas para la Biodiversidad [Finance for Biodiversity]

BMU

CAF

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit[German Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation, andNuclear Safety]
Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung[German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development]
Corporación Andina de Fomento [Andean Development Corporation]

CAN

Comunidad Andina de Naciones [Andean Community of Nations]

CANCC

CBD

Comisión de Alto Nivel de Cambio Climático (Peru) [High Level Commission
on Climate Change]
Corporaciones Autónomas Regionales (Colombia) [Regional Autonomous
Corporations]
Convention on Biological Diversity

CCB

Community and Biodiversity Standard

CDM

Clean Development Mechanism

CEFOVE

CEPF

Grupo Nacional de Certificación Voluntaria (Ecuador) [National Voluntary
Certification Group]
Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños [Community of Latin
American and Caribbean States]
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund

CI

Conservation International

CIEBREG

Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios en Biodiversidad y Recursos Genéticos(Colombia) [Research and Studies on Biodiversity and Genetic Resources]
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

AICCA
ALADI
ANLA

BMZ

CAR

CELAC

CITES

vi

CLPI

consentimiento libre, previo e informado [free, prior and informed consent ]CMS

Convention on Migratory Species

COICA
CONAF

Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica
[Coordinator of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin]
Corporación Nacional Forestal (Chile) [National Forestry Corporation]

CONDESAN

Consorcio para el desarrollo de la ecorregión (Ecuador)

CORFO

Corporación de Fomento de la Producción (Chile)

COSIPLAN
CPB

Consejo Suramericano de Infraestructura y Planeamiento [South American
Council for Infrastructure and Planning]
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

CR

Critically Endangered (IUCN Red List)

CSF

Conservation Strategy Fund

CSO

Civil Society Organisation

CSTT

Civil Society Capacity Tracking Tool

DEIE

Dirección de Estadísticas e Investigaciones Económicas (Argentina)[Directorate of Statistics and Economic Research]
Dirección General Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre (Peru) [General Directorateof Forestry and Wildlife]
Diameter at breast height

DGFFS
DHB
DIPROSE

ECLAC

Dirección General de Programas y Proyectos Sectoriales y Especiales(Argentina) [General Directorate of Sectoral and Special Programs andProjects]
Estrategia Colombiana de Desarrollo Bajo en Carbono [Colombian Low
Carbon Development Strategy]
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

ECV

Encuesta de Calidad de Vida (Colombia) [Survey of Living Conditions]EN

Endangered (IUCN Red List)

ENA

Encuesta Nacional Agropecuaria (Colombia) [National Agricultural Survey]

ENREDD+EU

Estrategia Nacional de Reducción de Emisiones por Deforestación yDegradación Forestal (Colombia) [National Strategy for Reducing Emissions
from Deforestation and Forest Degradation]
European Union

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

FAP

Fondo de Áreas Protegidas (Ecuador) [Protected Areas Fund]

FARC-EP

Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia - Ejército del Pueblo[Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - People's Army]
Fundación para la Conservación y el Desarrollo Sostenible [Foundation forConservation and Sustainable Development]
Foreign direct investment

ECDBC

FCDS
FDI
FEDECAFE
FEDEGAN
FFI
FFLA
FIAS

Federación Nacional del Café (Colombia) [National Federation of Coffee
Growers]
Federación Colombiana de Ganaderos (Colombia) [Federation of Colombian
Cattle Ranchers]
Fauna & Flora International
Fundación Internacional para la Promoción del Desarrollo Sustentable Futuro
Latinoamericano [Latin American Future Foundation]
Fondo de Inversión Ambiental Sostenible (Ecuador) [Sustainable
Environmental Investment Fund]

vii

FIMA

Fiscalía del Medio Ambiente (Chile) [Environmental Prosecutor's Office]

FONAM

Fondo Nacional Ambiental (Colombia) [National Environmental Fund]

FUNDESNAPFZSFundación para el Desarrollo del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas(Bolivia) [Foundation for the Development of the National Protected Areas
System]Frankfurt Zoological Society

GCF

Green Climate FundGDP

Gross Domestic Product

GEF

Global Environment Facility

GHG

greenhouse gas

GIZ
GORESAM

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit [German Agency
for International Cooperation]
Gobierno Regional de San Martín (Peru) [San Martin Regional Government]

GTT

Gender Tracking Tool

HDI

Human Development Index

IBA

Important Bird Area

IBCE

Instituto Boliviano de Comercio Exterior [Bolivian Institute of Foreign Trade]

ICRAFWorld Agroforestry Center

IDEAM
IED

Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales (Colombia)[Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies]
inversión extranjera directa [foreign direct investment]

IHA

International Hydropower Association

IIRSA
IKI

Iniciativa para la Integración de la Infraestructura Regional Suramericana[Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America]
Internationale Klimaschutzinitiative [International Climate Initiative]

IMF

International Monetary Fund

INDEC
INDH

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (Argentina) [National Institute of
Statistics and Census]
National Institute of Human Rights

INE

Instituto Nacional de Estadística (Bolivia) [National Statistics Institute]

INPARQUESInstituto Nacional de Parques (Venezuela) [National Parks Institute]

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IUCN

International Union for Conservation of Nature

IUCN Red
List
IUCN SSC

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of
Threatened Species
IUCN Species Survival Commission

IWRM

Integrated water resources management

JICA

Japan International Cooperation Agency

KBA

Key Biodiversity Area

KfW

Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau

LatinClima
LULUCF

Red de Comunicación en Cambio Climático [Climate Change Communication
Network]
Land use, land use change and forestry

LVT

Long-term vision

MAAE

Ministerio de Ambiente y Agua (Ecuador) [Ministry of Environment andWater]

viii

MAAP

MERCOSUR

Proyecto Monitoreo de la Amazonía Andina [Amazon Andes Monitoring
Project]
Man and the Biosphere Program of the United Nations Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organization
Ministerio del Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (Colombia) [Ministry ofEnvironment and Sustainable Development]
Mercado Común del Sur [Sourthern Common Market]

MINAGRI

Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego (Peru) [Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation]

MINAM

Ministerio del Ambiente (Peru) [Ministry of Environment]

MINCETUR

MPI

Ministerio de Comercio Exterior y Turismo (Peru) [Ministry of Foreign Tradeand Tourism]
Ministerio del Poder Popular para el Ecosocialismo (Venezuela) [Ministry ofPeople's Power for Ecosocialism]
Multidimensional Poverty Index

NCI

Nature & Culture International

NDC

Nationally Determined Contributions

NDF

Nordic Development FundNGO

Non-governmental organization

Norad

Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

OCMAL

Observatory of Mining Conflicts in Latin America

OEC

Observatory of Economic Complexity

OMEC

Otras Medidas de Conservación Basadas en Áreas (Peru) [Other effectivearea-based conservation modalities]
Organización del Tratado de Cooperación Amazónica [Amazon Cooperation
Treaty Organization]
Plan de Desarrollo Económico Social (Bolivia) [Social Economic Development
Plan]
Planes de Desarrollo y Ordenamiento Territorial [Land development andmanagement plans]
Programa Nacional de Conservación de Bosques para la Mitigación delCambio Climático (Perú) [National Forest Conservation Program for Climate
Change Mitigation]
Parque Natural Nacional (Colombia) [National Natural Park]MABUNESCO
MADS

MINEC

OTCA
PDES
PDyOT
PNCBMCCPNN
PROFONANPEPROSAP
PROSURPSB
PUGS

Fondo de Promoción de la Áreas Naturales Protegidas del Perú [Fund for the
Promotion of Peru's Natural Protected Areas]
Programa de Servicios Agrícolas Provinciales (Argentina) [Provincial
Agricultural Services Program]
Foro para el Progreso de América del Sur [Forum for the Progress andDevelopment of South America]
Programa Socio Bosque (Ecuador) [Socio Bosque Program]

RAMSAR

Planes de Uso y Gestión del Suelo [Land-use and management plans] (by its
acronym in Spanish)
Red Amazónica de Información SocioAmbiental Georferenciada [Amazonian
Network of Geo-referenced Socio-environmental Information]
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance

RBV

Relative biodiversity value

RECC

Red Ecuatoriana de Cambio Climático [Ecuadorian Climate Change Network]

RED

REDD Early Movers

RAISG

ix

RED AMARED DBA
REDD
REDD+

Red de Conservación Voluntaria de Amazonas [Amazon Voluntary
Conservation Network]
Red de Iniciativas de Conservación de la Biodiversidad de Amazonas (Peru)[Amazon Biodiversity Conservation Initiatives Network]
reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

RIA

reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and theconservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks
Registro Integral de Formalización Minera (Peru) [Integral Mining
Formalization Registry]
Registro Nacional de Medidas de Mitigación (Peru) [National Registry of
Mitigation Measures]
REDD+ Indígena Amazónica [Amazon Indigenous REDD+]

RIT

Regional Implementation Team

RNSC

Reservas Naturales de la Sociedad Civil [Civil society nature reserves]

SARS

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

SDC

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SDG

Sustainable Development Goals

SEREMI

Secretarías regionales ministeriales (Chile) [Regional ministerial secretariats]

SERFOR

Servicio Nacional Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre (Peru) [National Forestry andWildlife Service]
Servicio Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado (Peru)[National Service of Natural Areas Protected by the State]
Servicio Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (Bolivia) [National Service forProtected Areas]
Sistema de información ambiental [Colombian environmental information
system]Sistema Federal de Áreas Protegidas (Argentina) [Federal System ofProtected Areas]
Sistema Nacional Ambiental (Colombia) [National Environmental System]

REINFORENAMISERNANPSERNAP
SIAC
SIFAP
SINA
SINANPE

TDC

Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas por el Estado (Peru) National System
of Natural Areas Protected by the State
Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (Colombia) [National System ofProtected Areas]
Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (Bolivia) [National System ofProtected Areas]
Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (Ecuador) [National System ofProtected Areas]
Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (Chile) [National System of State
Wildlife Protected Areas]
Territorios Comunitarios de Origen (Bolivia) [Community Territories ofOrigin]Transferencias Directas Condicionadas (Peru) [Conditional Direct Transfers]

TNC

The Nature Conservancy

TNC

Third national communications

UNALM
UNASUR

Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina (Peru) [La Molina National Agrarian
University]
Unión de Naciones Suramericanas [Union of South American Nations]

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

SINAP
SNAP
SNAP
SNASPETCO

x

UNEP-WCMC

UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UN-REDD
UNWTO

United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation andForest Degradation
World Tourism Organization

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

USFS

United States Forest Service

USFWS

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VCS

Verified Carbon Standard

VMA
VU

Viceministerio de Medio Ambiente, Biodiversidad, Cambios Climáticos y
Gestión y Desarrollo Forestal (Bolivia) [Vice-Ministry of Environment,
Biodiversity, Climate Change and Forest Management and Development]
Vulnerable (IUCN Red List)

WCS

Wildlife Conservation Society

WHC

World Heritage Convention

WTTCWorld Travel and Tourism Council

WWF

World Wildlife Fundxi

CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................. XIII
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................1
2 BACKGROUND...........................................................................4
3 CEPF INVESTMENT IN THE TROPICAL ANDES HOTSPOT: OVERVIEW
AND LESSONS LEARNED (2001 - 2021).............................................7
4 BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE HOTSPOT .............................. 26
5 HOTSPOT CONSERVATION OUTCOMES....................................... 44
6 THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY IN THE HOTSPOT .......................... 106
7 SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT .......................... 137
8 POLITICAL CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT .................................... 168
9 CIVIL SOCIETY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT .............................. 202
10 CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT ............................................. 239
11 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONSERVATION INVESTMENT ......... 265
12 CEPF INVESTMENT NICHE ...................................................... 317
13 CEPF INVESTMENT STRATEGY ............................................... 3211
14 LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................... 351
15 SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................... 357
16 REFERENCES ........................................................................ 360
17 APPENDICES ........................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Appendix 5.1. Species Outcomes for the Tropical Andes Hotspot
Appendix 5.2. Characteristics of the KBAs in the Hotspot
Appendix 5.3 Changes in KBAs Between 2015 and 2020
Appendix 5.4 Methods for Calculating Relative Biodiversity Value
Appendix 5.6 Methodology for Calculating Carbon Storage
Appendix 5.5 Methodology for Calculating Water Availability
Appendix 6.1. Methodology for Vulnerability Analysis of a KBA
Appendix 7.1 Population Statistics
Appendix 11.1. Methodology for Evaluating Conservation
Investments
Appendix 13.1. KBA and Corridor Prioritization Methodology
Appendix 13.2. KBA Ratings for Investment Prioritization
Appendix 13.3. List of Priority Species for the Tropical Andes
Hotspot
Appendix 13.4. List of Threatened Species by Prioritized KBAs

xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) safeguards the planet's most biologically richand threatened regions, known as biodiversity hotspots. It is a joint initiative of l'Agence
Française de Développement, Conservation International, the European Union, the Global
Environment Facility, the Government of Japan and the World Bank.
A key purpose of CEPF is to engage and empower civil society, such as community groups,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions and private companies in theconservation of global biodiversity. To ensure their success, these efforts must complement
the strategies and programs of national governments and other donors. To this end, CEPF
promotes partnerships among diverse groups, combining unique capabilities and reducing
duplication of efforts to achieve a participatory, comprehensive, and coordinated approach tobiodiversity conservation. To achieve this, CEPF develops ecosystem profiles, shared strategies
developed in consultation with local stakeholders that articulate a five-year investment
strategy supported by a detailed situation analysis.
This document presents the ecosystem profile of the Tropical Andes Hotspot, the most
biodiverse on the planet. Home to more than 35,000 plant and vertebrate species, it ranks firstin plant, bird, mammal, and amphibian diversity and second in reptile diversity of the 36
hotspots identified to date in the world. With its 158.3 million hectares, the hotspot is threetimes the size of Spain and extends across the Cordillera of the Andes through Venezuela,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, as well as the northern portions of the Andes inArgentina and Chile.
Despite various conservation interventions in the hotspot over the years, its biodiversity andecosystems continue to face serious threats, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19
pandemic. At the same time, Andean civil society has been strengthened, and is well
positioned to address threats as environmental leaders in the hotspot.

Background to the Preparation of the Ecosystem Profile
CEPF provides funding for civil society action in areas where globally significant biodiversity is
seriously threatened. CEPF has had two phases of investment in the Tropical Andes: Phase I,
between 2001 and 2006 with a consolidation phase from 2009 to 2013, where it invested
US$8.135 million through 67 projects in Bolivia and Peru, and Phase II, from 2015 to 2021,
when US$9.5 million was invested in 100 projects in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia.
The results of these investments were significant. More than 5.1 million hectares came under
new legal protection, and approximately 11 million hectares of habitat possessing among thehighest levels of biodiversity and levels of threat in the hotspot experienced management
improvements in support of biodiversity conservation and local communities. In total, 284
globally threatened species benefited. More than 300 indigenous and mestizo communities,
many scattered across the far reaches of the highest mountain range of the Americas,
benefitted from the conservation of their ecosystems, through the generation of new sourcesof income, improved access to clean plentiful water, improved food security, and strengthened
governance of their lands. More than 65 Andean-based civil society organizations were direct
grant recipients. Over 100 stakeholder alliances brought governmental, civil society,community, and private sector stakeholders together to collaboration on conservation andsustainable development initiatives.

xiii

Based on the results of these investment phases, CEPF's Donor Council decided toreinvest in the hotspot to consolidate and expand the achievements and set the
hotspot on a stronger trajectory towards long-term sustainability and resilience.
This ecosystem profile sets out how CEPF will support civil society efforts to that end. This
document was developed between July 2020 and March 2021 and captures the efforts of threecomplementary processes: 1) a strategic planning process with a focus on Ecuador incollaboration with KfW Germany; 2) the updating of this ecosystem profile for the entire
hotspot through a process that involved 268 stakeholders from 103 organizations from civilsociety, the public sector, and donors; and 3) the preparation of a long-term vision for the
hotspot involving more than 100 people.

Key Findings
The more than 130 ecosystems identified in the hotspot are home to more than 35,000 plantand vertebrate species, and 1,451 species are threatened with extinction according to the
IUCN Red List, including 239 Critically Endangered (CR) and 625 Endangered (EN) species.
The hotspot provides essential ecosystem services for the planet, the South American
continent and the approximately 59.7 million people living within the Tropical Andes,
particularly those services related to water resources and carbon. Its peaks are the sources of
the world's largest river, the Amazon, and the main tributaries of the Orinoco and Paraguay
rivers, the third and seventh largest rivers in the world respectively. Its water network
nourishes diverse ecosystems that are home to thousands of species and supplies water tonumerous agricultural areas and cities inside and outside the hotspot. Four country capitals
and 29 cities with more than 200,000 inhabitants within the hotspot benefit directly from theseecosystem services. The Tropical Andes Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) collectively store 7,345
million metric tons of carbon in their plant biomass, a volume that slightly exceeds Mexico's
carbon budget from 2016 to 2025 to comply with the Paris Agreement. The Tropical Andes is
the second most important hotspot in the world for irrecoverable carbon stocks. It holds
314,291,735 metric tons of irrecoverable carbon, which, if lost, could not be restored by 2050.
Despite their strategic importance, of the 474 KBAs in the hotspot, 173 are unprotected, andof these, 44 KBAs correspond to Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites. AZE sites contain theentire population of one or more species listed as Endangered or Critically Endangered on the
IUCN Global Red List.
The hotspot, however, faces serious problems: mining, climate change, agricultural
encroachment, deforestation, illegal land occupation, hunting and wildlife trafficking, and new
infrastructure, among others. In the period from 2001 to 2019, almost 4 million hectares offorest were lost in the hotspot. Similarly, glacier masses continue to decrease to the point that,in a few years, Venezuela will be the first country on the continent to lose all its glaciers.
Likewise, mining concessions granted by the national governments cover 11 percent of thehotspot and illegal mining continues to be a problem that is difficult to solve. Agricultural
expansion affects 65 percent of the 474 KBAs in the hotspot to varying degrees and hasaltered 31 percent of the hotspot's surface area. Illegal trade of species in the hotspot
contributes to an illicit business that moves between US$7 billion and US$23 billion worldwide,
the fourth most lucrative after drugs, arms and human trafficking.
The Tropical Andes also possesses an exceptional cultural diversity. The population inhabiting
the hotspot is mostly mestizo. However, some 10 million indigenous people from more than 50
ethnic groups are said to inhabit at least 21 percent of the hotspot's surface, including several
KBAs. Therefore, it is essential to develop cooperative mechanisms with indigenousxivorganizations and to design strategies to strengthen their capacities for the sustainable
management of their territories.
Between 2019 and 2021, all hotspot countries suffered the consequences of serious politicalinstability and governance crises that resulted in civil unrest, especially in the capitals andmajor cities of Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador and Peru. For example, during the preparation of thisecosystem profile, Peru had three presidents in one week in November 2020.
In addition, in recent years, there has been an increase in pressures and threats against
environmental leaders who resist the advance of extractive activities in their territories.
According to a report by Global Witness, in 2019, Colombia was the country with the highest
number of assassinations of environmental leaders worldwide, and this high rate continues todate. These data reflect the urgency of adopting safeguard actions in favor of people andcommunities that are vulnerable or at risk of being vulnerable.
The total estimated investment in natural resource management in the hotspot in the period
from 2015 to 2019 amounted to US$676.6 million, of which 45 percent, equaling US$307.3
million, supported direct biodiversity conservation objectives. Despite their vital roles inleading and supporting conservation, the 400 or so Andean-based environmental groups
accessed 5 percent of funding for natural resources management projects, equaling US$57.6
million over the five-year period, with CEPF being the second largest donor after the GEF. On a
per annual basis, annual funding for natural resources management for local conservationgroups equaled US$18,050 per organization spread over the entire hotspot. Despite theconsiderable amount invested, the overall level of support for conservation in the hotspot fromgovernments, the private sector and international donors remains wholly insufficient toaddress the massive and accelerating threats to biodiversity.
The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected the Tropical Andes, killing nearly 110,000
people in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia by January 2021. According to the IMF, thepandemic is causing the worst regional recession in recorded history. According to the
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, in 2020, the GDP of the hotspot
countries decreased between 5.2 percent in Bolivia and 12.9 percent in Peru. This contraction
will undoubtedly reduce public investment in conservation in the coming years, which could, inturn, affect the budget allocated for the administration and management of protected areas,
many of which are KBAs. On the other hand, economist predict the serious economic crisis
facing the region will have a direct impact on the already high levels of poverty, which in manycases could translate into greater pressure on natural resources. In this context ofhumanitarian crisis and economic uncertainty, the price of an ounce of gold reached an all-timehigh and surpassed US$2,000, intensifying gold mining in the hotspot. The pandemic also
exposed vulnerabilities of environmental CSOs, who lack financial reserves and secure funding
to withstand the economic downturn in their countries.
This confluence of factors has led to an increase in threats to the hotspot's biodiversity anduncertainty about the ability to manage these threats in the short term. However, withincreasing evidence of the links between anthropogenic impacts on nature and the spread of
zoonotic diseases such as coronavirus, the pandemic may generate new funding opportunities
to drive economic recovery based on green policies. These new windows of opportunity should
be used to leverage funding during the implementation of CEPF’s Phase III investments, which
also has the advantage of building on the gains made to date.

xv

CEPF Phase III Niche and Investment Strategy
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 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 theirsurvival.
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. Phase III continues CEPF support to the same four of the seven Andean countries:
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. It also aims to engage civil society groups working in the
hotspot of Venezuela, Chile and Argentina in virtual capacity buildng and networking. In the
short term, the niche seeks to support local communities to cope with the impacts of thepandemic and to stem environmental degradation in areas of high biodiversity value by
supporting secure land tenure, fostering sustainable livelihoods, and combating wildlife
trafficking and hunting. For the long term, CEPF will support sustainability and resiliency bysolidifying the technical and project management capacities of local civil society, diversifying
funding streams for conservation over the long term, and institutionalizing conservation
outcomes into public and private sector strategies and practice. 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 civil society organizations can add thegreatest value, and addresses gaps in the overall landscape of donor funding for conservation.
The biological basis for CEPF investment is provided by conservation outcomes: thequantifiable set of species, sites and corridors that must be conserved to curb loss of global
biodiversity. The conservation outcomes in the Tropical Andes were defined in the 2015
ecosystem profile and were updated in this profile to reflect new information on the status of
species, sites and corridors.
The list of species outcomes in the hotspot increased from 814 in 2015 to 1,451 in 2020,reflecting increases in the number of globally threatened species officially recognized on the
IUCN Red List. In Phase III, CEPF will support conservation actions to safeguard 183 CriticallyEndangered (CR) and Endangered (EN) species to prevent their extinction. These 183 species
are comprised of 82 amphibians, 32 birds, 11 mammals, 10 reptiles, 41 plants, and 7 fish.
Initiatives build on species-level advancements made in Phase II through the planning,
implementation, and institutionalization of species action plans for 70 species. Phase III
recognizes that species conservation plans and actions need to be further institutionalized tosustain and increase support for species conservation in the hotspot. It also recognizes thatconservation of amphibians and plants often require an approach based on the conservation ofentire genera to complement species-center approaches.
The CEPF niche calls for supporting conservation in seven conservation corridors that are home
to 52 of the 474 KBAs identified in the hotspot. The 52 prioritized KBAs cover 4.0 million
hectares, equivalent to 2.5% of the hotspot area. To enable investment by CEPF and otherfunders to be directed effectively, site outcomes were prioritized using standard criteria,
including urgency of conservation action and opportunity to enhance existing conservation
efforts. The 52 priority KBAs include hotspot’s most biologically diverse sites that have ademonstrated and significant need for CEPF support due to the presence of a substantial threat
but where conservation capacity remains insufficient. Here, civil society has the potential toxviaffect a meaning change through channeling CEPF investment for long-term conservation anddevelopment benefits.
The thematic priorities for conservation investment in the hotspot were defined through thestakeholder consultation process, based upon an analysis of the main threats to biodiversity inthe hotspot and their root causes. The overall ranking of threats did not change significantly
from that generated by the stakeholder consultations in 2015. In both exercises, the topranked threats and drivers were mining, agricultural encroachment, insecure land tenure,wildlife hunting and trafficking, illegal logging, colonization, and new infrastructure (mainly
roads and dams). Unlike in 2015, climate change was identified as the highest-ranking threat
to biodiversity in 2020.
To respond to these threats and help address some of 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. The strategy seeks to address
short-term conservation needs while putting the hotspot on the trajectory toward achievementof the hotspot long-term vision, to building local conservation capacity for civil society,securing more stable and diversified sources of funding, institutionalize conservation
outcomes, foster strong private sector engagement for conservation. The niche adopts fivecross-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; 3) strengthening of capacities
of indigenous peoples and local civil society; 4) fostering long-term financial sustainability; and5) contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation. Building on the multi-stakeholder
alliances established and strengthening in previous investments, Phase III fosters multisectoral collaboration between local communities, civil society, government, and the private
sector.
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 andsustainability over the long term. Although ambitious, the investment strategy is realistic, andrepresents an important opportunity to realize the potential of civil society in the hotspot, andto make a lasting contribution to the conservation of Tropical Andes’ unique and irreplaceablebiodiversity and ecosystem services of global importance, including for climate change
mitigation.
Table 1. CEPF's Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities for the Tropical Andes
Hotspot
Strategic directions
1. Strengthen protection
and management of 52
priority KBAs to foster
participatory governance,
green recovery fromCOVID-19, climate change
resilience, species
conservation, and financial
sustainability.

Investment Priorities
1.1 Facilitate the establishment, upgrading, and/or expansion of public andprivate 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 of indigenous
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.

xvii

2. In the seven priority
corridors, collaborate withpublic and private sector
stakeholders to enablebiodiversity conservation,a green recovery fromCOVID-19, andenvironmental, financial,and social sustainability, in
benefit of the priority
KBAs.

2.1 Support participatory land-use and development plans and governanceframeworks to foster a shared vision of conservation and sustainable
development to guide future investments.
2.2 Support the preparation of policies, programs, and projects that foster
biodiversity conservation, particularly at sub-national levels, and thatleverage funding for their implementation.
2.3 Support the dissemination and integration of the conservation
outcomes (threatened species, KBAs and corridors) in the strategic plansand 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 forecosystem services, carbon credits and compensation mechanisms.
2.5 Promote and scale up bio-enterprises to benefit
biodiversity, connectivity, and ecosystem services.

communities,

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, and support
partnerships to implement mitigation measures (assess, avoid, mitigate
and monitor impacts) in projects that present a risk to priority KBAs, with afocus on mining and infrastructure.
3.1 Prepare, implement, and institutionalize conservation action plans that
include climate change resilience for 183 critically endangered (CR) andEndangered (EN) species, and for select genera, presented in Appendix
13.3.
3.2 Support strategies and information campaigns to combat illegal wildlife
trafficking and hunting in the KBAs and conservation corridors.

4. Cultivate a highlytrained, well-coordinatedand resilient civil society
sector at the local,
corridor, and hotspot
levels to achieve CEPF'sconservation 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 throughshort-term courses to implement practical conservation actions based onan 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 and civilsociety networks to create conservation awareness among the public anddecision makers.
4.5 Strengthen the capacities and involvement of women in CEPF
initiatives.
4.6 Improve stakeholder cooperation and strengthen alliances, and foster
information exchange and lessons learned.

xviii

5. Provide strategic
leadership and effective
coordination of CEPF
investment through aregional implementationteam (RIT).

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

xix

1 INTRODUCTION
The Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot is one of 36 biodiversity hotspots in the world thattogether cover 16.7 percent of Earth’s land surface. Biodiversity hotspots contain at least
1,500 endemic plant species and have lost at least 70 percent of their natural habitat(Mittermeier et al. 2004). Six hotspots are located in Central and South America:
Mesoamerica, Tropical Andes, Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena, Atlantic Forest, Cerrado and Chilean
Winter Rainfall-Valdivian Forests. The Amazon High Biodiversity Wilderness Area is adjacent to
the Tropical Andes. The Tropical Andes Hotspot covers vast areas of Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia
and Peru and includes sections of Venezuela, Chile and Argentina (Figure 1.1). Its 158.3
million hectares exceed the area of France, Spain and Germany combined.
Diverse climates, complex geography and geology have given rise to the evolution of multiple
habitats and an extraordinary biological diversity that make the Tropical Andes Hotspot themost biodiverse hotspot in the world. Furthermore, the hotspot’s mountains, valleys andplateaus are home to 1,451 globally threatened species, which is one of the world’s highest
numbers of threatened species.
Founded in 2000, the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is designed to ensure civilsociety is engaged in biodiversity conservation with a holistic landscape ecology perspective.
CEPF is a joint initiative of l´Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International(CI), the European Union, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Government of Japan,
and the World Bank. CI administers the global program through the CEPF Secretariat.
CEPF is unique among funding mechanisms in that it focuses on the world's biodiversity
hotspots rather than on political boundaries and addresses conservation threats on a landscapescale. Within each hotspot, and depending on its particularities, CEPF can work at the corridor
level to ensure the protection of the key biodiversity areas (KBAs) that it contains.
CEPF promotes working partnerships among community-based organizations (CBOs), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), governments, academic institutions and the private
sector, combining unique capacities and eliminating duplication of efforts for a comprehensive
approach to conservation. CEPF seeks to bring about transboundary cooperation for areas ofhigh biological value that cross national borders or in areas where a regional approach may be
more effective than a national one.
CEPF has had two phases of investment in the Tropical Andes Hotspot:••

Phase I, from 2001 to 2006 including a consolidation phase from 2009 to 2013, with a
total investment of US$8.135 million through 67 projects. It targeted the VilcabambaAmboró Conservation Corridor of southern Peru and northern Bolivia, a 30-millionhectare swath of forested landscapes.
Phase II, from 2015 to 2021, with a total investment of US$9.5 million through 100
projects implemented by 65 civil society organizations. It aimed to conserve 36 KBAs inseven conservation corridors in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia.

Figure 1.1 Location of the Tropical Andes Hotspot

Six years have passed since the publication of the last ecosystem profile and in this time,
conditions in the region have changed. New species have been described, evaluated and added
to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species.
New KBAs have been defined, especially for reptiles and plants, with CEPF support. The
frequency and intensity of threats have changed, especially those exacerbated by the COVID19 pandemic. The region's political landscape is ever-changing, and its economies are not as2

healthy as in the previous investment period. All these factors have affected the context inwhich civil society works. In addition, investment in conservation is different, not only in termsof donors but also in terms of investment priorities. The analysis of the sum of these elements
has determined CEPF's investment strategy for the next period.
This ecosystem profile was updated through a participatory process. It was developed byanalyzing secondary information, consulting with experts, and engaging in discussions withgovernments and civil society organizations in the region through interviews, surveys, andnational and regional consultation workshops. To this end, 268 people contributed their timeand knowledge from July 2020 to March 2021 to realize this update of the Tropical Andes
ecosystem profile.

3

2 BACKGROUNDThis ecosystem profile contains an analysis of the social, environmental, economic, andpolitical conditions that influence biodiversity conservation in the hotspot. In addition, thisprofile defines the niche for CEPF's intervention and establishes the strategy that will guide
grantmaking in the Tropical Andes Hotspot between 2021 and 2026.
Three complementary processes supported the ecosystem profile update:•••

Between January and August 2020, Germany’s KfW and the CEPF Secretariat
conducted a strategic planning process focusing on Ecuador, in collaboration with
Ecuador's EcoCiencia Foundation and the Fundación Internacional para la Promocióndel Desarrollo Sustentable Futuro Latinoamericano (FFLA), which served as theEcuador Regional Implementation Team (RIT) for CEPF. This process involved
various consultations with Ecuadorian experts, government officials and otherstakeholders. KBAs and priority species eligible for funding were identified based on
an analysis that incorporated new plant and reptile species on the IUCN Red List and
KBAs. This process made it possible to prioritize the species, sites and corridors to be
funded. The results of this work for Ecuador have been integrated into thisecosystem profile update.
In July 2020, an alliance of five civil society organizations assumed leadership of theprocess to update the ecosystem profile for the hotspot. The alliance leader,
Pronaturaleza of Peru, worked closely with Panthera Colombia, Arcoiris of Ecuador,
Practical Action based in Peru and Bolivia, and BirdLife International in its role as
manager of the global KBA database on behalf of the KBA Partnership. The core teamcomprised 12 hotspot professionals specialized in a range of topics linked tobiodiversity in the Tropical Andes: Andean species, threats to biodiversity,
environmental policy, socioeconomics, civil society, climate change and conservation
investments.
From September 2020 and March 2021, Talking Transformation, a UK-based
company with extensive experience in the Andes, facilitated the development of along-term vision for the hotspot. The vision and supporting goals are intended toensure that civil society organizations have sufficient collective capacity and accessto resources in the medium and long-term to lead biodiversity conservation in the
Tropical Andes when CEPF concludes its engagement in the hotspot.

These three processes were rolled out in a coordinated manner. The civil society context,
niche and investment strategy sections of the profile, in particular, benefitted from thisinnovative, multi-pronged approach.

2.1 Information Compilation and Analysis
The compilation of information for the profile was carried out through two mechanisms:
research and analysis of secondary information, and consultations with stakeholders
through individual interviews, surveys, and consultation workshops.
The desk research involved the compilation and analysis of technical and scientific literature
on abiotic characteristics of the hotspot, biodiversity, threats to ecosystems, social,economic, political and civil society contexts in the hotspot, as well as an analysis of theconservation investment in the hotspot during the last five years. Information about the4socioeconomic, political and civil society contexts of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia
was gathered through 32 interviews with key actors in these countries.
Another source of primary information was a digital survey sent to key stakeholders in theseven countries that are part of the Tropical Andes Hotspot. The 146 respondents to thesurvey represented civil society, academia, national and subnational governments andindigenous communities. Survey results provided valuable information related to conservation
outcomes, KBAs, corridors, threats, civil society context, climate change, COVID-19 effects andKBA prioritization criteria. The analysis of this information was used to simulate dialogue at thenational workshops.

2.2 Stakeholder Consultation
The Pronaturaleza alliance organized four national consultation workshops and one regional
workshop, in which a total of 268 stakeholders from 103 non-governmental organizations,indigenous communities, universities, national and sub-national governments and donor
communities from Bolivia, Peru, Colombia and Ecuador participated (Table 2.1). Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the workshops were conducted virtually. The agenda of these workshops
included adjustments to the conservation corridors established in the previous profile and theprioritization of KBAs for funding. Issues related to the working environment of CSOs werediscussed in depth, along with CEPF's investment strategy. The duration of the national
workshops depended on the number of corridors and KBAs analyzed for prioritization. In Peru
and Bolivia, the workshops lasted one day; in Colombia one and a half days, while in Ecuador,
the event took half a day.
The consultations carried out in Ecuador by EcoCiencia included a series of virtual meetings toreview the prioritization of the KBAs that will receive funding and discuss and validate theinvestment strategy in the country.
Table 2.1. Stakeholder consultation schedule

1

WorkshopDate(s)Number ofparticipants1

National consultation in Ecuador*

May 22 to June 30, 202038

National consultation in Bolivia

October 5 and 6, 202015

National consultation in Peru

October 5 and 6, 202052

National consultation in Colombia

October 7 and 8, 202057

National consultation in Ecuador

October 19, 2020

42

Regional consultation

February 4, 2021

50

Does not include members of CEPF or the profiling team. * Carried out by EcoCiencia Foundation.

The updating process also received input from an external advisory committee established toprovide guidance and participate in key decisions during the profile update process. The
committee comprised three internationally recognized experts in environmental policy,socioeconomics, conservation planning and private sector participation in the Andes.

5

Finally, a virtual regional workshop was held to present, discuss and validate CEPF's
investment strategy in the Tropical Andes for Phase III. The consolidated version of theinvestment strategy was sent to participants in advance of the meeting, and their feedback
incorporated into the version of the document that was discussed during the regional event.

2.3 Donor Review and Approval
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 in April 2, 2021. Comments were incorporated and the
updated draft was reviewed by the Working Group in April 15, 2021. The final version of theecosystem profile was presented to the CEPF Donor Council on April 23, 2021 and no-objection
approval secured on June 10, 2021.

6

3 CEPF INVESTMENT IN THE TROPICAL ANDES HOTSPOT:OVERVIEW AND LESSONS LEARNED (2001 - 2021)
CEPF has invested in the Tropical Andes Hotspot in two previous investment phases, with
Phase I taking place from 2001 to 2013, and Phase II spanning 2015 to 2021. The proposed
third phase, which will be guided by the investment strategy set out in the updated ecosystemprofile, follows on the results and momentum built from the second investment phase. It is
critical, therefore, to thoroughly review the key results and impacts achieved in each
investment phase and to be guided by the lessons learned. Such a review permits thereinforcement and scaling up of effective conservation approaches in the third investment
phase, while also allowing for well-known bottlenecks to be avoided to the extent possible.
Chapter 3, therefore, highlights the results and lessons learned from CEPF’s experience in the
hotspot to provide additional context to CEPF’s future investment niche and strategy presented
in Chapters 12 and 13.

3.1 CEPF Investment Phase I (2001–2013)
The Tropical Andes Hotspot was among the first three regions selected by CEPF for investment
when the fund was established in 2001. The original ecosystem profile was developed in 2001
through a consultative process and desk study coordinated by the Bolivia and Peru country
programs of Conservation International (CI). CI hosted two consultation workshops to develop
the investment strategy. Consensus emerged on the need to create a conservation megacorridor, consisting of a mosaic of protected areas and reserves, to be managed as a cohesive
management unit. To achieve this vision, CEPF and partners adopted an ambitious landscapescale agenda that called for strengthening the Vilcabamba-Amboró Corridor, a 30-million
hectares swath of forest covering 20 percent of the entire hotspot and containing 16 large
protected areas in Bolivia and Peru. At the time, conservation efforts in the corridor were
nascent, and therefore laying the groundwork for long-term conservation action wasconsidered essential.
The CEPF investment strategy supported six strategic directions with an allocation of US$6.13
million over a five-year period from 2001 to 2006:
1. Establish effective mechanisms for cross-border coordination, collaboration, and catalytic
action in the Vilcabamba-Amboró Corridor.
2. Strengthen binational coordination of protected area systems.
3. Stimulate community conservation of biodiversity and the management of natural
resources.
4. Strengthen public awareness and environmental education.
5. Strengthen environmental policy and legal frameworks to mitigate the impacts ofextractive industries, transportation and infrastructure projects, and large-scale tourism.
6. Establish an electronic exchange of information and a coordinated mechanism for thecollection of information and data.
In 2009, three years after the close of Phase I grants, CEPF embarked on a so-called“consolidation” of Phase I investments as a response to the imminent completion of two majorroad projects: the Southern Inter-Oceanic Highway between Peru and Brazil and the Northern
Corridor Highway in Bolivia. The Inter-Oceanic Highway would be the first paved roadway
connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans in South America and would provide new access tomillions of hectares of intact tropical forests and indigenous territories for the first time. Bothroad projects spurred great controversy over fear that new access would fuel uncontrolled

7

colonization, mining, deforestation, land invasion and speculation, wildlife trafficking andhunting. In retrospect, these fears proved prescient, as the new roads and subsequentcolonization led to significant environmental degradation and social conflict in some parts ofthe corridor.
The Phase I consolidation strategy aimed to address high priority needs specifically targetingeight protected areas within the Tambopata - Pilón Lajas Conservation Corridor between Peru
and Bolivia that were the most vulnerable to the new threats introduced by the new roads.
With an allocation of US$2.185 million, CEPF funded four mutually-reinforcing investment
priorities:
1. Support civil society participation in development planning and implementation for the
Vilcabamba-Amboró Conservation Corridor, focusing on the Southern Inter-Oceanic andNorthern Corridor highways.
2. Support management improvements to mitigate the adverse impacts arising from
improved road access in the eight most vulnerable protected areas.
3. Support the establishment of sustainable financing mechanisms.
4. Support productive projects that maintain forest cover in areas of strategic value forcorridor-level connectivity.
Over the 12-year period of 2001 to 2013 of Phase I, CEPF approved 67 projects totaling
US$8.135 million. Mid-term and final assessments revealed that partners recognized that
CEPF’s contributions that brought new areas under formal protection and strengthened existing
protected areas were major accomplishments. Local partners were genuinely enthusiastic
about gaining a regional perspective and shaping 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 andcivil society organizations, bringing local and international missions and perspectives to thetable.
Results demonstrated strong value-for-money and conservation results of global impact:
•

•

•
•

More than 4.4 million hectares came under new protection with the declaration of nine
new national parks, indigenous reserves, private protected areas, and Brazil nut
concessions. Seventeen existing protected areas covering 9.9 million hectares cameunder improved management through the development of management plans,establishment of management committees, strengthened park management capacity,and improved infrastructure and equipment. These improvements allowed the coreareas 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, microenterprise development and sustainable coffee and cocoa projects reached 8,000
indigenous and mestizo communities while offering incentives to maintain biodiversity.
CEPF helped 130 Brazil nut gatherers to obtain land title and to sustainably manage
225,000 hectares of forest, vital for landscape connectivity, through grassroots
livelihoods projects compatible with biodiversity conservation.
Eleven multi-stakeholder alliances were established and/or strengthened, including
alliances to monitor the construction of the two highways, support improved protectedareas management, and undertake regional-level REDD+ policy development.
Civil society influenced eight policies and projects related to highway development, damplanning, gold mining, private protected areas, sustainable financing, logging

8

•

concessions, and REDD+. Community and stakeholder engagement offered new
approaches to engage local people in road development projects.
Development of new protocols that laid the basis for the declaration of Peru’s firstprivate conservation areas, which led to the country’s robust private protected network
to this day.

CEPF’s investments in the Tropical Andes provide a firm foundation and important lessons
upon which to launch a new investment phase in the Andes at this time. CEPF’s Donor Council
therefore directed the CEPF Secretariat to undertake a new ecosystem profiling process, onethat would expand its geographic coverage.

3.2 CEPF Investment Phase II (2015 – 2021)
Based on the hotspot’s strong performance and continuing threats and needs, CEPF donors
selected the Tropical Andes in 2014 for a new investment phase. CEPF selected NatureServe inpartnership with EcoDecisión to prepare the updated ecosystem profile. Eight stakeholder
consultations in the seven hotspot countries allowed more than 200 experts to provide input
into the ecosystem profiling process. The ecosystem profile was CEPF’s first profile in SouthAmerica to support the identification and adoption of KBAs to determine site priorities. In total,
the profiling process resulted in the identification of 442 KBAs and 814 globally threatened
species. To complement the KBA definition process, the profiling team also examined otherparameters critical to advancing the conservation agenda, such as the need to work with local
governments and the private sector, support for local environmental and indigenous CSOs, andopportunities to address major threats. Based on this consultative process, the CEPF Donor
Council approved the ecosystem profile in March 2015. The CEPF investment started in July
2015 with the recruitment of the RIT, which issued the first call for proposals in October 2015.
The CEPF investment niche called for building the capacity of indigenous, mestizo, andenvironmental civil society groups to implement multi-stakeholder approaches that promotebiodiversity conservation and sustainable development. The investment strategy targeted 36
KBAs covering 3.6 million hectares with exceptionally high biological diversity. These KBAs
were clustered in seven conservation corridors in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. CEPF
donors granted a US$10-million spending authority to implement seven strategic directions:
1. Improve protection and management of 36 priority KBAs to create and maintain local
support for conservation and to mitigate key threats.
2. Mainstream biodiversity conservation into public policies and development plans in sevencorridors to support sustainable.
3. Promote local stakeholder engagement and the integration of social and environmental
safeguards into infrastructure, mining and agriculture projects to mitigate potential
threats to the KBAs in the seven priority corridors.
4. Promote and scale up opportunities to foster private sector approaches for biodiversity
conservation to benefit priority KBAs in the seven corridors.
5. Safeguard globally threatened species.
6. Strengthen civil society capacity, stakeholder alliances and communications to achieve
CEPF conservation outcomes, focusing on indigenous, Afro-descendant and mestizo
groups.
7. Provide strategic leadership and effective coordination of CEPF investment through aregional implementation team.

9

3.2.1 Overview of Phase II Portfolio
To support the achievement of Phase II conservation outcomes and grant making, CEPF
worked with a three-member consortium comprised of two national environmental funds and aregional NGO as the Tropical Andes Regional Implementation Team (RIT): the Fund for the
Promotion of Peru's Natural Protected Areas (PROFONANPE) in Peru, the Natural Heritage
Biodiversity Fund and Protected Areas (Patrimonio Natural) in Colombia and Bolivia, and theLatin American Future Foundation (FFLA) in Ecuador. A team of eight professionals worked
together to undertake RIT’s core responsibilities in their respective countries and at a regional
level. These core functions are to build capacity of CEPF civil society partners, manage thesmall grants mechanism, facilitate large grants calls and monitoring, support portfolio-levelcommunications, and conduct donor and government outreach.
Table 3.1 shows CEPF funded 100 small and large grants totaling US$9,476,879 in Bolivia,
Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Funding obligations were highest for grants under Strategic
Direction 1 dedicated to KBA-level conservation, followed by grants dedicated to safeguarding
globally threatened species under Strategic Direction 5. While strengthening capacities of civilsociety under Strategic Direction 6 received the lowest direct allocation, it is noteworthy thatcapacity building and organizational development were integrated as a cross-cutting priority
across the entire portfolio. Eighty grants supported capacity building activities anddeliverables, and as described below, important results emerged.
Table 3.1 Phase II Grants Awarded from 2015 – 2021

Strategic Direction

Awarded Grants
No. ofTotal Value
Large
(US$)
GrantsNo. ofSmall
Grants

Total
GrantsAwarded

1. KBAs strengthening

3,840,432

30

2

32

2. Mainstreaming biodiversity

784,8218

3

11

3. Mitigation of key threats

611,287

4

0

4

4. Private sector support

800,9079

4

13

5. Species conservation

1,345,067

13

7

20

6. Civil society strengthening

586,8342

13

15

7. Regional Implementation Team

1,507,532

5

0

5

Total

9,476,879

71

29

100

Figure 3.1 shows that CEPF allocated grant funding relatively evenly across the four
countries, and that about five percent of funding was allocated to regional projects
benefiting all four countries.

10Figure 3.1 CEPF Investments by Country, 2015 – 2021

Hotspot; US$466,444;(5%)

Bolivia;
US$2,214,960; (23%)

Peru; US$2,332,454;(25%)

Colombia;
US$2,372,084;(25%)

Ecuador;
US$2,090,939;(22%)

Andean-based organizations featured prominently as grant recipients. Of the 65
organizations receiving CEPF funding, 55 groups were locally based organizations.
Figure 3.2 shows that Andean organizations received 75 percent of the funding andinternational groups with longstanding presence in the hotspot received 25 percent of
the funding.
Figure 3.2 CEPF Grant Funding Allocated to Local verses International
Organizations, 2015 - 2021

Internationalorganizations;
US$2,407,059( 25%)
Local andregionalorganizations;
US$7,069,821
(75%)

11

3.2.2

Summary of Results

The Phase II investment portfolio resulted in impacts on KBA and species conservationand civil society capacity building, as summarized in Table 3.2 and the following text.
Table 3.2 Phase II Portfolio Achievements
Portfolio Objective: Engage civil society in the conservation of globally threatened
biodiversity through targeted investments with maximum impact on the highest conservationand ecosystem services priorities
TargetAchievement
36 KBAs covering 3,399,016 hectares
have new or strengthened protection
and management.

Subnational governments in sevencorridors adopt and implement tools
for mainstreaming biodiversity
conservation into their land-use anddevelopment plans.
Eight indigenous and/or Afrodescendant territories and theircommunities under improved land
management and governance.

At least 20 partnerships and networks
formed and/or strengthened among
civil society, government, private
sector, and communities to leveragecomplementary capacities andmaximize impact.
At least 50 civil society organizations,
including at least 45 domesticorganizations, actively participate inconservation programs guided by the
ecosystem profile.
At least three private sectorbusinesses mainstream biodiversity
and ecosystem services, with a focus
on infrastructure, mining, andagriculture.

2.9 million under improved management. Of thisamount, 1.3 million are located within 26 KBAs and1.6 million are in KBA buffer zones and biologicalcorridors. A total of 26 new protected areas were
established covering 763,901 hectares. CEPF invested
in 32 KBAs covering 2,661,642 hectares. Investments
benefitted 59,861people in 294 communities.
Subnational governments in six conservation
corridors mainstreamed biodiversity conservation in
their land-use and development plans, establish newconservation areas and biological corridors, conserve
vital watersheds, formal establishment of watercommittees and funds.
Nine indigenous groups (Tsimané-Mosetene, Aymara,Awa, Quechuas, Embera, Shuar, Chachi, Awajún, andQueros) developed new tools and capacities resulting
in improved protection and management of theirterritories. Results included preparation and approvalof Planes de Vida (life plans) incorporating
biodiversity and climate change objectives, COVID-19
support, strengthened mechanisms for collaborativedecision making, upgraded project management andcommunications capacity, and capacity strengthening
for sustainable land management and monitoring,
including documentation of traditional knowledge.
100 networks and partnerships between civil society,government and the private sector created and/or
strengthened, in such areas as ecotourism, species
and site conservation, women’s empowerment, wateruser associations, and sustainable mining.
65 civil society organizations (55 local and nationalNGOs and 10 international NGOs) participate directly
and benefit from CEPF support in achievement ofconservation outcomes.
Three mining cooperatives in Bolivia adopt social andenvironmental best practices to prevent
environmental degradation in 3 KBAs.

12

Conservation attention focused on atleast 25 globally endangered species
to improve their threat status.

Three financing mechanisms or
programs integrate biodiversity
conservation and priority KBAs into
their programming
Tropical Andes ecosystem profile
influences and complements other
donors’ investment strategies.

3.2.3

73 IUCN globally Endangered and CriticallyEndangered species received direct conservation
attention, with actions including development andimplementation of species conservation plans;
incorporation of species conservation in protectedareas management plans; species assessments andinventories; and environmental education. Another213 species also received direct benefits, and 74
species new to science identified, totalling 360
species supported through CEPF projects.
Seven sustainable financing mechanisms established,including an environmental services compensationagreement in Colombia and three municipal water
funds that benefit KBA management in Bolivia.
CEPF's investments influenced and complemented
strategies with local and regional governments,
national ministries, the private sector, and donors(GEF small grants program, Andes Amazon Fund,
Rainforest Trust, Global Wildlife Trust, and the Moore
Foundation).

KBA New Protection and Management Improvements

The cornerstone of CEPF grant-making focused on achieving site-based conservation
improvements in 36 priority KBAs. In total, CEPF supported conservation activities in
32 KBAs covering 2,661,642 hectares. Phase II ended with management
improvements and the declaration of new protected areas in 2.9 million hectares, ofwhich 1.6 million hectares were located within 26 priority KBAs and 1.3 million
hectares were in their buffer zones or biological corridors. CEPF estimates that 59,861
people living in 294 communities across the far reaches of the hotspot, some located invery remote areas, derived direct benefits from these improvements. Fifty-three
percent of these beneficiaries were men, and 47 percent were women.
KBA improvements were achieved through a full gamut of actions, including approvalof new or updated protected area management plans, development of new
management plans for community participation in KBA management, agroforestry
projects that prevented encroachment into core conservation areas and that restored
degraded land. Projects generated livelihoods from coffee, cacao, and ecotourism, andpayments for ecosystems services provided communities with economic incentives forconservation. In addition, environmental awareness projects permeated the portfoliowith excellent results.
Several projects highlight CEPF’s contributions to improve KBA management. In
Bolivia, the Tsimané Mosetene Regional Council (CRTM) prepared a management planand plan de vida1 (life plan) for Pilón Lajas Biosphere Reserve. The project wasconsidered to be groundbreaking because it represented the first time in Bolivia thatleadership for updating of a national protected area management plan rested with alocal indigenous organization. The conservation of Serranía El Pinche KBA in Colombia
became a vehicle for bringing together former combatants when the Fundacion
Ecohabitats conducted environmental education, ecological restoration, and bird
watching training as an alternative livelihood to coca cultivation. And in Ecuador,
A Plan de Vida is a tool used by indigenous communities throughout the hotspot to support participatoryneeds assessments and community development strategies to fulfill local community cosmovisions.
113

Conservation International supported a new model for management planning based ona consultative approach to develop the management plan for Cotacachi-Cayapas
Ecological Reserve. The data that were compiled by CI helped the environment
ministry to upgrade KBA’s protection status to a full national park.
Several Phase II performance targets were exceeded. For example, CEPF grantees
helped get 26 new protected areas covering 763,901 hectares declared and gazetted,
exceeding the target of 220,000 hectares. Figure 3.3 shows the that new protectedareas in Ecuador accounted for 53 percent of total at 403,276 hectares. Most new
protected areas were declared by sub-national governments and were often linked tothe conservation of watersheds, such as in the case of the 108,959-hectare Íntag
Toisán ACUS in Ecuador and the 6,212-hectare Reserva de Agua y Conservación deEcosistemas Montanos – Río Negro in Bolivia. CEPF grantee La Planada provided
technical assistance to Awa indigenous authorities and to leverage new funding that
resulted in the declaration of the 2,000-hectare Reserva Natural de la Vida Awá Hector García in Colombia. CEPF also helped land come under national protection
status, such as in the case of the 33,697-hectare Parque Nacional Río Negro Sopladora
in Ecuador.
Figure 3.3: Land Under New Protection in Phase IIPeru;
138,772hectares

Bolivia;
155,782
hectares
Ecuador;403,276
hectares
Colombia;
66,071 hectares

In addition, CEPF improved management of 205,604 hectares of productive
landscapes, exceeding the 100,000-hectare target. Such projects linked toconservation incentives and small business ventures, such as ecotourism, sustainable
coffee, payments for ecosystem services and conservation agreements. For example,
in Peru, the company Shiwi worked closely with the honey and sugar producers of theprivate reserve network, Red de Conservación Voluntaria de Amazonas (RED AMA) andSociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental (SPDA) to develop and implement a businessand marketing plan for these sustainably produced products. The effort helped to
improve sales by 99 percent for local producers, leading to a 46 percent increase inrevenues. With RED AMA and SPDA, an ecotourism development plan was developedand implemented, and new tourism routes designed and promoted for private

14protected areas and areas of high cultural value. Hospitality training increased thecapacity of 95 men and women, to the point that tourism increased by a factor of six.
3.2.4

Safeguarding Threatened Species

Species conservation also figured prominently in Phase II. Figure 3.4 shows that 73 CriticallyEndangered (CR) or Endangered (EN) species benefitted directly from CEPF funding, exceeding
the target of 25 species, through development and implementation of species conservation
action plans, integration of species conservation into protected areas management plans, andfield work to assess species presence, population status, habitats and breeding. Grantees
estimate that another 213 species also benefited from CEPF projects through field research andspecies conservation plans. CEPF partners registered an astounding 74 new species to science,
which resulted in scientific publications for 23 species. I total, CEPF projects directly supported
360 species. Furthermore, CEPF funded the first Red Listing of the Tropical Andes plants,
enabling the listing of 614 species of the hotspot’s most emblematic plants on the global
conservation agenda.
Species action plans translated into direct community mobilization. For example, Aves yConservación established a community women’s group to reforest degraded land with trees thatprovide habitat for the Critically Endangered Black-breasted Puffleg (Eriocnemis nigrivestis). The
Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja in Ecuador identified an impressive 27 amphibians species
in Abra de Zamora KBA, 12 species believed to be new to science. The findings led theMunicipality of Loja to designate the site as a municipal reserve.
Figure 3.4. Number of CR and EN Species by Taxa Benefiting Directly in Phase
II, (Total = 73 species)
Plants;5

Mammals;1

Amphibians;
38

Birds;
29

3.2.5

Civil Society Capacity Building

CEPF funded 65 organizations either directly or as sub-grantees, of which 55 groups wereAndean based and 10 groups were international organizations with longstanding presence in the
hotspot. Reflecting Phase II’s strong focus on institutional strengthening and capacity building,15

80 percent of all grants included at least one or more deliverables related to organizational
development, capacity building and/or alliance building of one or more local institutions. CEPF
supported development of organizational strategic plans, fundraising plans and financial
manuals, communication strategies, upgraded websites and financial systems, to name a few ofthese activities.
To monitor the results of its capacity building investments, CEPF required local organizations tocomplete the Civil Society Capacity Tracking Tool (CSTT) at the beginning and end of CEPF
support. Figure 3.5 shows that of the 47 local organizations that completed the CSTT, 39
institutions (83 percent) reported at least maintaining or increasing their CSTT score over theperiod of CEPF support. Eight organizations (17 percent) report a decrease in their CSTT score.
Figure 3.5. Grantees with Maintained and/or Increased Institutional Capacity

16

14

14

15

93%
13

12
10

100%

87%
13

80%

8

8

8
6

80%
70%

10
63%

90%

60%
50%
40%

5

30%

4

20%

2

10%

0

0%
Bolivia

Colombia

Ecuador

Perú

Number of CSOs with CSTT baseline and final evaluation
Number of CSOs with maintained or improved capacity
Percent of CSOs with maintained or improved capacity

A total of 10,117 people received formal training, which focused on project andfinancial management and on technical areas. Furthermore, the RIT organized grantee
exchanges to facilitate learning between organizations. RIT and CEPF mentoring of
grantees in a variety of subjects related to project design and management also
figured prominently.
Once COVID-19 entered the hotspot in early March 2020, CEPF helped grantees andlocal communities adapt to the lock-downs. CEPF covered costs related to promoting
community understanding of COVID-19 prevention strategies, including the productionof radio programs, printing of flyers and planned public health training workshops, inSpanish and local indigenous languages. Grantees purchased supplies and equipment
for their offices to prevent the transmission of the virus and to help with food supplies
and farming inputs for community to cover their need to produce food locally.
A small grant to Consultora BYOS and the Simón Bolívar Andean University funded athree-month virtual course in mid-2020, at the height of COVID-19 restrictions, to16

build capacity in project design and management. Demand to attend the course washigh. More than 100 people from 52 organizations participated in the course, which
provide to be a very well received approach to enhance project management capacity
and to support fund raising at a time when most people were forced to work fromhome.
The unveiling of CEPF’s gender policy in 2016, launch of the Gender Tracking Tool
(GTT) in 2017 and publication of the Gender Toolkit in 2018 increased awareness andcapacity of Andean grantees regarding the importance of integrating genderconsiderations into their own policies and practices. Figure 3.6 shows that of the 44
organizations that completed a baseline and final GTT assessment, 27 organizations(61 percent) experienced an improvement of at least one point on the 20-point scale.
Seventeen grantees experienced improvement between one to five points, although
ten groups demonstrated more significant improvements from six to twenty points.
Figure 3.6. Grantees with Maintained and/or Increased Capacity for
Integrating Gender in Organizational Policies and Practices

17

18
15

16
14
12
10

8

8
6
4

2

2

2

0

0
Number of Organizations
Negative0

1–5

6 – 10

11 – 15

16 – 20

Change in GTT score (Maximum points = 20)

3.2.6

Alliance Building and Multi-sectoral Partnerships

CEPF supported the establishment and/or strengthening of 100 local, national andregional alliances to foster collaboration on a variety of conservation objectives. Many
alliances were dedicated to supporting local conservation efforts. For example, at
CEPF’s encouragement, nine local organizations formed the Bosque de San Antonio
round table in Colombia which resulted in a joint effort to develop and implement thestrategic plan and sustainable management plan that CEPF helped to fund and thatleveraged additional resources for implementation. Preparation and implementation ofan ecotourism strategy for Kosñipata-Carabaya KBA in Peru led by the Frankfurt
Zoological Society resulted in 52 ecotourism operators establishing a formal
association to strengthen their services and marketing efforts. In Bolivia, the Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS) efforts to reduce the impacts of mining in three protected17

areas located in the Madidi-Pilón Lajas-Cotapata Corridor led to the establishment of
the Inter-Institutional Working Group on Mining, comprised of 14 organizations
working together to generate information, awareness and improved policies to promotebetter environmental and social practices for mining in Bolivia. WCS’s expertise insustainable mining served as the basis for creating an alliance of conservation groups
across the four CEPF priority countries to develop a regional mining strategy in thepriority corridors.
Other alliances brought CEPF grantees together based on the geographic clustering of
CEPF grants. For example, grantees in Colombia started working together early inPhase II to collaborate on implementing their CEPF grants, to sponsor joint capacity
building activities, to share their communications and conservation products and toundertake site visits to exchange lessons learned and best practices. Collaboration also
occurred frequently between Ecuadorian and Colombian grantees along the bi-national
border area. In Bolivia, a project dedicated to building environmental communications
capacity brought CEPF Bolivian grantees together to reinforce their capacity incommunications. These alliances helped grantees take advantage of different
experiences and capacities available within the CEPF partnership, therefore creating
efficiencies and optimizing the impacts of various grants.
Taken together, the achievements of Phase I and II in Tropical Andes contributed to 12of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD’s)
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.

3.3 Lessons Learned from Participatory Assessments
3.3.1 Lessons Learned from Phase I (2001 – 2013)
CEPF Phase I investment in the Tropical Andes established an immensely important
foundation for conservation in a 30-million hectares corridor in Peru and Bolivia whereconservation actions were nascent and operated in isolation of one another. New legal
protection of over 4.4 million hectares and improved management of 9.9 million
hectares lay testament to the highly favorable operating environment for conservationin the hotspot in the 2000s. Phase I led to significant conservation impacts that remain
to this day. The new capacities, policies and conservation tools endure, though thegreat threats described in Chapter 6 remain.
Lessons learned from Phase I were obtained through several assessments workshopswith grantees and were incorporated into the 2015 ecosystem profile, with the aim of
consolidating and amplifying successful models into new sites and corridors, to expand
CEPF funding as well into Colombia and Ecuador. Highlights of the lessons learned inPhase I are as follows.
•

Phase I investments laid a critically important foundation for conservation in anenormous corridor that harbored areas of high biological and cultural value. The
declaration of new protected areas and strengthening of existing sites werecritical advances within an overall strategy to safeguard some of the largest andbest-preserved sites within the hotspot from immediate threats. The advances,
however, required reinforcement to ensure they could be sustained over thelong term. CEPF partners recognized that priority sites remained highly
vulnerable to development policies that encouraged new colonization,
agricultural conversion and mining. Continental-scale development projects in

18

•

•

•

•

the way of construction of new frontier roads, dams and major water diversion
schemes, and the awarding of mining concessions with weak environmental andsocial oversight, posed existential threats to these sites and their richbiodiversity and cultures. CEPF partners therefore urged the need to reinforce
the important foundation that was laid in Phase I.
Partners highlighted the critical role of strengthening civil society in the hotspot
at two levels. At the grassroots level, partners urged CEPF to focus on building
coalitions and alliances to further engage local environmental, campesino andindigenous civil society groups. They advised building the capacity of Andean
CSOs to support their role as the long-term stewards and managers of theseimportant sites. At the policy level, partners urged forging collaboration with
sub-national governments, because decision-making authority for natural
resources management was in the process of being decentralized to local
governments, which often lack basic capacity or funding to fulfill their new
responsibilities. CSOs technical knowledge and experience could help tomainstream biodiversity and ecosystem services into local and regional policy
frameworks and projects.
CEPF’s investments strengthen existing conservation initiatives, supported newones and generated a wealth of experience and innovative tools. Stakeholders
recommended that these experiences and tools be replicated in other parts of
the hotspot where CEPF’s unique support to CSOs was vitally needed to tackle
existing and emerging conservation challenges.
The ecosystem profile, and particularly the focused nature of the investment
strategy, was an innovation for grant making in the hotspot that stakeholders
viewed as a major strength. Partners recommended that CEPF adopt targeted
conservation outcomes and indicators in future investment strategies.
Because conservation funding for threatened species was very scarce,
participants recommended expanding CEPF’s investment strategy to include
species conservation.

3.3.2 Lessons Learned from Phase II (2015 – 2021)
CEPF conducted two formal assessments in Phase II. In March 2019, 88 participants
representing grantees, governmental partners, donors, the RIT, members of advisorycommittees, and the Secretariat met in Quito for three days. Together they reviewed
the progress achieved, identified key challenges, remaining gaps, and future priorities
to guide grant-making for the duration of the investment period. In January 2021,
more than 150 people met virtually for the final assessment to discuss the key
achievements, challenges encountered, lessons learned and recommendations for
future grant making in the hotspot. Highlights of the conclusions and lessons learned
from these meetings are as follows.
Based on these assessments, Andean civil society community members expressed
their enthusiastic support for CEPF in the hotspot. Grantees agreed that the Phase II
portfolio elevated CEPF’s investments to a new level by supporting conservation
actions across seven conservation corridors in 32 KBAs in four countries and in newthematic areas. CEPF made a concerted effort to target support to Andean-based
environmental and indigenous CSOs, to solidify grassroots and regional conservation
capacity, in sites where conservation funding was often scarce and even non-existent.
The portfolio raised awareness for globally threatened species and KBAs that
previously were not on anyone’s conservation agenda. CEPF helped cultivate multi-

19sectoral alliances involving CSOs, communities, local governments, small private
enterprises and indigenous communities to develop and implement well aligned andcoordinated conservation and development agendas. Support to indigenous
communities resulted in their strengthened capacities and innovative governancemodels that put indigenous communities in leadership roles for conservation planningand implementation.
While CEPF helped to achieve a great deal and to generated excellent momentum inPhase II, unprecedented challenges that impacted the portfolio profoundly where
encountered. Two challenges in particular shaped the portfolio in unexpected ways.
First, CEPF’s initial optimism brought about by the historic 2016 peace accords in
Colombia soon vanished as security concerns involving violent groups who put
environmentalists and indigenous leaders (including CEPF grantees) in danger, soon
emerged. While the violence was the worst in Colombia, grantees in Peru and Ecuador
also reported threats that put them in peril. As an immediate result of the security
concerns, CEPF refrained from investing in two large KBAs, Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta and Munchique Sur. In addition, CEPF and the RIT worked with several grantees
on risk-reduction strategies, that included improvements in equipment forcommunications and territorial monitoring. CEPF funded an overall strategy to reducerisk for Colombian environmental and indigenous defenders, and helped establish acoalition of Colombian groups dedicated to supporting at risk environmental andindigenous defenders. By the end of Phase II, these investments paid dividends:
security improved in some sites, thereby reducing immediate risks to CEPF grantees
and communities.
The second challenge reflected the significant disruptions caused by COVID-19
throughout the hotspot, as described in this profile. For CEPF grantees, field visits,
meetings and consultations stopped abruptly in March 2020 for the remainder of theportfolio and left pending deliverables incomplete. In Bolivia, for example, ACEAA
postponed final community consultations required to secure community approval of the
Cotapata National Park management plan, an effort started in 2018. Pronaturalezasuspended implementation of the last steps required to obtain formal protection of
Kosñipata-Carabaya KBAs in Peru, a goal started in 2017. And Asociación Armonia
halted scheduled site visits to indigenous communities, which were required to develop
a bird tourism strategy for the Madidi-Cotapata-Pilon Lajas Conservation Corridor.
CEPF and partners were, therefore, forced to reconfigure their grants, extend deadlines
and/or provide emergency support to local communities who went into strict lockdowns
or who lacked access to basic information on how to prevent the transmission of
COVID-19 in their local indigenous language, as summarized in an article on CEPF’s
website https://www.cepf.net/stories/conservation-time-covid-19.
Despite the challenges, Andean CSOs demonstrated remarkable flexibility, creativity,
and resilience. By working from their homes and conducting meetings virtually, several
grantees made important advances. Nature and Culture International (NCI), forexample, worked remotely with Ecuador’s environment and water ministry to draft
guidelines that legally established the Sangay Podocarpus Biological Conservation
Corridor in July 2020, a 566,000-hectare biological corridor that connects Sangay
National Park in central Ecuador with Podocarpus National Park in the south. CEPF and
the RIT also worked from remote locations. Even the final assessment for Phase II was
conducted virtually, enabling 150 people from six countries to participate.

20

While the Andean conservation community learned to work remotely to the extent
possible, the crisis also revealed the fragility of many Andean NGOs. The lack ofunrestricted funds and heavy dependence on international donors to cover staff
salaries and operating costs meant any slowdown of conservation funding would havesignificant impacts on the welfare of conservationists and conservation NGOs. Travel
restrictions also meant that conservation NGOs became cut off from their partner
communities and sites that often lacked access to communications infraestructure.
Some CEPF partners expressed concern about the possible backsliding of hard-won
conservation gains due to the pandemic.
CEPF’s experience has yielded several lessons learned that have important implications
for Phase III investments:
•

•

•

•

Despite the threats in Colombia, a key lesson learned was that local
environmental and indigenous CSOs remained well positioned to continue
working with communities on conservation and sustainable development
activities. Communities viewed CEPF grantees positively as allies helping to
improve their quality of life. Some projects brought former enemies together toachieve common conservation goals. Colombian grantees forged close ties andcollaborated on implementing their projects and helped CEPF’s strategy tosupport local community groups proved successful in working in areas that
confronted episodic conflicts.
COVID-19 and the economic downswing exposed the vulnerable state offinances for conservation in the Tropical Andes. Several national environmental
ministries encountered significant budget and staffing cuts, making the role ofcivil society organizations ever more important to lead environmental andsustainable development efforts throughout the hotspot. Civil society
organizations remained highly dependent on a limited number of donors,
including on CEPF. A lesson learned is that CSOs concerned with conservationneed to diversify their funding sources beyond governmental budget allocations
and international donors, to more stable and longer-term financing mechanismsthat can tap into other funding streams, particularly those based on payments
for ecosystem services and nature climate solutions. CEPF stands in a good
position to help CSOs undergo this transformation.
Phase II demonstrated that Andean civil society groups generally lackexperience and capacity to work with private sector companies. While
opportunities may exist for working on corporate social responsibility, Andean
environmental groups demonstrated limited experience in engaging with theprivate sector beyond small and medium sized businesses. Given the criticalrole that the private sector plays in influencing the course of development in the
hotspot, 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.
Partners recognize that the Andean operating environment is complex, and thescale of the hotspot’s needs and challenges is immense. CEPF helped lay a solid
foundation for establishing new protected areas, and for piloting projects thatlinked sustainable livelihoods and conservation. To promote the sustainabilityof CEPF-funded initiatives, more focus needs to be devoted to institutionalize
conservation plans and actions within the policies and programs of local
governments, other donors and the private sector.

21

3.3.3 Independent Evaluation of Lessons Learned by the RIT in Phase II
CEPF commissioned an independent evaluation on the RIT from November 2020 toMarch 2021 led by the consultant Hugo Arnal. The purpose of the evaluation was toinform the selection of an RIT for the next phase of investment by evaluating theperformance of the incumbent RIT organizations; review the benefits the design offuture RIT proposals through the lessons learned from this evaluation regarding the
programmatic and management approaches of the incumbent RIT organizations; andinform the preparation of the update to the ecosystem profile by documenting thechallenges and opportunities encountered by the RIT. The evaluation methodology
consisted of desk research and virtual interviews with 57 people representing 37 CEPF
partner organizations, RIT staff and members of the CEPF Secretariat. The evaluation
report provided an analysis of the performance and challenges encountered in each of
the four countries that CEPF supported in Phase II.
The evaluation report states its most important finding to be a reconfirmation of theimportance of the work promoted and supported by CEPF and the RIT. The reportnotes that CEPF is considered among the most relevant funding facilities forconservation and civil society in the hotspot, and partners value highly the support
CEPF and RIT staff. Overall, the RIT evaluation finds the performance of the RIT to be
excellent. Efforts undertaken to overcome several performance limitations described
below and to strengthen stakeholder coordination and local capacity were highly
praised. Also, the capacity of the CEPF Secretariat to work and coordinate with threedifferent organizations forming the Tropical Andes RIT was recognized.
The evaluation identified several performance factors relevant to CEPF’s investment
strategy:••

Security Threats in Colombia. As mention previously, CEPF was not able toinvest in two KBAs, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and South Munchique, due tosecurity threats posed by armed groups. The evaluation noted that more than
450 environmental activists and human right defenders had been killed since
January 2016 in Colombia, including more than 121 indigenous leaders sinceAugust 2018. Assassinations to Colombian environmental and indigenous
leaders was the worst in the world in 2019.
Political unrest in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. The evaluation noted significant
performance factors related to episodic rioting and nationwide strikes in 2019and 2020, which brought virtually all activities in these countries to a standstill
and impacted local and national economies significantly. In Bolivia in October
2019, charges of election fraud in presidential elections caused five weeks ofviolent clashes. New strikes arose as well in August 2020. Also, in October
2019, activities were suspended in Ecuador for several weeks when widespread
strikes broke out in opposition to the president’s attempt to eliminate subsidies
on fossil fuels. Since 2018, Peru has been embroiled in a broad-based corrupt
scheme stemming from the bribery of high-level officials by the giant Brazilian
construction firm Odebrecht (which built the Inter-Oceanic Sur highway
mentioned previously in this chapter). Scandals plagued four of the country’s
presidents since 2018 and helped to trigger in November 2020 the strongest
protests in the country in more than two decades.
This political turmoil in three of the four priority countries exacted a heavy tollon the national economies and their executive branches. Environmental

22

ministries and parks management agencies were significantly weakened byfrequent management changes, major budget cuts and high staff turnover,particularly in Ecuador and Bolivia. The staff turnover at the environmental
ministries hampered CEPF’s ability to coordinate closely with the government,
including in some protected areas.
•

COVID-19 Pandemic. The pandemic profoundly impacted the Tropical Andes
Hotspot, inclusive of the hotspot’s conservation and development NGOs, as
described in Chapter 6. A survey of CEPF grantees in the hotspot found thatover 80 percent of respondents canceled up to 25 percent of their deliverables.
Nearly 90 percent of respondents observed an increase in the economic
vulnerability of local community, and 50 percent experienced a drop in theirown conservation activities. More than half the partners reported a reduction of
governmental capacity to manage their protected areas and natural resources.

The RIT evaluation identifies 35 lessons learned and recommendations which theprofiling team reviewed and integrated into the Phase III investment strategy, severalof which are highlighted below:
1. Identify and appoint to serve as the RIT for Bolivia an organization with alongstanding in-country presence and demonstrated knowledge of the local
environmental and socio-political context.
2. Building on demonstrated capacity, increase efforts to develop alliances andcontribute to building better public policies.
3. Promote payments for ecological services schemes as means to support
biodiversity conservation and local community livelihood.
4. Develop a public-access repository to the various reports and other products
generated with CEPF support.
5. Through a bottom-up approach that engages partners, improve impact
monitoring from CEPF investment, particularly with respect to species,
community benefits and sites with improved management.
6. Through a bottom-up approach that engages partners, develop acommunications strategy to raise environmental awareness for public, authorities
and political leaders, and to demonstrate the collective power of the CEPF
community.
The complete evaluation report can be found on CEPF’s website:
https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/tropical-andes-lessons-learned-2021.pdf.

3.3.4 Recommendations from the Long-term Vision Exercise
CEPF undertook a long-term vision (LTV) exercise for the Tropical Andes Hotspot
between September 2020 and March 2021 through a consultancy with the UK-based
firm Talking Transformation Ltd. The purpose of the long-term vision is to inform
decision making about the duration and types of investments that CEPF needs to makeover the next 20 years, in order to reach a point at which it can leave the hotspot withconfidence that effective biodiversity conservation programs will continue in a selfsustaining manner. To this end the long-term vision defines specific criteria and targets
related to the following five conditions:23

1. Global conservation priorities and best practices for their management are
documented, disseminated and used by public and private sector, civil society
and donor agencies to guide their support for conservation in the region.
2. Local civil society groups (i.e., national, sub-national and grassroots
organizations) dedicated to global conservation priorities collectively possess
sufficient organizational and technical capacity to be effective advocates for, andagents of, conservation and sustainable development, while being equal partners
of private sector and government agencies influencing decision making in favorof sustainable societies and economies.
3. Adequate and continual financial resources are available to address conservationof global priorities.
4. Public policies, the capacity to implement them and private sector businesspractices are supportive of the conservation of global biodiversity.
5. Mechanisms exist to identify and respond to emerging conservation challenges.
In the Tropical Andes, the exercise entailed synthesis of secondary information and aseries of workshops and interviews involving over 100 local stakeholders. The LTV
exercise was coordinated with the preparation of this ecosystem profile. The
participatory nature of the ecosystem profiling process and its in-depth data andsituational analysis helped to contextualize the LTV analysis. The overlap of bothplanning efforts provided an opportunity for the ecosystem profiling team and theconsultations to assume longer-term strategic thinking to orient the priorities of thePhase III investment strategy.
The LTV presents a theory of change for biodiversity conservation and for graduationfrom CEPF support to clarify those aspects of conservation over which civil society canhave an influence. Given the importance and immense size of the hotspot and thescale of the threats it faces, the LTV team identified 13 priorities and corresponding
targets that CEPF and other funders should support to achieve transformative change
as envisioned for CEPF graduation. The LTV suggests a pathway for the hotspot’s
graduation from CEPF support in two stages between 2021 to 2040.
Stage one covers 2021 to 2030 and aims to enable CSOs to build their capacities
individually and especially collectively through a broad range of alliances and regional
networks. The LTV calls for CEPF to help address the severe financial problems that
CSOs confront, which are highly debilitating at a time when society needs
environmental CSOs the most. The LTV advocates that CEPF help CSOs access andeffectively use funding from new financial flows mainly from climate change and theshift towards green development. The LTV advances the need for CSOs to develop new
relationships with the business and finance sectors as well.
In addition, the LTV regards strengthened communications as essential to increase
public support for conservation and for building CSO capacity and credibility to
influence governments and industry. In parallel, the LTV recommends continuing
efforts to address the immediate, critical threats to biodiversity in ways that contributeto larger transformational change to influence the environmental performance of key
industries. The LTV recommends building a portfolio of field projects that includes cocreated, landscape-scale and multi-actor projects involving biodiversity and ecosystemservices-friendly productive activities by communities and businesses.
Recommendations from the long-term vision are incorporated into the ecosystemprofile in the CEPF niche (Chapter 12) and investment strategy (Chapter 13). Because24the investment strategy covers a five-year period, which is a shorter period than thelong-term vision, not all recommendations are included in the investment strategy. The
complete report on the long-term visit can be found on CEPF’s website.

25

4 BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE HOTSPOT
4.1 Geography
The Andes Mountains are divided into the northern, central and southern ranges. These ranges
are the result of tectonic processes that have taken place over several geological periods. The
southern cordillera, located between Argentina and Chile, is the oldest, with its rise beginningapproximately 50 million years ago during the Early Paleogene period. The northern andcentral cordilleras, known as the Tropical Andes, are relatively more recent, with uplift
occurring 20 million to 25 million years ago during the Miocene and Pliocene epochs. They
extend from western Venezuela and northern Colombia to the border between Bolivia,
Argentina and Chile (Clappertone 1993; Josse et al. 2009; Cuesta et al. 2012b).
The Tropical Andes is located between latitudes 11°N and 27°S, covering an area that includes
Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and the tropical portions of northern Argentina
and Chile. It has not only a wide latitudinal range but tremendous altitudinal variation as well.
The elevation of the Tropical Andes goes from 500 m to over 6,000 m above sea level, except
for the northern part in Venezuela, where it reaches almost sea level. Its western border ismarked by the eastern edge of the Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena Hotspot and the arid ecoregionof the Atacama-Sechura Desert. The border of the Tropical Andes in this vast area rises to
1,000 m above sea level or even higher (Mittermeier et al. 2004). The Tropical Andes has
extraordinary biological, geological, and climatic diversity. It is also culturally diverse. With
nearly 10 million indigenous people belonging to dozens of different ethnic communities
throughout the region, it can be considered the indigenous heartland of South America (Cuvi2013).
The hotspot covers more than 158 million hectares, an area three times the size of Spain.
Rugged peaks and wide valleys characterize the entire cordillera, along with steep slopes anddeep ravines, some of which have elevation differences of several thousand meters, like theColca Canyon in southern Peru. A vast high mountain plain, the altiplano, extends to altitudes
above 3,500 m through much of southern Peru and western Bolivia. This geological complexity
combines with different climates caused by steep altitudinal gradients to create a diversity of
ecosystems. The tree line extends from 3,800 m to 4,500 m above sea level near the equatorand above 4,500 m in the approach to the hotspot's southern boundary (CEPF 2015).
The topography of the Tropical Andes includes huge geological structures that influence air
circulation and hydrological regimes throughout South America (Young 2012). The wide varietyof ecological conditions, driven by differences in altitudes, microclimates and soil formation,
generates multiple biophysical conditions and a very diverse biota rich in endemism or
particularly restricted in distribution (Young 2012; Cuesta et al. 2012b; Weingend et al. 2005).
Thus, the Tropical Andes contains the most extreme ranges of landscape types, climates, andplant communities in the world and is considered one of the richest and most biologicallydiverse regions on Earth (Myers et al. 2000; Mittermeier et al. 2011).
In the north, the hotspot begins in Venezuela with a chain of small geologically distinct
mountains that border the northern coast of South America. The hotspot extends to the eastand south at the northern end of the Andes range where two branches occur on Venezuela'sborder with Colombia, the Cordillera de Mérida and the Cordillera de Perijá. In Colombia, theAndes divide into three ranges that stem from a massif located at 2°N latitude and areseparated by two valleys running from south to north. The Magdalena Valley separates theCordillera Oriental from the Cordillera Central, and the Cauca Valley separates Cordillera
Central and the Cordillera Occidental. The Cordillera Oriental, where the capital city of Bogota
is located, is the broadest of the three ridges. The Cordillera Central is the highest of the three26

and contains several active volcanoes, some of which are partially covered by snow. The
narrow and relatively low Cordillera Occidental borders the northern portion of the TumbesChocó-Magdalena Hotspot. The Tropical Andes Hotspot includes the isolated Sierra Nevada deSanta Marta mountain range on Colombia's Caribbean coast. With its summit at 5,700 m
elevation, this massif is the world's highest coastal mountain (CEPF 2015; Carvajalino 2018).
Its geological origin is independent of, but contemporary to, the Andes.
From southern Colombia to latitude 3°S in Ecuador, the Andes comprise two parallel, northsouth oriented mountain chains, the Cordillera Oriental and the Cordillera Occidental, that form
a narrow (150-180 km wide) 600 km-long range (Clapperton 1993; Josse et al. 2012). The
two cordilleras of the Ecuadorian Andes are joined by a series of inter-Andean valleys atelevations greater than 2,000 m above sea level (CEPF 2015).
In southern Ecuador and northern Peru, the Andes form an intricate mosaic of mountainsystems, some of them running from north to south and others from east to west. Here, at the
Chinchipe River's confluence with the Marañon and Huancabamba Rivers, the Andes become
lower in elevation and drier (Josse et al. 2009). The Porculla Pass, in the Huancabamba
Depression (6°S, 2,145 m above sea level), defines the limit between the northern andsouthern portions of the Tropical Andes (Weingend 2004; Weingend et al. 2005). South of thedepartment of Cajamarca in Peru, the Marañon Valley separates the Cordillera Central and theCordillera Occidental. The Cordillera Central is continuous and lower than the Cordillera
Occidental, where peaks reach higher than 6,000 m above sea level (CEPF 2015).
The two cordilleras converge near Lake Junin in central Peru. From here, south to La Paz,
Bolivia, the Tropical Andes is continuous and high, with no mountain pass lower than 4,000 m
above sea level. The Cordillera Oriental and Cordillera Occidental flank the altiplano ofsouthern Peru and Bolivia. This area comprises wide, internally drained plains with large lake
complexes.
The southern limit of the hotspot is in northern Argentina and northern Chile. It includes
several isolated areas in a complex of cordilleras and valleys between 2,000 m and 4,000 m
elevation. Here the hotspot borders the extremely arid Atacama Desert to the west and the
Chaco woodlands to the east and south. To the south, the temperate forests of the Chilean
Andes are considered a different hotspot, called the Chilean Winter Rainfall and Valdivian
Forests.
The Tropical Andes Hotspot encompasses the headwaters of some of the world's mostimportant river systems as well as notable lake and marsh environments. The western slopesof the Andes drain into the Pacific Ocean and the northern slopes into the Caribbean Sea. The
eastern Andes drain into the Amazon, Orinoco and Paraguay rivers (Young 2012). Most of theseasonal water flow variations and water chemistry of the Amazon and its tributaries result
from rainfall and erosion in the Andes (McClain and Elsenbeer 2001; McClain and Naiman2008). Much of the Amazon biodiversity results from processes occurring upstream in the
Andean land system. There are lakes scattered across the middle to high elevations of thehotspot, most of which were formed from depressions created by mountain glaciers and arefilled by runoff and groundwater. The altiplano of southern Peru and western Bolivia contains
Lake Titicaca, the world's largest high-elevation lake. This lake is famous for its isolated andunique threatened freshwater biodiversity (Villwock 1994; Aguirre et al. 2001, Pouilly et al.
2014). Two large salt flats, Uyuni and Coipasa, and two lakes, Poopó and Uru Uru, occur in thesouthern altiplano. The lakes were recognized as Ramsar sites in July 2002. Lake Poopó used
to be Bolivia's second-largest after Lake Titicaca, but water levels have declined over the past
two decades, and it even dried up in 2015. The situation continues to be perilous, although27

water levels increase in the rainy season, the situation becomes critical in the dry season (DeMunter et al. 2019).

4.2 Geology
The enormous biodiversity of the Tropical Andes should be understood in the context of theregion's recent geological upheaval, much of which took place during the last 10 million years.
As these peaks and ridges folded as a result of the collision between the Nazca tectonic plate(immersed in the marine environment) and the South American continental plate, many
previously non-existent habitats appeared. This gave rise to multiple evolutionary andspeciation linkages. In parallel, as this process advanced, a succession of organisms previously
present in the southern and cold part of the continent migrated northward along the Andes andformed species complexes in the newly established altiplano habitats. Other types oforganisms from the region's lowlands migrated to the new habitats formed at intermediate andhigher altitudes, thereby diversifying them (Fjeldså et al. 2012; Raven 2012; Antonelli et al.
2018a).
The upheaval of the northern and central Andes is the result of compression and plate tectonic
processes caused by the subduction of the oceanic crust under the South American plate. The
complex arrangement of the northern Andes results from the additional action of the Caribbean
Plate (Gregory-Wodzicki 2000, cited in CEPF 2015). Sections of the Andes began to rise atdifferent times during the Mesozoic Era (250-66 million years ago), but the high elevations of
the Andes rose relatively quickly during the past 20 million years (Gregory-Wodzicki 2000 and
Garzione et al. 2008, cited in CEPF 2015; Antonelli et al. 2018a).
The Tropical Andes has many active volcanoes, clustered in two volcanic zones separated byareas of inactivity. The Northern Volcanic Zone includes numerous volcanoes from Nevado delRuiz in Colombia, to Sangay in the south in Ecuador. The Central Volcanic Zone stretches fromsouthern Peru to northern Chile and Argentina. Volcanoes in both zones show periods of recent
activity, and some threaten human settlements (Stern 2004; Bustos et al. 2015).
The Andes hosts extensive mineral and salt deposits along with exploitable amounts ofhydrocarbon. The southern portion of the hotspot in Chile and Peru contains some of theworld's largest known porphyry copper deposits (Sthioul 2015). The dry climate of the central
and western Andes also led to the creation of extensive potassium nitrate deposits. Anotherresult of the dry climate is the salt flats of the southern altiplano, with lithium deposits that
include the world's largest reserve of this element (Ströbele-Gregor 2013). Volcanic activity
during the Mesozoic Era (250-66 million years ago) and Neogene Period (23-2.5 million yearsago) in central Bolivia created the Bolivian tin belt, as well as the famous, now depleted, silver
deposits of Cerro Rico de Potosí (Schneider 2011; CEPF 2015).

4.3 Climate
The influence and interaction of the tropical Pacific, the trade winds and the Amazon forest
region with the hotspot territory contribute to a large seasonal and interannual variability inclimate conditions, especially in temperature, relative humidity, wind and precipitation. As aresult, humans, animals and plants have had to adapt to the heterogeneity of the landscapeand the fluctuations in the hotspot's climatic conditions.
As is true for anywhere in the tropics, daily variation in temperature is greater than theseasonal temperature variation. The trade winds drop most of their moisture on the Andes'
eastern slopes, creating a rain shadow and consequently drier conditions in the inter-Andean

28

valleys and altiplano. North of the equator, the Pacific's warm waters produce humid conditions
on the western Andean slopes. South of the equator, the Andes' western slopes are very dry
due to the cold Humboldt Current running along the coast.
The temperature variability in the Tropical Andes depends mainly on the altitudinal gradientand the relative humidity. In general, the regions with more humidity tend to have less daily
and annual thermal fluctuation (Cuesta et al. 2012b; Anderson et al. 2012). Average annual
temperatures in the Tropical Andes reach values close to 27 °C in the inter-Andean low
humidity valleys of Colombia or on the eastern borders of the Peruvian Andes (Cuesta et al.
2012a). As the Andes gain altitude, the average annual temperature decreases at a rate of
approximately 6 °C for every 1,000 meters of altitude until it reaches the tropical alpine
environments of the páramos and the punas, which are located at temperatures ranging from
3 °C to 9 °C (Cuesta et al. 2012b). While the average temperature decreases with altitude, thedaily temperature range can increase with it. One factor that changes non-linearly with altitudeis frost, which becomes a relevant climate factor only above mid to high altitudes. Other
climate factors are affected by both local characteristics and geographic location; for example,
the number of hours of exposure to solar radiation is determined by both slope orientation andaltitude (Young 2012; CEPF 2015).
Unlike temperature, precipitation in the Andes does not follow a linear pattern but isdetermined by Andean orography and the influence of locally prevailing winds, which
determine its high temporal and spatial variability. The climatological records for the 1960 to2000 period report high variability with values below 200 mm per year in dry areas, up to4000 mm or more in the eastern and western mountain ranges, and extreme values in very
specific areas (Cuesta et al. 2012b).
Precipitation in the altiplano is associated with a summer dominated by moisture flows fromthe Amazon basin. More than 80 percent of annual precipitation occurs during the summer
months, commonly during the afternoon and night, due to the effects of high solar radiationfrom the altiplano (Young 2012).

4.4 Habitats and Ecosystems
The Tropical Andes is a complex mosaic of more than 130 ecosystems with exceptionally highbiodiversity (Myers et al. 2000; Josse et al. 2009 and 2012). The immense biological richnessof the Andean mountain range is characterized by seven ecosystems types, which are the basis
for a wide variety of wild resources, crops, and ecosystem services that support millions ofpeople living in the region and its areas of influence (Cincotta et al. 2000; Cuesta et al.
2012a).
Páramos. Páramos are natural formations, limited to the upper parts of Andean volcanoes andmountains and dominated by tussock-forming grasses and shrublands. They occur above thecontinuous forest line and below the permanent snow line of the northern Andes' highest peaks
in Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and northern Peru (Hofstede et al. 2003 and 2014). Páramos
often occur in very humid conditions under which vegetation and soils have developed avariety of highly efficient moisture regulating mechanisms. This characteristic makes páramos
a key source of clean water for Andean cities located downstream. Páramos include an array ofplant communities that harbor the most diverse mountain flora in the world and have highlevels of endemism in both species and genera (Hofstede et al. 2014; CEPF 2015). The
southernmost páramos, known locally as "jalca" grasslands, occur in the high elevations ofnorthern Peru west of the Marañón River (Tovar et al. 2012; Weigend 2002 and 2004).

29

Forests. Mountain and premontane forests,2 rainforests, semi-deciduous and deciduous
forests occupy a wide altitudinal range between 500 m and 3,500 m above sea level (Tosi
1960; Young and Valencia 1992; Cuesta et al. 2009; Tejedor et al. 2012). They are foundalong the steep sections of the western and eastern slopes of the Tropical Andes (fromVenezuela to at least Bolivia) (Tovar et al. 2010). This type of forest covers the Cordillera de la
Costa in northern Venezuela and the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in Colombia, two outlying
mountain ranges that are part of the hotspot. Along the eastern slopes of the Andes, tworather distinct ecological subdivisions occur within the evergreen montane forests: the subAndean belt below 2000 m and the cordilleran belt, which runs from 2,000 m above sea levelup to the tree line.
Humid punas. Humid punas occur from northern Peru to the central part of the easterncordillera in Bolivia, including the endorreic basin of Lake Titicaca. The humid puna is a
grassland ecosystem that covers a wide altitudinal range, from 2,000 m to 6,000 m above sea
level, and is as extensive as the aforementioned mountain forests. Between them, they occupy
about 40 percent of the Tropical Andes. They contain relics of Andean forests dominated bytrees in the genus Polylepis. Significant portions of the humid puna were likely originallycovered by Polylepis forests, but ancestral land uses by human settlers have significantly
reduced these forests and replaced them with grasslands and scrub (Fjeldså and Krabbe,
1990; Fjeldså et al. 2012; Josse et al. 2009; Cuesta et al. 2012). Numerous large wetlands
and peatlands are found in the topographic depressions of the humid puna.
Xerophytic punas. Another Andean grassland ecosystem, the xerophytic puna, ischaracterized by reduced precipitation and occurs in the central-southern part of western
Bolivia, northwestern Argentina, southwestern Peru, and northeastern Chile. Xerophytic punas
represent about 15 percent of the hotspot area, with an altitudinal range from 2,000 m above
sea level in the eastern valleys to 5,000 m above sea level on the high peaks of the cordillera(Josse et al. 2009; CEPF 2015). The climate is very seasonal, with a very intense and cold dry
season that is particularly accentuated to the south and west, with predominating semi-arid
areas (Josse et al. 2009; Cuesta et al. 2012).
Inter-Andean valleys. Inter-Andean valleys contain a mosaic of ecosystems of seasonal dry
mountain forests and xerophytic scrub in their intermediate and less elevated sections. They
follow the courses of major rivers such as the Guayllabamba, Marañon and Apurimac andsmaller deep valleys and ravines throughout the region. These areas have a pronounced water
deficit due to the rain-shadow effect (Cuesta et al. 2012; CEPF 2015).
Salt flats. Salt flats occupy high Andean plains and fluvial-lake terraces on seasonallywaterlogged or shallowly waterlogged saline clay soils with significant concentrations oflithium, potassium, boron, magnesium, carbonates and sulphates. They originated from old
high-altitude lakes that dried up gradually as water evaporated and left behind salt
concentrations several meters deep (Navarro and Maldonado 2003).
Glaciers and areas of cryoturbed soils. Glaciers are masses of ice that accumulate on thehighest floors of the cordilleras (in the tropics above 5,000 m above sea level). They are
2

Young and Valencia (1992) define as mountain forest the wooded vegetation located above 1,000 m ofaltitude in Peru, including the formations found on both slopes, as well as in the high altitudes of the Andes,
often dominated by Polylepis species. The lower limit, although somewhat arbitrary, is generally applied tomontane forests in Peru (Young and Valencia 1992). Huber and Riina (1997) also consider mountain forests
to be forested formations with high moisture gradients, rainfall, and topographic variety, with some evenbelow 500 m above sea level in the Andes of Argentina and Chile.

30

characterized by a balance between the accumulation and melting of ice. Their volume,
stability and components change with time as a result of direct dependence on atmosphericconditions. The ice mass, therefore, has a dynamic character (Marangunic 2016). In SouthAmerica, tropical glaciers are located between Bolivia and Venezuela, covering an area ofapproximately 2,758 km², distributed as follows: Peru 71 percent, Bolivia 20 percent, Ecuador
4 percent, Colombia 4 percent, and Venezuela 1 percent (Francou 2013).
The areas of flora and vegetation on cryoturbed soils correspond to regions where
temperatures remain below 0 °C for most of the year. They occur in the high Andean areas
covered by glaciers, ice or snow most of the year, although some places may be bare. Thisecosystem exhibits a variety of microhabitats on the calcareous rocky substrate of the cliffs
and steep slopes, with cracks, fissures and irregularities where spring water filters or
meltwater flows (Montoya et al. 2019). Due to glacial dynamics, soils are subjected to asequence of freezing and thawing. This phenomenon occurs daily in the upper Tropical Andesand causes the displacement of particles, modifying their distribution in the layers or strata. As
a result, these soils present a different diversity, structure, physiology and ecology from thosefound in surrounding habitats (Cano et al. 2010 and 2011; Galán et al. 2014).
Other types of ecosystems. In addition to these main ecosystems, a number of transition
zones to ecosystems outside the hotspot further contribute to its diversity of habitats andspecies. The lower elevations of the northwestern Tropical Andes are dominated by evergreen
montane forest that transitions to lowland rainforest in the Chocó region. Similarly, most of theeastern border of the hotspot transitions to the lowland rainforest of the Amazon basin and the
Orinoco region. Parts of the northern edge of the hotspot in Colombia and Venezuela transition
to the Caribbean dry forest. The southern part of the hotspot in Chile and Argentina transitions
to the dry Atacama Desert in southern Peru and northern Chile. Further south, the Atacama
Desert gives way to temperate forests and the Chilean Mediterranean Forest and Valdivian
Forests Hotspot (CEPF 2015).
Importantly, the Huancabamba Depression in northern Peru creates a natural dispersal barrier
between the northern and central Andes and is therefore considered an immensely importanttransitional floristic area (Weigend 2002 and 2004; Mutke et al. 2014). The same is true forthe fauna; the composition of the communities differs strikingly across this short distance,
especially for small vertebrates (Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990; Koch et al. 2015 and 2016).
The freshwater systems also present a great variety of environments. They include highAndean systems at 3,000 m above sea level or higher, with lakes and lagoons of glacial origin,meadows, wetlands and headwaters of the main rivers that drain variously into the Amazon
basin, the Caribbean in Colombia, and the Pacific Ocean in Colombia and northwest Ecuador(Maldonado et al. 2012; Tognelli et al. 2016). Between 700 m and 3,000 m above sea level,
there are fewer lakes and lagoons; fast-flowing rivers, streams, and creeks predominate. In
the Andean foothills below 700 m above sea level, larger, slower flowing rivers become moresubdued as they descend (Maldonado et al. 2012; Tognelli et al. 2016).

4.5 Species Diversity, Endemism and Global Threat Status
The Tropical Andes is the most species-rich hotspot on the planet, both in absolute numbers ofspecies and in the total number of endemic species (Mittermeier et al. 2011; CEPF 2015).
Except for reptiles, all other groups of terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates and plants are
greater in number there than any other hotspot. A widely recognized hypothesis is that SouthAmerica's particular wealth of flora and fauna is based on three main phenomena. The first is
the region's prolonged isolation from other continents during a significant portion of the31

Cenozoic Era, from between 65 million years ago to 13-15 million years ago (Bacon et al.
2015; Carrillo et al. 2015). The other two phenomena are the exchange of animals and plants
between North and South America that took place over the past 3 million to 10 million years(Cione et al. 2015, among others), and the formation of the Andes Mountains (CEPF 2015).
During glacial periods (the last major one of which occurred 20,000 years ago), the permanentsnowline limit on the eastern slopes of the central Andes would have fallen between 1000 m
and 2000 m. There would also have been a temperature drop of at least 6 °C to 8 °C in partsof the Andes located at 3,000 m above sea level. This situation would have stimulated thelimits of the high Andean grasslands and humid mountain forests to move towards lower
altitudes. The same would have happened in the northern Andes, generating similar changes in
the páramos and forests (Reynel et al. 2013). On the more arid western slopes of the central
Andes, the decrease in the permanent snowline limit would have been somewhat less,equivalent to about 500 m or 1000 m (Reynel et al. 2013).
One hypothesis linked to the glaciations is that of the existence of refugia for flora and faunafrom humid environments during the Pleistocene Epoch when atmospheric humidity fell. As aresult of the drop in global temperatures, habitats were reduced and fragmented giving way tosemi-arid or savannah vegetation. The current biotas of the Andes, Amazon and Orinoco
regions owe their richness in animal and plant species, in part, to specialization and subspecific differentiation during the events that led to the fragmentation and subsequent
expansion of the rainforests (Salo 1993; Haffer and Prance 2001; Reynel et al. 2013).
Another factor that favors high biodiversity in the Tropical Andes is proximity to otherecosystem hotspots and mosaics of ecosystems. These ecosystems include the lowland
rainforests of the Chocó, Amazon and Orinoco regions, the dry forests of the Caribbean, theMediterranean and southern Valdivian temperate forests, and the arid areas of the Atacama
Desert. The extensive transition areas between the Andes and these ecosystems result in a
confluence and mix of animals and plants in the adjacent zones (CEPF 2015).
The current diversity of Andean climates has also played a key role in explaining the highbiodiversity of the Andes. Species diversity increases with annual precipitation, which helps
explain the high biodiversity in the predominantly wet eastern slopes of the Andes and thevery wet Chocó region of western Colombia and Ecuador (Pyron et al. 2013; Antonelli et al.
2018b; CEPF 2015). Spatial variation in climates also promotes species turnover acrossgeography due to climatic niche specialization of plants and animals. Varied cactus flora can,for example, be found in the dry valleys just a few kilometers from the cloud forests of the
Yungas where tree ferns, trees of the Brunellia genus and ericaceous scrubs thrive (Beck et al.
2007). Stable conditions in climate refugia can also be important in maintaining endemic
species diversity (Fjeldså et al. 1999 and Graham et al. 2006, cited in CEPF 2015; Antonelli etal. 2018b).
Of South America's five hotspots, the Tropical Andes Hotspot is the most diverse, with more
endemic species than anywhere else on the planet. The Tropical Andes Hotspot contains morethan 35,000 vertebrate and vascular plant species (Mittermeier et al. 2011; CEPF 2015; Table
4.1). Fifty percent or more of the following species are endemic: fish (74 percent), amphibians(71.4 percent) and vascular plants (50 percent). Although the endemicity of reptiles (40percent), birds (30 percent) and mammals (13.3 percent) is lower, it is still noteworthy.
When the hotspot's previous ecosystem profile was published in 2015, 814 species wereconsidered globally threatened. The number of globally threatened species has increased
substantially to 1,451. This change is explained by the recent assessment of several taxonomic

32

groups (e.g., fish, reptiles, and plants) and the updating of others (amphibians) for the IUCNRed List of Threatened Species.
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

Endemic
Species

Percentage
of Endemism

Threatened
Species~30,000~900~1,120~700~2,000~600
No data
No data~35,320~15,000
666
800
275
600
80
No data
No data~17,421

~50.0
~74.0
~71.4
~40.0
~30.0
~13.3
--~49.3

330
79
558
125
214
88
56
1
1,451

Sources for the update: https://amphibiaweb.org/amphibian/newspecies.html; http://www.reptiledatabase.org/; https://www.mammaldiversity.org/; http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/ishcatmain.asp; https://www.fishbase.se/search.php; Tognelli et al. 2016; Herzog y
Kattan 2012, CEPF 2015; www.iucnredlist.org.

The data in Table 4.1 are indicative because dozens of species of amphibians and otherzoological and botanical groups have been discovered in the hotspot since 2015. Some groups
have increased considerably since 2004 when the hotspot's species diversity data were firstpublished (Mittermier et al. 2004). These data were used virtually unchanged by CEPF in 2015.
Fish stand out for their increase, going from 317 to 900 described species (DoNascimiento etal. 2017 and 2018; Barriga 2012; Jiménez et al. 2015; De La Barra et al. 2016, Cala-Cala2019). Also significant are amphibians, which increased from 961 to 1120 recorded species(https://amphibiaweb.org/amphibian/newspecies.html) and birds, which previously numbered
1,724 recorded species and are currently estimated at 2,000 (Herzog and Kattan 2012). Thisupdated ecosystem profile incorporates, for the first time, threatened arthropods, mollusks andcrustacean species.
The change in information about some amphibians is particularly noteworthy. For example,
there are several recently described frog species of the Pristimantis and Phrynopus genus,
about 27 and 10 species, respectively. These include Pristimantis matildae and P. samaniegoi,
for which descriptions were published when this profile was updated. Other significant
advances in the period 2015 to 2020 include the description of five species of the Scytalopus
genus among birds, two species of Cryptotis among shrews, one species of snake of theBothrops genus, and one species of salamander of the Bolitoglossa genus.

4.5.1 Plants
Overall, the Tropical Andes is home to more than 30,000 species of vascular plants (about 10
percent of the world's species), surpassing the diversity of any other hotspot (Myers et al.
2000; Mittermeier et al. 2011). It is a world leader in plant endemism as an estimated 50 to
60 percent of these species are found nowhere else in the world. This means that about 7
percent of the world's vascular plants are endemic to approximately 1 percent of the Earth's
landmass (Myers et al. 2000).

33

The Lauraceae is the most species-rich family among woody plants with a diameter at breast
height (DBH) of 2.5 cm and greater occurring between 1,500 m and 2,900 m above sea level
in Andean mountain forests. It is followed by the Rubiaceae and Melastomataceae families. At
higher elevations, the Asteraceae and Ericaceae families become the most species-richelements of woody flora (Gentry 1995; Jorgensen et al. 2012).
Research over the past decades has revealed several patterns of diversity and endemism inAndean plants. Tropical Andean forests are floristically different from their lowland
counterparts. They contain a significant representation of the Laurasian plant families andgenera that are absent or rare in the lowlands. (Laurasia is the former supercontinent made up
of present-day North America and Eurasia that existed approximately 300 to 100 million years
ago. It is presumed that these groups dispersed to the Andes after the closure of the Isthmus
of Panama. Examples are the Fagaceae (oaks) in Colombia, the Ericaceae (heath family) andthe Lauraceae (avocado family). In general, diversity decreases with altitude in the hotspot(i.e., elevations higher than 1,000 m above sea level), whereas endemism often increases withaltitude (CEPF 2015).
Investigation into the global threat status of Andean plants is just beginning. So far, only a few
groups of Andean plants have been fully assessed by the IUCN and published in its Red List of
Threatened Species. This was done with CEPF funding. The resulting assessments highlighted
botanical families such as Cactaceae, Bromeliaceae, Poaceae Solanaceae and Meliaceae,
among others. Some genera with several threatened species include, for example, Puya spp.
and Tillandsia spp. (Bromeliaceae), Espeletia spp. and Espeletiopsis spp. (Asteraceae),
Echinopsis spp. (Cactaceae) and Magnolia spp. (Magnoliaceae). The plant species at risk arethose with small distributions that are threatened by habitat destruction. Exceptionally forplants (as opposed to vertebrates, whose threatened species are concentrated at lower
altitudes), the high-altitude species restricted to the isolated páramos of the northern tropical
Andes are particularly threatened (such as frailejones in the Espeletia genus). Small
distributions of these species and constant threats of habitat transformation have led to thisresult (Joppa et al. 2011; CEPF 2015; Peyre et al. 2019).

4.5.2 Fish
An estimated 900 species of freshwater fish have been documented in the hotspot, a relatively
small number compared to the striking diversity of the Amazon lowland drainage and someother hotspots (Ortega and Hidalgo 2008; Mittermeier et al. 2011; Tognelli et al. 2016). The
work of adding fish to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and the inventories andtaxonomic reviews by various specialists throughout the Tropical Andes have catapulted the
known number of species over the last 10 to 15 years (see, for example, DoNascimiento et al.
2017 and 2018, Jimenez et al. 2015, De La Barra et al. 2016, Cala-Cala 2019). Fish habitats
include high-altitude lakes (Peru alone has 12,000 high-altitude lakes) and small to mediumsized rivers, with diversity decreasing sharply with altitude (Scott and Carbonell 1986). In
Ecuador, for example, only one species of fish (Grundulus quitoensis, a relative of the tetras) isfound 2,800 m above sea level (Barriga 2012). Andean fish fauna is restricted to species highly
adapted to cold lakes and cold, highly oxygenated, fast-flowing streams (Reis 2013). These
species tend not to occur in lower altitude, warmer waters (Ortega et al. 2011). One group of
cold-water fish belonging to the challhuas genus (Orestias), comprises more than 40 species,
shared by Peru, Bolivia and Chile and is endemic to the high Andean zone (3,000 m above sea
level and higher) and of these, about 20 species are found in Lake Titicaca and nearby
drainages (Sarmiento et al. 2018). All but a few of the 90 species of naked sucker-mouth
catfish in the Astroblepidae family are also endemic to the Tropical Andes. These uniqueanimals can use their sucker-like mouths and modified pelvic fins to climb the waterfalls of34

fast-flowing mountain streams. The pencil catfish (Trichomycterus genus) are an Andean groupthat is typically restricted to a single drainage system and may be the only fish species capableof living in their high-altitude habitats (Ortega et al. 2011).
In recent years, there have been determined efforts to assess the conservation status of
Andean inland fish (Tognelli et al. 2016). Twenty challhua species are threatened in Bolivia due
to overfishing, introduced species and habitat modification. Three pencil catfish are also
threatened in that country due to water pollution (Sarmiento et al. 2018). In Colombia, a small
catfish (Rhizosomichthys totae) endemic to Lake Tota in the Cordillera Oriental, became extinct
last century, presumably due to the introduction of rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss)(Mojica et al. 2002).

4.5.3 Amphibians
The Tropical Andes is the most diverse hotspot in the world for amphibians, with 1,120
species, of which approximately 800 are endemic. These numbers are double those of the next
most diverse hotspots for this group, Mesoamerica and the Atlantic Forest of Brazil.
Amphibians are more diverse in the montane rainforests than in the Amazon forests and thereason for this imbalance appears to be regional diversity patterns, as lowland amphibians are
generally more widely distributed than those in the Altiplano (Ron 2000). Although Andean
amphibian communities have lower local diversity, species turnover in the region is higher. In
the Andes, amphibian fauna is largely restricted to frogs and toads. Salamanders are rare, with
only about 11 species, some of which have extremely narrow ranges of distribution, such as
the recently described Bolitoglossa awajun. Caecilians are even rarer with at least two species,
one of which, Epicrionops bicolor, occurs at 2,000 m above sea level in Colombia. Among toads
and frogs, the most diverse genera are Pristimantis, Telmatobius and Atelopus.
Some very well-known amphibians of the Tropical Andes are the marsupial frogs of the
Gastrotheca genus, in which the females of some species carry their eggs in pouches on theirbacks (Duellman et al. 2014; Canatella 2015; Duellman and Venegas 2016). The harlequintoads, Atelopus genus, are a diverse and brightly colored group that inhabits streams andwetlands primarily in the Andes of Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela (Coloma et al. 2010;
Marcillo-Lara et al. 2020). Some members of the poisonous frog family (Dendrobatidae) arealso found in the Andes. One of them, Epipedobates anthonyi, presumably produces acompound more powerful than morphine, which was once considered a source of new
medicines, but later dismissed (Cipriani and Rivera 2009; Kahn et al. 2016). The giant Titicaca
frog (Telmatobius culeus) is an aquatic frog with deeply wrinkled skin intensively collected forcommercial purposes because of its value as a source of protein for local communities and use
in traditional medicine in the Lake Titicaca region (Ramos et al. 2019). However, such uses
constitute a health risk since infection with chytrid fungus and other pathogens and parasites
has been detected in several specimens analyzed (Chero et al. 2014; Berenguel et al. 2016;
Zevallos et al. 2016). Another giant frog, Telmatobius macrostomus, known as Junín frog, isconsidered under threat due to mining and solid waste contamination, predation by introduced
trout, and commercial over-exploitation for consumption (Lazo and Mendoza 2017).
Amphibians represent just over 52 percent of all threatened vertebrate species in the Tropical
Andes Hotspot (Table 4.1). They tend to have smaller distribution ranges than othervertebrates, making them more likely to fall within the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
extent of occurrence (EOO) thresholds for threatened categories (www.iucnredlist.org).
Although amphibians in the Tropical Andes are threatened by habitat destruction, as are otherspecies, they are also threatened by poorly understood phenomena, including diseases such as
chytridiomycosis, caused by the Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis fungus, and climate change

35

(Stuart et al. 2004; Catenazzi et al. 2011; Catenazzi and von May 2014; Berenguel et al.
2016).

4.5.4 Reptiles
Seven hundred species of reptiles have been identified in the Tropical Andes Hotspot,of which at least 275 are endemic. Only the Mesoamerican Hotspot has more reptile
species. Global reptile diversity is inversely related to temperature (McCain 2010), and
the Andes are no exception. Most of the reptile diversity in the Andes is concentrated
on the lower slopes. High-altitude ecosystems harbor low diversity reptile
communities, although species that do occur there are more likely to be endemic tosmall areas (Urbina-Cardona 2011).
Charismatic reptiles such as caimans, turtles, and boas are largely restricted to the lowlands,
so the Andes are characterized by mostly small-bodied lizards and snakes. The diverse lizard
genus Anolis contains numerous species in the Andean cloud forests. This genus reaches thesouthern extent of its range in Bolivia (Grisales-Martinez et al. 2017). Liolaemus lizards arecharacteristic of the Altiplano grasslands, dry scrub and rocky hillsides of the southern Tropical
Andes (Aguilar et al. 2013). One species, Liolaemus montanus, inhabits the Andes at unusuallyhigh elevations for a reptile. A population has been reported at 5,176 m above sea level in the
Cordillera Real in Bolivia (Aparicio and Ocampo, 2010). Most Andean snakes are harmless,although a few are poisonous, such as the Andean lancehead viper (Bothrocophias andianus),
which is endemic to the high-altitude evergreen forests of Bolivia and Peru. An additional
snake has recently been described for the central Andes in Bolivia and Peru, Bothrops
monsignifer (Timms et al. 2019).
As previously mentioned, the IUCN recently assessed several groups of reptiles. This is an
important development since information about this group had lagged behind that available forother vertebrates. Thus far, dozens of Tropical Andes reptile species have been classified in the
categories of vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered. Genera with several
threatened species include Anolis spp. (Iguanidae), Liolaemus spp. (Liolaemidae) andStenocercus spp. (Tropiduridae), among others.

4.5.5 Birds
With nearly 2,000 species, a third of them endemic, birds are the most diverse vertebrates in
the hotspot and constitute another group with greater diversity in the Tropical Andes than in
any other hotspot (Herzog and Kattan 2012). The 2015 ecosystem profile considered 1,724
species, but the estimate of Herzog and Kattan (2012) is appreciably higher and may now
exceed 2,000 species. In addition to recent discoveries, taxonomic revisions of some groups
have resulted in the reclassification or validation of several species that were previously
considered subspecies (see, for example, Chesser et al. 2020 or Isler et al. 2020). Despite
centuries of study, new species are continually being found while exploring little-studied areas,
and new genetic analysis techniques and other technologies improve our knowledge of species(e.g., Cuervo et al. 2005). Between 2015 and 2020, for example, five Scytalopus species werediscovered (Avendaño et al. 2015; Stiles et al. 2017; Krabbe et al. 2020). As a result of therecent taxonomic revision of the rufous antpitta (Grallaria rufula) complex, three species
increased to 16. Six new species of this bird, which has populations that occur in the humidmontane forests of the Andes from northern Colombia and adjacent Venezuela to central
Bolivia, were described, and seven subspecies were promoted to novel species (Chesser et al.
2020; Isler et al. 2020).

36

No bird family is endemic to the Andes, but groups such as hummingbirds (Trochilidae),flycatchers (Tyrannidae), and tanagers (Thraupidae) are particularly diverse. Biodiversity
derives both from rapid speciation within the Andes and from constant colonization by older
lowland lineages (Fjeldså and Rahbek 2006). Several closely related species groups (e.g., theCatharus, Basileuterus, and Tangara genera) show patterns of species turnover along
altitudinal gradients.
Among the characteristic birds of the Andes is the cock-of-the-rock (Rupicola peruvianus), withits brilliant coloration and striking nuptial displays in areas near mountain streams. Similarly,
the endangered Andean condor (Vultur gryphus), which flies over the high Andes and is always
an exciting spectacle, has been the subject of intensive reintroduction campaigns in thenorthern Tropical Andes (Wallace et al. 2020). Condors are part of indigenous Andeancosmologies and symbolically used by indigenous people to represent their conflict with the
Spanish conquistadors, represented by bulls (Piana 2019).
As a sign of the adaptation of birds to a wide variety of environmental conditions, evidence has
been found of birds, such as the white-winged diuca finch (Diuca speculifera), nesting directly
on ice on the snowy Quelccaya in the Cordillera Vilcanota (Peru), at elevations of up to 5,300
m above sea level (Hardy and Hardy 2008).
About 11 percent of the bird life in the Tropical Andes is threatened with extinction,
approximately the same percentage as for birds globally. Several endangered species in thisregion, such as cracids, hawks and falcons, are found both in the Andes and adjacent lowland
habitats outside the hotspot. Most of the bird's endemic to the hotspot are not globallythreatened. Many endemic species are distributed along narrow altitudinal ranges, especiallyon the eastern slopes of the Andes. Several species are found within these small altitudinalranges all the way from Venezuela to Bolivia. The large distribution and size of the populationsof these species buffer them from threats that operate at more local levels, resulting in a lower
proportion of globally threatened species than might be expected from the large number ofendemic species.
Among the main threats to birds are the disturbance of habitats by mining, the degradation ofnatural vegetation, and the conversion of natural forests into agricultural and grazing areas.
Some valleys are also severely degraded, especially north of the hotspot. Subsistence huntingof some large species, such as cracids (guans) and tinamids (tinamous), also poses a threat,though to a lesser extent.

4.5.6 Mammals
The 600 species of mammals in the Tropical Andes Hotspot represent just under 9 percent of
this group's global diversity (Burgin et al. 2018). No other hotspot has a greater diversity of
mammals. As elsewhere in the tropics, most of the species are rodents and bats (Mena et al.
2012). Rodents are found in all Andean habitats and are especially diverse in the montane
evergreen forests, where several genera exhibit high levels of endemism (Mena et al. 2012;
Noguera-Urbano and Escalante 2015). Andean bats are more diverse in lower elevations, withdiversity decreasing dramatically above the tree line (Patterson et al. 2012). The large
mammals of the Andes are remnants of a much more diverse megafauna community that
became diminished with the arrival of humans on the continent (Eisenberg and Redford 1998;
Burney and Flannery 2005). Among them, guanaco (Lama guanicoe) and vicuña (Vicugna
vicugna) are iconic camelids that continue to thrive in the southern Tropical Andes. Other large
mammals, such as mountain tapir (Tapirus pinchaque), taruca or Andean deer (Hippocamelus
antisensis), jaguar (Panthera onca), puma (Puma concolor) and spectacled bear (Tremarctos

37

ornatus), as well as the Altiplano deers (Mazama rufina, M. chunyi and Pudu mephistopheles),are rarely seen due to their scarcity, the dense habitats they inhabit and their evasive
behavior.
An interesting case of a species of tree carnivore from the Tropical Andes is the olinguito(Bassaricyon neblina). It was described in 2013 based on analysis of a museum specimen
collected 90 years earlier in 1923 by G.H.H. Tate for the Field Museum of Chicago (Helgen etal. 2013). Originally misidentified by researchers, the olinguito is the first carnivore species tobe described in the Western Hemisphere in 35 years. This carnivore of the raccoon and coatifamily is now known to live in the cloud forests of several natural protected areas in thenorthern Andes, stretching from central Colombia to western Ecuador (Helgen et al. 2013).
Although the olinguito is considered a Near Threatened species on the IUCN Red List, not all
mammal species in the hotspot can boast this status. Several dozen are threatened, including
numerous species of carnivores, primates, rodents, and ungulates. The proportion of
threatened mammals in the hotspot (13.1 percent) is lower than the global average (20percent) (Schipper et al. 2008; Burgin et al. 2018). Mammals in the Tropical Andes, as
elsewhere, are threatened by habitat destruction. Commercial and subsistence hunting or
hunting for traditional medicine are major threats to mammals in other parts of the world but
low in the Tropical Andes (Aquino et al. 2015 and 2017).

4.5.7 Arthropods
Arthropods play a valuable role in ecosystems not only as relevant components of the foodweb, constituting a large proportion of species and biomass richness, but also as predators,
nutrient recyclers, and ecosystem engineers (García and Chacón de Ulloa 2005; Culliney etal.2013, Guzmán-Mendoza et al. 2016). They are also important biological indicators of
ecosystem health or environmental change (McGeoch and Chow 1998). Despite theirimportance, IUCN estimates that only 0.9 percent of the described insect species, 4 percent ofcrustaceans, and 0.31 percent of arachnids have been assessed (Roskov et al. 2019). Only
exceptionally have arthropods been the subject of special consideration, partly due to the lackof taxonomic, biogeographic, and natural history information and partly because these smaller
species are assumed to be contained in natural protected areas (Dourojeanni 2019).

4.5.8 Fungi
Despite their biological importance as decomposers of organic matter, only an estimated 5
percent of the planet's fungi are described. Little is known about their taxonomy and natural
history; there are few specialists, and not much interest or effort has been put into analyzing
their state of conservation. Fungi are threatened by the loss of symbiotic habitats and hosts,
pollution, overexploitation of edible species and climate change, but the vast majority of fungal
species have not yet been evaluated. In July 2020, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
was updated, listing 313 species of fungi globally, of which 166 are endangered. However, nocomprehensive assessments of this group have been conducted in the Tropical Andes Hotspot.
The only known threatened fungus is Stilbohypoxylon macrosporum, a rare species thatappears to be limited to the southern zone of subtropical dry forests between Jujuy andMendoza, Argentina (Kuhar et al. 2020).

38

4.6 Importance of Ecosystem Services
The ecosystems of the Tropical Andes Hotspot have supported human settlements for morethan 13,000 years (Fuselli et al. 2003; Yacobaccio and Morales 2011). From about 500 B.C.,
large human settlements emerged in the central and northern Andes and achieved advanced
forms of social and political organization (i.e., Chavin, Moche, Tiwanaku, Cañari, and Inca). In
time, they all collapsed or were incorporated into the most important civilization of the region,
the short-lived Inca Empire that emerged around 1400 A.D. (Rostworowski 1993). These
cultures contributed to the domestication of numerous species, making this region one of the
12 major centers of origin of plants grown for food, medicine and industry in the world(Saavedra and Freese 1986; Pickersgill 2007).
The area currently has a population of 59.7 million people most of whom are highly dependent
on the region's ecosystem goods and services. Numerous cities are located in the hotspot andbenefit from its ecosystem services. At least, ten cities have populations greater than 500,000:
Caracas (Venezuela); Bogotá, Bucaramanga, Cali, Ibagué, and Medellín (Colombia); Quito(Ecuador); La Paz and Cochabamba (Bolivia); and San Miguel de Tucumán (Argentina). Four ofthese cities are national capitals. In addition, the inhabitants of cities located hundreds or eventhousands of kilometers away from the Tropical Andes, like Lima (Peru), Guayaquil (Ecuador),
Santa Marta (Colombia), and Santa Cruz de la Sierra (Bolivia), also benefit directly fromservices such as the provision of water supplied by the hotspot.
Ecosystem services, also known as ‘nature's contributions to people’, are defined as thebenefits that people obtain from ecosystems and can be divided into four categories:●●●●

supply or provisioning services (e.g., water, food, plant-based fuels),regulating services (e.g., climate regulation, flood control),supporting services (e.g., soil formation, nutrient recycling), andcultural services (e.g., recreational, religious, spiritual values, artistic
inspiration) (Reid et al. 2005; De Groot 2010).

The Tropical Andes provides abundant ecosystem services in all these categories (Table 4.2).
Provisioning services. Among provisioning services, water is the most abundant andimportant, providing drinking water and energy. The hotspot can be considered SouthAmerica's primary source of fresh water. Streams originating in the páramos, altiplano, highaltitude forests and lakes, and the Andean glaciers, supply water to the cities and towns of thehotspot. They also supply water to the extensive drainage systems located downstream ofthese basins in the north and west of South America.
Andean rivers provide most of the irrigation water for the farmland and hydroelectric plantsthat generate approximately half of the region's electricity (Bradley et al. 2006). This service isof great social and economic importance because of the water it provides for human activities
and because it supports terrestrial and aquatic plant diversity and wild animals and theirhabitats (Cerrón et al. 2019). The Tropical Andes is the source of the main stem of the Amazon
River, the world’s largest river, which flows into the Atlantic Ocean. Dozens of other majorrivers drain from the Tropical Andes into the Pacific and Caribbean slopes of the hotspot.
Other provisioning services provided by the hotspot are:

39

●
●
●

●
●
●
●

the supply of animal protein through hunting (especially mammals and large
birds) and subsistence fishing (the latter particularly in the great Altiplano lakesof Peru and Bolivia).
the provision of fruits, seeds, honey and other plant products extracted fromnatural ecosystems.
crop wild relatives that offer genetic diversity to obtain new varieties andsupport crop improvement (peppers Capsicum spp., potatoes and tomatoes
Solanum spp. and Lycopersicum spp., yuccas Manihot spp., blackberries Rubus
spp., cacao Theobroma spp., wild papayas Carica spp., beans Phaseolus spp.
and Chenopodium spp., guabas Inga spp., prickly pears Opuntia spp.,
Passifloraceae, Cucurbitaceae, others) (Asturiaga et al. 2006).
medicinal plants and animals (Cinchona spp., Piper spp., Lepidium spp., Crotonspp., Uncaria spp., among others).
fibres (cotton Gossypium spp., reeds Scirpus spp.).
livestock grazing in the altiplano and páramos (with seasonal grasses
dependent on the rainfall regime) andextensive extraction of firewood and wood exploitation for domestic,
agricultural, construction (wood girders and beams, palm leaves for roofs, palm
shafts for floors and platforms) and commercial purposes.

In other words, the forests and other wild ecosystems of the Andean mountains are the natural
pantries of the local populations (Moraes et al. 2006).
Regulating services. Water flow control is a valuable regulating service provided by Andean
wetlands. The region's wetlands regulate the flow from highly seasonal precipitation, providing
water even in periods of low rainfall (Anderson et al. 2011).
The natural vegetation and soils of the Andes store significant amounts of carbon, ranging
from less than 50 metric tons per hectare in grassland and peatland systems to 250 metrictons per hectare in lower montane forests (Saatchi et al. 2011; Rolando et al. 2017). Changes
in land-use patterns in these areas would release much of that carbon. The hotspot has animportant role to play in carbon storage to regulate the global carbon budget and to mitigate
climate change, as noted in Chapter 10.
Natural ecosystems also help retain soil, thereby contributing to soil fertility for agriculture andpreventing landslides on steep slopes during periods of high rainfall. Forests and vegetation
mitigate erosion and moderate suspended sediment loads in rivers and streams, and support
groundwater recharge (Anderson et al. 2011; CEPF 2015; Blancas et al. 2018). These
ecosystems also help regulate climates by forming the fundamental components of the water
cycle and limiting the degree to which solar radiation heats the air (Ruiz et al. 2007). In cloudforests, trees intercept fog, which condenses and is discharged into streams and rivers (Tovar
et al. 2010).
The natural vegetation of the rugged terrain of the steep slopes of the Tropical Andes provides
an important disaster mitigation service by efficiently retaining soils and reducing the risk oflandslides and avalanches. This makes a strong case for using native woody species to restore
degraded areas through reforestation and agroforestry initiatives. Herbaceous and woody
vegetation help with the infiltration of water from rainfall into the soil, which stores it like asponge and then releases it clean throughout the year (Huasasquiche and Kometter 2017).
The presence of forests and other natural vegetation improves infiltration and water qualityand decreases surface runoff. Additionally, it protects organic and mineralized soil layers. It

40

also helps regulate water flows and protect the soil from the action of rainfall and runoff,
thereby reducing erosion of sloped soils, moderating the load of suspended sediments instreams and recharging subway aquifers. Plant cover thus maintains the fertile layer in theupper levels of the soil where it is accessible to plants. Leaf litter in the soil cushions water fall
and therefore reduces soil erosion (Albán 2007).
In the rainy season, the forest vegetation intercepts raindrops and reduces their impact onsoils, thereby helping to prevent erosion and landslides to the lower reaches. Similarly,
overflows of watercourses are controlled by strips of riparian vegetation, protecting above all
the upper catchment basins (Cerrón et al. 2019).
Forests, shrublands and wetlands have a significant potential for carbon sequestration, but
deforestation, burning, grazing and drainage of water bodies cause the oxidation of the carbon
stored in them and the release of CO2. These Andean ecosystems can contribute to themitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, but more research is needed on the dynamics ofcarbon, from its capture in vegetation to becoming part of the soil (Yaranga and Custodio
2013; Suárez et al. 2016; Rolando et al. 2017). In the páramos, carbon stocks decrease as
land-use changes from natural vegetation to agriculture; probably the removal of thevegetation cover that protects the soil reduces the entrance of organic matter into the soil andincreases the rate of decomposition of plant residues, thus this change causes rapid loss ofcarbon from the biomass, accompanied by soil carbon depletion (Castañeda-Martín et al.
2017).
Climate resilience, or resilience to climate change, is the ability to cope with climatic
disturbances and stress (Tyler et al. 2013). In this sense, the different ecosystems of theTropical Andes contribute to the storage of greenhouse gases and act as a natural buffer
against extreme weather events, such as tropical storms, droughts and frosts. They also
provide drinking water, habitat, food, raw materials and a series of services that are essential
for the life and food security of the human population (Andrade 2010; Uribe 2015).
Supporting services. Supporting services of the Tropical Andes include crop pollination andsoil formation. Native pollinators (insects, birds such as hummingbirds and bats) are essential
for the pollinating of Andean crops such as coffee, potatoes, tomatoes, lulo or naranjilla(Solanum quitoense; used in fruit drinks mainly in Colombia and Ecuador), chocho or tarwi(Lupinus mutabilis), capuli (Prunus salicifolia), and Passifloraceae such as passion fruit(Pantoja et al. 2004; Anteparra et al. 2013; Abrahamczyk et al. 2014).
Cultural services. Cultural services without monetary value are provided by extraordinary
biodiversity and landscape, as they generate aesthetic appreciation and inspiration for artistic
creation and culture and invite relaxation and stress reduction. The ancestral knowledge ofindigenous populations has great potential for the identification of new products. At the sametime, the scenic value has sustained a thriving tourism industry that generates income locally,nationally, and internationally. Prior to COVID, the Andes provided numerous opportunities toengage in adventure tourism or nature sports (Baiker 2011).
Ecotourism has been an important sustainable income source for local communities, as it
generated fair employment and more equitable distribution of income. Some activities include
canoeing, hiking, and high-altitude mountaineering, caving, rock climbing, and photography(of wild birds, insects, flowers, waterfalls, and others). It is also worth mentioning theopportunities for scientific research that the hotspot offers.

41

Table 4.2. Ecosystem Services Provided by the Tropical Andes Hotspot
Service

Beneficiaries

Relative importance

All residents of the hotspot
and downstream drainages

Highly significant in the
hotspot and throughout
drainages of northern andcentral South America,
including the Orinoco andAmazon River Basins

Food (animal protein fromhunting and fishing, honey,
wild plants)

Rural and indigenous
communities and someurban areas

Locally important,especially for indigenous
groupsWild relatives of crops

All humankind

Globally significant

Animals and medicinal
plantsRural and indigenous
communities and someurban areas, including all
humankind

Locally important
throughout the hotspot

Grazing

Rural communities andnational and international
consumers of meat andtextile products

Significant in high-altitude
grassland ecosystems
throughout the hotspot

Firewood and othervegetable fuels

Indigenous and ruralcommunities

Locally important especiallyin all non-urban areas of
the hotspot

Timber

Rural communities

Locally important,especially in all non-urban
areas of the hotspot

Sediment retention

All communities and cities
within the hotspot

Significant throughout the
hotspot

Down-slope safety

Most communities andcities within the hotspot

Significant throughout the
hotspot

Carbon sequestration andstorage

All humankind

Globally significant

Climate regulation

All residents of the hotspot

Significant throughout the
hotspot

Disaster mitigation

All residents of the hotspot

Significant throughout the
hotspot

Resilience to climatechangeAll residents of the hotspot

Significant throughout the
hotspot

Biological control of pests
and disease vectors

All residents of the hotspot

Significant throughout the
hotspot

Photosynthesis, pollination,
biological control, soil
formation

All residents of the hotspot

Significant throughout the
hotspot

Water disposal

All residents of the hotspot
and downstream drainages

Significant in the hotspot
and throughout drainages

Provisioning
Water (drinking, irrigation,navigation, industrial anddomestic use, energy
generation)

Regulating

Supporting

42

Cultural
Ecotourism opportunities

Local, national, andinternational tour operatorsand tourism infrastructure
support staff, as well as
local guides

Locally and regionally
important throughout the
hotspot

Scientific research andinnovation

All humankind

Globally significant

Scenic beauty and spiritualvalue, inspiration

All humankind

Globally significant

Source: Adapted from CEPF 2015.

43

5 HOTSPOT CONSERVATION OUTCOMESThe Tropical Andes boasts exceptional species richness and endemism influenced by theheterogeneity of habitats and elevated slopes found along the length and breadth of thismountain range. This is a considerable challenge for conservation, making it necessary to
implement strategies that maximize limited resources, effectively prevent species extinction,and safeguard the ecological processes required for biodiversity survival. CEPF, therefore,
defines conservation outcomes for its investment based on a set of globally threatened species
as well as KBAs and conservation corridors where actions should be focused to avoid
extinction.
IUCN’s assessment that categorizes species according to their degree of threat at the global
level is an important tool for identifying those species most vulnerable to extinction. An
advantage of the information provided by IUCN on the distribution of the vast majority of
species that have been assessed is that it is easy to access and process. In addition, it iscomplemented by information shared by expert groups on taxonomy, population trends,
threats and conservation actions for species, among others, making it a valuable resource for
identifying conservation investment priorities.
Land-use change is currently the biggest driver of biodiversity loss. The conversion of forests,
grasslands, savannahs and wetlands is destroying natural habitats for species and affecting
both the provision of ecosystem services and human well-being (WWF 2020). This is why it is
so important to protect areas that allow for the conservation of both species and the habitat
they require to survive. Although protected areas have increased in recent decades to cover 15
percent of the land area globally and 34 percent of the Tropical Andes Hotspot, they do notprovide sufficient coverage for 72 percent of vertebrates and 90 percent of threatenedvertebrates in the Tropical Andes (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2020; Bax and Francesconi 2019).
Thus, complementary conservation strategies, such as the identification of KBAs, have beendeveloped to generate a global consensus on the importance of certain sites for biodiversity(IUCN 2016). This strategy also has great potential to engage civil society and communities inconserving species and ecosystems.
To ensure that KBAs provide the necessary area and resources for species, there must also besome functional connectivity that ensures the permanence of species and their genetic
diversity (Baguette et al. 2013). Conservation corridors are strategic areas that allow forconnectivity between wildlife populations and their habitat and protect the ecosystem services
they provide. With this sequential approach of species, sites and corridors, CEPF ensures that itcomplements national conservation priorities to achieve a feasible strategy and better use ofavailable resources for ecosystem management in the Tropical Andes Hotspot.

5.1 Species Outcomes
The list of threatened species for the Tropical Andes Hotspot was determined from distribution
information provided by the IUCN. All species in the hotspot included in one of three global
threat categories—Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) or Vulnerable (VU)—wereconsidered. We used data available from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species as of July
2020 (IUCN 2020), as well as the most recent assessment data for plants and reptiles as ofAugust 2020 (M. Tognelli unpublished data).
Overall, a total of 1,451 threatened species were identified in the hotspot (Appendix 5.1),
representing 13 taxonomic classes in groups of amphibians, arthropods (insects andcrustaceans), birds, fungi, mammals, molluscs (bivalves and gastropods), fish, plants and44

reptiles (Table 5.1). The 2015 ecosystem profile included 814 threatened species ofamphibians (503 species), birds (203 species), mammals (82 species), fish (7 species) andreptiles (19 species). It also considered 1,313 species with restricted distribution that have notbeen covered in this work. Between 2015 and 2020, IUCN conducted assessments of fish,
reptiles and plants and other taxonomic groups, thereby providing a better representation ofthese taxonomic groups.
Table 5.1. Globally Threatened Species in the Tropical Andes Hotspot
Taxonomic
group

Common name

CriticallyEndangered

Endangered

Vulnerable

Total

Animalia
Vertebrates
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

1

2

Subtotal
Invertebrates
Bivalvia

Molluscs

1

Gastropoda

Snails and slugs

1

Insecta

Insects

7

Malacostraca

Crabs, lobsters andrelatives

Subtotal

9

23

23

6

7

16

46

1

1

24

56

Fungi
Sordariomycetes

FungusSubtotal

1

1

1

1

Plantae
Liliopsida

Monocotyledons

Lycopodiopsida

Aquatic lycophytes

2Magnoliopsida

Dicotyledons

39

14
4

6

47

108

95

250

70

147

113

330

Total

239

625

587

1,451

Percentage

16.5

43

40.5

Subtotal

21

74

Amphibians
Amphibians are the most threatened group in the Tropical Andes (Table 5.1). Among them,rain frogs (order Anura) are the family of frogs, with the highest number of threatened species(Craugastoridae, 241 species). Widely distributed from the southern United States to northern
Argentina, they represent almost half (43 percent) of the threatened amphibians in the hotspot(Armesto and Señaris 2017). They include the genus Pristimantis, which, in addition to being
the most threatened genus in the Tropical Andes (180 species), is also considered the mostdiverse genus of terrestrial vertebrates (Waddell et al. 2018).

45

The second most threatened family is the toad family (Bufonidae, 72 species), which has awide global distribution and is found in diverse ecosystems between 0 and 4,800 m above sea
level. The family Bufonidae includes Atelopus or harlequin frogs (43 species), a genus forwhich the most severe population declines have been reported (La Marca et al. 2005). For
example, only one of the nine species of the genus described in Venezuela currently has aknown population (Molina et al. 2009). Similarly, the Quito stubfoot toad (A. ignescens, CR),
once a locally abundant species in upland habitats of Ecuador, was presumed extinct until it
was rediscovered in 2016 (Coloma 2016). The reasons cited for these declines, which haveeven occurred in apparently pristine habitats, are a combination of the fungal diseasechytridiomycosis and climate change (Pounds et al. 2006).
Among threatened anuran amphibians, rain frogs and toads are followed, in terms of degree of
threat, by families endemic to Central and South America: the glass frogs (Centrolenidae, 49
species), the poison dart frogs (Dendrobatidae, 45 species) and the highly-threatened
Telmatobius, the only genus of the aquatic frog family (Telmatobiidae, 46 species). The latterincludes the Titicaca water frog (T. culeus, EN), which was once so abundant that it wascollected with nets for food but is now possibly affected by water pollution (IUCN SSC
Amphibian Specialist Group 2020).
Amphibians represent more than a third of all threatened species in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot. In general, they are a diverse group and tend to have smaller distributions than othervertebrates, making them more likely to fall within IUCN threat thresholds (Stuart et al. 2004).
Ninety-nine percent of threatened amphibians in the hotspot are restricted in distribution(<50,000 km2). Although they are threatened by habitat destruction, disease and climatechange are possibly their greatest threats (Pounds et al. 2006).

Arthropods (insects and crustaceans)
The odonate insects, known as dragonflies or damselflies, include the family with the highest
number of threatened arthropod species in the Tropical Andes (Coenagrionidae, 15 species).
Mesamphiagron (seven species) is the genus with the most threatened species. It is endemic
to the northern Andes, and its high Andean species live above 1,400 m above sea level. A
dragonfly that has only been recorded from the páramos of Antioquia, M. gaudiimontanum(EN), whose name means “the joy of the mountains”, has lost an entire population due to theintroduction of carp into the lagoon where it was breeding in Las Baldías-Valle de Aburrá,
Colombia (Urquijo 2017). The second arthropod family with the highest number of threatened
species in the hotspot are beetles (Escarabaeidae, seven species), a species-rich family ofcoleopteran insects of great importance for their role as recyclers, pollinators and seeddispersers (Carlson 2001).
Among the crustaceans, there is only one globally threatened species in the hotspot,
Hypolobocera barbacensis (VU), a freshwater crayfish endemic to Colombia and found in five
localities in Nariño. This species, which is consumed by indigenous Emberá communities, wasaffected by pollution from alluvial gold mining; however, this threat has been controlled by
local conservation efforts (Campos et al. 2015).
The most common threats to threatened arthropod species in the hotspot, particularly
vulnerable due to their restricted distribution and specific environmental requirements, arehabitat loss and climate change (IUCN 2020). In addition, for some odonates, environmental
pollution and destruction due to gold mining is a recurrent threat (IUCN 2020).

46

BirdsAmong the Passeriformes, the families with the highest number of threatened species arewoodcreepers and their related species (Furnariidae, 21 species), tanagers and their related
species (Thraupidae, 21 species), flycatchers (Tyrannidae, 16 species) and antpittas(Grallariidae, 15 species). The most threatened non-passerine birds include hummingbirds(Trochilidae, 24 species) and parrots and macaws (Psittacidae, 23 species).
Although 89 percent of birds have distributions that transcend hotspot boundaries, 73 percent
have restricted ranges (<50,000 km2) and depend on forests that are being destroyed byaccelerated deforestation for livestock, agricultural expansion, logging, fires and mining (IUCN
2020). Other natural habitats such as marshes and wetlands important for waterbirds, many ofwhich are migratory, have been drained or destroyed for the same reasons (IUCN 2020).
Parrots and macaws are a particularly threatened group due to the practice of keeping themcaptive for their colorful plumage or attractive song and behaviors. This encourages theremoval of these birds from their habitat, species trafficking and, in turn, increases the risk of
spreading invasive species.
Among the threatened macaws is the charismatic red-fronted macaw (Ara rubrogenys).
Endemic to Bolivia, its natural habitat, the inter-Andean dry forest, is extensively affected byhuman activities (Miles et al. 2006). This species is Critically Endangered (CR), mainly due tohabitat loss, wildlife trade, persecution as crop pests and the use of pesticides (BirdLife
International 2018). There are also birds with a wide geographical distribution that are affectedby the deforestation of primary forests. One such example is the crested eagle (Spizaetus
isidori, EN), an Andean raptor with a range that extends from Venezuela to Argentina but isnarrowly restricted to elevations between 1,500 and 2,800 m above sea level (BirdLife
International 2016b; Fergusson-Lees et al. 2001). Species with very restricted ranges are also
threatened. For example, the striking Jocotoco antpitta (Grallaria ridgelyi, EN), an undergrowthbird with a small known range in three rainforest localities in southern Ecuador and northern
Peru, is found in areas affected by logging, cattle ranching and gold mining (BirdLife
International 2016a; Heinz et al. 2005).

Bivalve molluscs and gastropods
The two globally threatened bivalve species in the Tropical Andes, Acostaea rivolii (CR) and
Diplodontites olssoni (VU), are freshwater bivalve molluscs endemic to Colombia (families
Etheriidae and Mycetopodidae). Threatened gastropods in the hotspot include families of small
freshwater snails (Cochliopidae, three species; Hydrobiidae, one species), and the lagoon
snails or giant snails (Ampullariidae, three species). The most common threats to these species
are water pollution from agriculture or urbanization and the alteration of water bodies. The
threatened gastropods of Lake Titicaca may also be affected by the invasive gastropod (Haitia
acuta) and by fish species introduced for commercial fishing (IUCN 2020).

Fish
The number of threatened fish (77 species, Table 5.1) has increased considerably since thepublication of the last ecosystem profile, which identified just seven globally threatened
species (CEPF 2015). At present, the old river fishes or corronchos (Loricariidae, 20 species)
are the most threatened fish family, belonging to the Siluriformes order (43 species).
Commonly known as catfishes, they are mostly benthic, freshwater scavengers. The familywith the second-highest number of threatened species is the Characidae (13 species)

47

belonging to the Characiformes order (20 species), tropical lake fishes that include piranhas(non-threatened).
Thirty-eight percent of the threatened fishes in the hotspot have distributions that are entirely
within the hotspot and have a range of less than 50,000 km2. The only six CriticallyEndangered species with distributions entirely within the hotspot belong to the Siluriformes
order, which has the highest number of threatened species. One of these, the Andean catfish(Astroblepus ubidiai), is restricted to isolated springs in Imbabura, Ecuador. This species isthreatened by habitat deterioration caused by pollution and cattle grazing. Another CriticallyEndangered species, the pencil catfish (Trichomycterus venulosus) from Colombia, may be
extinct as it has not been recorded since 1911 (IUCN 2020).
The greatest threats to fish in the Andes are water pollution and deforestation (IUCN 2020).
Mining, agriculture, urbanization and illicit crops contribute to the pollution of lakes and rivers,and deforestation leads to erosion, reduction of shade, oxygen and food, as well as a change inwater quality. This combination of factors represents a problem not only for aquatic
biodiversity but also for human consumption. In Lake Titicaca, for example, several species offish important for consumption were found to have elevated concentrations of mercury inmuscle tissue according to US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria (Gammons et al.
2006). In addition, many of these fish have possibly been affected by the introduction ofinvasive trout and the construction of dams that modify the physico-chemical aspects of rivers(IUCN 2020).

Fungi
The only globally threatened fungus (Stilbohypoxylon macrosporum, CR) in the hotspot is anascomycota fungus of the Xylariaceae family. It is known only to be found in the Argentinian
yungas, a habitat degraded by citrus and sugar cane agriculture. Although it occurs inprotected areas, there are no specific conservation actions for this organism (Kuhar et al.
2020).

Mammals
The majority of globally threatened mammals in the hotspot are rodents (31 species), primates(21 species) and bats (11 species). Among the most threatened families in these orders are
the new world rats and mice (Cricetidae, 25 species), followed by the new world monkeys(Atelidae, seven species). Mammals are mostly affected by deforestation and habitat
fragmentation due to agriculture and ranching. Poaching is also a frequent threat to mammals
in the Tropical Andes (IUCN 2020).
Like birds, 80 percent of the identified threatened mammals have distributions beyond hotspot
boundaries. Of the threatened small mammals, only 23 percent of rodents and 27 percent ofbats have distributions restricted to the Tropical Andes. The Antioquian sac-winged bat(Saccopteryx antioquensis, EN), endemic to Colombia, is found in only two localities in
Antioquia, where it lives and breeds in karst formations. It is threatened by recreational use
and lack of control of tourist access and forests surrounding these karst formations are beingtransformed by agriculture (Solari 2016). Despite the benefits that bats offer humankind as
pest controllers, pollinators and seed dispersers, they now face increased threat due to thebelief that they are linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. In parts of the Andes and other placesin the world, bats have been attacked, particularly with fire, in the mistaken belief that they
can transmit the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus to humans (Gomez 2020).

48

Marsupial mice (Caenolestidae) are a family of marsupials whose three threatened species are
all endemic to the Andes. They are the only family of the paucituberculate order with living
species restricted to humid and cold environments in discontinuous areas of the Andes from
Venezuela to southern Chile (Ojala-Barbour et al. 2013). The three threatened species in the
Tropical Andes are part of a group of six surviving paucituberculate species and belong to thegenus Caenolestes, which is itself one of three surviving genera in this family.
Among the 21 globally threatened primates whose distributions coincide with the hotspot is theyellow-tailed woolly monkey (Lagothrix flavicauda, CR), a large atelid endemic to the cloudforests of the Peruvian Andes, first described by Alexander von Humbolt in 1812 (SerranoVillavicencio et al. 2019). Among the threatened large mammals, the mountain tapir (Tapirus
pinchaque, EN), the smallest of the South American tapirs, is the largest restricted to thehotspot. With fewer than 2,500 individuals thought to remain in its range from Colombia tonorthern Peru, its populations continue to decline due to a myriad of threats, including hunting,habitat loss, the introduction of cattle ranching, mining, settlement of a growing humanpopulation and climate change (Lizcano 2016). The emblematic spectacled bear (Tremarctos
ornatus, VU) ranges along the Andean cordillera from Venezuela to Bolivia. The species
continues to decline due to habitat loss, intervention and fragmentation, limiting the ability tosustain populations, compounded by poaching for human conflict or cultural purposes, mining
and climate change (Velez-Liendo 2017).

PlantsA recent IUCN assessment of the hotspot’s plants, funded by CEPF, described a total of 330
globally threatened species (Table 5.1) belonging to the dicotyledons (Magnoliopsida),
monocotyledons (Liliopsida) and some fern-like aquatic lycophytes (Lycopodiopsida). The
dicotyledon family with the highest number of threatened species is Ericaceae (86 species) of
the Ericales order. These are woody plants with very diverse centers of endemism above 2,600m above sea level (CEPF 2015). This is followed by the Asteraceae (66 species), dicotyledonsof the Asterales order, in which the frailejones of the Espeletia (38 species) and Espeletiopsis
genera (11 species) stand out as very representative and important plants of the páramos of
the northern Andes.
Among the monocotyledons, the bromeliad family (Bromeliaceae, 66 species) of the Poales
order has many threatened species. The genus Puya is the most threatened (47 species). It ischaracterized by herbaceous high mountain plants that are slow-growing and take years toflower, some of which have erect stems that can reach up to 3 meters in length. The largest
puya, Puya raimondii (EN), is a species endemic to the Altiplano of Bolivia and Peru. It cangrow up to 14 m with its inflorescence and erect stem. It takes several decades to flower, andits nectar is an important resource for Andean hummingbirds (Zavaleta 2017). However, thisspecies was not considered in this work as it does not currently have a digital distribution map
on the IUCN Red List. Finally, for the lycophytes there are six threatened species, isoethaceae(Isoetaceae) of a single Isoetes genus. These are seedless, aquatic or semi-aquatic vascularplants, popularly known as aquatic ferns, which have their center of taxonomic diversity inSouth America with 64 of the 250 species known worldwide (Pereira et al. 2017).
Seventy-four percent of threatened plants in the Tropical Andes have distributions that are
entirely within the hotspot. Perhaps this is because recent IUCN assessments haveconcentrated on examining plants from ecosystems characteristic to the hotspot. Plants havebeen mostly affected by deforestation, habitat degradation and loss related to the expansion of
the agricultural frontier, cattle ranching and mining (IUCN 2020). In addition, many of these
Andean plants are found in high altitude ecosystems that are potentially severely threatenedby climate change-related alterations in temperature and precipitation (Young et al. 2011).

49

Reptiles
As in the case of fish and plants, the number of threatened reptiles (125 species, Table 5.1)
has increased considerably in recent years. The most threatened reptiles belong to the mostdiverse family of lizards in the Neotropics, the gymnophthalmids (Gymnophthalmidae, 34
species), generally small lizards with short limbs. The most threatened genus (Riama, 19
species) is distributed mainly in the northern Andes (Torres-Carvajal et al. 2016). Somegymnophthalmids, such as Proctoporus, have a transparent lower eyelid (Köhler and Lehr
2004). The only threatened lizard of this genus in the Tropical Andes is P. cephalolineatus(EN), found in the montane forests of Venezuela (IUCN 2020). The second most threatenedfamily corresponds to the non-venomous snakes (Dipsadidae, 18 species), including
Emmochliophis miops (CR), a snake with particularly small eyes, to which its specific namealludes (Pazmiño-Otamendi 2019).
Sixty-two percent of the Tropical Andes’ threatened reptiles are restricted to the hotspot. Most
Andean reptiles have restricted distributions that are shrinking due to habitat destruction
caused by the expansion of the agricultural frontier (IUCN 2020). In addition to contributing to
the destruction of Andean reptile habitat through water pollution, mining affects reptiles
associated with riparian zones such as Anolis podocarpus (VU). Finally, species that inhabit
páramos and Andean forests such as Anadia brevifontalis (EN) or that live among the leaf litterof humid forests such as Lepidoblepharis conolepis (CR) could be threatened by climatechange, which reduces humidity below their required levels (IUCN, 2020).

Species Conclusions
The list of globally threatened species in the Tropical Andes is dominated by vertebrates.
Vertebrates in the Andes exhibit higher levels of endemism than in other hotspots (Myers et al.
2000). The estimated percentage of described vertebrate species that have been assessed by
the IUCN globally (73 percent) significantly exceeds invertebrates (2 percent), plants (10percent) and fungi and protists (0.3 percent). Of the vertebrates, birds (100 percent),
mammals (91 percent) and amphibians (84 percent) have the highest percentages ofdescribed species assessed by IUCN. In comparison, reptiles (70 percent) and fish (59 percent)still require further coverage (IUCN 2020).
These species are subject to a large number of pressures related, directly or indirectly, tohuman activities that seriously threaten their survival. The Tropical Andes has a long history ofhuman settlement that has transformed the region’s habitats and caused deforestation throughthe expansion of agriculture and pastures. These settlements are concentrated in the Andean
and inter-Andean valleys, and have caused a significant loss of biodiversity, particularly in thenorthern Andes (Wassenar et al. 2007). Habitat loss and degradation remain the mostimportant threats to most of its taxonomic groups.
Amphibians have suffered the greatest loss of biodiversity attributed to a pathogen (Scheele etal. 2019). Trade and human development have broken down the dispersal barriers of
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and B. salamandrivorans, allowing an accelerated spread ofthese fungi around the world, an event known as a panzootic. The impacts of chytridiomycosis
have been greatest for anurans with restricted ranges in humid climates and high elevations,particularly in the Americas and Australia (Scheele et al. 2009). Addressing this amphibian
fungal panzootic is a challenge in the face of globalization because it requires biosecurity
measures that are almost non-existent in protected areas, let alone outside protected areas,
and are inadequate in international trade policies. No effective strategies have been found to
mitigate the disease in the wild. Moreover, doing so requires combined and innovative50

solutions as other threats, such as tourism and climate change, may exacerbate the spreadand impact of the disease. Improving protection, management and biosecurity protocols forsites with surviving amphibian populations that may be resistant to the disease, and thus thefounders of future populations, is an urgent priority.
Other extremely biodiverse groups in the Tropical Andes, such as plants and invertebrates,
have fewer threatened species. Despite being the hotspot with the highest plant endemism
and the fact that there have been recent CEPF-supported IUCN Red List plant assessments,
assessing the totality of species is a major challenge (Myers et al. 2000). However, efforts inrecent years have succeeded in illustrating the importance of key ecosystems, such as theyungas, puna and páramos, for biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services to humancommunities in the Tropical Andes.
The growing number of threatened species in the Tropical Andes and worldwide and the trendof species population decline are indicative of the health of our ecosystems, and the planet isgiving us important warning signs (WWF 2020). The Living Planet Index shows a 68 percent
drop in the population size of vertebrates monitored around the world between 1970 and 2016
(WWF 2020). In the tropical regions of the Americas, there has been a 94 percent decline, thelargest observed in any region of the world. The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic haveincluded increases in activities such as mining and subsistence hunting, along with a decreasein the control and monitoring of protected areas. The latter is due to isolation or a reduction in
the number of park rangers, which could have serious implications for species (see Chapter 6
for more details). However, the pandemic has also shown us that we live in fragile harmony
with nature and that to care for nature is to ensure our own health and well-being.

5.2 Site Outcomes
The KBA program uses a global standard that provides a set of quantitative criteria andthresholds for identifying sites in an objective, repeatable and transparent way (IUCN 2016,
KBA Standards and Appeals Committee 2020). Species qualify KBAs by demonstrating that thesites meet specific thresholds of criteria based on threatened biodiversity, geographically
restricted biodiversity, ecological integrity of ecosystems, biological processes of species andirreplaceability of the sites through quantitative analysis. Currently, the Tropical Andes Hotspot
has a total of 474 KBAs, 423 confirmed and 51 nominated or proposed as of August 2020
(Table 5.2, Appendix 5. 2). These include 359 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and 103 Alliance for
Zero Extinction (AZE) sites, which are defined as sites that encompass the entire distributionsof Endangered or Critically Endangered species (Ricketts et al. 2005).
Most KBAs in the Tropical Andes had previously been defined as IBAs by BirdLife International
and its partner organizations in each country. Until the introduction of KBAs, no important
areas for plant and reptile conservation had been identified in the region, with the exception of
AZE sites. However, the KBA Standard (formally the Global Standard for the Identification of
Key Biodiversity Areas) allows for the identification of sites important for all macroscopic
biodiversity at the species and ecosystem level. In the 2015 ecosystem profile, CEPF
recognized the importance of other taxonomic groups for the identification of new KBAs andidentified information gaps regarding the representation of these taxonomic groups inassessments of globally threatened species (CEPF 2015). Consequently, in its last investment
period, CEPF supported IUCN Red List of Threatened Species assessments of 614 endemic
plants in the hotspot and the updating of KBAs to incorporate Red Listed plants and reptiles.
This process enabled the updating of qualifying species information for 109 KBAs andgenerated 50 new KBAs for plants and reptiles for sites in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia(Table 5.2).

51

Table 5.2. Summary of Site Outcomes for the Tropical Andes Hotspot
Percentageof thehotspotarea
covered by
KBAs

Country

Number ofKBAs*(nominated/
proposed)

KBA area(ha)

Area of KBA
within the
hotspot (ha)Area ofcountry
within the
hotspot (ha)Argentina

76

4,302,130

2,398,807

14,872,835

Bolivia47 (7)

6,777,212

6,664,450

37,000,978

Chile

12

586,998495,771

7,384,220

Colombia

119 (14)**

7,878,654

6,743,033

35,028,997

Ecuador88 (16)

4,708,664

4,275,071

11,786,708

Peru

106 (14)

14,393,717

9,344,586

45,326,966

Venezuela

26

4,349,607

2,588,751

6,952,395

16
18
7
19
36
21
37

TropicalAndes
Hotspot

474 (51)

42,996,982

32,510,468

158,353,100

21( ) In brackets, KBAs nominated/proposed.
**Between August 2020 and December 2020, a new KBA was nominated for Colombia that has not been
included in these calculations.

The publication of the KBA Standard triggered a process of updating and re-evaluating sites toverify the distribution of qualifying species, redefine boundaries and ensure that KBAs meetcurrent criteria (IUCN 2016). CEPF also supported an update of the boundaries of 35 KBAs in
the hotspot by the regional KBA Focal Point for Latin America and the Caribbean (D. Díaz pers.
comm.). As a result of the application of the new KBA Standard, 63 KBAs were removed fromthe 2015 list of 442 sites and 95 added for a current total of 474 KBAs in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot (Appendix 5.3). These 474 sites cover 32,510,468 hectares within the hotspot, or onefifth of the hotspot, an area slightly larger than Norway (Table 5.2). The Tropical Andes KBAs
have an average area of 90,710 hectares but range from 63 hectares to 2,184,234 hectares,
with Utuana-Bosque de Hanne (ECU73) in Ecuador being the smallest KBA and Cordillera
Vilcabamba (PER33) in Peru the largest.
In order to determine the relative importance of KBAs in the hotspot, the ecosystem profile
used an irreplaceability index that assigns values to the hotspot according to species range andthreat category (Appendix 5.4, Table A5.4.1). The normalized sum of values over the area iswhat we call the relative biodiversity value (RBV). The profile used the species range
information available from the IUCN and included all species in some global threat category:
Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) or Vulnerable (VU). The RBV establishes, forexample, higher relative values to areas where Critically Endangered species with smaller
ranges are found and lower relative values to areas where Vulnerable species with larger
ranges are found. The section below provides a summary overview of the hotspot’s KBAs, witha description of the highest RBV sites for each country.

52

Overview of KBAs
Venezuela
Venezuela is the country with the second-lowest number of KBAs, with 26 sites (Figure 5.1),
covering an area of 2,588,751 hectares or 37 percent of the Venezuelan section of the hotspot(Table 5.2). This country has the highest percentage of the hotspot covered by KBAs of any
Andean country. The previous ecosystem profile (CEPF 2015) identified 27 KBAs; four KBAs
have been removed, and three added (Appendix 5.3). In Venezuela, KBAs have an averagearea of 167,292 hectares, ranging from 8,202 hectares to 725,740 hectares (Table 5.3).
The KBA with the highest relative biodiversity value (RBV - 0.36) for the country is the ParqueNacional Península de Paria (VEN20), located at the northeastern end of the Tropical Andes
Hotspot, in the state of Sucre (Figure 5.1 Map B). In the north-eastern mountainous region of
the Coastal Range is the Zona Protectora Macizo Montañoso del Turimiquire (VEN26) and, tothe east of this, the Parque Nacional El Guácharo (VEN5). The Macizo Montañoso delTurimiquire is a mountain with elevations up to 2,600 m above sea level. Important rivers
originate there, and several hydraulic projects and aqueducts ensure water supply to thenortheastern and insular regions of Venezuela (BirdLife International 2020d).
In the Cordillera de la Costa Central Corridor (Figure 5.1 Map A and B) the following six KBAs
with the next highest RBVs for the country (0.35-0.25) are grouped: Monumento Natural Pico
Codazzi (VEN3), Parque Nacional Macarao (VEN10), Parque Nacional Henri Pittier (VEN9),Parque Nacional El Ávila y alrededores (VEN2), Parque Nacional San Esteban (VEN13) andPalmichal (VEN28). These low-elevation coastal mountains are geologically older andbiologically more closely related to the Caribbean than the Andes. These sites have highendemism and threats and provide valuable ecosystem services such as water supply andcarbon storage. The last remaining population of Venezuela’s only species of Veragua stubfoottoad (Atelopus cruciger, CR) is found in this area. Parque Nacional Henry Pittier (VEN9) is an
AZE site classified by the Aragua poison frog (Mannophryne neblina, CR). The easternmost
population of helmeted curassow (Pauxi pauxi, EN) occurs in this area, where it needs to beprotected from hunting. Most of these KBAs, with the exception of Palmichal (VEN28), are orform part of protected areas that provide some security against severe deforestation, but theirproximity to Caracas and other population centers constitutes a fragmentation risk (Figure 5.9,
Table 5.3).
The Parque Nacional Sierra La Culata (VEN14), the Parques Nacionales Sierra La Culata ySierra Nevada y alrededores (VEN23), and Parque Nacional Sierra Nevada (VEN15) are large
KBAs in the Venezuelan Andes Corridor that protect Andean páramos and upper montane
forests and possess high levels of endemic plants (Figure 5.1 Map A). This area has not
suffered from significant land-use change, infrastructure development pressure or agricultural
expansion. The parks provide ecosystem services such as ecotourism and water supply forhydropower production and consumption in the state of Mérida, which has a population of
992,000. Within the same corridor, and immediately to the northeast of this grouping are two
small KBAs also of medium-high RBV (0.29-0.24): Parque Nacional Guaramacal (VEN7) and
Tostós (VEN25), and to the southwest there are KBAs of medium-high RBV (0.23 both):Parque Nacional Páramos Batallón y La Negra y alrededores (VEN21) y el Parque Nacional El
Tamá (VEN6).
Finally, on the northernmost branch of the Andes west of Lake Maracaibo is the binational
corridor Cordillera de Perijá (Figure 5.1 Map A). On the Venezuelan side of the corridor are theParque Nacional Perijá (VEN12), with a high RBV (0.31), and the Zona Protectora San Rafael53

de Guasare (VEN27), with a medium-high RBV (0.26). The Perijá mountain range, shared with
Colombia, is an area of great diversity and endemism mostly covered by montane andsubmontane forests and páramos from 2,800 m above sea level. The area also includes
valleys, such as the Guasare river valley, at the eastern end of the Zona Protectora San Rafael
de Guasare (VEN27), a KBA that protects water sources for the city of Maracaibo and otherpopulation centers (BirdLife International 2020a, 2020e).

54

Figure 5.1. KBAs in the Venezuelan Region of the Tropical Andes Hotspot

55

Table 5.3. KBAs in Venezuela
KBA name

CEPF
code

Area
(ha)

Protection*

Monumento Natural Pico
Codazzi

VEN315,343

Protected

Palmichal

VEN28

15,649VEN2

115,129

VEN5

46,190Parque Nacional El Tamá

VEN6

160,881Parque Nacional
Guaramacal

VEN7

21,313Parque Nacional Guatopo

VEN8

Parque Nacional Henri
Pittier

RBV

Other

0.35

IBA

0.25

IBA

0.28

IBA
AZE

-----

0.28

IBA

Venezuelan Andes

0.23

IBA
AZE

Protected

Venezuelan Andes

0.29

IBA

156,405

Partially
protected

-----

0.15

IBA

VEN9

137,246

Protected

0.31

IBA
AZE

Parque Nacional Macarao

VEN1021,830Protected

0.34

IBA

Parque Nacional Mochima

VEN29

124,455

Protected

-----

0.20

IBA

VEN21

169,596

Partially
protected

Venezuelan Andes

0.23

IBA
AZE

VEN20

50,489Partially
protected

-----

0.36

VEN12

374,807

Protected

Cordillera de Perijá

0.31

VEN13

55,570Protected

Cordillera de la Costa
Central

0.27

IBA

VEN14

244,428

Protected

Venezuelan Andes

0.25

IBA

VEN15

337,605

Protected

Venezuelan Andes

0.22

IBA

VEN16

226,536

Protected

Venezuelan Andes

0.19

IBA

VEN17

22,377

Partially
protected

Venezuelan Andes

0.12

IBA

VEN30

113,662

Protected

-----

0.18

IBA

Parque Nacional Yacambú

VEN18

39,692

Partially
protected

Venezuelan Andes

0.17

IBA

Parque Nacional Yurubí

VEN19

29,690Protected

-----

0.20

IBA

VEN23

725,740

Partially
protected

Venezuelan Andes

0.24

AZE

VEN22

57,534

Protected

Venezuelan Andes

0.17

IBA
AZE

Tostós

VEN25

8,201

Not
protected

Venezuelan Andes

0.24

AZE

Zona Protectora Macizo
Montañoso delTurimiquire

VEN26

604,645Not
protected

-----

0.27

IBA
AZE

Parque Nacional El Ávila
y alrededores
Parque Nacional El
Guácharo

Parque Nacional Páramos
Batallón y La Negra yalrededores
Parque Nacional
Península de Paria
Parque Nacional Perijá
Parque Nacional San
EstebanParque Nacional Sierra La
CulataParque Nacional Sierra
NevadaParque Nacional TapoCaparo
Parque Nacional
Terepaima
Parque Nacional Tirgua(General ManuelManrique)Parques Nacionales
Sierra La Culata y Sierra
Nevada y alrededores
Refugio de Fauna
Silvestre y Reserva dePesca Parque Nacional
DiniraNot
protected
Partially
protected
Partially
protected
Partially
protected

56

Corridor
Cordillera de la Costa
CentralCordillera de la Costa
CentralCordillera de la Costa
CentralCordillera de la Costa
CentralCordillera de la Costa
Central

IBA
AZE
IBA
AZE

Zona Protectora San
Not
VEN27
474,581
Cordillera de Perijá
0.26
Rafael de Guasare
protected* Protected: > 80 percent overlap with a protected area.
Partially protected: 10-80 percent overlap.
Not Protected: < 10 percent overlap. See the section 5.4 on protection of KBA for more information on
designations.

IBA

Colombia
As of August 2020, Colombia had more KBAs (119) than any other Andean country (Figures
5.2a and 5.2b) in the hotspot, yet its KBAs, with a combined area of 6,743,033 hectares, coverjust one-fifth of the Colombian section of the hotspot (Table 5.2). The Colombian KBAs havean average area of 66,207 hectares, ranging from 122 hectares to 816,648 hectares (Table
5.4). In the previous ecosystem profile, 121 KBAs were identified in Colombia; in this update,18 have been removed, and 16 added (Appendix 5.3). The high RBV KBAs in the country arelocated in the Cordillera Occidental, Cordillera Central and Cordillera Oriental, as well as in the
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. However, the highest concentration of KBAs with the highest
RBV for Colombia is found in the Cordillera Central, followed by the Cordillera Occidental.
In the Sonsón-Nechi Corridor (Figure 5.2a), north of the Cordillera Central, on the eastern
slope, is Selva de Florencia (COL101), a KBA with high RBV (0.43) and an AZE site. It
constitutes the last fragment of Andean rainforest in this mountainous area (BirdLife
International 2020c). It has a high amphibian species richness, with 22 threatened species,
including four Critically Endangered frogs of the genus Pristimantis, that have very restricteddistributions, and the entire known population of the Endangered Pristimantis actinolaimus. To
the northwest, in the department of Antioquia, in the same corridor of the Cordillera Central,
are the Páramos del Sur de Antioquia (COL59) and Páramo de Sonsón (COL57), an area
encompassing páramo and Andean forest habitats where 19 threatened amphibians are found,including Atopophyrnus syntomopus (CR), a frog with a very restricted distribution.
Around Parque Nacional Natural Los Nevados, in the Cordillera Central, is the Noreste deQuindío Corridor (Figure 5.2b). This corridor includes the seven KBAs with the highest RBVs
(0.53-0.45) for Colombia (Table 5. 4): Alto Quindío (COL6), Finca la Betulia Reserva laPatasola (COL37), Reserva Natural Ibanasca (COL87), Cuenca del Río Toche (COL32), Bosquesdel Oriente de Risaralda (COL10), Cañón del Río Combeima (COL15), and Reserva Hidrográfica
Forestal y Parque Ecológico de Río Blanco (COL84). Surrounding them, and in the samegrouping, are two KBAs of high RBV (0.42 and 0.37): Cañón del Río Barbas y Bremen (COL14)
and Finca Paraguay (COL38). This grouping of KBAs is part of the departments of Caldas,
Quindío, Risaralda and Tolima and surrounds the snow-capped mountains of Ruiz, Tolima andSanta Isabel. The KBA Bosques de Oriente de Risaralda (COL10) is of great importance forwater regulation in the region, which includes Pereira, the capital of Risaralda, the mostpopulated city in the coffee-growing region, with around 481,129 inhabitants. The area
includes Andean forests important for species such as the indigo-winged parrot (Hapalopsittaca
fuertesi, CR) and in some places there are wax palm (Ceroxylon quinduense) forests thatprovide important habitat for the yellow-eared parrot (Ognorhynchus icterotis, EN). It also
includes the Laguna del Otún, a Ramsar site, which is an important habitat for waterbirds.
Compared to the previous ecosystem profile, this grouping of KBAs demonstrates a higher
RBV, which could be attributed to recent updates or assessments of threatened species. Of the
68 threatened amphibians, arthropods, birds, fish, plants and reptiles in these KBAs, 49 havelast been assessed between 2014 and 2020. Although all KBAs are under some form ofprotection, with the exception of the Cañón del Río Combeima (COL15), they are threatenedby agriculture, cattle ranching, mining, urban expansion, road infrastructure, disorganizedtourism and forest fires. Nearby, to the northeast of these KBAs, is the KBA Vereda el Llano

57

(COL117), an area that forms part of the habitat of frog species with very restricteddistribution, such as Andinobates dorisswansonae (VU) and A. tolimensis (VU). Creative
conservation actions are needed in this area to ensure the frog’s survival, as ecotourism maypose a risk to threatened amphibians.
The Laguna de la Cocha (COL50), Valle de Sibundoy and Laguna de la Cocha (COL115) KBAs,
with RBVs of 0.34 and 0.32 respectively, are located south of the Cordillera Central in the La
Victoria-La Cocha-Sibundoy Corridor (Figure 5.2b). These KBAs, together with those further
north, Serranía de los Churumbelos (COL105), Parque Nacional Natural Cueva de los
Guácharos (COL62), Reserva Natural Meremberg (COL90), Reserva El Oso (COL82), ParqueNacional Natural Puracé (COL70) and Serranía de las Minas (COL103), are part of theColombian Massif, where some of the most important rivers of the country originate, namely
Patía, Cauca, Magdalena, Putumayo and Caquetá. The massif also includes several lagoons,
including the Laguna de la Cocha Ramsar site, which is important for aquatic birds. It is atransition zone between the Andes and the jungles of the Amazon basin. The massif is coveredby montane forests and lowland montane rainforests with a great diversity of threatened
mammals, amphibians and birds. La Victoria (Nariño) (COL122) is located further south of theCordillera Central, on the border with Ecuador, in a rural farming area with fertile unprotectedsoil where tributaries of the Putumayo and other rivers of the Pacific slope originate. The
narrow distribution of the Chingual River Valley tree frog, Hyloscirtus pantostictus (CR), in
Colombia falls within this KBA. Additionally, Atelopus gigas (CR) is known from only one
locality in La Victoria, which was confirmed as an AZE site in 2018 (Key Biodiversity Areas
Partnership 2020). All KBAs in the southern Cordillera Central are part of a highly transformed
landscape where urban expansion, cattle grazing, and coffee and other plantations havemodified the landscape for at least 100 years. This makes the protection of several of these
KBAs important for the water supply for a region with extensive agricultural activity and highhuman population density. In addition, the high RBV KBAs in the Cordillera Central, as awhole, are part of the distribution of 84 Endangered and Critically Endangered species.
Three high RBV KBAs (0.42 - 0.34) are located in the Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas binational
corridor (Figure 5.2b) of the southern region of the Cordillera Occidental in Colombia. These
are Reserva Natural La Planada (COL88), under the administration of the Awá indigenous
community; the Reserva Natural Río Nambí (COL91); and the bordering La Reserva Natural El
Pangán (COL86). These KBAs include forests and rainforests on the Pacific slope that connect
to the Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena Hotspot, another hotspot where CEPF invested between 2002
and 2013. The lower elevations of the slope overlap with the distribution ranges of mammals
such as the black-headed spider monkey (Ateles fusciceps, CR), and other widely distributed
vulnerable mammals such as the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus, VU), a large number ofbats as well as smaller rodents with a more restricted distribution.
Along the Cordillera Occidental there is a chain of high RBV KBAs in the Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos del Sur de Antioquia Corridor (Figures 5.2a and 5.2b) that encompasses
KBAs from the Serranía del Pinche (COL109) in the south, to the Bosques Montanos del Sur deAntioquia (COL11) in the north. These KBAs also include warm, humid forests of the Pacificslope, Andean forests and páramos that are part of the distribution of 86 Endangered andCritically Endangered species. Serranía del Pinche (COL109) is south of the Parque Nacional
Natural Munchique y extensión sur (COL67), which is a KBA with the confirmed presence ofvery restricted and threatened amphibians.
In the same corridor, the Parque Nacional Farallones de Cali (COL65) supplies water to thehydroelectric installations that contribute to Cali’s energy supply (along with the Salvajinadam). The Enclave Seco del Río Dagua (COL36), which lies between the Bosque de San

58

Antonio/Km 18 (COL7) and the Alto Calima Region (COL80), is characterized by dry forest andxerophytic scrub due to a rain shadow that causes a dry climate not typical of the mountain
range. These sites are largely affected by the road to Buenaventura, the highway to the
Colombian Pacific, human occupation and long-term agricultural use. The Parque Nacional
Regional Páramo del Duende (COL75), where the Calima, Bravo, Azul and Frío rivers are born,
is another páramo area in this range located on the cordillera. It comprises grasslands andvarious types of grasses that dominate its small valleys, as well as vegetation typical ofshallow, flooded moorland soils (BirdLife International 2020b).
The Serranía de los Paraguas (COL106) and Parque Nacional Natural Tatamá (COL74) include
cloud forest in good condition; the páramo ecosystem is also present in the national park.
However, the National System of Protected Areas (SINAP by its acronym in Spanish) reportsthat Afro-descendant communities carry out artisanal gold mining and subsistence agriculturein the KBA. Information on the level of threat to these KBAs is contradictory. On the one hand,
it is considered an example of a well-managed area with both public and private protectedareas. On the other hand, it has a history of deforestation, agriculture and pastoral activities
on soils unsuitable for cattle ranching, coupled with planned roads that make it moreaccessible to human colonization and deforestation. There are also security problems in thearea.
The northernmost KBAs of the Western Cordillera, with slopes towards the Chocó, are theBosques Montanos del Sur de Antioquia (COL11). These are located next to Alto de Pisones(COL5) and La Empalada (COL45), the latter being home to the amphibian species Pristimantis
mars (CR), whose distribution is confined to the site. Above the northern limit of the ParaguasMunchique-Bosques Montanos del Sur de Antioquia Corridor, in the northern region of theWestern Cordillera, in the department of Antioquia, are the Parque Nacional Natural Las
Orquídeas (COL66), Páramo Urrao (COL58) and Orquídeas-Musinga-Carauta (COL56) KBAs.
The area, which comprises the corridor and the afore-mentioned KBAs, includes thefragmented distribution of threatened endemic birds such as the gold-ringed tanager (Bangsia
aureocincta, EN) and the Munchique wood wren (Henicorhina negreti, VU).
In the far north of the country (Figure 5.2a) is the Parque Natural Nacional Sierra Nevada deSanta Marta y sus alrededores (COL110). Located along the Caribbean coast, the Sierra
Nevada is the world’s highest coastal massif (5,775 m above sea level). It has been designateda Biosphere Reserve, a protected area of global importance for biodiversity conservation
because it is home to several endemic species as a result of its isolation from the Andes
mountain range. Threats in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and the surrounding KBA include
habitat destruction from illicit drug cultivation. The Kogi and Arhuaco indigenous groups
administer much of the area, and if they maintain their traditional lifestyles, they may be thegreatest allies of biodiversity conservation. Beyond the mountain itself, some 1.2 million
people, mainly in the city of Santa Marta, depend on the freshwater supply that drains downfrom the Sierra Nevada’s river basins.

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

60

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

Table 5.4. KBAs in Colombia
CEPF
code

Area
(ha)

9 km sur de Valdivia

COL1

8,175

Agua de la Virgen

COL2

122

Alto de Pisones

COL5

1,380

Alto Quindío

COL6

Bosque de San
Antonio/Km 18

KBA name

Bosques de la Falla delTequendama
Bosques de Tolemaida,
Piscilago y alrededores
Bosques del Oriente deRisaralda

Protection*

Corridor

RBV

Other

Sonsón-Nechi

0.28

AZE

-----

0.24

IBA

Not
protected

Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia

0.44

IBA

4,582

Protected

Noreste de Quindío

0.53

IBA

COL7

5.993

Partially
protected

Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia

0.42

IBA

COL8

12,598

Protected

-----

0.31

IBA

COL9

22,758Not
protected

-----

0.19

IBA

COL10

27,610Protected

Noreste de Quindío

0.46

IBA

Partially
protected
Not
protected

61

Bosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia

COL11

200,574

Partially
protected

Bosques Secos del Valledel Río Chicamocha

COL12395,012

Partially
protected

Cafetales de Támesis

COL18

263

Not
protected

Cañón del Río Alicante

COL13

3,271

Partially
protected

Cañón del Río Barbas y
BremenCOL14

11,193

Protected

Cañón del Río Combeima

COL15

7,588

Cañón del Río Guatiquía

COL16

34,913

Caparrapi†

COL123

4,117

Carretera RamiriquiZetaquira

COL19

10,433

Cerro de Pan de Azúcar

COL20

33,010

Cerro La Judía

COL21

Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia
Norte de la Cordillera
Oriental
Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia

0.24

IBA

0.23

IBA

0.22

IBA

Sonsón-Nechi

0.29

IBA

Noreste de Quindío

0.42

IBA

Noreste de Quindío

0.45

IBA

Cordillera OrientalBogotá

0.29

IBA
AZE

-----

0.15

-----

0.23

AZE

Protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.29

AZE

10,221

Partially
protected

Norte de la Cordillera
Oriental

0.38

IBA

COL22

11,878

Protected

Cordillera de Perijá

0.41

IBA
AZE

COL23

472

Not
protected

-----

0.27

IBA

COL25

22,248

Protected

-----

0.21

IBA

Corredor Pisba-Cocuy†

COL124

17,700Not
protected

Cuchilla de San Lorenzo

COL28

71,600Protected

Norte de la Cordillera
Oriental
Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta y alrededores

Cuenca del Río Hereje

COL29

8,258

Protected

Cuenca del Río Jiménez

COL30

10,465

Cuenca del Río San
MiguelCOL31

Cuenca del Río Toche

Cerro Pintado (Serraníade Perijá)
Cerros Occidentales deTabio y Tenjo
Complejo Lacustre deFúquene, Cucunubá yPalacio

Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected

0.24
0.37

IBA

Cordillera Central

0.20

IBA

Not
protected

Noreste de Quindío

0.20

IBA

8,882

Protected

Cordillera Central

0.18

IBA

COL32

24,477

Partially
protected

Noreste de Quindío

0.50

IBA

COL33

5,560

Partially
protected

-----

0.23

COL34

5,068

Protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.27

IBA

COL35

6,033

Protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.28

IBA

Enclave Seco del Río
Dagua

COL36

8,509

Partially
protected

Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia

0.38

IBA
AZE

Finca la Betulia Reserva
la Patasola

COL37

1,481

Protected

Noreste de Quindío

0.53

IBA

Finca Paraguay

COL38

12,876

Noreste de Quindío

0.37

IBA

Fusagasuga

COL39

9,198

-----

0.31

AZE

Gravilleras del Valle delRío Siecha

COL41

2,274

-----

0.26

IBA

Cuenca Hidrográfica delRío San Francisco y sus
alrededores
Embalse de Punchiná ysu zona de protección
Embalse de San Lorenzoy Jaguas

Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected

62

Guerrero, Guargua yLaguna Verde†Hacienda La Victoria,
Cordillera Oriental
Haciendas Ganaderas delNorte del Cauca
Humedales de la Sabana
de Bogotá

COL12557,326

COL42

13,266

COL43

1,394

COL44

20,682

La Empalada

COL45

10,560

La Forzosa-Santa
Gertrudis

COL46

4,106

La Salina

COL47

8,956

La Victoria (Caldas)

COL48

767

La Victoria (Nariño)

COL122

1,111

Lago Cumbal

COL49

371

Laguna de la Cocha

COL50

63,270

Laguna de Tota

COL51

6,263

Lagunas Bombona y
Vancouver

COL52

7,308

Mejue†

COL126

12,805

Municipio de Pandi

COL55

3.289

COL56

94,396

COL12792,356

COL12850,480Páramo de Sonsón

COL57

73,041

Páramo del Almorzadero†

COL12954,079Páramo Tierra Negra†

COL130

6.060

Páramo Urrao

COL58
COL59

Orquideas - Musinga Carauta
Paraíso de Aves del Tabory Magdalena
Páramo de Belmira-Santa
Inés y bosques
asociados†

Páramos del Sur deAntioquia
Páramos y Bosques
Altoandinos de GénovaParque Nacional Natural
Chingaza y alrededores
Parque Nacional Natural
Cordillera de los Picachos
Parque Nacional Natural
Cueva de los Guácharos
Parque Nacional Naturalde Pisba
Parque Nacional Natural
El Cocuy

Protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Partially
protected
Protected

-----

0.25

-----

0.25

AZE

-----

0.10

IBA

-----

0.28

IBA

Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia

0.31

AZE

Sonsón-Nechi

0.34

IBA

Norte de la Cordillera
Oriental

0.19

Sonsón-Nechi

0.34

IBA

La Victoria-La CochaSibundoy

0.40

AZE

-----

0.13

IBA

La Victoria-La CochaSibundoy

0.34

IBA

-----

0.25

IBA

Noreste de Quindío

0.35

IBA

Andes Venezolanos

0.37

-----

0.25

AZE

-----

0.32

AZE

-----

0.21

IBA

-----

0.23

Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.32

Norte de la Cordillera
Oriental

0.28

-----

0.38

35,295

Protected

-----

0.32

AZE

14,093

Protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.37

IBA

COL60

12,549Partially
protected

Noreste de Quindío

0.36

IBA

COL61

88,443

Protected

Cordillera OrientalBogotá

0.30

IBA
AZE

COL26

319,864

Protected

-----

0.19

AZE

COL62

7,773

Protected

-----

0.39

IBA

COL63

58,139Partially
protected

0.25

IBA

COL64

362,163

Protected

Norte de la Cordillera
Oriental
Norte de la Cordillera
Oriental

0.17

IBA

63

AZE

COL65

220,153

Protected

Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia

0.35

IBA
AZE

COL66

35,070Protected

-----

0.34

IBA

COL67

52,490Protected

Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia

0.38

IBA
AZE

COL68

182,382

Protected

Cordillera Central

0.22

IBA

COL69

607,205

Protected

-----

0.20

IBA

COL70

82,653

Protected

Cordillera Central

0.30

IBA
AZE

COL71

687,470

Protected

-----

0.21

IBA

COL72

250,646

Protected

Cordillera OrientalBogotá

0.20

IBA

COL73

61,128

Protected

Andes venezolanos

0.28

IBA

COL74

59,414

Partially
protected

Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia

0.34

IBA

COL110517,667

Protected

Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta y alrededores

0.30

AZE

COL131

19,169Protected

-----

0.20

COL75

32,136

Partially
protected

Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia

0.28

COL132

23,082

Protected

-----

0.26

COL13329,471

Protected

Cordillera de Perijá

0.44

COL134

8,249

Protected

-----

0.25

Pueblo Bello

COL76

1,269

Protected

Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta y alrededores

0.22

IBA

Refugio Río Claro

COL79

526

Partially
protected

-----

0.22

IBA

0.35

IBA

0.44

IBA
IBA

Parque Nacional Natural
Farallones de Cali
Parque Nacional Natural
Las OrquídeasParque Nacional Natural
Munchique y extensión
surParque Nacional Natural
Nevado del Huila
Parque Nacional Natural
Paramillo
Parque Nacional Natural
PuracéParque Nacional Natural
Sierra de la Macarena
Parque Nacional Natural
Sumapaz
Parque Nacional Natural
Tamá
Parque Nacional Natural
TatamáParque Natural Nacional
Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta y sus alrededores
Parque Natural Regional
Cortadera†
Parque Natural Regional
Páramo del Duende
Parque Natural Regional
Santurbán-Salazar de lasPalmas†Parque Natural Regional
Serranía del Perijá†
Parque Natural Regionaly Reserva Forestal
Protectora Regional
Páramo de Rabanal†

Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia
Norte de la Cordillera
Oriental

IBA

Región del Alto Calima

COL80

21,917

Partially
protected

Reserva Biológica
Cachalú

COL81

1.195

Protected

Reserva El Oso

COL82

4,997

Protected

Cordillera Central

0.30

Reserva Forestal
Protectora Nacional Río
Algodonal†

COL135

9,717

Protected

-----

0.30

Reserva Forestal Yotoco

COL83

508

Protected

Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia

0.30

IBA

Reserva Hidrográfica,
Forestal y ParqueEcológico de Río Blanco

COL84

4,347

Protected

Noreste de Quindío

0.45

IBA

Reserva Natural Cajibío

COL85

347

Not
protected

-----

0.14

IBA

64

Reserva Natural El
Pangán

COL86

7,726

Not
protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.34

IBA

Reserva Natural Ibanasca

COL87

2,393

Protected

Noreste de Quindío

0.50

IBA

COL88

4,519

Protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.42

IBA
AZE

COL89

926

Protected

-----

0.14

IBA

COL90

2,167

Protected

Cordillera Central

0.30

IBA

COL91

8,595

Partially
protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.37

IBA

COL92

1,270

Protected

Noreste de Quindío

0.41

IBA

Not
protected

Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia

0.33

IBA

Reserva Natural La
PlanadaReserva Natural Lagunade Sonso
Reserva Natural
Meremberg
Reserva Natural RíoÑambí
Reserva Natural Semillas
de Agua
Reserva Natural Tambito

COL93

124

COL94

142,495

COL95

41,373

Rocas de Suesca†

COL136885

San Sebastián

COL97

Reserva Regional Bajo
Cauca NechíReservas Comunitariasde Roncesvalles

Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.19

IBA

Noreste de Quindío

0.33

IBA

-----

0.28

6,674

Protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.38

IBA

COL99

9,020

Protected

-----

0.22

IBA
AZE

COL13839,737

Protected

-----

0.35

Selva de Florencia

COL101

29,506

Partially
protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.43

IBA
AZE

Serranía de las Minas

COL103109,935

Protected

Cordillera Central

0.28

IBA

Serranía de las Quinchas

COL104

100,785

Partially
protected

-----

0.15

IBA

Serranía de los
Churumbelos

COL105

105,496

Protected

-----

0.29

IBA

Serranía de los Paraguas

COL106

259,592

Partially
protected

0.29

IBA

Serranía de los Yariguíes

COL102

288,265

Protected

0.22

IBA
AZE

Serranía de San Lucas

COL108816,648Not
protected

0.18

IBA

Serranía del Pinche

COL1094,870

Partially
protected

0.27

IBA
AZE

Soatá

COL111

1,173

Not
protected

0.25

IBA

Unidad Biogeografica deSiscunci Oceta†

COL137

57,912

Protected

Valle de San Salvador

COL11376,833

Protected

Valle de Sibundoy y
Laguna de la Cocha

COL115

165,094

Valle del Río Frío

COL11647,995

Vereda el Llano

COL117

3,306

Santuario de Fauna y
Flora Galeras
Santurbán-SisavitaMutiscua

Vereda Las Minas yalrededores

COL119165,046

Partially
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Protected

65

Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia
Norte de la Cordillera
Oriental----Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia
Norte de la Cordillera
Oriental
Norte de la Cordillera
Oriental
Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta y alrededores
La Victoria-La CochaSibundoy
Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta y alrededores

0.25
0.30

IBA

0.32
0.32

Noreste de Quindío

0.36

Norte de la Cordillera
Oriental

0.31

IBA

IBA
AZE

Not
Cordillera Oriental0.19
AZE
protected
Bogotá
* Protected: > 80 percent overlap with a protected area.
Partially protected: 10-80 percent overlap.
Not protected: < 10 percent overlap. See Section 5.4 on legal protection of KBAs for more information on
designations.
† Nominated KBA.
‡ KBA nominated between August and December 2020. Not included in the profile analyses.
Villavicencio

COL1203,770

EcuadorDespite its relatively small size, Ecuador has 88 KBAs that together cover 36 percent of theEcuadorian area of the hotspot (Figure 5.3, Table 5.2). The KBAs have an average area of
53,508 hectares but range from 63 hectares to 523,632 hectares (Table 5.5). The number of
Ecuadorian KBAs has increased since the previous ecosystem profile was published. Seventynine KBAs had been previously identified in Ecuador, 11 of them have been removed and 20
new sites added (Appendix 5.3). The KBAs with the highest RBVs for the country areconcentrated north of the Andes Cordillera in Ecuador. The KBAs with the next highest RBVs
are found along the eastern foothills of the Cordillera to the south.
Three of the sites with the highest RBVs (0.64-0.58) for Ecuador and for the Tropical Andes
Hotspot are Mindo and western foothills of Pichincha volcano (ECU44), Rio Toachi-Chiriboga(ECU66) and Maquipucuna-Rio Guayllabamba (ECU43). They are located in the binational AwáCotacachi-Illinizas Corridor, in the western Andes cordillera west of Quito, an area renowned
for its rich avifauna. Mashpi-Pachijal (ECU89) and Los Bancos-Milpe (ECU41) are very high RBV
sites (0.52 and 0.48, respectively) that also form part of this grouping, to the west of which,and towards the Ecuadorian Chocó, is the Caoní River (ECU54). The area is a mosaic ofagricultural lands, natural ecosystems (some of which are under national or subnational
protection) and several private reserves with ecotourism operations. Some sectors of these
KBAs have suffered relatively heavy disturbance. Despite a long history of conservation activity
and public awareness of the biological importance of this area, threats from the expansion andintensification of agricultural activities continue. The area is also subject to land speculation
due to rising property values. Immediately south of this group of KBAs is the Reserva Ecológica
Los Illinizas y sus alrededores (ECU42), which includes the western foothills of the snowcapped Illinizas, Quilotoa and El Corazón volcanoes. The reserve provides resources tomedium-sized cities such as Machachi, Latacunga and Saquisilí, which are located nearby in
the inter-Andean valley.
Further north in the Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas Corridor, in the western Andes and adjacent to
the Ecuadorian zone of the Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena Hotspot, there is a group of five high
RBV KBAs (0.49-0.40). The largest is the Reserva Ecológica Cotacachi-Cayapas (ECU61). It issurrounded by KBAs linked to private protected areas, namely Bosque Protector Los Cedros(ECU14) and Intag-Toisán (ECU34), and is connected, via the Awacachi Corridor (ECU28), toindigenous communities in and around the Territorio Étnico Awá y alrededores (ECU70), which
extends to Colombia. The area in Ecuador features páramos and montane forests along anelevation gradient. Human use of natural resources in the area is mainly selective logging,cattle grazing and subsistence agriculture. There are mining concessions planned for the IntagToisán area, but local communities have opposed them. Private protected forests andcommunal reserves have been designated. Conservation and livelihood projects havesucceeded, with CEPF support, in having Intag-Toisán (ECU34) declared a Conservation andSustainable Use Area (ACUS by its acronym in Spanish) in recognition of its water, biological,
cultural and productive importance.

66

In the Northeastern Corridor in Ecuador, there is another group of KBAs with high RBVs (0.510.32). Three of these KBAs correspond with national protected areas, Reserva Ecológica
Antisana and surroundings (ECU7), Parque Nacional Cayambe-Coca (ECU59) and ParqueNacional Sumaco-Napo Galeras (ECU52); the fourth, Cordillera de Huacamayos-San IsidroSierra Azul (ECU25), includes private reserves. The protected areas cover a diverse scale ofhabitats, from high páramos dotted with lakes to sub-Andean forests that then give way to thejungles of the Amazon basin. The Parque Nacional Cayambe-Coca, Reserva Ecológica Antisana
and the Parque Nacional Sumaco Napo Galeras protect one of the main sources of water forthe country and for the city of Quito and surrounding towns. They encompass 80 percent of
the watershed that supplies the country’s largest hydroelectric plant, Coca Codo Sinclair(Ministry of Environment 2015). Together, these KBAs and those northwest of Quito supply
water for a population of at least three million inhabitants in the capital and its surroundings.
In the central Ecuadorian Andes,in the Sangay Podocarpus Corridor, east of the cities of
Cuenca and Gualaceo, four KBAs with medium-high RBVs (0.30-0.25) are grouped together:
Alrededores de Amaluza (ECU6), Montañas de Zapote-Najda (ECU47), Gualaceo-Limón
Indanza (ECU86) and Bosque Protector Moya-Molón (ECU16). They bring together different
habitats such as sub-Andean forests of the Amazonian slope, páramos, stunted forests as wellas Andean and cloud forests that become drier towards the inter-Andean valley. The forests ofthese KBAs capture water for consumption in Cuenca and Gualaceo, located in the interAndean valley. They form part of the Paute River basin, which is also an important hydrologicalresource for agriculture and energy generation in the country.
South of the Andes Cordillera in Ecuador, in the provinces of Loja and Zamora Chinchipe, are
the Tumbesian Endemism Region, the Southern Central Andes Endemism Region and theCentral Andes Páramo Region (Flanagan et al. 2005). These regions have dry forests and, at
higher elevations, cloud forests and páramos known for their high levels of bird endemism anddistinctive vegetation types that result from a different geological history than the rest of theEcuadorian Andes. In this region, the Sangay Podocarpus Corridor includes the medium-high
RBV KBAs: Saraguro Las Antenas (ECU95) and Acanamá-Guashapamba-Aguirre (ECU3). It
also includes, further southeast of the corridor, the Parque Nacional Podocarpus (ECU50) andaround it, the medium-high RBV KBAs (0.38-0.26) 1 km al Sur de Loja (ECU1), Reserva
Tapichalaca (ECU 64) and Abra de Zamora (ECU2). The latter is itself a hotspot of amphibian
endemism, and it is where Phase II CEPF-funded research reported 29 amphibian species, ofwhich 11 are endemic, and 11 are new to science (Székely et al. 2020; Ordóñez-Delgado et al.
2020). The characteristic vegetation of the area includes a wide variety of orchids, thecentury-old conifers Podocarpus and the cascarilla (Cinchona officinalis), known for the
medicinal properties of its bark from which quinine is extracted. The area is also important forthe provision of water to more than 200,000 people in the provinces of Loja and ZamoraChinchipe.

67

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

68

Table 5.5. KBAs in Ecuador
KBA name

CEPF
code

Area
(ha)

Protection*

Corridor

RBV

Other

1 km oeste de Loja

ECU1

672

Protected

Sangay Podocarpus

0.33

AZE

Abra de Zamora†

ECU2

7,833

Protected

Sangay Podocarpus

0.38

Acanamá-GuashapambaAguirre

ECU3

1,994

Sangay Podocarpus

0.26

IBA

Agua Rica

ECU4

806

-----

0.445

AZE

Alamor-Celica

ECU5

6,529

Protected

Bosques Secos deTumbes-Loja

0.256

IBA

ECU6

109,051

Partially
protected

Sangay Podocarpus

0.30

ECU9

113,295

Protected

Cóndor-Kutukú-Palanda

0.261

IBA

ECU10

6,623

Not
protected

-----

0.156

IBA
AZE

ECU11

63,755

Protected

Cóndor-Kutukú-Palanda

0.159

IBA

ECU12

54,357

Partially
protected

Cotopaxi-Amaluza

0.211

IBA

ECU13

8,111

Protected

Bosques Secos deTumbes-Loja

0.207

IBA

ECU14

5,619

Not
protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.457

IBA

ECU15

99,963

Protected

Oeste de Azuay

0.228

IBA

ECU16

12,376Not
protected

Sangay Podocarpus

0.25

IBA

ECU17

2,713

Protected

Bosques Secos deTumbes-Loja

0.24

IBA

ECU80

4,913

Protected

Oeste de Azuay

0.211

Cajas-Mazán

ECU20

31,681

Protected

Oeste de Azuay

0.193

IBA

Cañón del río Catamayo

ECU18

27,634

Protected

0.192

IBA

Catacocha

ECU21

3,737

Protected

0.229

IBA

Cayapas-Santiago-Wimbí

ECU81

66,584

Partially
protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.37

IBA

Cazaderos-Mangaurquillo

ECU23

51,005

Protected

Bosques Secos deTumbes-Loja

0.165

IBA

Cerro de Hayas-Naranjal

ECU24

2,655

Protected

Oeste de Azuay

0.257

IBA

Chilla†ECU82

28,591

-----

0.221

Conchay†

ECU83

32,055

Cóndor-Kutukú-Palanda

0.331

Cordillera de
Huacamayos-San IsidroSierra Azul

ECU25

69,671

Corredor Nororiental

0.51

IBA

Cordillera de Kutukú

ECU26

191,035

Cóndor-Kutukú-Palanda

0.273

IBA
AZE

Cordillera del Cóndor

ECU27

257,017

Cóndor-Kutukú-Palanda

0.251

IBA

Alrededores de Amaluza
Bosque Protector Alto
Nangaritza
Bosque Protector Cashca
TotorasBosque Protector
Colambo-Yacuri
Bosque Protector DudasMazar
Bosque Protector
Jatumpamba-Jorupe
Bosque Protector Los
CedrosBosque Protector
Molleturo Mullopungo
Bosque Protector MoyaMolón
Bosque Protector
PuyangoBosque y Vegetación
Protector El Chorro†

Partially
protected
Not
protected

Partially
protected
Not
protected
Protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected

69

Bosques Secos deTumbes-Loja
Bosques Secos deTumbes-LojaCorredor Awacachi

ECU28

16,668Corredor Ecológico
Llanganates-Sangay

ECU29

46,364

Daucay

ECU84

1,345

El Ángel-Cerro
Golondrinas yalrededores

ECU31

49,227

El Sauce†

ECU85

Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.487

IBA

Cotopaxi-Amaluza

0.35

IBA

-----

0.228

IBA

Protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.25

IBA
AZE

3,679

Protected

Bosques Secos deTumbes-Loja

0.235

ECU32

13,094

Protected

-----

0.255

ECU86

20,315

Sangay Podocarpus

0.27

Guanujo†

ECU87

11,558

-----

0.186

Guaranda, Gallo Rumi

ECU33

1,866

-----

0.196

AZE

Intag-Toisán

ECU34

63,884

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.417

IBA

La Bonita-Santa Bárbara

ECU35

13,060Protected

-----

0.317

IBA
AZE

La Tagua

ECU36

6,624

Protected

Bosques Secos deTumbes-Loja

0.232

IBA

Lago de Colta

ECU37

288

-----

0.108

IBA

Las Guardias

ECU39

6,065

-----

0.191

Los Bancos-Milpe

ECU41

3,316

Protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.478

IBA

Manteles-El Triunfo-Sucre

ECU88

10,735Not
protected

Cotopaxi-Amaluza

0.205

IBA

Maquipucuna-Río
Guayllabamba

ECU43

21,069Protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.577

IBA

Mashpi-Pachijal

ECU89

39,525

Protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.524

IBA

Mindo y Estribaciones
Occidentales del volcán
Pichincha

ECU44

94,710Protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.645

IBA
AZE

Mitad del Mundo†

ECU45

1,289

Protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.348

ECU47

9,699

Sangay Podocarpus

0.28

IBA

ECU76

1,859

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.229

AZE

Palanda

ECU90

9,456

Protected

Cóndor-Kutukú-Palanda

0.199

IBA

Parque Nacional
Cayambe-Coca

ECU59

433,412

Protected

Corredor Nororiental

0.32

IBA
AZE

Parque Nacional Cotopaxi

ECU48

34,437

Protected

Cotopaxi-Amaluza

0.169

IBA

ECU49

230,225

Protected

Cotopaxi-Amaluza

0.277

IBA

ECU50

142,945

Protected

Sangay Podocarpus

0.3

IBA
AZE

Parque Nacional Sangay

ECU51523,632

Protected

Cotopaxi-Amaluza

0.25

IBA

Parque Nacional SumacoNapo Galeras

ECU52

217,629

Protected

Corredor Nororiental

0.40

IBA
AZE

Pilaló

ECU53

335

Not
protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.354

AZE

Estación Biológica
Guandera-Cerro Mongus
Gualaceo-Limón
Indanza†

Montañas de ZapoteNajda
Oeste del Páramo deApaguaParque Nacional
Llanganates
Parque Nacional
Podocarpus

Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected

Not
protected
Not
protected

Partially
protected
Not
protected

70

IBA

Refugio de Vida Silvestre
Pasochoa

ECU55

701

Reserva Buenaventura

ECU56

2,209

ECU57

1,944

ECU7
ECU60

Partially
protected
Not
protected

-----

0.254

IBA

-----

0.329

IBA

Protected

Cóndor-Kutukú-Palanda

0.191

IBA

113,908

Protected

Corredor Nororiental

0.33

IBA
AZE

56,091

Protected

-----

0.26

IBA

ECU61

361,614

Partially
protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.401

IBA

ECU42

169,316

Protected

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.318

IBA
AZE

ECU63

19,377

Protected

Bosques Secos deTumbes-Loja

0.113

IBA

Reserva Tapichalaca

ECU64

3,925

Protected

Cóndor-Kutukú-Palanda

0.262

IBA

Reserva Yunguilla

ECU65

182

Protected

Oeste de Azuay

0.229

IBA
AZE

Río Caoní

ECU54

9,101

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.346

IBA

Río Jubones†

ECU91

23,614

-----

0.244

Río León†

ECU92

6,564

Sangay Podocarpus

0.30

Río Toachi-Chiriboga

ECU66

71,187

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.579

Salinas de Ibarra†

ECU93

10,064

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.363

Samama Mumbes†

ECU94

2,251

Protected

-----

0.197

Saraguro Las Antenas†

ECU95

1,876

Protected

Sangay Podocarpus

0.30

Selva Alegre

ECU67

11,474

Protected

Sangay Podocarpus

0.20

Sur de Alamor†

ECU96

5,799

Protected

Tambo Negro

ECU69

1,945

Protected

Territorio Étnico Awá yalrededores

ECU70

204,930

Tiquibuzo

ECU71

4,965

Uritusinga Cerro
Ventanas y Villonaco†

ECU97

14,532

Reserva Comunal Bosquede Angashcola
Reserva Ecológica
Antisana (oeste) yalrededores
Reserva Ecológica CofánBermejo
Reserva Ecológica
Cotacachi-Cayapas
Reserva Ecológica Los
Illinizas y alrededores
Reserva NaturalTumbesia-La CeibaZapotillo

Notprotected
Partially
Protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected

Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected

Bosques Secos deTumbes-Loja
Bosques Secos deTumbes-Loja

IBA
AZE

IBA

0.269
0.179

IBA

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.38

IBA

-----

0.156

IBA

-----

0.31

Bosques Secos deTumbes-Loja

0.149

IBA

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.315

IBA

-----

0.22

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.282

IBA

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

0.374

IBA

Utuana-Bosque de Hanne

ECU73

63

Valle de Guayllabamba

ECU74

24,363

Valle del Chota†

ECU98

11,104

Verde-Ónzole-CayapasCanandé

ECU99

222,977

Volcán Atacazo

ECU75

9,316

Yanuncay-Yanasacha

ECU77

39,679Protected

Oeste de Azuay

0.164

IBA

Yungilla

ECU78

995

Not
protected

Cotopaxi-Amaluza

0.248

AZE

71

Zumba-Chito

ECU79

13,967

Protected

Cóndor-Kutukú-Palanda

0.189

IBA

Peru
Of the seven hotspot countries, Peru ranks second in the number of KBAs, with 106 sites
covering an area of 9,344,586 hectares or one-fifth of the Peruvian extent of the hotspot(Table 5.2). The Peruvian KBAs have an average area of 135,790 hectares but range from 120
hectares to 2,184,234 hectares (Table 5.6). Peru also held the second-place spot in theprevious ecosystem profile with 96 KBAs identified in 2015, 16 of those KBAs have been
removed, and 26 added (Appendix 5.3). Peru's KBAs, and those with the highest RBVs 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 (Figure 5.4a and 5.4b).
Five of the country’s highest RBV KBAs (0.18-0.24) are clustered in the Northeast Corridor ofPeru (Figure 5.4a): Río Utcubamba (PER84), Abra Pardo de Miguel (PER6), Cordillera de Colán(PER28), Abra Patricia-Alto Mayo (PER7), and Moyobamba (PER65). Three bird species: Lulu’s
tody-flycatcher (Poecilotriccus luluae, EN), the ochre-fronted antpitta (Grallaricula
ochraceifrons, EN) and the long-whiskered owlet (Xenoglaux loweryi, EN), and five threatenedamphibian species are endemic to this area, including two amphibian species with a very small
and fragmented distribution: Colan mountains robber frog (Pristimantis serendipitus, EN) andRhinella arborescandens (EN). In total, the distributions of 61 threatened species overlap withthese sites, which include both public and private protected areas. The area is threatened byplanned roads and land tenure issues but has benefited from sustainable conservation
investments and sustainable productive activities in recent years, including Phase II CEPF
investments. The hydrological resources of the Colán Cordillera ensure the supply of drinking
water for people living downstream along the Utcubamba and Chiriaco rivers.
In central Peru, the Carpish-Yanachaga Corridor (Figure 5.4a) has four KBAs with medium
RBVs (0.18-0.16), Parque Nacional Tingo Maria (PER71), Milpo (PER63), Laguna Gwengway(PER53), and Carpish (PER18). Carpish is an area of stunted forests, cloud pre-montane
forests and dry forests of the inter-Andean valley. It is highly threatened due to invasive
agriculture and cattle ranching, but, with the support of CEPF, was recently established as thefirst regional conservation area for the Department of Huánuco by the Ministry of Environment.
This KBA alone overlaps with the distribution of 43 threatened species including, Nymphargus
mixomaculatus, a Critically Endangered amphibian endemic to the province of Huánuco, 11
Endangered amphibians, three Endangered birds, most notably the golden-backed mountaintanager (Cnemathraupis aureodorsalis) and one Endangered mammal, the Peruvian spider
monkey (Ateles chamek).
The remaining Peruvian KBAs with medium RBVs are mostly in the southeast, in the Cordillera
de Vilcanota Corridor (Figure 5.4b). Kosñipata-Carabaya (PER44) extends between the ParqueNacional Manu (PER60) and the KBA Quincemil (PER75) and Río Araza (PER97). These KBAs,
together with Abra Málaga-Vilcanota (PER5), 6 km al sur de Ocobamba (PER3) and Lagos
Yanacocha (PER50), coincide with private conservation areas established and managed by theindigenous Q'Ero community and adjoin the famous Santuario Histórico de Machu Picchu(PER90). They include small Polylepis-Gynoxis forests and montane forests with extensive
areas of bamboo and puna grassland that coincide with the distribution of 27 CriticallyEndangered and Endangered species.

72

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

73

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

74

Table 5.6. KBAs in Peru
KBA name

CEPF
code

Area
(ha)

6 km sur de Ocobamba

PER3

76,568Abra Málaga-Vilcanota

PER5

31,083

Abra Pardo de Miguel

PER6

4,194

Abra Patricia-Alto Mayo

PER7

353,410

Alto Valle del Saña

PER10

48,027

Alto Valle Santa EulaliaMilloc

PER11

19,698Apacheta-Pilpichaca†

PER98

14,875Área de Conservación
Regional Huaytapallana†

PER99

21,064Área del Río Mantaro

PER11584,323Aypate

PER12

973

Bagua

PER13

5,160

Bahuaja-Sonene

PER1001,016,488

Bosque de Cuyas

PER15

2,164

Cajabamba†

PER101

4,058

Calendín

PER16

7,628

Carpish

PER18

211,339

Cerro Chinguela

PER20

13,522

Cerro HuanzaláHuallanca

PER21

6,324

Chalhuanca

PER22

1,428

ChamparáPER23

31,195

Chiguata

PER24

30,501Chiñama

PER102

7,966

Chinchipe

PER25

34,555Chungui-Rumichaca†

PER103

1,476

Conchamarca, Ambo

PER26

3,660

Cordillera Carabaya

PER27

24,612

Cordillera de ColánPER28

134,874

Cordillera deHuancabamba

PER30

50,734

Protection*
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Partially
protected
Partially
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Partially
protected
Protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected

75

Corridor

RBV

Other

Cordillera de Vilcanota

0.194

AZE

Cordillera de Vilcanota

0.192

IBA

Noreste de Perú

0.24

Noreste de Perú

0.19

IBA

-----

0.065

IBA

Tierras altas de LimaJunín

0.123

IBA

-----

0.081

-----

0.104

-----

0.029

AZE

-----

0.078

IBA

-----

0.119

IBA

Madidi-Pilón LajasCotapata

0.175

IBA

-----

0.134

IBA

-----

0.169

-----

0.123

Carpish-Yanachaga

0.16

IBA
AZE

-----

0.113

IBA

-----

0.128

IBA

-----

0.046

IBA

-----

0.115

IBA

-----

0.053

IBA

-----

0.086

IBA

-----

0.139

IBA
AZE

-----

0.086

-----

0.12

AZE

Cordillera de Vilcanota

0.135

AZE

Noreste de Perú

0.20

IBA

-----

0.191

AZE

KBA name

CEPF
code

Area
(ha)
1,664,005

Protection*

Corridor

RBV

Other

Cóndor-Kutukú-Palanda

0.251

IBA

-----

0.119

IBA

-----

0.089

IBA

Cordillera del Cóndor

PER31

Cordillera Huayhuash y
Nor-OyónPER32

74,497

Cordillera Vilcabamba

PER33

2,184,233

Partially
protected
Partially
protected
Partially
protected

Cordillera Yanachaga

PER34

105,016

Protected

Carpish-Yanachaga

0.15

IBA
AZE

Cotahuasi

PER36

451,538

Protected

-----

0.025

IBA

CovirePER37

61,344

-----

0.043

IBA

Cullcui

PER38

1,619

-----

0.081

IBA

Daniel Alomía Robles

PER40

6,324

Carpish-Yanachaga

0.14

AZE

El Molino

PER41

116,437

-----

0.158

IBA

Entre Puerto Balsa y
Moyobamba

PER14

224,396

Noreste de Perú

0.14

AZE

Huamba

PER42

2,550

-----

0.14

IBA
AZE

Huasahuasi

PER104

912

-----

0.123

AZE

Jaén-Bellavista†

PER105

6,404

-----

0.159

Jesús del Monte

PER43

4,966

-----

0.178

Kosñipata-Carabaya

PER44

96,492

Cordillera de Vilcanota

0.177

La CochaPER45

18,185

-----

0.07

IBA

La Esperanza

PER46

1,558

-----

0.09

IBA

La Granja†

PER106

534

-----

0.093

Lago de Junín

PER48

49,713Tierras altas de LimaJunín

0.092

IBA
AZE

Lago Lagunillas

PER49

4,514

Lagos Yanacocha

PER50

2,439

Laguna de Chacas

PER51

848

Laguna de los Cóndores

PER52

261,647

Laguna Gwengway

PER53

14,678

Laguna Maquera

PER54

120

Laguna Umayo

PER55

25,340

Lagunas de Huacarpay

PER56

3,373

Mandorcasa

PER59

62,444

Manu

PER60

1,593,485

Maraynioc puna

PER107925

Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Protected

IBA

Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected

-----

0.048

IBA

Cordillera de Vilcanota

0.165

IBA

-----

0.042

IBA

Protected

-----

0.168

IBA

Carpish-Yanachaga

0.17

AZE

-----

0.031

IBA

-----

0.051

IBA

-----

0.092

IBA

Cordillera de Vilcanota

0.117

IBA

Protected

Cordillera de Vilcanota

0.146

IBA
AZE

Not
protected

-----

0.162

AZE

Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected

76

CEPF
code

Area
(ha)

Marcapomacocha

PER61

20,636

Maruncunca

PER62

49,712

Milpo

PER63

4,849

Mina Inca

PER64

2,265

Moyobamba

PER65

91,527

Nevado Bolívar†PER108

3,897

KBA name

Protection*

Corridor

Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected

Tierras altas de LimaJunín
Madidi-Pilón LajasCotapata

Protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected

RBV

Other

0.101

IBA

0.143

IBA

Carpish-Yanachaga

0.17

IBA

-----

0.181

IBA

Noreste de Perú

0.18

IBA

-----

0.213

-----

0.058

-----

0.119

IBA

0.131

IBA

0.214

IBA

Occopalca†

PER1092,041

Paltashaco

PER67

3,350

PER68

21,581

PER110

153,428

Protected

PER39

5,713

Partially
protected

-----

0.062

AZE

PER70

325,360

Protected

-----

0.14

IBA

PER71

4,579

Protected

Carpish-Yanachaga

0.18

IBA

Pelagatos†

PER111

14,520

-----

0.201

Playa Pampa

PER73

1,175

Carpish-Yanachaga

0.15

IBA

Previsto

PER74

6,474

Carpish-Yanachaga

0.15

AZE

Pucara†PER112

3,413

-----

0.073

Quincemil

PER75

58,324

Cordillera de Vilcanota

0.191

Ramis y Arapa (Lago
Titicaca, sector Peruano)

PER76

438,804

-----

0.166

Reserva Comunal El Sira

PER81

1,634,693

Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected

-----

0.093

PER82

7,395

Protected

-----

0.051

IBA

PER83

337,737

Protected

-----

0.032

IBA

PER113

310,377

Partially
protected

-----

0.081

PER77

309,651

Protected

-----

0.13

Cordillera de Vilcanota

0.184

-----

0.072

IBA

-----

0.093

IBA

-----

0.195

IBA
AZE

Noreste de Perú

0.24

IBA

Pampas Pucacocha y
Curicocha
Parque Nacional Cerrosde Amotape
Parque Nacional Cutervo
y sus alrededores
Parque Nacional
HuascaránParque Nacional Tingo
María

Reserva Nacional Pampa
GalerasReserva Nacional Salinas
y Aguada Blanca
Reserva Paisajística Nor
Yauyos Cochas y zona deamortiguamiento†
Río Abiseo y Tayabamba
Río Araza†

PER97

33,956

Río Cajamarca

PER78

37,871

Río Mantaro-Cordillera
CentralPER79

13,427

Río Marañón

PER80

106,115

Río Utcubamba

PER84

35,534Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected

77

Tierras altas de LimaJunín
Bosques Secos deTumbes-Loja

IBA
IBA
AZE
IBA
AZE

IBA

KBA name

CEPF
code

Area
(ha)

Runtacocha-Morococha

PER85

33,477San José de Lourdes

PER86

5,005

San Juan Cajamarca

PER117

3,676

San Marcos

PER88

4,477

SandiaPER89

33,077

PER90

34,689Santuario Histórico
Machu Picchu
Santuario Nacional de
Huayllay†Santuario Nacional del
Ampay
Santuario Nacional
Tabaconas-Namballe

Protection*

Corridor

RBV

Other

-----

0.079

IBA

Cóndor-Kutukú-Palanda

0.19

IBA

-----

0.099

AZE

-----

0.059

IBA

Madidi-Pilón LajasCotapata

0.125

IBA

Protected

Cordillera de Vilcanota

0.143

IBA

0.062

Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected

PER118

6,447

Protected

Tierras altas de LimaJunín

PER91

3,577

Protected

-----

0.091

IBA

PER92

33,674

Protected

-----

0.12

IBA

Sihuas†PER119

294

-----

0.117

Suyo-La Tina

PER12048,896

Bosques Secos deTumbes-Loja

0.145

IBA

Tarapoto

PER93

184,513

-----

0.181

AZE

Toldo

PER94

2,864

-----

0.151

IBA

Valcón

PER95

1,881

Madidi-Pilón LajasCotapata

0.124

IBA

PER11635,889

-----

0.052

AZE

PER121

3,263

-----

0.118

AZE

Volcán Yucamani

PER122

6,185

-----

0.056

IBA

Yauli

PER96

3,665

-----

0.048

IBA

Valle del Río Santa(Provincia de Santa)
Valle Urubamba áreacerca de Taray

Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected

Zona deamortiguamiento delPER114 627,281
Protected----0.126
AZE
Parque Nacional Río
Abiseo* Protected: > 80 percent overlap with a protected area.
Partially protected: 10-80 percent overlap.
Not protected: < 10 percent overlap. See the section 5.4 on the protection of KBAs for more information on
designations.
† Nominated KBA.

Bolivia
Bolivia has 47 KBAs, covering an area of 6,664,450 hectares or about one-fifth of the Bolivian
hotspot area (Figure 5.5, Table 5.2). On average, the Bolivian KBAs have an area of 144,196
hectares, ranging from 697 hectares to 611,736 hectares (Table 5.7). Since the previous
ecosystem profiling process, 11 KBAs have been removed and 15 added, giving Bolivia four
more KBAs than in 2015 (Appendix 5.3). As in Peru, Bolivia's highest RBV KBAs are on theeastern slope of the Andes. Bolivia has very few KBAs with medium and high RBVs, possibly
because it is less biodiverse and has fewer globally threatened species (170) in the hotspot
than Peru (394), Ecuador (429) and Colombia (633). Another possible explanation is that lessresearch has been carried out in Bolivia due to scarce resources and the presence of a smaller
research community. However, these KBAs support various ecosystems such as highland78

montane Polylepis forests, montane yungas forests with interspersed dry forests at lower
elevations and, at higher elevations, a unique mixed vegetation of grasslands and shrublands
that is locally called "yungas páramos".
In the Madidi-Pilón Lajas-Cotapata Corridor is the Bosque de Polylepis de Madidi (BOL5), thenorthernmost KBA with a medium RBV (0.21). Thirty-four threatened species are found here,
including the amphibian Telmatobius timens (CR) and the royal cinclodes (Cinclodes aricomae,
CR). This KBA is an IBA that overlaps with the highland montane Polylepis forests of ParqueNacional Madidi, and the Yungas Superiores de Apolobamba (BOL39). However, the Madidi and
Apolobamba national parks, highly prized for their exceptionally high species richness, do notscore high RBVs due to the relatively wide distribution of threatened species found there. A
nearby group of KBAs in the same corridor, and with the highest RBVs for the country, islocated in the Yungas near the city of La Paz. The Parque Nacional and Área Natural de Manejo
Integrado Cotapata (BOL45) and Bosque de Polylepis de Taquesi (BOL8) are two of the three
KBAs with the highest RBVs for Bolivia (0.35 and 0.29, respectively),however, the latter is notin a protected area. Surrounding them are two protected KBAs of medium RBV (0.16 and0.23): Cotapata (BOL13) and Parque Nacional Tuni Condoriri (BOL46). These KBAs are hometo the royal cinclodes (Cinclodes aricomae, CR) and the plant Freziera apolobambensis (CR)and encompass the entire range of five Critically Endangered amphibians with very restricteddistribution, such as the devil's eyes frog (Oreobates zongoensis).
The third KBA with the highest RBV (0.24) for Bolivia, Candelaria-Corani (BOL44), is at thenorthwestern end of another medium RBV cluster in the Isiboro-Amboró Corridor, which
includes Cristal Mayu y alrededores (BOL14), Yungas Inferiores de Carrasco (BOL34) and
Yungas Superiores de Carrasco (BOL40). The latter two KBAs are sites that, despite their legal
protection, are undergoing large-scale intervention and transformation due to illicit crops andthe construction of a hydroelectric dam (see Chapter 6 for more details). These KBAs andother sites around them are areas that provide habitat for threatened species endemic to
Bolivia such as the horned curassow (Pauxi unicornis, CR) and the Cochabamba mountain finch(Poospiza garleppi, EN), as well as the plants Gynoxys neovelutina (EN) and Puya ibischii (EN).

79

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

80

Table 5.7. KBAs in Bolivia
CEPF
code

Area
(ha)

Anexo Tuni-Condoriri†

BOL57

19,462

Apolo

BOL3

177,302

Azurduy

BOL4

133,353

BOL5

94,613

BOL8

3,455

Candelaria-Corani†

BOL44

5,663

Cerro Azanaques†

BOL58

15,249

Cerro Q'ueñwa Sandora

BOL9

57,875Choquecamiri†

BOL47

8,585

Cochabamba

BOL48

10,268Comarapa

BOL11

5,888

Cotapata

BOL13

227,549

Cristal Mayu yalrededores

BOL14

29,440Cuenca Cotacajes

BOL15

143,104

Cuencas de Ríos Caine yMizqueBOL16

339,205

Culpina

BOL49

5,494

Lago Poopó y Río Laka
JahuiraBOL19

239,129

BOL20

368,971

BOL21

310,647

BOL22

611,736

Mallasa-Taypichullo†

BOL51

13,498

Pampa Redonda

BOL52

10,163Parque Nacional Sajama

BOL23

97,237Parque Nacional Torotoro

BOL53

15,271

BOL46

8,345

BOL45

57,238BOL24

40,426

KBA name

Bosque de Polylepis de
Madidi
Bosque de Polylepis deTaquesi

Lago Titicaca (Sector
Boliviano)
Lagunas de Agua Dulcedel Sureste de Potosí
Lagunas Salinas delSuroeste de Potosí

Parque Nacional Tuni
Condoriri†
Parque Nacional y ÁreaNatural de Manejo
Integrado Cotapata†
Quebrada Mojón

Protection*

Corridor

Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Protected

Madidi-Pilón LajasCotapata
Madidi-Pilón LajasCotapata

Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Not
protected

81----Madidi-Pilón LajasCotapata
Madidi-Pilón LajasCotapata

RBV

Other

0.14
0.14

IBA
AZE

0.03

IBA

0.21

IBA

0.29

IBA

Isiboro-Amboró

0.24

-----

0.07

-----

0.07

Madidi-Pilón LajasCotapata

0.13

Isiboro-Amboró

0.09

AZE

Isiboro-Amboró

0.13

AZE

Madidi-Pilón LajasCotapata

0.16

AZE

Isiboro-Amboró

0.22

IBA

Isiboro-Amboró

0.10

IBA
AZE

-----

0.05

IBA

-----

0.05

AZE

Lagos Salinos delAltiplano
chileno/boliviano

0.06

IBA

-----

0.15

IBA
AZE

Puna Trinacional

0.02

IBA

Puna Trinacional

0.04

IBA

-----

0.10

-----

0.09

AZE

Lagos Salinos delAltiplano
chileno/boliviano

0.07

IBA

-----

0.07

Madidi-Pilón LajasCotapata

0.23

Madidi-Pilón LajasCotapata

0.35

Isiboro-Amboró

0.12

IBA

IBA

CEPF
code

Area
(ha)

BOL26

96,224

BOL27

222,760

Río Caballuni

BOL54

697

Río Guadalquivir

BOL50

31,836

Río Huayllamarca

BOL25

5,209

Río San Juan tributario
oeste área pre punaBOL55

16,283

Serranía Bella Vista

BOL29

33,391

Serranía de Aguaragüe

BOL56

99,979KBA name
Reserva Biológica
Cordillera de Sama
Reserva Nacional de Floray Fauna Tariquía

Protection*
Protected
Protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Protected

Corridor

RBV

Other

Tarija-Jujuy

0.03

IBA

Tarija-Jujuy

0.08

IBA

-----

0.10

AZE

Tarija-Jujuy

0.06

AZE

Lagos Salinos delAltiplano
chileno/boliviano

0.07

AZE

Tarija-Jujuy

0.01

AZE

Madidi-Pilón LajasCotapata

0.08

IBA

Tarija-Jujuy

0.05

IBA

Not
Tacacoma-Quiabaya y
Madidi-Pilón LajasBOL30
87,3330.13
IBA
protected
Valle de Sorata
Cotapata
Protected
Vertiente Sur del ParqueBOL32
128,147
Isiboro-Amboró
0.13
IBA
Nacional TunariProtected
Yungas Inferiores deBOL33
299,926
Isiboro-Amboró
0.08
IBA
Amboró
Protected
Yungas Inferiores deBOL34
425,537
Isiboro-Amboró
0.15
IBA
Carrasco
Protected
Yungas Inferiores de
BOL35
193,812
Isiboro-Amboró
0.09
IBA
Isiboro-Sécure/Altamachi
Protected
Yungas Inferiores deMadidi-Pilón LajasBOL36
372,951
0.14
IBA
Madidi
Cotapata
Protected
Yungas Inferiores deMadidi-Pilón LajasBOL37
249,857
0.12
IBA
Pilón Lajas
Cotapata
Protected
Yungas Superiores deBOL38
245,394
Isiboro-Amboró
0.09
IBA
Amboró
Protected
Yungas Superiores deMadidi-Pilón LajasIBA
BOL39
436,794
0.15
Apolobamba
Cotapata
AZE
Protected
Yungas Superiores de
IBA
BOL40
205,748
Isiboro-Amboró
0.19
Carrasco
AZE
Protected
Yungas Superiores deMadidi-Pilón LajasBOL41
240,426
0.14
IBA
Madidi
Cotapata
Partially
Yungas Superiores deBOL42
337,229
Isiboro-Amboró
0.12
IBA
protected
Mosetenes y Cocapata* Protected: > 80 percent overlap with a protected area.
Partially protected: 10-80 percent overlap.
Not protected: < 10 percent overlap. See the section 5.4 on protection of KBA for more information on designations.
† Nominated KBA.

Argentina
The southernmost portions of the humid montane forests and puna grasslands of the hotspot
reach into Argentina, where 76 KBAs were identified (Figure 5.6), covering an area of
2,398,807 hectares or 16 percent of the Argentinean section of the hotspot (Table 5.2). These
KBAs have an average area of 56,607 hectares but range from 370 hectares to 848,373
hectares (Table 5.8). None of the KBAs confirmed in the previous ecosystem profile have been
removed, but 11 KBA were added in the profile update, increasing the number of KBAs from 65
to 76 (Appendix 5.3). Although Argentina has a great diversity of habitats, all its KBAs have
low RBVs reflecting the wide distribution and low threat status of their species and lower
biodiversity due to being in subtropical areas.

82

The KBAs with the highest RBVs are found in forests on the eastern slopes of the Andes andthe rest in the dry grasslands and scrub of the altiplano or puna. A few threatened species arefound in humid forests. One such example is the Tucumán amazon, also known as the alderamazon (Amazona tucumana, VU), a parrot restricted to northern Argentina and southern
Bolivia with an important population stronghold in the El Rey National Park (ARG30). Anotheris the Calilegua’s marsupial frog (Gastrotheca christiani, CR) endemic to Argentina, and with a
distribution that covers parts of the Parque Nacional Calilegua (ARG28) and Valle Colorado andValle Grande (ARG62), in the Tarija-Jujuy Corridor. The only globally threatened fungus in the
hotspot, Stilbohypoxylon macrosporum (CR), known only from the Argentinian yungas, is also
found here. Most of the highest RBV KBAs for the country are small and located in forested
areas also known as “Yungas Argentinas”. Here, ongoing conservation efforts have succeededin limiting logging and forest conversion to some extent (CEPF 2015). KBAs in the Altiplano,such as the Sistema de Lagunas de Vilama-Pululos (ARG8), encompass national parks withlakes that support important concentrations of flamingos.

83

Figure 5.6 KBAs in the Argentinean and Chilean Regions of the Tropical Andes
Hotspot84

Table 5.8. KBAs in Argentina
CEPF
code

Area
(ha)

Abra Grande

ARG132,429Acambuco

ARG223,475

Alto Calilegua

ARG3

774

Caspalá-Santa Ana

ARG4

14,612

Cerro Negro de San
Antonio

ARG5

9,934

Chaco de Tartagal

ARG66

50,125

Cuesta de las Higuerillas

ARG6

7,157

Cuesta del Clavillo

ARG7

9,144

Cuesta del Obispo

ARG825,434

Cuesta del Totoral

ARG9

7,733

El Fuerte y Santa Clara

ARG10

17,891El Infiernillo

ARG11

707

Fincas Santiago y San
AndrésARG1232,942

Itiyuro-Tuyunti

ARG13

La Cornisa

KBA name

Corridor

RBV

Other

Tarija-Jujuy

0.06

IBA

Tarija-Jujuy

0.07

IBA

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.12

IBA

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.06

IBA

-----

0.08

IBA

Tarija-Jujuy

0.03

IBA

-----

0.08

IBA

Yungas de Tucumán

0.08

IBA

-----

0.05

IBA

-----

0.06

IBA

-----

0.06

IBA

Yungas de Tucumán

0.09

IBA

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.10

IBA

20,947

Partially
protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.05

IBA

ARG14

19,444

Protected

-----

0.09

IBA

La Porcelana

ARG15

13,276

Partially
protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.05

IBA

Laguna El Peinado

ARG67

7,803

Protected

-----

0.01

IBA

Laguna Grande

ARG16

7,671

Protected

-----

0.00

IBA

Laguna Guayatayoc

ARG17108,520

-----

0.02

IBA

Laguna La Alumbrera

ARG18

10,796

-----

0.01

IBA

Laguna Purulla

ARG19

7,796

-----

0.01

IBA

ARG20

2,493

-----

0.02

IBA

ARG21

2,213

-----

0.09

IBA

Lagunillas

ARG22

550

-----

0.02

IBA

Llanos de Jagüé

ARG68

45,842

-----

0.00

IBA

ARG23

23,031

-----

0.03

IBA

ARG24

267,288

-----

0.02

IBA

ARG25

15,870

-----

0.03

IBA

Lagunas Runtuyoc-Los
Enamorados
Lagunas San Miguel y El
Sauce

Lotes 32 y 33, Maíz
Gordo
Luracatao y Valles
Calchaquíes
Monumento Natural
Laguna de Los Pozuelos

Protection*
Partially
protected
Partially
protected

Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected

Not
protected
Not
protected
Protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Protected
Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Protected

85

CEPF
code

Area
(ha)

Protection*

Corridor

RBV

Other

Pampichuela

ARG26

1,827

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.10

IBA

Parque Nacional Baritú

ARG27

65,123

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.12

IBA

Parque Nacional Calilegua

ARG28

68,333

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.12

IBA

Parque Nacional Campode los Alisos

ARG29

9,043

Protected

Yungas de Tucumán

0.07

IBA

Parque Nacional El Rey

ARG30

35,915

Protected

-----

0.06

IBA

ARG69

58,579Protected

-----

0.03

IBA

ARG31

61,224

Protected

Yungas de Tucumán

0.06

IBA

ARG32

8,392

Protected

Yungas de Tucumán

0.10

IBA

ARG33

14,227

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.09

IBA

ARG34

6,760

Protected

Yungas de Tucumán

0.11

IBA

Pueblo Nuevo

ARG35

1,750

Protected

-----

0.01

AZE

Quebrada de Escoipe

ARG70

637

Quebrada de las Conchas

ARG71

54,564

Quebrada del Toro

ARG37

54,938ARG36

KBA name

Parque Nacional Los
Cardones
Parque Provincial
Cumbres Calchaquíes
Parque Provincial La
FloridaParque Provincial Laguna
Pintascayoc
Parque Provincial LosÑuñorcos y Reserva
Natural Quebrada delPortuguésNot
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected

-----

0.03

AZE

Yungas de Tucumán

0.08

IBA

-----

0.04

IBA
AZE

9,729

Protected

-----

0.02

IBA

ARG72

848,373

Protected

-----

0.01

IBA

ARG41

1,507

Protected

Yungas de Tucumán

0.12

IBA

ARG42

12,008

Partially
protected

-----

0.06

IBA

ARG43

369

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.06

IBA

ARG73

389,369

Protected

-----

0.00

IBA

ARG44

190,097

Protected

Puna Trinacional

0.01

IBA

ARG45

15,586

Protected

Yungas de Tucumán

0.05

IBA

ARG46

522,754

Protected

-----

0.01

IBA

Río Los Sosa

ARG38

2,436

Protected

Yungas de Tucumán

0.06

IBA

Río Santa María

ARG39

9,339

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.08

IBA

Río Seco

ARG40

30,654

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.07

IBA

-----

0.01

IBA

Tarija-Jujuy

0.12

IBA

Queñoales de Santa
Catalina
Reserva de la Biósfera
Parque Nacional San
Guillermo
Reserva Natural de La
Angostura
Reserva Natural Las
Lancitas
Reserva Provincial de Uso
Múltiple Laguna Leandro
Reserva Provincial
Laguna Brava
Reserva Provincial
Olaroz-Cauchari
Reserva Provincial Santa
Ana
Reserva Provincial y de laBiósfera Laguna Blanca

Salar del Hombre Muerto

ARG47

58,810Not
protected

San Francisco-Río Jordán

ARG48

9,894

Protected

86

CEPF
code

Area
(ha)

San Lucas

ARG49

25,925

Santa Victoria, Cañani y
CayotalARG50

25,542

Sierra de Ambato

ARG51

76,195Sierra de Medina

ARG52

38,389Sierra de Metán

ARG74

61,707

Sierra de San Javier

ARG53

11,792KBA name

Protection*

Corridor

RBV

Other

Tarija-Jujuy

0.05

IBA

Tarija-Jujuy

0.07

IBA

-----

0.06

IBA

Yungas de Tucumán

0.08

IBA

Yungas de Tucumán

0.11

IBA

Protected

Yungas de Tucumán

0.07

IBA

Tarija-Jujuy

0.02

IBA

Tarija-Jujuy

0.09

IBA

Yungas de Tucumán

0.06

IBA

Yungas de Tucumán

0.05

IBA

-----

0.08

IBA

Partially
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected

Sierra de Santa Victoria

ARG54

38,982Not
protected

Sierra de Zenta

ARG55

37,688

Protected

Sierra Rosario de la
Frontera

ARG75

26,563

Sierras de Carahuasi

ARG56

102,694

Sierras de Puesto Viejo

ARG57

9,075

Sistema de lagunas deVilama-Pululos

ARG58

303,783

Protected

Puna Trinacional

0.01

IBA

Socompa y Llullaillaco

ARG5987,293

Protected

-----

0.01

IBA

Tiraxi y Las Capillas

ARG60

13,008

Protected

-----

0.11

IBA

TrancasARG61

32,091Not
protected

Yungas de Tucumán

0.10

IBA

Valle Colorado y Valle
Grande

ARG62

9,743

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.10

IBA

Valle de Tafi

ARG63

33,550Not
protected

Yungas de Tucumán

0.10

AZE

Yala

ARG64

4,089

Protected

-----

0.06

IBA

Not
protected
Partially
protected
Not
protected

Not----0.02
IBA
protected
Not
Yuto y Vinalito
ARG76
31,277
Tarija-Jujuy
0.08
IBA
protected* Protected: > 80 percent overlap with a protected area.
Partially protected: 10-80 percent overlap.
Not protected: < 10 percent overlap. See the section 5.4 on protection of KBA for more information on designations.
Yavi y Yavi Chico

ARG65

4,569

Chile
In Chile, the hotspot is located entirely on the semi-desertic altiplano where there are 12 KBAs
(Figure 5.5, 5.6) covering a total area of 495,771 hectares, equivalent to 7 percent of theChilean section of the hotspot (Table 5.2). Since the previous ecosystem profile four KBAs
were confirmed and three were removed (Appendix 5.3). The KBAs have small areas, and withan average size of 48,917 hectares, they have the lowest country average in the Tropical
Andes and range from 804 hectares to 153,662 hectares (Table 5.9). Some KBAs correspondwith national parks, reserves and national monuments. Although there are several endemic
species in the KBAs, all with low RBVs, they form part of the distribution of only 12
Endangered and Critically Endangered species. These include the Chilean woodstar (Eulidia
yarellii, CR), which inhabits river valleys in desert areas, and the Critically Endangered
amphibians Telmatobius pefauri, T. philippii, and T. vilamensis. Several of the KBAs, such as87

Lagunas Bravas (CHI1), the Monumento Natural Salar de Surire (CHI2) and Parque Nacional
Lauca (CHI3) in the Saline Lakes Corridor of the Chilean/Bolivian Altiplano (Figure 5. 5),
support locally important populations of aquatic birds such as ducks and geese, James's
flamingo (Phoenicoparrus jamesi), Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus, VU) and horned
coot (Fulica cornuta).
The direct and indirect impacts of the mining industry constitute a major threat to KBAs in
Chile (CEPF 2015). One of the most significant adverse effects of this activity is the use oflarge volumes of water. Mining operations extract water from deep underground aquifers,
thereby reducing the amount of water available for spring-fed wetlands. Water is a scarce
resource in this environment and is vital for the maintenance of aquatic birds, for which
several of the KBAs were defined.
Table 5.9. KBAs in Chile
KBA name

CEPF
code

Area
(ha)

Protection*

Corridor

RBV

Other

Laguna del Negro
Francisco y Laguna Santa
Rosa

CHI12

54,693

Partially
protected

-----

0.029

IBA

Lagunas Bravas

CHI1

804

Not
protected

-----

0.011

IBA

Monumento Natural Salarde Surire

CHI2

15,814

Protected

Lagos Salinos delAltiplano
chileno/boliviano

0.021

IBA

Murmuntani

CHI13

13,539Not
protected

-----

0.046

AZE

0.027

IBA

0.033

IBA

0.024

IBA

0.026

IBA

Puna Trinacional

0.024

IBA

Puna Trinacional

0.06

AZE

-----

0.013

IBA

Lagos Salinos delAltiplano
chileno/boliviano

0.08

AZE

Parque Nacional Lauca

CHI3

127,977

Protected

Parque Nacional Salar deHuascoCHI4

108,221Not
protected

Parque Nacional Volcán
IslugaCHI5

153,662

Protected

Precordillera SocoromaPutre

CHI6

5,848

Not
protected

Reserva Nacional Los
Flamencos-Soncor

CHI10

66,430Protected

Río Vilama

CHI14

27,808

Salar de Piedra Parada

CHI11

2,715

Zapahuira

CHI15

9,482

Not
protected
Not
protected
Not
protected

Lagos Salinos delAltiplano
chileno/boliviano
Lagos Salinos delAltiplano
chileno/boliviano
Lagos Salinos delAltiplano
chileno/boliviano
Lagos Salinos delAltiplano
chileno/boliviano* Protected: > 80 percent overlap with a protected area.
Partially protected: 10-80 percent overlap.
Not protected: < 10 percent overlap. See the section 5.4 on protection of KBA for more information on designations.

5.3 Relative Biodiversity Value (RBV)
Across the hotspot, the RBV varies substantially depending on the number of species in eachthreat category and the size of their distribution (Figure 5.7). Regionally, a latitudinal gradientis found with higher RBVs in the northern Andean countries (Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador)and lower RBVs towards the central (Peru and Bolivia) and southern (Chile and Argentina)

88

countries. This is consistent with the known pattern of higher biodiversity towards zero
latitude. The high biodiversity and endemism of the northern Andes could be explained bygreater topographic heterogeneity and ecosystem diversity generated by several mountain
ranges of different geological origins (Distler et al. 2009; Kattan et al. 2004). However, thereis evidence that water and energy availability, regional and evolutionary history of species andtheir dispersal ability are as, or more, important drivers of speciation than landscape changes(Jiménez et al. 2009; Ricklefs 2004; Smith et al. 2014). Additionally, the hotspot regions ofAndean countries such as Bolivia, Peru, Chile and Argentina have large areas of altiplano, highaltitude deserts that are less diverse than the montane forests that predominate in Colombia
and Ecuador. On the other hand, the northern Andean countries have better representation in
the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2020). Colombia is the country with the highest number of animal
species assessed (6,845 species), and Ecuador the third (4,687 species), followed by
Venezuela (4,580 species). Although Peru is not among the northern Andean countries, it
seems to have been well assessed as it is in second place (4,994 species). In terms of plants
assessed, Ecuador holds first place (4,724 species), Colombia second (4,268 species), andPeru third (3,031 species), followed by Venezuela (2,856 species).
At the local level, there is an altitudinal gradient where the RBVs are higher in the mountain
ranges and lower towards the inter-Andean valleys or flat areas of lower elevation, possibly
due to the greater number of species with restricted distribution found in the mountain ranges.
Likewise, for taxonomic groups such as birds (Kattan et al. 2004), amphibians (Armesto andSeñaris 2017) and some plants (Salazar et al. 2015; Jørgensen et al. 2011), there is acorrelation between their diversity and elevation-related factors such as precipitation andtemperature, with higher species diversity at medium elevations, between 1000 m and 3000 m
above sea level. In addition to its biodiversity and endemism, the RBV of this northern Andeanzone is possibly higher because habitat transformation and deforestation for agriculture andcattle ranching is higher in this region (Wassenar et al. 2007). This is corroborated in thisprofile’s hotspot ecosystem integrity impact assessment (Chapter 6), which takes into accountthreats such as cattle ranching, agriculture and mining, among others, and shows higher
threat levels for Colombia and Ecuador, compared to Bolivia, Peru, Chile and Argentina.
According to the classification of KBAs, based on the RBV natural breaks, 46 KBAs wereidentified as very high, 115 as high, 114 as medium, 114 as low and 85 as very low RBV(Figure 5.8). More KBAs with higher RBVs were found in the northern Andean countries than in
the central and southern Andes. All very high RBV KBAs are located in Colombia (29) and
Ecuador (17). High and medium RBV KBAs are distributed among Venezuela (15 and 10,
respectively), Colombia (57 and 29), Ecuador (38 and 31), Peru (2 and 35) and Bolivia (3 and
9). In Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador, no very low RBV KBAs were found. All KBAs in
Argentina and Chile have low and very low RBVs. For more details on the methodology, see
Appendix 5.4.

89

Figure 5.7. Relative Biodiversity Value (RBV) of the Tropical Andes Hotspot

90

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

91

5.4 Legal Protection of KBAs
Andean governments, local communities, international donors and conservationists haveinvested enormous effort over the previous decades in establishing new protected areas in the
Tropical Andes Hotspot. In the previous profile, 606 national and subnational protected areas
were recorded, while as of October 2020, the date of preparation of this analysis, 2,960
protected areas were identified within or partially within the hotspot (Table 5.10). 3 Of thisnumber 2,848 correspond to national, subnational and private protected areas, and 112 areas
with international designations such as Ramsar sites, Biosphere Reserves and other effectivearea-based conservation modalities (OMEC, by its acronym in Spanish) established for eachcountry.4 Together, these protected areas cover 43 million hectares, or 27 percent of thehotspot area (Table 5.10). Within each country, the percentage of the hotspot under protection
varies from a low of 11 percent in Chile to a high of 49 percent in Ecuador.
The protection status of hotspot KBAs is variable, with around 63 percent of the area under
KBAs (within or partially within the hotspot) overlapping with a protected area, the remaining
37 percent is unprotected (Table 5.10). Of the 474 KBAs in the Tropical Andes, about 42
percent, or 199 sites, have at least 80 percent of their territory under some form of protection(Table 5.11). These protected KBAs cover about 23 million hectares, an area about the size of
the United Kingdom, which is equivalent to 53 percent of the total area covered by KBAs.
These 199 KBAs include 75 sites of high and very high RBV, (Figure 5.8) and 34 are AZE sites.
A further 102 KBAs, which include 47 sites of high or very high RBV and 24 that are AZE sites,
have intermediate levels of protection, meaning that between 10 and 80 percent of their area
overlaps with a protected area. These KBAs cover 13 million hectares or 29 percent of the total
area with KBA designation, an area similar to the size of Nicaragua. The remaining 173 KBAs,
36 percent of all KBAs in the hotspot, which include 41 sites rated as high and very high RBV,
as well as 44 KBAs that are AZE sites, are not protected. These sites cover just over 7 million
hectares, an area equivalent to the size of Ireland.
It is important to note that the mapping information available on government open data
portals contains up-to-date information available and accessible for the analysis of protection
for biodiversity conservation in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, something that may not have been
available for the previous profile. However, in the case of Venezuela, the availability ofmapping data for protected areas was limited, because their information download portals aredeactivated or the information is not available. Likewise, World Heritage sites have not been
considered, due to the lack of information available for this conservation category.
Conservation strategies that are not recognized as protected areas by national governments
and do not have a consolidated GIS layer available for the entire country, such as municipal
protected areas in Colombia and Conservation and Sustainable use Areas in Ecuador, were notconsidered.

3

Subnational protected areas are those managed at the departmental, provincial or other local government
level rather than a national government. International categories such as Ramsar sites or Biosphere
Reserves usually overlap national protected areas.
4

Other effective area-based conservation modalities (OMECs by its acronym in Spanish) include: Gran Chaco
Corridors for Argentina; Forest Reserve Law 1959 and Protective Productive Forest Reserves for Colombia;
PSB Conservation Areas and Water Protection Areas 2020 for Ecuador; and Conservation Concessions,
Ecotourism Concession, Concessions for Forest Products Other than Timber and Wildlife Concession for Peru.

92

Table 5.10. Protection Areas for Biodiversity Conservation in the Tropical Andes Hotspot

Protected area unit
National Areas
Subnational
Areas
Private Areas
Ramsar Sites
Biosphere
Reserves

Venezuela

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Bolivia

Argentina

Chile

TropicalAndes
Hotspot

Number

31

84

33

41

21

9

7

226

Area (ha)1,901,862

3,888,203

2,710,975

5,627,427

5,642,593

347,253

766,170

20,884,483

Number

Does not
exist

234

3

13

76

27

2,730,013

95,040759,022

1,522,385

2,618 418

Does notexist

7,724,878

Does not
exist

561

1,637

71

50,290381,797

287,350

Does notexist

NoinformationNo
information

719,438

Area (ha)NumberArea (ha)NumberArea (ha)Number00Area (ha)Number

353
2,269

5

4

6

5

4

6

30

188,469

96,325

101,494

649,410

53,143

5,197,555

255

4 108 715
Does not
exist

4

1

17

3,418,283

3,179,547

5,198,604

2,061,159

326,466

14,184,058

64

1

65

No
informationNo
informationNo
information

739,450

No
information

261,429

No
information

1,000,879

31

886

1,682

200

102

45

14

2,960

Total hotspot area underprotection (ha)*.

1,901,862

9,034,802

5,737,404

10,004,274

9,923,062

5,349,966

810,671

42,762,042

Hotspot area per country (ha)6,952,395

35,028,997

11,786,708

45,326,966

37,000,97814,872,835

7,384,220

158,353,100% of total hotspot area underprotection

27%

26%

49%

22%

27%

36%

11%

27%

Total area of KBAs underprotection (ha)2,732,964

5,440,424

3,246,987

8,134 591

5,087,573

2,925,265

395,636

27,963,440

KBA area per country (ha)4,349,607

7,878,654

4,708,664

14,393,717

6,777,212

4,302,130

586,998

44,457,120

63%

69%

69%

57%

75%

68%

67%

63%

OECM‡

Area (ha)Total protected areas in the
hotspot per country% area of KBA under protection‡ Other effective area-based conservation modalities.
* The total area of the hotspot under protection is the sum of the area of all categories, minus areas where two or more categories overlap. Includes national,
sub-national and private protected areas and areas with international designations where conservation is the primary management objective. It does not include
indigenous territories or other land tenure regimes where biodiversity conservation or natural resource management is not the main objective. In Venezuela,
the availability of protected area mapping data was limited.

Table 5.11. KBAs and AZE sites under legal protection

Number of KBAs
Area of KBAs in
hectares
Number of KBAs
with high and very
high RBVs
Number of AZE sites

Protected*

Partially
Protected*

Not protected*

Total

199 (42%)102 (22%)173 (36%)474

22,916,738 (53%)

13,059,769 (30%)

7,021,753 (16%)

42,998,260

75 (46%)47 (29%)41 (25%)162

34 (33%)24 (24%)44 (43%)102* Protected: > 80 percent overlap with a protected area.
Partially protected: 10-80 percent overlap.
Not protected: < 10 percent overlap.

It should also be noted that this analysis of protected areas takes into account different forms ofconservation protection. However, the level of protection afforded to species and sites varies
according to the form and even according to the capacities of governments or civil society
organizations to manage and administer each of these conservation strategies. However, some
KBAs may overlap with indigenous territories or other land management designations that were
not considered but which afford them protection even though they do not necessarily havebiodiversity conservation as a management objective. Indigenous reservations, for example,
often have a form of communal land ownership that may have sustainable natural resource
management as an objective.
Despite these advances in conservation strategies, 73 percent of the land in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot, equivalent to 115 million hectares, an area about the size of Colombia, is still
unprotected. This suggests that the implementation of activities in these KBAs is an importantalternative to complement the conservation efforts that have been carried out in the hotspot inrecent decades. This strategy could not only contribute to the strengthening of protected areas
but also to the formation of new protected areas and new conservation and sustainable
development areas where the main actors are civil society organizations in coordination withnational or sub-national environmental institutions.

94

Figure 5.9. Status of Public Protection of KBAs in the Tropical Andes Hotspot

Protected: > 80 percent overlap with a protected area.
Partially protected: 10-80 percent overlap.
Not protected: < 10 percent overlap.

95

5.5 Ecosystem Services of the KBAs
Water availability
Besides being places with amazing biodiversity and species endemism, tropical montane
ecosystems are important areas for water for human consumption, agricultural use, andhydropower generation in Andean countries. Cloud and rain forests, yungas and páramos areamong the ecosystems that capture water, either from frequent precipitation or fog, and suffer
little evaporation losses due to high atmospheric humidity and cloudiness (Aparecido et al. 2018;
Bruijnzeel et al. 2011). Páramos also have a good capacity for water storage thanks to their
porous soil type, which is rich in organic matter. Forests also help prevent soil erosion andlandslides, and this contributes to better water quality.
As the demand for food increases, water scarcity is becoming more and more imminent, so muchso that in California, USA, water began to be traded on the Wall Street futures market in
December 2020 (Redacción Medio Ambiente, 2020). Of the water consumed globally, 92 percent
is used for agriculture. Much of this is wasted by irrigation systems that lose water throughevaporation or soils through which water drains before it can be absorbed by roots ("The best way
to solve the world's water woes is to use less of it", 2020). Strategies to secure the resource forpeople and biodiversity include regenerative soil agriculture systems that increase carbon
sequestration and water storage (White 2020) and the conservation of sites that are important forwater provision.
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 (Table 5.12, for details of themethodology, see Appendix 5.6). Of the 474 KBAs assessed, five were rated with “Very High”
water availability, and 15 were rated “High”. The KBAs with very high water availability in the
Tropical Andes Hotspot are located on the eastern slopes of the Andes Cordillera in Peru (Figure5.10): Cordillera del Cóndor (PER31), Cordillera Vilcabamba (PER33), Reserva Comunal El Sira
(PER81), Manu (PER60), Bahuaja-Sonene (PER100). The latter two are located largely outside thehotspot boundary, largely in the Amazon, yet all share characteristics of the Andes. These KBAs
are the ones with the highest water availability in this analysis possibly due to their large surface
area, an important caveat for this methodology. There are KBAs located in ecosystems such as
páramos and Andean forests that are very important for the hotspot's water supply and storage
but did not particularly stand out due to their relatively smaller areas.
The high value KBAs are scattered in the Andes Mountains, mostly in Colombia, Ecuador and
Bolivia (Figure 5.10). The 15 KBAs with high hotspot water availability include: Serranía de San
Lucas (COL108), Parque Nacional Natural Sierra de la Macarena (COL71), Parque Nacional Natural
Paramillo (COL69), Yungas Inferiores de Carrasco (BOL34), Parque Nacional Sangay (ECU51),
Parque Nacional Natural Sierra de Santa Marta and its surroundings (COL110), Cordillera delCóndor (ECU27), Río Abiseo National Park and buffer zone (PER114), Cotacachi-Cayapas
Ecological Reserve (ECU61), Yungas Inferiores de Madidi (BOL36), Perijá National Park (VEN12),
Serranía de los Paraguas (COL106), Yungas Superiores de Mosetenes y Cocapata (BOL42),
Cayambe-Coca National Park (ECU59), and Sumaco-Napo Galeras National Park (ECU52). In
contrast, all KBAs in Argentina and Chile are classified with low availability.

96

Table 5.12. KBA Rating for Importance of Water Provision for Domestic Use, Number
of KBAs in the Tropical Andes Hotspot
Country

Number of KBAs
Very High

High

MediumLow

Total

Argentina

-

-

-

76

76

Bolivia

-

3

6

38

47

Chile

-

-

-

12

12

Colombia

-

5

13

101

119

Ecuador

-

5

7

76

88

Peru

5

1

8

92

106

Venezuela

-

1

5

20

26

Total

5

15

39

415

474

Source Data: Mulligan 2020. AguaAndes. http://www.policysupport.org/waterworld
Model Source: Mulligan et al. 2010.
Classification of water availability, mm/year:
Very high: 20 696 453 - 43 908 617
High: 6 840 750 - 20 696 453
Medium: 2 145 373 - 6 840 750
Low: -1 809 550 - 2 145 373

97

Figure 5.10. Provisioning by KBAs of Water Availability in the Tropical Andes Hotspot

98

Carbon storage
Tropical Andes KBAs collectively store 7,345 million metric tons of carbon (tC) in their plantbiomass (Table 5.13). This 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 from2016 to 2025 to comply with the Paris Agreement (Erdes 2020). Peru's KBAs store the largest
amount of carbon of all Andean countries, 3,358 million tC, or 46 percent of total carbon stored in
the hotspot's KBAs. This capacity is due to the vast expanses of Peru's KBAs and the large
amounts of carbon stored in them, particularly those extending into the Amazon.
The sum of carbon stored in each KBA averages 154,952 tC and varies substantially, from zero t C
to 6,739,821 tC, depending on its vegetation. KBA dominated by páramos grasslands, highaltitude puna scrub or lagoons have a smaller standing biomass of carbon per unit area than KBAs
dominated by high canopy forests. However, ecosystems like páramos or puna with wetlands withorganic soil or peat, such as peatlands, store significant amounts of carbon that are not reflectedin carbon storage calculations based on plant biomass. It is estimated that the planet's peatlands
contain 600-700 GtC, exceeding the carbon stored in global vegetation, approximately 560 GtC(Turetsky et al. 2015).
KBAs in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia average more than 150 tC per hectare (Table 5.13),
reflecting the dominance of forest habitats in these areas. Carbon storage is lower in Chile andArgentina, where the KBAs are characterized by shrublands and deserts rather than forests. The
five KBAs with very high carbon storage are in Peru (Table 5.14): Cordillera Vilcabamba (PER33),
Cordillera del Cóndor (PER31), Reserva Comunal El Sira (PER81), Manu (PER60) and BahuajaSonene (PER100). The six KBAs with high carbon storage are located in Colombia, Peru and
Bolivia (Table 5.14): Serranía de San Lucas (COL108), Parque Nacional Natural Sierra de laMacarena (COL71), Parque Nacional Natural Paramillo (COL69), Parque Nacional Río Abiseo andbuffer área (PER114), Yungas Inferiores de Carrasco (BOL34) and Yungas Inferiores de Madidi(BOL36). The KBAs with the highest carbon storage rankings are found mainly in northern
Colombia and Ecuador and on the Andes' eastern slopes in Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia (Figure5.11). For more details on the methodology for calculating carbon storage in the Tropical Andes,
refer to Appendix 5.7.
Table 5.13. Estimated Carbon Storage in KBAs in the Tropical Andes Hotspot

CountryNo.
KBA

Area of KBAs

Average
CarbonStored in
KBAs(tC/ha-1)

Argentina

76

4,302,130

48

208,339,867

3

Bolivia

47

6,777,212

158

1,069,293,726

15

Chile

12

586,99842,609,487

0.04

Colombia

119

7,878,654

169

1,328,189,869

18

Ecuador88

4,708,664

180

845,395,490

12

Peru

106

14,393,717

233

3,358,483,639

46

Venezuela

26

4,349,607

122

532,394,696

7

Total

474

42,996,982

171

7,344,706,774

100

Source: Avitabile et al. 2016.

99

Total Carbon
Stored in KBAs
(tC)

Percentage ofTotal Carbon
Stored in the
hotspot KBAs

Table 5.14. KBA Rating for Importance for Carbon Sequestration in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot. Number of KBAs
País

No. KBA
Very highHigh

MediumLow

Total

Argentina

-

-

-

76

76

Bolivia

-

2

10

35

47

Chile

-

-

-

12

12

Colombia

-

3

9

107

119

Ecuador

-

-

11

77

88

Peru

5

1

6

94

106

Venezuela

-

-

5

21

26

Total

5

6

41

422

474

Source: Avitabile et al. 2016.
Carbon Storage Classification (tC):Very high: 3,211,301 - 6,739,821
High: 1,177,059 – 3,211,301
Medium: 311,917 – 1,177,059
Low: 0 – 311,917

100Figure 5.11. Estimated Carbon Sequestration in KBAs in the Tropical Andes Hotspot

1015.6 Corridor Outcomes
The Tropical Andes consists of mountain ranges running north to south, more or less parallel andseparated by valleys that have been largely transformed into urban and agricultural landscapes.
This geography limits the delineation of corridors, mainly to areas along the mountain ranges.
Additionally, at the local level the relative biodiversity values (RBVs, Figure 5.7) demonstrate animportant relationship with the elevation gradient in the Andes, with the highest values on themountain ranges. Likewise, KBAs in the Andes are located on both the eastern and western slopesof the Andes. Within this natural biogeographic constraint, corridor outcomes were defined tomeet three objectives: to provide connectivity between KBAs with similar species, species
irreplaceability and habitats; to group KBAs that provide ecosystem services to the same
population centers; and to provide for the needs of wide-ranging landscape species.
The 2015 CEPF ecosystem profile identified several corridors spanning a wide range of climate
regimes that provide more opportunities at the regional scale for species to track suitable climatesas they move across the landscape. However, based on the recommendations of experts who
contributed related information on species, ecosystems, and the shared socio-political context ofthese landscapes, the profile update includes certain modifications to the corridors that allow forcoherent and coordinated deployment of conservation strategies.
This analysis resulted in a total of 28 corridors in the hotspot, including nine corridors shared
between two or three countries and corresponding to an area of 52.2 million hectares or 33
percent of the hotspot (Table 5.15, Figure 5.12). Of the 474 KBAs in the hotspot, 299 KBAs fallwithin a corridor. The vast majority of the highest RBV KBAs for each country are also included
within corridors. The delineated corridors include around 10 KBAs on average, with the La
Victoria-La Cocha-Sibundoy Corridor in Colombia having the lowest number, with three KBAs, andthe bi-national corridor between Argentina and Bolivia, Tarija-Jujuy, encompassing the highest
number, with 27 KBAs (Table 5.16). The corridors also show a wide variation in the percentage of
their area under protection. Across the hotspot, the average area under protection within thecorridors is 53 percent (Table 5.16), but the range goes from 17 percent in the Peruvian Tierras
Altas of the Lima-Junín Corridor to 98 percent in the Colombian Cordillera Central Corridor and theEcuadorian Western Azuay Corridor.
Table 5.15. Summary of Corridor Outcomes for the Tropical Andes Hotspot

Country

Argentina
Bolivia

Number ofcorridors(shared withanothercountry)
3 (2)
5 (4)

TropicalAndes Hotspot
area (ha)Area ofcorridors (ha)Percentage ofthe hotspot
covered bycorridors

14,872,835

3,800,126

26

37,000,978

16,843,918

46

Chile

2 (2)

7,384,220

2,705,397

37

Colombia

11 (3)

35,028,997

11,250,508

32

Ecuador7 (3)11,786,708

6,803,414

58

Peru

7 (3)

45,326,966

6,551,962

14

Venezuela

3 (2)6,952,395

4,204,389

60

Hotspot Andes
Tropicales

28 (9)

158,353,100

52,159,713

33

102

Table 5.16. Characteristics of Corridors in the Tropical Andes Hotspot
Total area
(hectares)

Percentage
ofprotected
area

Corridor nameCountry

No. of
KBAs

Venezuelan Andes

Venezuela/Colombia

13

3,419,306

39

Ecuador/Peru

14475,808

97

Peru

8

1,162,784

36

Ecuador/Peru

11

1,688,275

40

Central Cordillera

Colombia

7

1,480,392

98

Central Coast Cordillera

Venezuela

6544,49455

Venezuela/Colombia

4

1,414,593

42

Peru

10

2,186,306

43

Bogota Eastern Cordillera

Colombia

4871,998

45

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

Ecuador/Colombia

24

2,039,20153

Cotopaxi-Amaluza

Ecuador7

1,362,85864

Isiboro-Amboró

Bolivia

13

4,271,376

52

La Victoria-La Cocha-Sibundoy

Colombia

3

728,547

26

Chilean/Bolivian Altiplano
Saline Lakes

Bolivia/Chile

96,780,807

22

Madidi-Pilón Lajas-Cotapata

Bolivia/Peru

18

5,055,482

44

Northeastern Peru

Peru

6

1,811,338

24

Northeast ofQuindío

Colombia

15

643,853

72

Northeast Cordillera

Colombia

12

2,891,170

44

Northeastern

Ecuador5

1,290,706

94

Watern Azuay

Ecuador6

283,388

98

Paraguas-Munchique-BosquesMontanos del Sur de Antioquia

Colombia

15

2,068,599

63

Sangay Podocarpus

Ecuador

11

927,21256

Chile/Argentina/Bolivia

63,723,424

52

Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta yalrededores

Colombia

5772,168

70

Sonsón-Nechi

Colombia

12

1,293,218

25

Tarija-Jujuy

Argentina/Bolivia

27

2,844,423

60

Peru

5

337,040

17

Argentina

17

1,340,333

18

Tumbes-Loja Dry Forests
Carpish-Yanachaga
Cóndor-Kutukú-Palanda

Perijá Cordillera
Vilcanota Cordillera

Trinacional Puna

Lima-Junin Highlands
Tucuman Yungas

103The identification of corridors that maintain north-south connectivity along the Andean cordilleras,
and the location of KBAs in these cordilleras, support conservation of the habitat for threatened
species with wide latitudinal distributions (<130,000 km2) along the mountain ranges. These
species include mammals such as the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus, VU), the mountaintapir (Tapirus pinchaque, EN), the brown spider monkey (Ateles hybridus, CR) and the Andean
mountain cat (Leopardus jacobita, EN); as well as bird species such as the yellow-eared parrot(Ognorhynchus icterotis, EN) and the black-and-chestnut eagle (Spizaetus isidori, EN). Similarly,
the delimitation of corridors that group KBAs with similar habitats and species provides areas withnatural habitat cover and sufficient altitudinal gradients that facilitate the exchange of individuals
between populations and allow altitudinal movement in response to climate change. This improves
the species’ chances of survival and maintaining their genetic diversity.

104Figure 5.12. Corridors Identified for the Tropical Andes Hotspot

105

6 THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY IN THE HOTSPOT
6.1 Introduction
The Tropical Andes Hotspot is considered the most important in the world in terms of biologicalrichness, but its long history of human occupation has caused a profound transformation fromnatural to anthropogenic landscapes. According to World Bank data, between 1960 and 2015,
the countries that are 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
intense pressures that create environmental and social impacts (Llambí et al. 2019; CorreaAyram et al. 2020).
In addition to the increasing concentration of people, there is a growing road infrastructurethat provides permanent access to agricultural storage centers, processing plants, local andregional markets and airports. As a result, the fertile agricultural soils of the Ecuadorian,
Colombian and northern Peruvian Andes are covered by pastures for dairy cattle andagricultural crops. Crops include those grown for domestic and commercial consumption (e.g.,
potatoes and other tubers, wheat, barley, corn, legumes and fruits), and for export (e.g.,broccoli, artichoke, quinoa, avocado, cut flowers, coffee and cacao). The natural vegetation of
the inter-Andean valleys, slopes and adjacent high plateaus has been lost, as has been theassociated richness and biodiversity, especially in the northern Andes (Corrales 2001,
Wassenar et al. 2007, Rodríguez E. et al. 2012, in CEPF 2015). However, many of thesetransformations are difficult to quantify (Buytaert et al. 2006; Tognelli et al. 2016).
To protect these natural Andean landscapes, which include KBAs and corridors, one of themost effective strategies proposed in the 2015 ecosystem profile, and which is still being
pursued, is the establishment of protected areas and the definition of conservation corridors(Olson 2010; Tognelli et al. 2016; CEPF 2015). Protected areas are useful because they help
maintain the largest possible expanses of forests and native vegetation under a legal
conservation regime. In addition, they protect other important natural vegetation types,
associated ecosystem services and biodiversity. In the case of corridors, they allow for macroplanning based on connectivity between ecosystems. There is, however, still much to be donein the hotspot; only 27 percent of the ecoregions of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru andVenezuela are protected and barely 17 percent are connected (Castillo et al. 2020). Section
5.4 discusses the legal protection status of KBAs in greater depth.
The national consultation workshops analyzed 118 Tropical Andes KBAs with importantbiodiversity values, all of which are under some level of threat, regardless of their degree ofprotection. This phenomenon is due to a combination of impacts, which include (1) mining, (2)deforestation (which is often a direct result of the other threats), (3) advancement of the
agricultural frontier, (4) changes in human demographics, which includes the illegal occupationof land, and (5) hunting and trafficking of flora and fauna. (Table 6.1). Each of these threats is
discussed in depth throughout this chapter and related to the affected KBAs and corridors.
In order to protect the remaining natural ecosystems and their associated services, thenational governments of the Andean countries have increased their investments inconservation in recent years (see Chapter 11), although this trend may be reversed due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. While still insufficient to confront the serious threats to the hotspot,these efforts have been directed at consolidating protected area management systems. These
investments and efforts have included strategies for economic incentives, research,monitoring, sustainable management of productivity in the zones of influence, and106

environmental education. As a complement to this process, civil society has promoted thedeclaration of new private protection schemes, some of which are focused on KBAs and havedifferent management schemes. For example, the Reserva Natural Meremberg (COL90) is
managed by a family; the Reserva Natural El Pangán (COL86) is managed by the NGO
Proaves; in the Laguna La Cocha KBA (COL50), the Asociación para el Desarrollo Campesino
has been implementing conservation-production initiatives for more than 40 years; theReserva Natural La Planada (COL88) is managed by the Awá indigenous people; La Estación
Biológica Villa Carmen, managed by the Asociación para la Conservación de la Cuenca
Amazónica, is within the Kosñipata-Carabaya KBA (PER44) and in Ecuador certain conservation
areas are managed by municipal governments, communities and private citizens within the
Maquipucuna-Río Guayllabamba (ECU43) and Los Bancos-Milpe (ECU41) KBAs.

6.2 Classification and Quantification of Threats
The cumulative index of current anthropogenic impacts, derived from the Landscape Condition
Model, was used to quantify the level of threat in the hotspot and its corridors and KBAs
(Comer et al. 2013). This model evaluates the impact of threats on ecosystem integrity,
allowing the spatial representation of each threat in the hotspot. Information on eight factors
was taken into account for its development: livestock, agriculture, main roads, urban areas,hydrography, mining concessions, airports, and hydrocarbon concessions for the period 2010
to 2020 (depending mainly on the availability of information in each country). For the case ofVenezuela, for example, data were only found for three of the eight factors. 5
At the hotspot level, the model shows higher levels of impact for Colombia and Ecuador, as
well as in northern and central Peru, in contrast with the rest of the countries (Figure 6.1).
Figure 6.1 shows that the greatest impacts are associated with the road network. The
construction of roads alone implies a transformation of the territory that also catalyzes otherthreats such as mining, agriculture, livestock and the establishment of population centers. A
comparison of these results with those of the 2015 ecosystem profile shows that the trend of
converting the northern Andean valleys into areas for agricultural use, with high populationlevels, continues. This is the case in the valleys of Colombia and Ecuador, which are intensively
used for the establishment of crops. In the Andes of Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Argentina,
however, agricultural use is reduced and the concentration of human populations is lower due
to the adverse climate and higher altitude (Tapia 2020).

5

Subsequently, each factor was assigned an intensity rating at the site that reflects the degree to which thetype of land use is compatible or not with biodiversity conservation. The intensity ratings of the factors wereadapted from the study developed by Jarvis et al. (2009) for South America. The model results arepresented using the 13 km2 hexagon plot, thus covering the entire hotspot (shown in Figure 6.1) (this metric
was also used to represent the Relative Biodiversity Value, discussed in Chapter 5). Regarding the results atthe corridor and KBA level, these were represented as a function of the mean value of the hexagons
intersecting the corridors and KBAs (See Figures 6.2 and 6.3). For more information see appendix 6.1.

107

Figure 6.1 Landscape Impacts in the Tropical Andes Hotspot

108

Figure 6.2 presents the threat level of the KBAs and shows a high similarity with the impact
index at the hotspot level (Figure 6.1). The KBAs with the highest threat level are located in
the Eastern, Central and Western Cordilleras of Colombia, in the north and south of Ecuador
and in the north and center of Peru, coinciding with areas of high concentration of mining
concessions, main roads, urban areas and extensive agriculture. The KBAs with the highest
impact indices across the hotspot are Agua Rica (ECU4), Villavicencio (COL120), ParqueNacional Tingo Maria (PER71) and Cochabamba (BOL48). No KBA in Venezuela, Chile orArgentina has a high impact value.
In general terms, the level of threat presented in the previous ecosystem profile coincides withthe current one. That is to say, the KBAs located in the Eastern, Central and Western Cordillera
of Colombia, northern Ecuador, and the border area between Ecuador and Peru continue toregister a higher level of threat (CEPF 2015).
Most of the KBAs have a low level of threat. This could be due to the tendency to delineate
KBAs to include natural cover or protected areas. This does not mean that they are not subject
to stressors, but rather that they are located in areas where current land uses andinfrastructure have a relatively lower impact.
According to Figure 6.3, the level of threat in the hotspot corridors shows a high impact in the
Northeast Quindío Corridor in Colombia, to the north and south of Ecuador, and to the northand center of Peru, while the other corridors show low and medium values.
The current analysis of the threat level of the corridors coincides to a large extent with that of
the 2015 ecosystem profile. The Northeast Quindío Corridor continues to have at a high threat
level, although the corridors located in the Eastern Cordillera moved to a medium-high level,
probably due to the availability of more information from that area to inform analysis, as wellas the development of nearby major cities (e.g., Bucaramanga and Bogota).
Four corridors in Ecuador, Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas, Oeste de Azuay, Sangay-Podocarpus andBosques Secos de Tumbes Loja, have an increased level of threat, compared to the 2015
ecosystem profile. It is highly probable that this situation is based on the proximity to cities
that have grown and increased their population density in recent years.
In the case of the Peru-Ecuador border, the situation has changed slightly compared to the2015 ecosystem profile. On the one hand, the Bosques Secos Tumbes-Loja Corridor continues
to have a high level of threat. Other corridors have an increased level of threat. For example,
the Northeast Peru corridor is threatened by roads and dams, and the Carpish-Yanachaga
Corridor is pressured by road construction and agricultural expansion.

109

Figure 6.2. Threats to KBAs in the Tropical Andes Hotspot

110

Figure 6.3. Threats to the Corridors of the Tropical Andes Hotspot

111

A comparison of Figures 6.2 and 6.3 shows that the impact index value is higher in corridors
than in KBAs. This is explained by the fact that the highest impact values are concentrated
outside KBAs, but are located within corridors. This makes sense considering that about 63
percent of the hotspot area under KBA coverage overlaps with protected areas (see section
5.4). These areas tend to have lower levels of the impact factors considered for thedevelopment of this model. The level of impact in the corridors is now higher than that
determined in the previous ecosystem profile. This may be due to two factors. First, themodelling information in the previous profile used values from the years 2000 to 2012, while inthis ecosystem profile they are more recent and, the impacts have increased in the hotspot
over the years. Second, the transparency laws of the hotspot countries have facilitated accessto more complete information than in the past. A clear example of this is the comparison
between the mining concession maps of the previous profile and the current profile. By
country, the corridors with the highest impact index are: Northeast Quindío in Colombia; AwáCotacachi-Illinizas, West Azuay, Bosques Secos de Tumbes Loja and Sangay-Podocarpus in
Ecuador and Northeast Peru, Carpish-Yanachaga and Tierras Altas de Lima-Junín in Peru.
It is important to mention that the threat values for KBAs and corridors resulting from themodel do not necessarily coincide with the threat results from the prioritization of KBAs (seeChapter 13) identified by the experts in the national workshops. This is due to two factors.
One, the model uses the most recent information available for the period 2010 to 2018, while
the prioritization gives forward-looking threat values formulated from information provided by
the experts based on their updated knowledge of the area. Two, the model, and the resulting
maps shown in this chapter, were prepared with quantitative data, while the opinions
expressed by the experts in the workshops are based on perception; therefore, qualitativevalues were used for the prioritization.

6.3 Frequency of Threats in KBAs and Corridors
To determine the prevalence of threats in the hotspot, 146 surveys were conducted withexperts representing NGOs, indigenous organizations, public officials and researchers from theseven hotspot countries. The results were evaluated in relation to the severity and thefrequency of occurrence of threats. The prevalence of threats in the KBAs and corridors wasthus estimated (Table 6.1).

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

112

Illegal occupancy andinsecure land rights

20

Hunting and wildlife
trafficking

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 high importance;orange is of medium importance; and yellow is of low importance.

Local experts surveyed perceived the most important threats to the KBAs and corridors acrossthe hotspot to be climate change, mining, deforestation, agricultural encroachment, illegal land
occupation and migration, hunting, trafficking of flora or fauna, and illegal logging. Mediumimpact threats were illegal crops (coca, poppy, etc.), insecurity or violence, industrial
agriculture, firewood collection and disorganized tourism. The differences in the sum of threats
between countries are small.
When compared to the 2015 results, the threats identified as the most important were mining,
new infrastructure (roads), agriculture (including subsistence and commercial but not industrial
agriculture), grazing and deforestation (CEPF 2015). The minor threats cited in the previous
ecosystem profile were hunting, illegal trafficking of flora and fauna, illegal logging, firewood
collection and industrial agriculture. There is a slight change in the experts' perception of
threats in the last five years, especially in relation to climate change, hunting and illegal
trafficking of flora and fauna. These are considered major threats in the hotspot in the present
ecosystem profile, but not in the previous one.
Another initiative related to identifying environmental problems in the hotspot is the study
carried out by the Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar (Ecuador headquarters), based on theperception of those attending the regional course "Management of Conservation Projects"(sponsored by CEPF). Under this study, environmental problems in the hotspot were grouped
under 15 themes, the most important of which were: deforestation (15.5 percent), expansionof the agricultural frontier (14.04 percent), mining (12.87 percent) and loss of water sources113

(9.94 percent) (BYOS and UASB 2020). These results coincide, to some extent, with thosepresented in this document.

6.4 Assessment of the Main Threats in the Hotspot
This section analyzes in detail the main threats to the hotspot, based on the results
shown in Table 6.1.

Deforestation
During the years 2001 to 2019, hotspot countries lost 24.1 million hectares of forest
cover at the national level. Argentina had the highest deforestation rate (314,000
hectares per year), the same as between 2001 and 2012 (CEPF 2015). The country
with the second highest deforestation rate was Bolivia, with 300,000 hectares per
year, followed by Colombia, which lost 229,150 hectares per year (Table 6.2).
Each country in the Andean region used different methods to obtain data on forest
cover loss and deforestation rates. Therefore, when looking at the figures below, it
should be understood that the estimations of the rate of forest cover change weredone at different scales: some at the national level and others at the sub-national
level.
Table 6.2. Forest Cover and Annual Deforestation Rates in Hotspot Countries
2001 to 2019

Indicator

Argentina

Bolivia

Chile

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Venezuela

Total

Area of thecountry (million
hectares) *

278

108.3

75.7

113.6

25.6

129.2

91.2

821.6

Forest cover as of2001 (million
hectares)*1

40.1

65

19.5

82.4

19.1

78.2

57.1

361.4

Forest cover by
2019 (million
hectares)*1

34.1

59.3

17.5

78.1

18.3

75.1

55

337.4

Forest loss (20012019) million
hectares in the
country*

5.9

5.7

2

4.4

0.8

3.1

2.1

24

Annualdeforestation rate
2001 - 2019(millionhectares/year) in
the country*

0.31

0.3

0.1

0.23

0.04

0.16

0.11

1.25

Area of thecountry in the
hotspot (million
hectares)**

14.8

37

7.4

35

11.8

45.3

6.9

158.3

114

Forest loss (2001- 2019) million
hectares in the
hotspot**

0.26

0.6

0

1.5

0.26

1.2

0.2

3.9

National
contribution toforest loss in the
hotspot

7%

15%

0%

37%

7%

29%

5%

100%

Annualdeforestation rate
2001 -2019(hectares/year) in
the hotspot**

13,82331,566

7.5

78,524

13,813

61,635

10.8

Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA. 2020. Global Forest Change 2000-2019.
*The data corresponds to the whole country.
Source: https://www.globalforestwatch.org/** Data corresponds to the hotspot area.

A recent comprehensive deforestation analysis was conducted in Ecuador. Between 1990 and2018, the remnant of natural forests in the country decreased from 71 to 59 percent of thetheoretical original area. The strongest deforestation dynamics occurred between 1990 and2000 when the forested area was reduced to 64 percent of its total land area. In the period
2000 to 2008, the remaining forest area was further reduced to 61 percent of total land area
(decreasing 5 percent of the natural forest area in 2008), and between 2008 and 2018 theremnant fell to 59 percent (with a loss of 4 percent of the natural forest area). The data reflect
a downward trend in the annual deforestation rate for the period 1990 to 2018. The drivers ofdeforestation in Ecuador are related to various causes, including agricultural expansion (withthe creation of milk collection centers near forested areas) and the construction of roads thatallow the entry of settlers who bring with them practices of slash and burn agriculture (Sierra
et al. 2020).
In Colombia, according to the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies(IDEAM by its acronym in Spanish), deforestation went from 178,597 hectares in 2016, to219,973 hectares in 2017 on a national scale. The following year, the trend was reversed as2018 saw a 23.5 percent reduction in deforested area in the country (8,656 hectares less thanin 2017). In 2019, forest loss was 158,894 hectares, or 38,265 hectares less than in 2018. In
2017, the Andean region, which in this case does not include the Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta, was the second region in Colombia with the largest deforested area, making up 17
percent of the total. In 2018, the Andean region accounted for 14 percent of the area
deforested in the county; this rose to 16 percent in 2019. The main driver of forest loss in
Colombia, according to the IDEAM, is encroachment and land grabbing to convert the forest to
pasture without an associated productive activity. This is done for the purpose of justifying
land tenure, illegal logging, extensive cattle ranching, road infrastructure, and illicit crops(Mateus 2019).
In Peru, the Ministry of Environment (MINAM by its acronym in Spanish) reports that between
2000 and 2014, the national average annual forest loss was 118,081 hectares. In parallel, theAmazon Andes Monitoring Project (MAAP by its acronym in Spanish), which includes the
Amazonian slope of the Peruvian Andes, recorded the highest average annual deforestation in
the Amazon between 2009 and 2016. (In 2014, some 177,566 hectares were deforested, and164,662 hectares were lost in 2016). In 2017, there was a change in trend, which, according
to the Ministry of Environment, reached a lower value that year (155,914 hectares deforested

115per year). The main drivers of deforestation in Peru are gold mining, agriculture (cacao), cattle
ranching, illegal logging and dam construction.
In Bolivia, according to the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, annual national
deforestation for the entire nation, including in the Amazon, increased on average from around
150,000 hectares per year during the 1990s to almost 300,000 hectares per year during theperiod 2016 to 2018. According to the Forest and Land Authority (ABT by its acronym in
Spanish), between 1998 and 2018, 1,518,669 hectares were legally cleared because several
laws enacted in recent years in Bolivia encourage deforestation. These include Law 741 (2015)that authorizes the clearing of 5 to 20 hectares without further formalities; Law 337 (2013)that supports food production and forest restitution; Law 1098 (2017) that favors biofuels; andLaw 1171 (2019) that authorizes burning for agricultural and livestock activities. In addition tothese regulations, there is the Supreme Decree 26075, amended in 2019, for the expansion of
production frontiers of the livestock and agro-industrial sector into forest areas.

Deforestation in the hotspot and its KBAs
Between 2001 and 2019, 3.9 million hectares of forest were lost in the hotspot (GFW 2020).
Colombia is the largest contributor to total deforestation in the hotspot (37 percent; 78,524
hectares per year), followed by Peru (29 percent; 61,635 hectares per year) and Bolivia (15percent; 31,566 hectares per year). These deforestation rates are not related to the area thateach country has within the hotspot, which is led by Peru, Bolivia and Colombia (Table 6.2). In
terms of trends (see Figure 6.4), a comparison between the 2001 to 2012 and 2013 to 2019
periods shows that deforestation in the hotspot has tended to increase in most countries.
To determine which KBAs are most affected by deforestation, the layer of KBA boundaries was
superimposed with the information on the total deforestation rate obtained to prepare Table
6.2. However, only the period from 2010 to 2019 was taken into account, given the availabilityof information on deforestation and agriculture across the seven hotspot countries for thisperiod (see the discussion below on agricultural expansion). The KBA with the highest
deforestation in the hotspot was Lotes 32 and 33, Maíz Gordo (ARG23) which reached 22.48
percent, followed by San Sebastián (COL97) with 17.38 percent and Moyobamba (PER65) with
15.66 percent. In absolute terms, the KBA that lost the most forest area, 61,211 hectares, wasSerranía de San Lucas (COL108), a critical area for the connectivity of jaguar populations
between Central and South America.
In relation to the other countries, Peru shows a drastic increase in the rate of deforestation in
the hotspot: during the period 2001 to 2012, its deforestation rate was 51,406 hectares per
year and this increased to 79,173 hectares per year for the period 2013 to 2019 (see Figure6.4). The most affected KBAs in percentage terms are Moyobamba (PER65) and La Granja(PER106), as they include more than 15 percent of deforested area. In absolute terms, theKBA that lost the most forest area (46,720 hectares) was Cordillera Vilcabamba (PER33).
MINAM indicates that one of the main causes of deforestation is migratory and unregulated
agriculture, which is also the leading source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Peru (ElComercio 2020).

116

Figure 6.4. Comparative Annual Deforestation Trends in the Hotspot, 2001 to 2012
and 2013 to 2019

Anual deforestation rate 2001-2012 (ha/year) in the TA Hotspot
Anual deforestation rate 2013-2019 (ha/year) in the TA Hotspot

Source: Global Forest Watch 2020

Colombia has high deforestation rates in both periods analyzed, although when the two periods
are compared it is the only country that has slightly decreased its rate (Figure 6.4). A recent
study assessing the impact of deforestation on Colombia's protected areas found that 31 of the
39 protected areas (79 percent) experienced an increase in deforestation in the years following
the signing of the peace agreement between the government and the Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia - People's Army (FARC-EP by its acronym in Spanish) guerrillas in 2016
(Clerici et al. 2020). This same study showed that there was a high impact due todeforestation in the area of influence of the KBA Parque Nacional Natural Sierra Nevada deSanta Marta and surroundings (COL110), and a medium-high impact in the area of influence ofthe KBA Parque Nacional Natural Tatamá (COL74) and Parque Nacional Natural Las Orquídeas
(COL66). Another affected corridor is the Central Cordillera, where the KBA Parque Nacional
Natural Nevado del Huila (COL68) experienced medium-high deforestation pressure in its zoneof influence. While in the south of the country, the KBA Parque Nacional Natural Munchique yExtensión Sur (COL67) and Serranía de los Churumbelos (COL105) have a medium highdeforestation impact (Clerici et al. 2020). The present analysis indicates that the KBAs with thehighest percentages of deforested area in Colombia are San Sebastián (COL97), 17.4 percent
and Reserva Natural Laguna de Sonso (COL89), 13.6 percent. In absolute terms, in addition to
the aforementioned Serranía de San Lucas (COL108), which is affected by mining, illicit crops
and the expansion of the agricultural frontier, the Reserva Regional Bajo Cauca Nechí (COL94)
stands out, suffering one of the highest concentrations of illegal gold mining in the country andloss of 15,142 hectares of forest.
In Bolivia, the KBAs most affected by deforestation are the Yungas Inferiores de Carrasco(BOL34) and Yungas Inferiores de Amboró (BOL33) KBAs. Both are located in the IsiboroAmboró Corridor and exceed 20,000 hectares; 6.1 percent and 4.9 percent of their surface
area is deforested, respectively.
In Ecuador, although deforestation rates in recent years were not as high as in neighboring
countries, many KBAs, especially those without legal protection, suffered deforestationpressures. This is the case of some KBAs in the Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas Corridor, especially117

along the route from Quito to the canton of Puerto Quito in the western foothills of the Andes.
According to Sierra et al. during the period 2016 to 2018, 17 percent of the net loss of national
natural forest area occurred in the cordilleras and valleys of northwestern Ecuador (2020). The
KBAs with the largest deforested area, more than 6 percent, are Zumba-Chito (ECU79) andUtuana-Bosque de Hanne (ECU73). In absolute terms, Reserva Ecológica Los Illinizas y
Alrededores (ECU42) and Intag-Toisán (ECU34) have lost 4,392 and 2,597 hectares of forest,
respectively.
According to the previous ecosystem profile, the most important strategy for preventing
deforestation is the establishment of protected areas under a legal regime. However, in recent
years there has been systematic weakness in their management in some countries of theregion, which is due to multiple complex causes. These causes include lack of funding andpersonnel, poor technical and operational assistance, and centralization, among the main ones
(Clerici 2020). For this reason, CEPF focused on supporting the declaration or expansion of
new protected areas and strengthening their management.
The second most important strategy is focusing attention on eliminating commercial incentives
that indirectly threaten forests and biodiversity, recognizing that a large part of deforestation
is caused by agriculture. For the most part, this is not considered within each state, and theircompetent authorities follow different paths (e.g., the Ministries of Mines and Energy grant
mining rights without coordinating with the Ministries of Environment).
Third, the expansion of transport infrastructure without adequate planning and control ofenvironmental impacts can generate economic losses rather than benefits, and in other cases,
land policies favor illegal tenure and trafficking as in Colombia (Vilela et al. 2020). This could
mean a very large source of deforestation in the coming years.
For the above reasons, CEPF will promote, among other measures, productive alternatives that
reduce pressures on KBAs, promote alliances between civil society organizations and levels ofgovernment, promote the integration of safeguards in projects that impact KBAs, anddisseminate the importance of KBAs among national and subnational public agencies (seeSection 13.2, Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities).

Agricultural Expansion
The millennia-long human occupation of the Andes mountain range has significantly influenced
its conservation status (Dantas et al. 2014). Of the total land under cultivation in the hotspot
countries, 17 percent is located in the Andes, especially in northern Peru, Colombia andEcuador (Devenish et al. 2012). This is why agriculture is an important pillar of local andnational economies in the Andean region (Borsdorf et al. 2015). Crops cover 9.5 million
hectares in the hotspot, which is equivalent to 80 percent of the arable land in the Andean
region (Malaga et. al 2019). In the hotspot, most farmers are peasants or small and mediumscale producers who farm in valleys and on hillsides, generally using traditional or subsistence
methods. As the population increases in the urban centers of the rural areas, or as external
demand for a particular product (such as corn) increases, so does the need to produce. Thissituation demands an intensification of production with modern tools, new varieties, more
agrochemicals and more land. As a result, peasant farming in the Andes places pressure on the
few remnants of forests and páramos in the Andean foothills. In 2017, agriculture contributed
7.6 percent of the Andean countries' GDP (above the average for all of Latin America, which
was 7 percent) (see Chapter 7).
Although the agricultural sector is very important in Andean countries, but it is also one of thesectors that causes the most impacts. The change in land use from forest to crops critically118

affects many ecosystem services that, at the same time, benefit a large percentage of the
population in rural and urban centers (Market et al. 2019). Thus, the provision of water andnutrients in soils decreases, the degradation of pastures for domestic livestock is accelerated,
and the loss of carbon accumulation capacity in soils is promoted (Duchicela et al. 2019;
Benavides et al. 2013).
In Ecuador, land-use conversion from forest to agricultural land is increasing. (This is mainly
occurring for subsistence-level farming rather than agro-industrial agriculture.) According to
the Third National Communication on Climate Change prepared by the Ministry of Environment
and Water, the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) 6 sector ranks third in GHG
emissions, with 18.17 percent, and its contribution is trending upward (MAE 2017).
In Colombia, one of the threats that increased between 1985 and 2000 was the change fromforest cover to crops (3.3 percent of which were illicit) (CEPF 2015). In that period, the area ofgrassland decreased slightly, but it was still the dominant land use. In 2020, according to the
National Agricultural Survey (ENA by its acronym in Spanish), livestock use was 77.9 percent,and agricultural use was 9.2 percent. Columbia’s Third National Communication on Climate
Change estimated that the LULUCF sector was responsible for about 23 percent of greenhousegas emissions, slightly more than in Ecuador. In Colombia, a significant percentage of theforest is also cleared to create pastures and plant subsistence and cash crops.
In Peru, the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics, through the National Agrarian
Survey (2017), indicated that 12.4 percent of the country's surface area is dedicated toagricultural activity. In this country, as happens in many others in the region, this activity has
an important influence on land-use change as it often begins with the cutting and burning offorests to establish subsistence crops. When soil fertility decreases, farmers or settlers tend tomove to another site, thus replicating the same process in other parts of the Andes.
According to the Third National Communication on Climate Change, the main source of GHG
emissions in Peru was the LULUCF sector (51 percent). The departments of Puno, Cajamarca
and San Martin, all within the hotspot, registered the largest agricultural land area (3,564,000
hectares, 1,330,000 hectares and 1,292,000 hectares, respectively) in this sector. In the lasttwo departments, there are four important KBAs for Peru: Cordillera de Colán (PER28), Río
Utcubamba (PER84), Abra Pardo de Miguel (PER6) and Moyobamba (PER65).
In Bolivia, the deforestation trend in the Tropical Andes is due to the expansion of livestock
grazing and small-scale agriculture, with growth primarily related to the proximity of local
markets (FAN 2012). By 2020, the area dedicated to crops continued to increase, andaccording to the National Statistics Institute (INE by its acronym in Spanish), in the last four
years, the agriculture and livestock sector has contributed more to domestic GDP (12 percent)than hydrocarbons, mining and manufacturing, employing close to 2 million workers, which
positions it as the sector that generates the most jobs.

Agricultural expansion in the hotspot and its KBAs
As with deforestation, the degree of threat that agriculture poses to individual KBAs wasanalyzed. At the hotspot level, the most affected KBA (95.6 percent) is Agua Rica (ECU4),

6

The LULUCF sector includes emissions and removals from activities that generate changes in land use,
including emissions from the conversion of forests to other uses such as agriculture, pastures, humansettlements, and other uses.

119while 167 KBAs are not affected by this threat. In absolute terms, the 62,066-hectare Bosques
Secos del Valle del Río Chicamocha KBA (COL12) was the most affected.
At the country level, Ecuador is the country with the highest percentage of KBAs affected byagricultural activity. Eight of its KBAs have had more than 75 percent of their surface area
affected, including Río Caoní (ECU54) and Los Bancos Milpe (ECU41). In absolute terms, theKBA Reserva Ecológica Los Illinizas y Alrededores (ECU42) leads with 51,165 hectares
affected.
In Colombia, the KBA most affected by agriculture is Pueblo Bello (COL76), with more than 90
percent of its area affected, Bosque San Antonio/Km 18 (COL7) which has been affected in 44
percent of its area and Cañón del Río Combeima (COL15), with 37.6 percent. If analyzed inabsolute values, the Serranía de San Lucas (COL108) stands out again, with 32,383 hectares
affected, and the aforementioned Bosques Secos del Valle del Río Chicamocha (COL12).
In Peru, Moyobamba (PER65) and San José de Lourdes (PER86) are the two most affectedsites in the country, with around 30 percent of their surface area affected by agriculture, in thecase of San José de Lourdes by coffee cultivation.
In Bolivia, the KBA Serranía Bella Vista (BOL29) has 95 percent of its surface area affected byagriculture, and it is also the KBA that has the largest area affected with 34,553 hectares. In
general, Bolivia's KBAs have lower agricultural threat values than the rest of the countries. For
example, Parque Nacional Tuni Condoriri (BOL46) and Parque Nacional y Área Natural de
Manejo Integrado Cotapata (BOL45) show 7.7 and 7 percent of their total area affected,
respectively. The reasons why the KBAs in Peru and Bolivia register lower agricultural threatvalues are the poor accessibility of these sites and the fact that some are at a considerable
elevation.
In conclusion, in the Andean region, agricultural activity is an important economic activity that
impacts many KBAs throughout the hotspot; this sector has been growing for several years.
Although it stagnated in 2020 due to COVID-19, agriculture is expected to rebound in the
coming years as many people return to the countryside because of the perception of insecurity
due to the pandemic and unemployment in the cities. Therefore, it becomes important to takeactions to restore Andean forest landscapes and improve agroecosystems in order to recover
the ecosystem services of native vegetation and thus contribute to maintaining vital services
that also benefit agriculture (Martínez et al. 2017). In this context, suggestions bystakeholders focused on improving sustainable land management (SLM) practices throughtraining or experience sharing programs.

Population pressure and migration
In the last five years, demographic pressure and the effects of migration from rural areas tocities have not diminished; on the contrary, they have intensified. Thus, based on secondary
information and surveys conducted in the seven Andean countries, the threat of illegal
occupation of land and insecure land rights was rated as high for the hotspot (Table 6.1).
However, COVID-19 has reversed this situation, and thousands of people have returned to thecountryside from the cities.7 It is too early to tell whether this situation will be reversed as theintensity of the pandemic decreases.

7

https://www.nytimes.com/es/2020/04/30/espanol/america-latina/peru-virus-migracion-caminantes.html

120

In all Andean countries, there is a marked trend of rural to urban migration and, to a lesser
degree, rural to rural migration (see Chapter 7). In the first case, the migration of the rural
population to the cities leads to unplanned urbanization that often increases the vulnerability ofsome groups, for example, those who are forced to live in precarious situations on marginallands on the outskirts of Andean cities (Roberts 2009). The indigenous population has been an
important participant in rural-urban migration throughout the hotspot. Some groups havemigrated from one rural highland to another or to lower land within their country, and to alesser extent to another country (CEPF 2015) (see Chapter 7).
The migration of Andean farmers from agricultural lands to forested lands causes a significant
transformation of the territory, as detailed in the previous ecosystem profile and which
continues to date (CEPF 2015). In 2018, for example, this phenomenon was identified in the
Andean areas of Colombia (department of Cauca, municipality of Totoró). It continues to occur,
but with an aggravating factor that is not only the change in land use but the shift fromtraditional agriculture with crop rotation to intensive agriculture with extensive pastures, which
stagnates the regeneration of native forests (Muñoz-Gómez et al. 2018).
However, not only are there migratory movements from rural to urban areas in the region, butthere is also intra-regional movement (CEPF 2015; ECLAC 2017). Cities attract the rural orindigenous population as well as immigrants from other Latin American countries, many fromthe Andean region. Migrants from the Andean region account for about 78 percent of thismovement. This increase in intraregional immigration is consistent with the international
mobility processes noted in the 2018 International Organization for Migration (IOM) report,
which indicates that globally, South-South migration accounts for 37 percent of global
migration (See Chapter 7).
Another distinct element observed with respect to human mobility is the shift from rural-urban
migration to migration between urban centers (ECLAC 2017). A final and new pattern for the2015 to 2020 period is the intense migratory flow from Venezuela (IOM 2018). To 2019, theestimated number of migrants from that country arriving in the other Latin American countries
was 3 million people, out of a total of 4.7 million people who left Venezuela that year
(Abuelafia 2020) (see Chapter 7).
These migratory flows have various causes and effects. In the previous ecosystem profile, forexample, it was reported that road networks and hydroelectric projects are infrastructures that
promote the flow of people because they facilitate the movement and occupation of previously
inaccessible areas. This is the case of the Southern Interoceanic Highway (Peru-Brazil), thefirst highway in South America connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The highway
generated environmental impacts and facilitated migration to the state of Acre, Brazil and thedepartment of Madre de Dios in Peru (Dourojeanni 2016), whose western section is within the
hotspot.
Another important driver of migration (legal and illegal) is mining, as it encourages massive
movements of people in search of employment opportunities. In Peru, for more than 10 years,
there has been migration along the Southern Interoceanic Highway in Madre de Dios, as
people go in search of jobs in the gold mines. This migration is not only to the mining areas
but from these places to urban centers. This is because mining produces impacts whereoperations are established. The resulting pollution and depletion of resources prompt onward
migration from territories that are no longer productive, or have little remaining productivity,
to cities or other sites. (Diario El Potosí 2018). Urban-rural migration caused by the COVID-19
pandemic is addressed in the last section of this chapter.

121

Migration (and associated infrastructure) generates serious impacts on the environment as it
motivates the use of resources and ecosystems from the landscapes surrounding the cities thatreceive the uncontrolled flow of people (CEPF 2015). This phenomenon also overburdens
systems associated with social protection and access to basic services in cities (water,electricity and wastewater treatment). It puts pressure on local, regional and national
governments that must guarantee minimum conditions for coexistence (UNESCO 2019).
Given the unavailability of spatial information on this threat, the KBAs most affected bypopulation pressure were identified in the national workshops. They are: La Forzosa-Santa
Gertrudis (COL46), Yungas Superiores de Carrasco (BOL40), Yungas Inferiores de Carrasco(BOL34), Cristal Mayu y Alrededores (BOL14), Yungas Inferiores de Pilón Lajas (BOL37),
Cordillera de Colán (PER28), Abra-Patricia Alto Mayo (PER7), 6 km South of Ocabamba (PER3),
Quincemil (PER75), Abra Málaga Vilcanota (PER5), Parque Nacional Tingo María (PER71), La
Empalada (COL45), Alto de Pisones (COL5), Parque Natural Tatamá National (COL74), Serraníade los Paraguas (COL106), Cerro Pan de Azúcar (COL20), Selva de Florencia (COL101),
Páramos y Bosques Altoandinos de Génova (COL60) and Laguna de la Cocha (COL50).
To conclude, the convergence between related international commitments, regional integration
processes and national realities do not always translate into the management and care ofnatural resources (Stefoni 2018). Therefore, it is vital to understand the root causes anddynamics of occupation by legal and illegal human migration (especially in areas of highbiodiversity and corridors) in order to design effective strategies for territorial managementand develop policies that protect these landscapes, including environmental governanceprocesses linked to the competencies of subnational governments, which are key actors inthese processes.

Transportation infrastructure
In recent decades, the road network through the Tropical Andes Hotspot has expanded rapidly
from the Andean side into the Amazon lowlands. Most of these road construction projects lackrigorous environmental and social impact assessments resulting in direct and indirectconsequences for the conservation of the KBAs (Vilela et al. 2020). Table 6.1 shows thattransportation infrastructure is considered one of the five major threats to the hotspot.
Similarly, transportation infrastructure or main roads is considered among the variables used
for the analysis of threats in the hotspot. (Figure 6.1)
As of 2015, all hotspot countries made significant investments in road and river infrastructure(particularly Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru), including paving and widening existing roads orcreating new ones. As of 2017, the South American Council for Infrastructure and Planning(COSIPLAN by its acronym in Spanish) registered a total of 517 projects in hotspot countries,
which have the potential to impact more than 10 corridors and dozens of KBAs (see Chapter
8).
Despite this scenario, there has been no comprehensive assessment of the negative impacts ofroad construction in the hotspot between 2015 and the present. A recent study byConservation Strategy Fund focused on the Amazon region of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia,
Ecuador and Peru, identifies some of the factors that trigger environmental and economic
impacts generated by the construction of this type of road infrastructure in this region. The
research evaluated 75 road projects, for a total of 12,000 km of roads built mainly in the lower
Amazon, which is outside the hotspot. Forty-five percent of the projects generated economic
losses without considering social and environmental externalities. At the same time, a small
set of projects were identified that could be generating economic benefits at the same time122

(Vilela et al. 2020). And while these figures may have little impact on the hotspot, it isnecessary to understand that planning policies on road construction in the region are the samefor any type of ecosystem, and as mentioned above, social and environmental impact
assessment processes are weak in all hotspot countries.
Some major roads that currently cross the Andean mountain range can facilitate the growth ofsecondary road infrastructure and increase impacts on KBAs. In Ecuador, this happens in the
Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas Corridor where the road to San Lorenzo, which goes from the highlands
to the Ecuadorian coast, has generated negative impacts due to deforestation, especially in the
KBAs of Awacachi Corridor (ECU28) and Territorio Étnico Awá y Alrededores (ECU70),
specifically in the Baboso river sector. The same happens in southern Ecuador, in the CondorKutukú-Palanda Corridor, Ecuador-Peru border and in the Alto Nangaritza Protected Forest KBA(ECU9), which has suffered major impacts from mining, as well as the construction of 30 km ofroad upstream of the Nangaritza River between 2010 and 2018. There are still 40 km more to
be completed; however, this last stretch would affect the connectivity between the ParqueNacional Podocarpus (ECU50) and the Reserva Biológica Cerro Plateado, which is part of thetransboundary Cordillera del Cóndor KBA (ECU27).8
In Peru, in the Cordillera Vilcanota Corridor, some KBAs have also suffered some impact fromroad construction. For example, the Kosñipata-Carabaya KBA (PER44) is under pressure fromthe road from Cusco to Manu. The same happens with the Interoceanic South road that
directly affects the Quincemil KBA (PER75), especially in the Soqtapata sector, where there isalso evidence of mining.
In Bolivia, Cotapata (BOL13) has suffered from the opening of legal and illegal roads in recent
years, according to information received at the national consultation workshop.
Although transportation infrastructure causes impacts on biodiversity, many infrastructure
projects can provide economic benefits while decreasing environmental impacts (Vilela et al.
2020). For this to happen, civil society must be involved to ensure that mitigation measures
are adequate and implemented. At the same time, it is important that these types of projects
are planned away from biologically sensitive areas. Another option is to support surveillance toprevent damage to protected areas with road access (an activity that CEPF has supported inthe Vilcabamba Amboró Corridor) (CEPF 2015).

Dams for Hydroelectric Production and Irrigation
The watercourses and water bodies of the Tropical Andes provide water to more than 59.7
million people in the region and another 20 million in the lower basins. Thus, they provide
hydroelectric power and water for human consumption to almost all the major Andean cities
such as La Paz, El Alto, Quito, Cali, Medellín, and Bogotá, to mention just a few (Devenish andGianella 2012). They also provide irrigation water for agriculture, especially in Colombia, Peru
and Ecuador, helping to increase the production of flowers and food for export in thesecountries.
The demand for water for hydroelectricity has grown in the region in the last five years (seeFigure 6.5), and with it, related projects: hydroelectricity accounts for more than 60 percent of
the region's electricity generation, due to 37,000 MW of installed capacity (OLADE 2019). At
the same time, there is large untapped potential (IHA 2018). In 2018, new power plants came8

https://zamora-chinchipe.gob.ec/una-obra-mas-para-el-alto-nangaritza/123

into operation providing about 5 GW, estimating a growth of 2.6 to 3.7 percent per year until
2040 (Yepez-García et al. 2018).
Figure 6.5. Installed Hydroelectric Capacity in the Andean Countries

Installed hydroelectric capacity in the Andes (MV)

Source: International Hydropower Association, 2018.

The previous ecosystem profile defined the main impacts on connectivity between the
headwaters of Andean rivers and the Amazon lowlands due to the effect of hydroelectric
infrastructure in four hotspot countries. At that time, 151 dams were identified in plans (CEPF
2015), and Josse et al. recorded 31 dams built and 59 planned for the future (2013).
Since 2015 the effect has increased. Anderson et al. studied eight Andean Amazonian river
basins above 500 m above sea level: Caquetá and Putumayo in Colombia; Napo in Ecuador;
Marañón and Ucayali in Peru; and Madeira, subdivided into Madre de Dios, Beni and Mamoré
sub-basins in Peru and Bolivia (2018). Six of the eight basins had hydroelectric dams inoperation or under construction. In Ecuador, the upper Napo river basin and the Pastaza andSantiago sub-basins have hydroelectric projects on the agenda, which could affect the KBAs
Parque Nacional Sumaco-Napo Galeras (ECU52) and Cordillera de Huacamayos-San IsidroSierra Azul (ECU25).
Similarly, the hydroelectric projects on the tributaries of the upper Ucayali (Peru) and Beni
(Bolivia) have a potential impact on the KBAs Reserva Comunal El Sira (PER81) and Yungas
Inferiores de Pilón Lajas (BOL37). The only watersheds that, to date, are not affected byhydroelectric dams are those of the Caquetá (Colombia-Brazil) and Putumayo (Colombia-PeruBrazil) rivers. In total, 302 dams or hydroelectric projects were documented, which is almost
twice as many as reported in the 2015 ecosystem profile. They include 142 dams in operationor under construction and 160 dams in various stages of planning.
According to Anderson et al. Peru has the largest number of existing and proposed dams,
mostly small (<50 MW) located high in the Andes (there are also dams in the 100 to 1000 MW
size range) (2018). Most of the future projects in that country are in this range, and at leastsix could exceed the installed generating capacity of 1,000 MW. Prior to 2011, the Peruvian
government maintained interest in implementing a hydroelectric megaproject (Inambarihydroelectric plant) to generate 2,000 MW of energy. It would have affected the Parque124

Nacional Bahuaja Sonene, but plans were shelved in 2019 as the project was considered
unfeasible from a social and environmental point of view.9
In Bolivia, existing dams are small or medium-sized projects of less than 50 MW, while theproposed dams, although smaller in number, may exceed 100 MW. This is the case of theIvirizu hydroelectric plant within the Parque Nacional Carrasco, which will come into operationin 2022 and will generate 290.2 MW of energy. This infrastructure will be in the Yungas
Superiores de Carrasco KBA (BOL40), as well as the construction of a dam in Cristal Mayu y
Alrededores (BOL14), where yellow-rumped antwren (Euchrepomis sharpei) (EN) is found.
Another project with similar characteristics is the construction of the Chepete and El Baladams, located on the Beni River, 16 kilometers from the municipality of San Buenaventura, in
the north of the department of La Paz. Until 2017, it was considered a national priority forwhich new studies were carried out by the Italian company GEODATA. Should this work
continue, it would affect areas of the Parque Nacional Madidi and the Yungas Inferiores dePilón Lajas KBA (BOL37).
In Ecuador, operating dams generate less than 50 MW, with the exception of the oldest dams
and the Coca Codo Sinclair project (~ 1,500 MW) located on the Napo River in the KBA ParqueNacional Cayambe Coca (ECU59).
Colombia is the only country without hydroelectric dams currently in operation or underconstruction in the Andean Amazon region; however, other Colombian Andean regions areaffected. The Chingaza dam, located in the Eastern Cordillera in the Parque Nacional Natural
Chingaza y alrededores KBA (COL61), takes water from the Orinoco basin and diverts it to the
Magdalena river basin to provide drinking water to 80 percent of the population of Bogotá andto generate electricity. In addition, two KBAs with high biodiversity values located in thecentral mountain range, Embalse de Punchiná and its protection zone (COL34) and Embalse de
San Lorenzo y Jaguas (COL35), both contain hydroelectric dams. In the Eastern Cordillera, theCalima reservoir is located in the Paraguas-Munchique/Bosques Montanos del Sur de Antioquia
Corridor, prioritized in the previous ecosystem profile, is one of the largest in the Americas,
provides water and energy to the Cauca Valley and is located in the vicinity of the Región delAlto Calima KBA (COL80).
From a landscape perspective, there are impacts related to ecosystem fragmentation,interruption of river connectivity and hydrological alterations of aquatic ecosystems, which
affect the normal flow of aquatic species (Rubio et al. 2017). Such is the case of the tributary
networks of the Marañón and Ucayali, which, by 2018, had lost 20 percent of connectivity, andthus affected migratory fish, aquatic plants and animals, riparian flora and fauna, and the
alluvial plain (Anderson et al. 2018). In addition, the construction and operation ofhydroelectric dams require the opening of roads and power transmission lines, which generates
new impacts.
Considering the need for countries to develop hydroelectric projects and, at the same time,
mitigate adverse impacts on biodiversity and natural resources, it is necessary to highlight thenatural link that exists between water providers (as protectors of headwaters) anddownstream consumers (in this case hydroelectric plants). Under this logic, today there arealternatives or financial mechanisms that can be managed in places where there are projectsof this type, such as water funds (see more details in Chapters 8 and 11). An example of thisis the Ivirizu project in Bolivia, where the National Service for Protected Areas (SERNAP by its
acronym in Spanish) signed an agreement with the company Sinohydro to finance9

http://www.sectorelectricidad.com/489/peru-archivan-definitivamente-proyecto-de-hidroelectrica-deinambari-2000mw/

125management activities in the Parque Nacional Carrasco for 50 years, an element highlighted in
the national workshop with key Bolivian stakeholders.
The trend in hydroelectric and dam construction in the Tropical Andes will continue to grow in
the future, as has been the case over the last five years. Therefore, CSOs present in the KBAs
and hotspot corridors highlight the importance of establishing regional water governancestrategies that benefit all parties. On the one hand, companies should incorporate social andenvironmental safeguards and, on the other hand, the maintenance of upper watershed
services should be ensured for the maintenance of the hydroelectric projects themselves.

Mining
The Andean region has abundant natural resources and a significant portion of global mining
reserves. In recent years, world copper production has experienced a considerable increase,reaching 20 million tons (Mt) in 2019 (25 percent more than in 2006). Chile leads the world incopper production, although it decreased in 2019 (5.60 Mt down from 5.83 Mt in 2018), it also
has significant copper reserves relative to other countries (200 Mt compared to the global totalof 870 Mt). Peru is the second largest copper producer in the world, with 2.40 Mt in 2019; its
reserves are estimated at 87 Mt.
Among the main factors motivating mining investments in the Andean region are the policies
of openness to foreign direct investment (FDI) (Plazas 2016), as this activity contributes
significantly to national GDPs, thereby promoting economies and the generation of formal andinformal employment (WCS et al. 2020) (see Chapter 7).
Another mineral of strategic importance is gold, which is considered a safe-haven asset forinvestors in times of global economic crisis. 10 In March 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic,
it was trading on the London precious metals exchange 11 at US$1472.35 per ounce. This
increased to an all-time high of US$2067.15 per ounce in August 2020.
Mining is one of the most important economic activities in the region and is also one of thosethat caused the greatest impacts. In the 2015 ecosystem profile, it was characterized as themost important threat to the hotspot, and a large number of mining concessions wererecorded. Mining concessions have increased significantly, including within some KBAs andcorridors (see Figures 6.5 and 6.6). Until 2020, mining in the Andes continued to increase,evidenced not only by the number of existing mining concessions but also by the expectations
generated by the constant flow of information on the continuous discovery of new mining
reserves in the hotspot. This aspect motivates the interest of new investors, but also of
individuals in the informal and illegal sector who see mining as an opportunity to improve theireconomic conditions.
To determine the areas most impacted by mining, the mining concession layer was overlaid
with the hotspot polygon and its KBAs. The analysis of mining concessions in the hotspot may
overestimate the mining impact because not all of them are active but, at the same time, may
underestimate it by not including illegal mining, as this spatial data is not available. The results
indicate that 11 percent (17.2 million hectares) of the total hotspot area is under mining
concessions, of which 2.2 million hectares overlap with KBAs, equivalent to 7 percent of thetotal area of KBAs within the hotspot. In total, 266 KBAs have some percentage of their area10

https://www.preciooro.com/cotizacion-oro.html

11

Idem

126

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 two in Venezuela.
In Bolivia, 15 percent of the surface area of the Madidi-Pilón Lajas-Cotapata (MACPL)
Conservation Corridor is under concession, with 292 mining operations, of which 231 are in theÁrea Natural de Manejo Integrado Apolobamba (IMNA), 41 operations in Parque Nacional
Madidi and IMNA, 18 operations in Parque Nacional Cotapata and IMNA, and two operations in
the Reserva de Biosfera and Tierra Comunitaria de Origen TCO Pilón Lajas. The MACPL
corridor, in addition to being a region with high biodiversity, is one of the areas of the country
with the greatest diversity of indigenous people and nations (WCS et al. 2020). The affected
KBAs in the area are: Bosque de Polylepis de Madidi (BOL5), Bosque de Polylepis de Taquesi(BOL8), Cotapata (BOL13), Parque Nacional Tuni Condiriri (BOL46), Parque Nacional y ÁreaNatural de Manejo Integrado Cotapata (BOL45), Yungas Inferiores de Pilón Lajas (BOL37) and
Yungas Superiores de Apolombamba (BOL39).
In terms of surface area, the Bolivian KBAs most affected by mining are: Río Caballuni(BOL54) with 58.3 percent affected, Tacacoma-Quiabaya and Valle de Sorata (BOL30) with34.2 percent, and Cerro Q'ueñwa Sandora (BOL9) with 29 percent of its surface area undermining concessions. Other KBAs affected by mining are Parque Nacional y Área Natural de
Manejo Integrado Cotapata (BOL45), with 8 percent. Most KBAs have concessions on less than
10 percent of their territory, and fewer are affected between 10 and 40 percent of theirterritory (see Figure 6.6). During the CEPF Phase II investment, Wildlife Conservation Society
worked with cooperatives on pilot projects in MACPL to apply best practices and networking topromote more environmentally friendly mining.
In Colombia’s Paraguas-Munchique Corridor, which was identified as a CEPF priority in theprevious ecosystem profile, the state has granted 93 mining titles to private companies (one in
the Región del Alto Calima (COL80), five in Enclave Seco del Río Dagua (COL36) and five in
Serranía de los Paraguas (COL106). Similarly, in this same area there are 106 new mining
applications, which intersect with at least 27 KBAs prioritized by CEPF in 2015. The present
analysis indicates that the KBAs in Colombia most threatened by mining concessions are
Parque Natural Regional y Reserva Forestal Protectora Regional Páramo de Rabanal (COL134),
81.8 percent and Cuenca del Río Toche (COL32) with 59.4 percent. Another KBA with a highoverlap (37.7 percent) with mining concessions is Cañón del Río Combeima (COL15).
In Ecuador, two large-scale mining projects located in the Cordillera del Cóndor KBA (ECU27)
started in 2019. The first belongs to the Chinese company EcuaCorriente S.A., which promoted
the Mirador project, with mining reserves estimated at 3.18 million tons of copper, 3.39 million
ounces of gold and 27.11 million ounces of silver. 12 The second project is Fruta del Norte, of
the Canadian Lunding Gold. It has mineral reserves of 4.82 million ounces of gold and 6.34
million ounces of silver.13 A large-scale mining project that is still in the exploration stage anddirectly affects the KBA Bosque Protector Los Cedros (ECU14) is the Cascabel mining project in
the province of Imbabura, where an unusual mineral deposit of 10.9 million tons of copper and23 million ounces of gold has been quantified. 14
In Ecuador, mining activity is present in the three corridors prioritized by CEPF in the previous
ecosystem profile (Awá-Cotacachi, Noroeste de Pichincha and Cóndor–Kutukú–Palanda). These
corridors contain 810 metallic mining concessions, equivalent to 36 percent of their surface
12

https://lahora.com.ec/zamora/noticia/1102258987/el-proyecto-minero-ecsa-inicio-fase-de-produccion13

http://www.controlminero.gob.ec/proyecto-minero-fruta-del-norte-es-uno-de-los-mayores-yacimientosde-oro-en-el-mundo/
14

https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/reservas-oro-cobre-cascabel-ecuador.html

127area (10,234 km2). Sixty-seven percent of the concessions located in this area are forindustrial or large-scale mining. Currently, there are 171 rights granted to 24 companies forthe exploitation phase, and two projects have already begun this phase in the south of thecountry. Sixty-five percent of these mining concessions are in areas of high biologicalimportance: 226 mining concessions are located in places with high numbers of endemic
species and 196 mining concessions are in places with high numbers of threatened species,
especially in the Reserva Ecológica Cotacachi-Cayapas (ECU61), Intág-Tosán (ECU34),
Maquipucuna-Río Guayllabamba (ECU43), Territorio Étnico Awá y sus alrededores (ECU70) andthe Bosque Protector Alto Nangaritza (ECU9). This area is also home to four indigenous
nations, the Kichwa, Awá and Chachi to the north and the Shuar ethnic group to the south ofthe country (WCS et al. 2020). The analysis of mining impact in Figure 6.6 shows that themost affected KBAs in Ecuador are Utuana-Bosque de Hanne (ECU73) (99.9 percent), Conchay(ECU83) (85.7 percent), Cordillera de Kutukú (ECU26) (77.8 percent) and Intag-Toisán(ECU34) (73.8 percent).
Mining in Peru is made up of large mining companies as well as a large group of small-scale
miners (54,449, according to the Registro Integral de Formalización Minera [REINFO]); in
addition, some 150,000 people are indirectly involved. Illegal mining generates substantial
illegal income in this country. It is estimated that mining production in recent years in Peru has
generated more than US$1 billion annually, with illegal gold production increasing from US$84
million in 2005 to US$1040 million in 2014. The location with the highest concentration ofillegal mining is La Pampa, in Madre de Dios, outside the Tropical Andes, but influencing some
protected areas and KBAs very close to this area such as Quincemil (PER75) in the Vilcanota
Mountains (WCS et al. 2020). The current analysis indicates that the most affected KBAs in
Peru are the aforementioned Sihuas (PER119), La Granja (PER106), Chalhuanca (PER22) andPampas Pucacocha and Curicocha (PER68), all of which have more than 99.9 percent of theirsurface area overlapping with mining concessions. Also, worth mentioning are the KBAs Río
Utcubamba (PER84) and Río Araza (PER97), with 48.8 percent and 39.5 percent, respectively,of their area overlapping with mining concessions (Figure 6.6).
In the four corridors present in the Tropical Andes of Peru, there are mining concessions andillegal mining that put pressure on the KBAs. In the Condor-Kutuku-Palanda Corridor, Peruvian
sector, there are 84 mining concessions (18 titled and 66 in process), which cover about 9
percent of the corridor, in addition to the illegal mining settlement Afrodita, an expansive
effect caused by the Ecuadorian mining center Chinapintza located on the border. In the
Northeast Corridor of Peru, 348 mining concessions have been registered (155 titled and 183
in process) representing 13 percent of the corridor. There is illegal mining is registered in the
Mayo River and Utcubamba River (7 percent of the corridor), and within Cordillera de ColánKBA (PER28) and Río Utcubamba KBA (PER84) there are concessions are registered, the latterbeing the one with the highest concentration. In the Carpish-Yanachaga Corridor, there are
480 mining concessions (285 titled and 195 in process), representing 11 percent of thecorridor, and in the Huánuco region alone there are 465 mining projects in the process offormalization. Illegal mining is present in the districts of Churubamba, Yuyapichis and Codo dePozuzo, and within Carpish KBA (PER18) there are 128 concessions (52 titled and 76 pending),
as well as illegal mining (8 percent of the KBA). In the Cordillera Vilcanota Corridor, there are
431 mining concessions (242 titled and 189 pending), equivalent to 7 percent of the corridor,
as well as illegal mining in Quincemil (PER75). In the Kosñipata-Carabaya KBA (PER44), there
are 16 mining concessions (only two of which are titled) and 2,234 miners are in the process
of formalization. The proximity to illegal mining areas such as Huepetuhe makes this region
more attractive (WCS et al. 2020).

128

As a measure to address the mining problem, the Peruvian government implemented anational mining strategy whose objective is to regularize informal mining under parametersthat aim to improve the complex situation experienced in the southern Peruvian Amazon(Madre de Dios), but as a negative consequence, many illegal miners migrated to the southern
Andean area of the country (Cusco and Puno), causing impacts on these sites (SERNANP
2018).
Figure 6.6. Distribution of Mining Concessions in the Tropical Andes Hotspot

129Despite the fact that, in terms of numbers, mining activity seems promising, it is an activity
that has had diverse social and environmental implications. The University of Arizona mapped
extractive industries (mining and hydrocarbons) in the region and identified at least 226 socioenvironmental conflicts in indigenous territories during the period between 2010 and 2013 (Del
Popolo 2017). In Colombia alone, in 2013, out of 73 identified socio-environmental conflicts 23
were located in indigenous territories (Pérez-Rincón 2014) and, in 2017, 22 mining
concessions affected 5,677,366 hectares of indigenous reserves. In Chile, the National
Institute of Human Rights (INDH 2015) reported 102 conflicts, 39.2 percent of which involved
indigenous territories, mainly associated with extractive mining projects of national andtransnational companies and energy projects. In 2015, a total of 64 conflicts were reported by
the Observatory of Mining Conflicts in Latin America (OCMAL by its acronym in Spanish) in
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia (ECLAC 2020).
In Ecuador, the open-pit mining operation of the Mirador project generated, between 2013 and2018, the loss of around 1,500 hectares of forest rich in biodiversity unique to the Cordillera
del Cóndor (ECU27), irreversibly altering the Tundayme River due to the location of a large
mining tailings deposit at that site.
In Colombia (in the Chocó bioregion) and in southern Ecuador (Nangaritza River and ParqueNacional Podocarpus (ECU50)), impacts generated by illegal mining have been recorded,
especially in sensitive riparian ecosystems and protected areas, generating environmental
liabilities, mercury contamination of water sources and aquifers, 15 loss of vegetation cover,among others. Added to this is the impact on ancestral cultures, which often end up being partof this illegal business, thus limiting their opportunities for dignified socioeconomic
development (WCS et al. 2020).
In the near future, the mining threat in the hotspot will continue and will surely increase in acomplex manner, especially for those KBAs that do not yet have legal protection status. Evenso, as shown in Figure 6.7, most of the KBAs in the hotspot have a low overlap with mining
concession titles, perhaps due to the tendency to overlap KBAs with protected areas, asmentioned above.

15

https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/augusto-flores-impacto-mirador-negocios.html

130Figure 6.7 Distribution of Mining Threats in the KBAs

131

In conclusion, mining is a general threat to the conservation of biodiversity throughout the
hotspot and, therefore, enormous challenges still remain to be addressed and resolved in theface of the socio-environmental vulnerability related to this activity. These include the socialand environmental impacts generated by formal and informal mining, as well as the need toinvest mining revenues in the conservation and sustainability of the hotspot. To achieve this,first, it is necessary to establish effective governance mechanisms that integrate civil society indecision-making and monitoring of this activity.
Second, the formal and informal mining sector must be involved in the management of theterritory, for which environmental and social safeguards must be integrated into mining
practices in the hotspot, as has begun to be done with the CEPF project in Phase II in Bolivia.
This is a great challenge for CSOs as they must seek comprehensive mechanisms to motivate
the competent authority to confront and maintain the KBAs and conservation corridors of thehotspot free of illegal and informal mining activities (WCS et al. 2020).
Third, multi-sectorial coordination in the permitting process is needed to prevent theestablishment of mines in land use areas incompatible with such these practices. CSOs can bepart of this dialogue, as was the case in Bolivia under CEPF's project with WCS, to promote
policy changes to improve the permitting process at the national and sub-national levels.
These organizations can also work at the community level to facilitate best practices for mining
companies and cooperatives working within their jurisdictions. There are successful examples
in the Madidi-Pilón Lajas-Cotapata Conservation Corridor in Cajamarca (Peru) and Imbabura(Ecuador) (CEPF 2015).
Fourth, there is a significant need for direct engagement with private sector mining companies.
These initiatives can target mitigation and offsets, improving practices to reduce environmental
pollution and better establishing better guidelines to reduce impacts in sensitive areas (CEPF
2015).
Finally, the principles of consultation with local communities and free, prior and informed
consent (CLPI by its acronym in Spanish) need to be incorporated or strengthened in nationallaws and regulations. Additionally, mechanisms for redress for affected people need to beestablished or strengthened.

Hunting and Illegal Trade
Illegal wildlife trade is the fourth most lucrative illicit business in the world (worth between
US$7 and US$23 billions worldwide), after drugs, arms and human trafficking. While wildlife
trafficking has always existed; in the last 10 to 15 years the severity of this illicit business hasgrown drastically at the global level (GFI 2017).
In Colombia, the areas with the highest wildlife trafficking are in the Andean region, thecoffee-growing region, the central region of the country and the Colombian Caribbean.
Through an analysis by the Ministry of Environment, more than 190,000 wild animals had
already been seized in 2012, with reptiles and birds being the most affected groups (Toro2018). In 2017 alone, 23,605 animals were seized in Colombia, with the most trafficked
species inside and outside the country being the Colombian silder (Trachemys callirostris), redfooted tortoise (Chelonoidis carbonaria), green iguana (Iguana iguana), orange-chinned
parakeet (Brotogeris jugularis), yellow-crowned (Amazona ochrocephala), blue-headed parrot(Pionus menstruus), red-tailed squirrel (Sciurus granatensis),white-footed tamarin (Saguinus
leucopus),white-fronted capuchin (Cebus albifrons) and poison dart frogs (Dendrobatidae spp.)(El Tiempo de Colombia 2019). In the municipality La Ciénaga, which contains part of the KBAs

132

Valle del Río Frío (COL116) and Parque Nacional Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta y Alrededores(COL110), illegal trafficking of endemic and/or threatened species constitutes a threat to fauna(Jiménez-Alvarado et al. 2015). In the national consultation workshop, it was mentioned that
hunting and wildlife trafficking also affect the Reserva Natural Meremberg (COL90).
Ecuador has the second highest number of endangered mammal species in the world, and oneof its biggest problems is wildlife trafficking. For example, the illegal trade of mammals either
through the sale of live animals, bush meat, skins and others, has drastically reduced the
populations of some primate species in the country. According to the Ministry of Environment
and Water, 3,000 animals of different species were seized in 2018, despite legislation thatprovides for fines of up to US$4000 for illegal possession of species and deprivation of liberty
for up to four years (El Comercio de Ecuador 2019). To address indiscriminate hunting andwildlife trafficking, the Ministry of Environment and Water has been implementing programs foramphibian and wildlife conservation (Ministerio del Ambiente y Agua 2020). Species subject tohunting and commercialization include white-bellied spider monkey (Ateles belzebuth, EN),silvery woodly monkey (Lagotrix poeppigii), bearded guan (Penelope barbata), spectacled bear
(Tremarctos ornatus, VU), white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari, VU), Andean mountain tapir(Tapirus pinchaque, EN), and South American Amazonian tapir (Tapirus terrestris, VU). For thisreason, illegal wildlife trade is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in Ecuador (Tirira2013). In the northwestern part of the country, where the KBAs Reserva Ecológica CotacachiCayapas (ECU61) y Territorio Étnico Awá y alrededores (ECU70) are located, commercial
hunting is frequent and bushmeat is still openly sold (e.g., at the weekly fair in Hoja Blanca,
near Refugio El Pambilar). In the Parque Nacional Sumaco-Napo Galeras KBA sector (ECU52),
the product of illegal hunting is sold clandestinely in Loreto (G. Zapata pers. comm.).
In Peru, especially in the Amazon, there are a variety of routes for wildlife trafficking that havenational and international final destinations. It is estimated that in 2017, a total of 10,398
animals were seized in Peru through interventions carried out in Lima and other provinces of
the country. Among the most sought-after bird species are the red-and-green macaw (Ara
chloropterus), the American kestrel (Falco sparverius), the mitred parakeet (Psittacara
mitratus), the dusky-headed parakeet (Aratinga weddellii), saffon finch (Sicalis flaveola) andthe white-winged parakeet (Brotogeris versicolurus). The white-winged parakeet is the mosttrafficked species in recent years. A study conducted by WCS between 2016 and 2017, showsthat 650 specimens of 10 reptile species were rescued from illegal trade, including the green
iguana (Iguana iguana), the boa constrictor (Boa constrictor) and several species of turtles(Chelonoidis denticulata, VU), (Podocnemis unifilis, VU) and Chelus fimbriatus) (Mongabay2018). The national consultations highlighted that one of the main threats to the Abra Pardode Miguel (PER6) and Cordillera del Cóndor (PER31) KBAs is the trafficking of endemic andthreatened species, while wildlife trapping is one of the threats to Parque Nacional Tingo María(PER71).
In Bolivia, as of 2011 (according to the DGBAP seizure database) 24 percent of seizures madeinvolved parrots, lizards and iguanas, and 17 percent involved turtles. Between 2014 and2016, Bolivian authorities seized 337 jaguar (Panthera onca) teeth from at least 87 deadindividuals in the Parque Nacional Madidi y de la Reserva de la Biosfera y Tierra Comunitaria deOrigen Pilón Lajas,16 within the Yungas Inferiores de Pilón Lajas KBA (BOL37). Trafficking of
jaguar parts has increased since 2014, registering different processes of trafficking of parts ofthis species (including teeth) through advertising by local radio media and on social networks,
reaching offers of between US$120 to US$150 per tooth (Nuñez et. al 2017). Through a study
16

https://es.mongabay.com/2016/10/especial-fauna-silvestre-la-venta-jaguares-las-nuevas-victimas-deltrafico-bolivia/

133

commissioned by IUCN Netherlands (IUCN NL), Earth League International conducted anundercover investigation into poaching and illegal trafficking of the jaguar between 2018 and2020. The investigation was focused on the search for the criminal networks behind this illegal
wildlife trade in which the traffickers' modus operandi, routes and means of transport wererevealed. It was concluded that the demand for jaguar parts comes from China.
Some of the initiatives at the regional level to counteract this problem are the Lima
Declaration, signed by 10 countries in October 2019 as part of the First High Level Conferenceof the Americas on Illegal Wildlife Trade and the Alliance for Wildlife and Forests, funded by theEuropean Union, whose actions seek to understand the dynamics of wildlife trafficking,capacity building of local authorities and civil society. These strategic actions have been
underway since January 2019 in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and border areas with Brazil(WCS 2020).
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of this threat, not only for wildlife but
also for human health. The implementation and articulation of actions, such as strengthening
the capacities of local authorities and CSOs related to the issue, improving the understandingof the dynamics of wildlife trafficking and incorporating society in educational processes on theissue, will contribute to strengthening actions for the reduction of wildlife trafficking in theregion, in order to prevent future negative impacts on the health and welfare of people, theeconomy and ecosystems.

Climate ChangeThis source of threat is discussed in detail in Chapter 10.

Analysis of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to threats to the
Tropical Andes Hotspot
The SARS-CoV-2 virus was described from Wuhan Province, China, in December 2019, andfour months later spread worldwide as a pandemic (WHO 2020). The virus causes the disease
COVID-19, which has led to loss of life and resulted in unprecedented global economic andsocial impacts, which in the short and long term will be difficult to quantify (ECLAC 2020).
However, there is no doubt about its severe impact on the welfare of large segments of the
population, which will have repercussions on the conservation status of many natural
resources.
According to Rolando Ocampo, Director of ECLAC's Statistics Division, 17 this pandemic has hadvery serious global and regional repercussions. In the hotspot countries, as in other parts of
the world, when the virus spread, governments took preventive and containment measuresthat led to confinement and social distancing, paralyzing activities considered non-essential,
but which represented 50 percent or more of the population's economic dynamism. As aconsequence, the economic and social situation has declined, and it is predicted that in 2021,
the number of Latin American and the Caribbean people living in poverty will increase from
185 million to 215 million, and unemployment will reach 11.5 percent, affecting 12 million
more people than in 2019 (ECLAC 2020).18 In fact, prior to COVID-19, Latin America alreadyshowed little economic growth and progressive social conflicts, which the pandemic has further
deepened (see Chapter 7).

17

https://www.paho.org/ish/images/docs/presentacion-dr-Rolando-Ocampo.pdf?ua=1

18

https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/45337/4/S2000264_es.pdf

134The pandemic has negatively affected employment, the fight against poverty and the reductionof inequality in the region and the world (ECLAC 2020). In this context, a severe recession
impacted the Andean countries in 2020. Trade and tourism plummeted significantly since thefirst quarter of 2020 causing catastrophic declines in national GDPs (more information in
Chapter 7). There is no doubt that, in the short and medium term, COVID-19’s social andeconomic impacts had direct repercussions on the conservation of natural resources andbiodiversity, both negative and positive (Lenzen et al. 2020).
A first positive impact of the pandemic could be the decrease in annual global carbon
emissions. The World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO’s) preliminary estimate of areduction ranges between 4.2 and 7.5 percent. In cities such as Bogota, Buenos Aires andQuito, a drop in NO2 and CO2 has been observed for the period corresponding to strict social
confinement. Conversely, air pollution increased in rural Andean areas as the demand for wood
may have increased as rural families tried to subsist in the face of reduced incomes due to thepandemic. In the absence of public utility services such as gas, wood emerged as the only
energy option for the poorest households (Amador-Jiménez et al. 2020).
Thus, in the rural Andean region there could be an unprecedented increase in GHG emissions
due to increased deforestation. As shown in Table 6.2, deforestation rates in the countries of
the Andean region were already trending upward prior to the emergence of COVID-19 (withthe exception of Chile), and while it is too early to make a prudent assessment of the effects ofthe pandemic on deforestation and land-use change in the region, what is clear is that reduced
monitoring and surveillance efforts during the pandemic could result in increased forest
clearing and carbon emissions due to land-use change (Lopez-Feldman et al. 2020).
For example, in Colombia, despite the slight reduction in deforestation during the period 2013
to 2019 (with respect to the period 2001 to 2012), in 2020 deforestation trends increased.
This was due to the absence of state presence in strategic areas during the pandemic, which
led to armed groups taking advantage of the situation to appropriate biodiverse territories,
generating deforestation to develop illicit activities such as the planting of coca crops andillegal mining (Schumacher et al. 2020).
In Ecuador, the COVID-19 crisis led to budget cuts by the government for the environment
porfolio. Experts say the pandemic may halt, or even set back, government and private efforts
to control deforestation (Open Democracy, 2020).
In Colombia, the government also proposed a cut to the budget of Natural Parks in the 2021
budget proposal, which implies that entities related to natural resource management may not
be able to fulfill their mission (López-Feldman et al. 2020).
Another factor that increased during the months of confinement were the forest fires in manyrural Andean areas. During the first days of isolation, forest fire alarms went off in countries
such as Colombia. According to an analysis by Open Democracy (2020), fires grew in the
Andean region by more than 200 percent compared to last year's rates in the same period.
The phenomenon of migration from urban centers to rural areas also increased during the
pandemic. In Peru, for example, fear of disease transmission forced thousands of unemployedcitizens to return to the rural areas where they once lived, generating an unexpected
repopulation. By April 2020, 167,000 Peruvians in urban areas were asking their local
governments to help them move out of the cities to rural towns, generating a high demand for135

resources and land, directly affecting Andean remnant forests and other patches of vegetationthat are isolated and unprotected.19
The pandemic may lead one to believe that the slowdown in much economic activity has aneffective outcome, promoting a false perception of circumstantial well-being. For example, inthe surveys prior to the national consultation workshops, two main threats driven by the
COVID-19 pandemic were identified in the Tropical Andes Hotspot: the increase in illegal
activities of illegal extraction of natural resources (mining, hunting, species trafficking, timber
exploitation, etc.), and the reduction of state capacity for the control of protected areas andnatural resources. An example of this occurred in Bolivia, which restricted any type of activity
within its natural areas as part of the national response to the pandemic, but during thisperiod, poachers entered the Parque Nacional Madidi due to the absence of park guards. (J.L.
Medina 2020, pers. comm.). In May 2020, nearly 200 vicuñas (Vicugna vicugna) (LC) were
stripped of their skins by poachers in Ayacucho, Peru, who took advantage of the absence ofsurveillance due to the state of emergency caused by the pandemic.20
The pandemic-related retrictions also caused delays in conservation projects and initiatives,with immediate effects on biodiversity conservation and management in the Andes. For
example, according to CEPF's 2020 survey of grantees, 85 percent of grantees reported some
type of project cancellation due to COVID-19, while 43 percent of projects suffered delays of atleast three months. Eleven percent of them speculated that the crisis had increased theeconomic vulnerability of local communities where CEPF-funded projects were implemented.
The consequence could be to increase inequality in vulnerable groups of society, thusincreasing the pressure of community members on natural resources (deforestation, collectionof plant and animal species, etc.) and increasing the demand of external actors (companies,
criminal gangs, etc.) for natural resources (deforestation, collection of plant and animal
species, etc.).
Parallel to this reality, there were also adaptative actions that came out of the pandemic andprovided rapid responses, such as the use of technological tools and new methods to continue
with monitoring programs for two endemic primate species (Plecturocebus modestus (EN) and
P. ollalae) in the savannas of Beni in Bolivia. Other mechanisms that allow the identification ofpriority sites for the conservation of the Andean condor (Vultur gryphus, VU) distributed from
Venezuela to Argentina also emerged (Mongabay 2020).
In conclusion, economic projections suggest that the hotspot countries, as in many parts of theworld, will experience an unprecedented socioeconomic crisis, and that to overcome it,countries will need to design policies that reconcile economic recovery with the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda. This may represent an opportunity to work ina more focused manner on the threats to the region's natural resources and biodiversity, which
are common not only to the hotspot countries. For example, in relation to deforestation, in thecontext of the pandemic, measures can be implemented to protect, expand and create local,
national, regional and transboundary protected areas (public and private), as well as
indigenous reserves and strategic ecosystems (Schumacher et al. 2020).

19

https://www.nytimes.com/es/2020/04/30/espanol/america-latina/peru-virus-migracion-caminantes.html

20

https://ecuador.wcs.org/es-es/Recursos/Noticias/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/14694/El-trafico-defauna-silvestre-continua-en-los-paises-andinos-amazonicos-a-pesar-del-estado-de-emergencia-sanitariapor-COVID-19.aspx

136

7 SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT
During the last decades, the Andean region experienced an economic boom driven by theincrease in prices of raw materials (gas, oil, agro-industrial products, etc.). However, progresshas been extremely slow in terms of human development, and huge challenges to achieving
environmental, social and economic sustainability still persist (Schorr et al. 2018). Significant
social tensions have characterized the last five years in the hotspot.
Although income inequality indicators have improved in recent years, social inequalities arestill high in the Andean region. Added to this are the economic consequences of the pandemic
associated with COVID-19, including the structural transformation of the productive sectors of
the Andean region (Beverinotti et. al. 2020).
During the pandemic, it was necessary to implement lockdown policies, physical distancing andclosure of productive activities. This measure was effective in terms of achieving a decrease in
the rate of infections among the population, but it also had dramatic consequences on nationaland global economies. Latin America and the Caribbean experienced the worst economic,
social and productive crisis in 120 years, with a 7.7% contraction of the regional GDP (ECLAC
2020).
As noted above, sustainability, as a fundamental principle of development for the fulfillment of
the 2030 Agenda, faces multiple challenges that need to be examined. This chapter provides a
description of this socioeconomic context and how it relates to biodiversity conservation. It
presents a synopsis of the region's rich human history, describes the contemporary population,and examines recent demographic, development and land use trends, as well as the maineconomic sectors and trends operating in the region.

7.1 Brief Human History in the Hotspot
Human occupation in the hotspot dates back 13,000 years (Fuselli et al. 2003). This lengthypresence contributed to the domestication of many plant and animal species, turning the
Tropical Andes into one of the 12 world centers of origin of cultivated plants for food, medicine
and industry (Saavedra and Freese 1986). The pre-Columbian cultures of the central Andes
include the Chavín, Moche, Nazca, Paracas, Recuay, Tiwanaku, Wari, Cañari, Muisca, and Inca
civilizations, among others. All of these ancient Andean civilizations managed their landscapeson a steep altitudinal gradient, constructing irrigation systems and extensive agriculture on
terraces (andenes) to maintain crop production during dry seasonal periods. The ancient use ofterraces was part of a food security strategy with important implications for adaptation toclimatic variations in the Andes (Kendall et al. 2006).
The influx of Europeans after the arrival of the Spanish in the Americas in the 16 th century
transformed the Andean landscape and decimated the human populations due to diseases,
wars, massacres and other conflicts associated with the conquest process. The cultures of theindigenous peoples were severely altered by the colonizers and thus began a long process of
mestizaje, whereby indigenous and Spanish cultures mixed to characterize most inhabitants in
the hotspot today. This legacy defines the evolution of contemporary Andean peoples (Roberts2009). The Andean nations achieved independence in the 19 th century. Agrarian and rural
systems, based on plantations and large estates, were consolidated from the 18 th century
onwards and continued well into the 20th century.
The greatest environmental changes since the 19th century have responded, precisely, tocertain visions that have promoted the exploitation of raw materials for export with almost no137

added value, and imported processed goods, knowledge and technology in exchange. Thishistory has been characterized by a succession of booms, with cycles of wealth and subsequentdecline (Cuvi 2013). But the transformation of the high Andean landscape since the 19 th
century cannot be understood solely in terms of its local and intra-regional production
dynamics but also in terms of its dependencies on the global economy (Paz and Miño 2020).
Conscious of the need to better coordinate the highlands and lowlands, nation states built
railroads, which in turn led to disparities/divergences - and asymmetries - between the spaces
through which they ran and those through which they did not.
Since 1940, the Tropical Andean nations have intensified their trade links with the UnitedStates and ceased to produce highlands-crops (such as wheat) that compete with those of theUnited States. Monocultures, such as banana and palm oil, and petroleum exploitation havebeen intensified or developed in the lowlands outside the Andes, but have sustained thegrowth of high Andean cities such as Quito or Bogotá. Large-scale mining, especially of copperand gold, also increased. The industrialization processes, which had begun in the 1920s,
especially in the textile and food sectors, were consolidated thanks to national andinternational road links, losing the railways in favor of a model based on the automobile. At theend of the 20th century, migration to the cities increased, which grew in a vertiginous anddisorderly manner (Cuvi 2013).

7.2 Description of the Population
The population of the seven Andean countries, which have part of their territory within the
hotspot, is predominantly mestizo and Spanish-speaking. However, the region is considered
the indigenous heartland of South America. There is a concentration of more than 20 million
indigenous people belonging to dozens of diverse peoples and nationalities, each with theirown forms of organization and political representation (ECLAC 2020). Unlike other regions of
the Americas where the ethnic composition of the population is more homogeneous, or whereindigenous people live in isolation, or where people of African descent predominate, in thecities, roads and countryside of Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, a dense indigenous population
speaking languages such as Aymara or different variants of Quechua coexists side by side withthe mestizo population (Sichra 2009).
Over the last four decades, rural transformation processes in the countries of the region haveended up consolidating rapid urbanization, relatively smaller agricultural sectors, and increased
agricultural productivity. This has been accompanied by the persistence and increase in
extreme poverty, welfare gaps between urban and rural areas, and inequality. Population
growth and urbanization generate changes in food production patterns and in the dynamics ofthe agri-food system (FAO 2018). The migration of rural population to cities has, in someinstances, improved opportunities for access to education, work and services. From a rights
perspective, unplanned urbanization has increased the vulnerability of some groups, forexample, those forced to live in precarious situations on marginal lands on the periphery ofAndean cities (Roberts 2009).
On the other hand, population redistribution in the Andean countries has increased demands
for land and water. In mountainous areas, in particular, the growth of cities puts constantpressure on natural resources. Some of South America's largest cities are located within the
hotspot, such as the capitals Caracas, Bogota, Quito and Sucre. Other cities such as Lima andSanta Cruz are outside the hotspot but are totally dependent on water emanating from thehotspot to supply large urban populations. Some cities located within the hotspot are part ofthe most important administrative (La Paz) or economic centers for commerce (e.g., Cali,
Ibarra, El Alto, Juliaca, Huancayo, El Alto), industry (e.g., Medellín, Bogotá, Quito), mining138

(e.g., Potosí, Bucaramanga, San Pedro de Atacama, Juliaca) or tourism (e.g., Cusco, Quito,
Baños, Cuenca, Armenia, Medellín, Mérida, Jujuy). These cities constitute the geographic
starting points for CEPF's investment in specific KBAs, as well as for the formation of local
development partnerships (government and CSOs) and strategic financing with otherinstitutions and projects. Table 7.1 lists major cities in the hotspot and adjacent KBAs.
Table 7.1 Major cities within the hotspot, with elevation, current population andrelevance to KBAs
Country

Argentina

City

Elevation(m)

Population

Yala (ARG64)
Tiraxi y Las Capillas(ARG60)
Cerro Negro de San
Antonio (ARG5)
La Cornisa (ARG14)
Quebrada del Toro
(ARG37)
Cerro Negro de San
Antonio (ARG5)
La Cornisa (ARG14)Sierra de San Javier(ARG53)
Sierra de Medina(ARG52)
Cochabamba(BOL48)Vertiente Sur delParque Nacional Tunari(BOL32)
Mallasa-Taypichullo(BOL51)Parque Nacional Tuni
Condoriri (BOL46)
Mallasa-Taypichullo(BOL51)Parque Nacional Tuni
Condoriri (BOL46)

Jujuy

1,259

335,300

Salta

1,152

608,400

San Miguel deTucumán

500

864,700

Cochabamba

2,558

2,029,000

El Alto

4,150

944,000

La Paz3,640

2,927,000

Potosi

4,067

902,000

_

_

Sucre

2,810

350,000__

Bolivia

Chile

Adjacent
corridors

Adjacent KBAs

Tarija1,854

583,000

San Pedro deAtacama

2,407

10,434

Armenia

1,551

304,314

Bogotá

2,625

8,393,408

Colombia

139

Reserva Biológica
Cordillera de Sama
(BOL26)
Río Guadalquivir (BOL50)
Reserva Nacional Los
Flamencos-Soncor(CHI10)Río Vilama (CHI14)
Cañon del Río Barbas y
Bremen (COL14)
Humedales de la Sabana
de Bogotá (COL44)
Parque Nacional Natural
Chingaza y alrededores(COL61)

Yungas deTucumán
IsiboroAmboró
Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata
Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata

Tarija-Jujuy
Puna
Trinacional
Noreste deQuindío
Cordillera –OrientalBogota

CountryCity

Elevation(m)

Population

Adjacent KBAs

Bucaramanga

959

529,374

Cerro La Judía (COL21)
Bosque de San
Antonio/Km 18 (COL7)
Parque Nacional Naturalde Cali (COL65)

Cali

997

2,497,562

Ibagué

1,248

580,282

Manizales

2,160

402,998

Medellín

1,495

2,576,133

Pereira1,411

481,509

Popayan

1,760

289,986

Baños

1,815

25,043

Cuenca2,560

636,996

Cañon del Rio Combeima(COL15)Reserva Hidrográfica,
Forestal y ParqueEcológico de Río Blanco(COL84)
Cerro de Pan de Azúcar(COL20)San Sebastián (COL97)
Cañón del Río Barbas y
Bremen (COL14)
Bosques del Oriente deRisaralda (COL10)
Reserva Natural Cajibío(COL85)
Yungilla (ECU78)
Manteles-El TriunfoSucre (ECU8)
Yanuncay-Yanasacha(ECU77)
Cajas-Mazán (ECU20)
Valle del Chota (ECU98)
Reserva Ecológica
Cotacachi-Cayapas(ECU61)Parque Nacional
Cayambe-Coca (ECU59)
1 km al oeste de Loja
(ECU1)
Uritusinga Cerro
Ventanas y Villonaco(ECU97)
Abra de Zamora (ECU2)Parque Nacional
Podocarpus (ECU50)
Mindo y Estribaciones
Occidentales del volcán
Pichincha (ECU44)
Volcán Atacazo (ECU75)
Chiguata (PER24)
Reserva Nacional Salinas
y Aguada Blanca(PER83)
Río Cajamarca (PER78)
San Juan Cajamarca(PER117)

Ibarra2,225

221,149

Loja

2,060

274,112

Quito

2,850

2,781,641

Arequipa

2,335

869,351

Cajamarca

2,750

226,031Chachapoyas

2,235

29,869

Rio Utcubamba (PER84)

427,218

Lagunas de Huacarpay(PER56)
Valle Urubamba áreacerca de Taray (PER121)

Ecuador

Peru

Cusco

3,399

140

Adjacent
corridors
Norte de laCordillera
Oriental
ParaguasMunchiqueBosquesMontanos del Sur deAntioquia
Noreste deQuindío
Noreste deQuindío
Sonsón-Nechi
Noreste deQuindío

CotopaxiAmaluza
Oeste deAzuay
AwáCotacachi;
Illinizas;
Nororiental

Sangay Podocarpus

AwáCotacachiIllinizas

Noreste dePeruCountryCity

Elevation(m)

Population

Huancayo

3,259

364,725

Juliaca

3,825

273,882

Moyobamba

860

56,452

Caracas900

2,090,479

Merida1,600

1,059,925

Venezuela

Adjacent KBAs
Área de Conservación
Regional Huaytapallana(PER99)Laguna de Chacas(PER51)
Moyobamba (PER65)
Entre Puerto Balsa y
Moyobamba (PER14)
Parque Nacional El Ávila
y alrededores (VEN2)Parque Nacional Macarao(VEN10)
Monumento Natural Pico
Codazzi (VEN3)Parque Nacional Páramos
Batallón y La Negra yalrededores (VEN21)
Parque Nacional TapoCaparo (VEN16)
Parque Nacional Sierra
Nevada (VEN15)

Adjacent
corridors

Noreste dePeru
Cordillera dela Costa
CentralAndes
Venezolanos

7.3 Regional and National Demographics
The Tropical Andes Hotspot covers 106 departments, provinces, states or regions of the seven
Andean countries and 3,279 smaller units including municipalities, districts, parishes,communes and townships. Following the method used in 2015 for the elaboration of theecosystem profile, the hotspot population estimate is based on information from the statisticalagencies of each country and the projections they make of the population to 2020 of 54 major
units with 40 percent or more of their area within the hotspot. Thus, we approximate that59.73 million people live in the Tropical Andes Hotspot (Table 7.2 and more details in Appendix
7.1). However, many millions more outside the hotspot depend on the environmental services
provided by Andean ecosystems.
Colombia is the country with the largest population within the hotspot, with 29.8 million
people, followed by Peru, with 9.18 million people. In terms of population density, Venezuela
stands out with 161 people per km2, followed by Colombia with 132 people per km2.
Regionally, 28.6 percent live in the hotspot.

141

Table 7.2 National statistics and population estimates within the Tropical Andes
Biodiversity Hotspot
Average population
density (people/km2)

Population (millions)
Country

National(projected to2020)

Total hotspot

National

Hotspot

Argentina

45.3

2.02

15

28

Bolivia

11.5

6.09

10

15

Chile

18.6

0.16

24

5

Colombia

50.2

29.8

43

132

Ecuador

17.3

7.34

63

63

Peru

33.3

9.18

24

24

Venezuela

32.4

5.09

34

161

208.7

59.73
(28.6% of theregional population)

Regional
average:
30

Average inhotspot: 61

Sources: Ecosystem Profile 2015; CEPALSTAT 2020, national population and average population density data; INDECArgentina 2010, INE-Bolivia 2012, INE-Chile 2012, DANE-Colombia 2018, INEC-Ecuador 2020, INEI-Peru 2017 and
INE-Venezuela 2018 for subnational census data used for hotspot population estimates.

For the period 2015 to 2020, ECLAC (2020) reports that the population of urban areas in the
hotspot countries would have increased at annual rates of between 0.95 percent in Chile and2.10 percent in Bolivia. Similarly, 84 percent of the population would be living in urban areas
and the remaining 16 percent in rural areas, as shown in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Urban and rural population in the hotspot countries and growth rates in the2015 to 2020 period (average annual rates per 100 inhabitants)

Country

Projected population to 2020
(in millions)

Growth rate

Urban

Rural

National

Urban

Rural

National

Argentina

41,916

3,387

45,302

1.06

-0.94

0.96

Bolivia

8,245

3,319

11,564

2.10

0.01

1.43

Chile

16,708

1,914

18,622

0.95

-0.70

1.24

Colombia

40,678

9,523

50,201

1.21

-0.84

1.37

Ecuador11,462

5,873

17,335

1.96

0.43

1.69

Peru

26,767

6,548

33,315

1.61

-0.42

1.58

Venezuela

29,284

3,117

32,401

1.37

-0.55

-1.13

Total

175,060

33,681

208,741

N/A

N/A

N/A

84%

16%

Source: CEPALSTAT 2020

142

A] ECLAC: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean - CELADE. ECLAC Population Division.
Revision 2019 and United Nations, Population Division. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World
Population Prospects. Revision 2019. https://population.un.org/wpp/DataQuery/

The annual growth trend of the urban population in hotspot countries documented the previous
ecosystem profile is maintained. In contrast, the growth trend of the rural population varies,
especially in Peru and Venezuela, which are now registering a negative growth rate. However,as mentioned in Chapter 6, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused urban-rural migration in the
Andean countries. It is still too early to tell whether or not this is a passing phenomenon.
One of the most notable demographic phenomena in the region is population aging, derived
from the decline in fertility and the increase in life expectancy. The 2010 round of censuses
showed that the populations of indigenous peoples continued to be younger than nonindigenous populations, mainly as a result of higher fertility levels, although with significant
diversity among countries.
The average population density of the hotspot is 61 people per km2, but varies greatly bycountry and geographic region. Across the hotspot, population density is by far the highest in
the populated capital districts of Caracas (530 people/km2) and Bogota (526 people/km2). At
the other extreme, the low population density (5 people/km2) of the small Chilean portion of
the hotspot reflects its rural character. Bolivia's hotspot area is the second least densely
populated (15 people/km2), although it encompasses a large part of the country that is hometo half of the country's residents.

7.3.1 Regional and National Demographics
The Tropical Andes Hotspot is home to a multitude of peoples and nations with cultures,
languages, and ritualistic understandings unique in the world. As a result, many inhabitants of
the hotspot self-identify as indigenous and make up a significant portion of the national
population in some countries, as represented in Table 7.4. The indigenous population in theseven Andean countries constitutes 10 percent of the total, but their territories occupy at least
21 percent of the hotspot area.
Table 7.4 Indigenous Population as a Percent of the National Population in the
Hotspot Countries
Country

Percent and estimated indigenous population to 2020
Total population

Indigenous population

Percent

Argentina

45,302,450

1,078,475

2.4%

Bolivia

11,564,184

4,801,213

41.5%

Chile

18,621,991

2,305,627

12.4%

Colombia

50,200,930

2,208,841

4.4%

Ecuador

17,335,452

1,218,666

7.0%

Peru

33,314,783

8,649,392

26.0%

Venezuela

32,401,317

862,267

2.7%

Total

208,741,107

21,124,481

10.1%

Sources: CEPALSTAT 2020; CEPAL 2020.

143

The updated information available at the national level showed that in Peru, 828,894 people
self-identify as Afro-Peruvian, according to the National Censuses conducted in 2017. In
Colombia, meanwhile, the 2018 Living Standards Measurement Study (ECV by its acronym in
Spanish) reported a total of 4,671,160 people who self-identify as Afro-Colombian. In
Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, there is a significant Afro-descendant population, but their
numbers tend to decrease in the Tropical Andes hotspot region.
Table 7.5 presents a list of indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples and nationalities living in
the areas overlapping the hotspot in each country. Across the Tropical Andean region, themost numerous are descendants of the Incas, known as Quechua in Peru, Bolivia and Chile,and Kichwa in Ecuador. Within the hotspot, the Aymara live in the Lake Titicaca region ofsouthern Peru, Bolivia and northern Chile; the Guarani in Bolivia and Argentina; the Awá at theborder region between Ecuador and Colombia; and Afro-descendant groups in separate areasof Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and northern Argentina. Some examples of KBAs
closely related to indigenous populations are the Parque Nacional Perijá (VEN12), home to the
Yupka people on both sides of the Colombian-Venezuelan border; the Parque Nacional Natural
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta y alrededores (COL110), home to the Arawak and Kogui
peoples; the Territorio Étnico Awá y alrededores (ECU70) and the Reserva Natural La Planada(COL88), which are part of the territory of the Awá nation in Ecuador and Colombia; Yungas
Inferiores de Pilón Lajas (BOL37), an indigenous territory of the Tsimané Moseten of Bolivia;
Cristal Mayu y Alrededores (BOL14) and Yungas Superiores de Carrasco (BOL40), both in
Cochabamba, Bolivia, which is predominantly Quechua; and Cordillera de Colán (PER28) and
Río Utcubamba (PER84), both with a significant Awajún population in the Amazonas
department of Peru.
Table 7.5 Indigenous and Afro-descendant groups in the Hotspot

Country

Number ofGroups in
the Hotspot

Argentina

8

Atacama, Guaraní, Kolla, Ocloya, Omaguaca, Tilián, Toara,Afro-descendant

Bolivia

12

Aymara, Guaraní, Kallawayas, Mojeño, Moseten, Maropa,
Quechua, Tacana, Tsimane, Yuki, Yuracare, Afro-descendant

Chile

3

Atacameño, Aymara, Quechua

Colombia

16

Awá, Bari, Coconuco, Embera, Eperara, Guambiano, Ingá, Ika,
Kogui, Wiwa, Nasa, Paez, Pasto, Totoró, U'wa, Afro-descendant

6

Awá, Andean Kichwa (including Pasto, Otavalo, Karanqui,Natabuela, Kayambi, Kitucara, Panzaleo, Chibuelos, Salasaca,
Kisapincha, Waranka, Puruháes, Kañari, Saraguro and Palta),
Amazonian Kichwa, Shuar, Achuar and Afro-descendant

Peru

13

Ashaninka, Asheninka, Atiri, Awajún, Aymara, CandoshiShapra, Caquinte, Chachapoyas-Lamas, Jaqaru, Omagua,
Poyenisati, Quechua (including Yaru, Huanca, Chancas, Queroand Wari), Wampis

Venezuela

3Bari, Yupka and Afrodescendant

EcuadorIndigenous/ethnic groups

Sources: CEPF 2015 and 2020 ecosystem profile update.

144

In all hotspot countries, indigenous and Afro-descendant groups and nationalities are
represented by their local and regional organizations and national federations (more on this in
Chapter 9). In the Andes, any conservation, development or natural resource management
initiatives involving indigenous lands or other interests will only have a chance of being
implemented and succeeding if partnered from the start with entities that represent indigenous
peoples and nationalities politically.

7.3.2 Worldview of Native Peoples
The extraordinary biological, geological and climatic richness of the Tropical Andes has shaped
a heterogeneous cultural diversity, enriched by the close coexistence of multiple indigenous
and native worldviews. Several indigenous perspectives and concepts enrich the cultural fabricof the Tropical Andes. These include the idea of Pachamama or Mother Earth; the notion of thecollective in the management of the territory and natural resources; community life and therelationships of exchange; barter, complementarity and reciprocity in the collective unpaid
voluntary work in favor of the community (mingas); the enhancement of traditional
agricultural technologies; and the exercise of indigenous justice. On the other hand, the creoleworldview considers that the non-human, nature, must be civilized and domesticated, thatland is private property and that monetary exchanges are good regulators of human relations(Cuvi 2013). This worldview is manifested by institutions such as the State, Church, haciendas,
industries, companies and is inspired, above all, by modern Western European philosophiesand systems of government.
Through the concepts of sumak kawsay (Quechua), suma qamaña (Aymara), kume mongen(Mapuche), utz k'aslemal (Maya), ñande reko (Guaraní), lekil kuxlejal (Tzeltal) and shiir waras(Achuar), among many others, indigenous peoples refer to their own notions of well-being or"good living". Underlying this notion is the idea of mutual dependence between human beings,
their natural environment and ancestral beings, as well as the conceptualization of cultures asmultiple and plural realities. In this sense, this notion implies a break with Western ideologies
and their pretended universalism and is not homologous to the Western notion of progress orcontinuous development—with a future horizon—as a condition for achieving well-being. It is,rather, a present well-being, built from the harmonious coexistence of humans and nonhumans, recognizing the differences and promoting complementarities among all beings thatdwell in the indigenous universe. It is, then, a systemic, ecocentric or biocentric concept(Vanhulst 2015).
Although Spanish is the official language throughout the region, the national governments ofColombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia are making efforts to preserve minority languages byrecognizing them as official languages and re-introducing bilingual education in rural areas.
Residents of rural areas in the Andes generally have no knowledge of English unless they workin tourism businesses. Internet use is very basic, although states have made significant efforts
to promote its use due to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for virtual education.

7.3.3 Migration
Historically, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru have been countries of origin for migratory flows;
however, they have now become destination countries. Venezuelan migration does not yet
represent a significant percentage of the population of these countries, but the number ofVenezuelan migrants in these countries is still substantial and has a real impact, given that the
majority have arrived in the last three years.

145In all Andean countries, there is a marked trend of rural to urban migration and, to a lesser
degree, rural to rural migration. This migration has occurred for various reasons, including theopportunity for employment and better access to markets that translate into increased income,as well as access to better social services such as secondary education and health care. This
decapitalization of rural areas generates rural-to-urban migration; dispossession; accumulationof capital by local or transnational elites; land, water and market grabbing; environmental
contamination and health impacts on workers, residents and consumers, among others (Pastor2019).
Indigenous people have been part of the rural to urban migration trend across the hotspot, but
most still live in the more remote and mountainous parts of the region. Some have migrated
from one rural highland area to another or to a rural lowland area within their country. Others
have migrated to neighboring countries or further afield, especially to Spain, Italy and theUnited States for job opportunities in domestic service, agriculture and the construction sector.
In general, indigenous people continue to be marginalized to a greater extent than mestizo
populations throughout the hotspot. However, there are exceptions, such as some Otavaleño
populations in northern Ecuador and Quechua and Aymara populations in Peru and Bolivia,
which have prospered economically in recent decades. Sometimes, a marked economic
improvement is the result of money sent by migrants abroad to their families at home andincome derived from remittances, which represent an important percentage of the GDP insome hotspot countries.
Over the last twenty years, the trend of outward migration has not only improved family
incomes in many parts of the Andes but has also severely affected the family structure ofindigenous communities. Recently, however, the trend of outward migration - especially toEurope - and the corresponding remittances have declined significantly. Table 7.6 shows
trends of a reversal of migration processes in practically all hotspot countries. In the last
decade, this has been the case in Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, not so in
Argentina and much less so in Venezuela, which had an outflow of approximately 4.7 million
people in 2019 alone (Abuelafia 2020). However, ECLAC’s 2020 projections show a newchange in trajectory in almost all countries (ECLAC 2020).
Table 7.6 Migration rate (rate per 1,000 population)
Periods
Country
2010 – 2015

2015 - 2020

2020 - 2025

Argentina

0.14

0.11

0.08

Bolivia

-1.10

-0.84

-0.63

Chile

1.87

6.02

-3.75

Colombia

-0.83

4.16

-3.47

Ecuador

-0.49

2.15

-1.20

Peru

-4.20

3.12

-1.89

Venezuela-2.95-22.3310.85

Source: ECLAC: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean - CELADE. ECLAC Population Division.
Revision 2019 and United Nations, Population Division. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population
Prospects. Revision 2019. - https://population.un.org/wpp/DataQuery/146However, not only are there migratory movements from rural to urban areas in the region but
intra-regionally as well (CEPF 2015; ECLAC 2017). Cities not only attract people from thecountryside but immigrants from other Latin American countries as well. Many are from theAndean region and currently account for around 78 percent of Latin American immigrants. This
increase in intra-regional immigration is consistent with the international mobility trends notedin the International Organization for Migration report (IOM 2018).
The other distinct element observed with respect to human mobility is the shift from ruralurban migration to migration between urban centers (ECLAC 2017). A final and new pattern forthe 2015 - 2020 period is the intense migratory flow from Venezuela (IOM 2018). As of 2019,
the estimated number of migrants from that country arriving in the other Latin countries was 3
million, out of a total of 4.7 million people who left Venezuela that year. Today, Venezuelans
represent 3.6 percent of Colombia's population, 1.2 percent of Peru's, and 5 percent of
Ecuador's (Abuelafia 2020).

7.3.4 Urbanization
The accelerated process of urbanization in the hotspot influences the loss of visibility of thecontributions, potential and opportunities that the rural world offers for sustainable
development. One of the consequences of the increased growth of the urban population is thetendency to standardize public policies that look at the population as a whole without adequate
differentiation to reduce socioeconomic asymmetries and close territorial gaps. Therefore, it isnecessary to develop differentiated policies in important sectors, such as infrastructure,
education, health, agriculture, social protection, gender equality, that revitalize the ruraldimension and its interaction with cities and their demands.
As mentioned by FAO (2019), "... it is not enough to make marginal adjustments to the
dynamics of rural development, it is also necessary to deepen the structural transformation of
the rural world, strengthening and guiding it in the economic, social and environmental
spheres. Rural development is a multidimensional issue that offers opportunities in agriculture,
food systems and energy development, as productive areas in which the region can makegreat strides toward meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) targets. To do so,
however, the existing lags in the rural sphere must be overcome".
In the Tropical Andes region, two major orientations in agricultural production systems coexist:
one that takes place in family units and another that is industrially oriented. The agri-foodsystems that are part of food security and sovereignty policies are mainly linked to agriculturethat takes place in rural areas. The intensification of agriculture combines a new agricultural
revolution associated with exponential technological changes occurring globally (e.g., robotics,
sensors, precision agriculture, blockchain, etc.). While family farming promotes agroecologicalproduction models, the revaluation of peasant labor, agrobiodiversity and local knowledge, andagribusiness aims at efficiency in food production and articulation to global consumption
markets.

7.3.5 Role of Gender in Development and Conservation
Latin America is the most unequal region in the world, with the greatest inequality in income
distribution, according to the 2019 Human Development Report of the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP). On different occasions, ECLAC has also flagged this as a trendthat is reproduced when talking about gender.

147

For example, in Latin America, women in rural areas have higher illiteracy rates and lower
secondary education attendance rates (Trivelli et al. 2019). This is linked to the lower female
participation in the laborforce: women’s labourforce participation rate is 59 percent, compared
to 79 percent for men, according to the Gender Equality Observatory for Latin America and the
Caribbean.
This trend was reflected in the surveys conducted as part of the process to update the profileof the CSOs in the hotspot. In these surveys, it was observed that the number of malemembers in CSO teams is greater than the number of female members, with a ratio of
approximately 60:40, with the exception of Bolivia, which reports the opposite, with 54
percent of members being women. Despite these figures, the vast majority of the CSOs
surveyed in Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia and Peru have women representatives in executive andmanagement positions, a fact that was corroborated in the interviews conducted as acomplement to this activity (see Chapter 9). This reality is repeated in Argentina, according todata from the Survey of Living Conditions (ECV by its acronym in Spanish) conducted by the
Directorate of Statistics and Economic Research (DEIE by or its acronym in Spanish) in 2016.
The data show that despite the progress made in gender equality and women's labor market
participation in that country, an unbalanced cultural model of responsibilities and rights stillprevails behind closed doors.
The agricultural sector is also segregated by gender, with land ownership, access to credit, andother means of production dominated by males. By way of example, the proportion of female
landowners in the region ranges between only 7.8 and 30.8 percent in some places (FAO
2017). If it is understood that this productive resource is fundamental for income generationand people's well-being, its lack or limited access undermines women's (and their families')
development possibilities. These data are corroborated by ECLAC, which states that women in
the agricultural sector spend more hours in unpaid and informal work than men (Muñoz 2019).
At the same time, the increase in women's participation in agriculture as producers, whether
salaried or not, does not go hand in hand with an equitable distribution of productive andreproductive work between women and men. This is because women's productive work is
compounded by reproductive work, whereby they must allocate time and resources to feed andcare for their families, maintain the house and cultivate the fields. According to the FAO study(2017) in Bolivia, women's participation is more marked in activities that involve time andphysical effort, such as planting, weeding and harvesting. Conversely, they participate less in
the links of the productive chain associated with the generation of higher incomes.
Regarding the role of women in natural resource management and protected area systems,
there are some documented experiences, research, regulations and laws with a gender
perspective in the Andean region. In addition, there are governmental mechanisms aimed atpromoting gender mainstreaming in natural resource management; however,institutionalization is still a pending task. This was evident in the results of the surveys
conducted among the CSOs in the hotspot. With the exception of Colombia, the vast majorityof the CSOs in Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia have a gender policy in their institutions, and thus
also an explicit institutional mandate to incorporate gender mainstreaming in their social andconservation projects. The majority of CSOs in Bolivia and Colombia consider gender in theirbudgets and allocate the necessary economic and human resources in their projects to cover
this approach (see Chapter 9).
Although in Latin America in general, and in the Andean region in particular, progress is
indisputable, gender discrimination still persists. It is against this backdrop that (male andfemale) stakeholders interviewed as part of the reprofiling process noted that it is essential tosystematically analyze the progress of gender equality in the Tropical Andes. They highlighted

148

the importance of developing concrete projects to support the empowerment of women invarious fields, and placing special emphasis on strengthening women’s capacities to narrow theinter-gender gap and to provide equal and fair access to all opportunities.

7.4 Human Development and Poverty
Although recent evidence shows that income redistribution has improved in the region since
1990, some countries are among the most unequal in the world, both in terms of income andaccess to services (Brezzi et al. 2016). In the hotspot countries, income inequality was lower in2018 compared to 2000.
Table 7.7 Income distribution: Gini coefficient, years 2000 and 2017
Year 2000

Year 2017

Reduction2000 - 2017

Argentina

0.51

0.41

0.10

Bolivia

0.62

0.44

0.18

Chile

0.53

0.44

0.09

Colombia

0.59

0.50

0.09

Ecuador

0.56

0.45

0.11

Peru

0.49

0.43

0.06

---

---

Country

Venezuela

Source: World Bank 2020.
https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?end=2018&locations=EC&start=2018&view=bar

The Gini index (or coefficient) is a measure of the distribution of income across a population. It
varies from 0 to 1, where 0 implies perfect equality and 1 the opposite. The data in Table 7.7
show that, among the hotspot countries, Bolivia reduced inequality the most (from 0.62 in
2000 to 0.44 in 2017), followed by Ecuador (from 0.56 in 2000 to 0.45 in 2017). In Peru, thereduction in the gap was the smallest in the region (from 0.49 in 2000 to 0.43 in 2017),
followed by Chile and Colombia, with a 0.09 reduction between 2000 and 2017.
The region’s efforts to reduce inequalities are important. Two UNDP indexes shown in Table 7.8—the Human Development Index (HDI) and the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)—offer
insights in this regard. The HDI evaluates life expectancy, access to education, and standard ofliving (income per capita), while the MPI evaluates the prevalence and intensity of deprivationsin health, education, and standard of living (income per capita). The latter complements theincome-based poverty measurement.
Table 7.8 Relevant development indicators in the hotspot countries
Country

Human Development
Index, 2018

Multidimensional
Poverty Index
2007-2018

Argentina

0.830

--

Bolivia

0.703

0.094

Chile

0.847

--

Colombia

0.761

0.020

149

Ecuador

0.758

0.018

Peru

0.759

0.253

Venezuela

0.726

--

Source: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr_2019_overview_-_spanish.pdf

The HDI ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 implies the minimum values in the dimensions analyzed(life expectancy, access to education, and standard of living) and 1 the opposite. Therefore,
the closer to 1, the better. Table 7.8 above shows that the countries of the Andean region
have an HDI between 0.7 and 0.8, i.e., high human development. However, the levels ofmultidimensional poverty reflect a different situation, as in the case of Ecuador, where a large
majority of its population has a lack of basic needs (0.018).
Poverty reduction measures adopted in the countries of the Andean region have resulted in an
increase in the middle class and its consumption capacity. Analyses by multilateral agencies
indicate that Argentina and Chile have increased their middle-class population faster than
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. This perspective, however, does not necessarily meanthat basic indicators of equity and inclusion, well-being and sustainable development have
improved.
Within the hotspot there are large disparities in the distribution of wealth and in human wellbeing. Subnational cities and regions show enormous heterogeneity in their well-being
indicators compared to national averages. In general, the latter hide territorial inequalities
between subnational jurisdictions, which become evident when analyzing GDP per capita(OECD 2019).
Chile and Venezuela are the two countries in the hotspot that do not register poverty indexes.
Both Bolivia and Colombia have higher levels of poverty and extreme poverty at the national
level, and in all countries in the region, the incidence of poverty and extreme poverty is higher
in rural areas (Table 7.9).
Table 7.9 Population living in extreme poverty and poverty (percentage of total
population in each geographic area)
Extreme poverty
Country

Poverty

National

Total urban
area

Total
rural area

National

Total urban
area

Total ruralarea

Argentina

--

3.6

--

--

24.4

--

Bolivia

14.7

5.3

36.2

33.2

23.4

55.5

Chile

--

--

--

--

--

--

Colombia

10.8

7.3

22.7

29.9

26.0

43.4

Ecuador

6.5

3.7

12.6

24.2

19.7

33.8

Peru

3.7

1.5

11.6

16.8

11.7

34.8

Venezuela

--

--

--

--

--

--

Source: [A] ECLAC: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean - Based on household surveys of thecountries. Household Survey Data Bank (BADEHOG by its acronym in Spanish).
Notes
The percentage of poor people includes people below the extreme poverty line.

150

Hotspot KBAs are often located in remote areas that are difficult to reach due to lack ofcommunication routes and are characterized by pockets of extreme poverty. Examples include
the Bosque de Polylepis de Madidi (BOL5), the Corredor Ecológico Llanganates-Sangay(ECU29) and Kosñipata-Carabaya (PER44) or La Victoria (Nariño) (COL122). Charcoal
production is the main economic activity in the latter.

7.4.1 Economic Profile of Hotspot Countries
Argentina
Argentina is one of the largest economies in Latin America, with a gross domestic product(GDP) of approximately US$ 445 billion and abundant natural resources in energy andagriculture. In its 2.8 million km2 of territory, the country has extraordinarily fertile
agricultural land, significant reserves of oil, gas, uranium, silver and lithium, and enormous
potential in renewable energy. Argentina is a leader in food production, with large-scaleindustries in the agriculture and beef cattle sectors. It also has great opportunities in somemanufacturing sub-sectors and in the high-tech innovative services sector. However, thehistorical volatility of economic growth and the accumulation of institutional obstacles have
impeded the country's development. The COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing as a way
to combat it aggravated the situation. Urban poverty in Argentina remains high and in the firsthalf of 2020 reached 40.9 percent of the population, with an extreme poverty rate of 10.5
percent and child poverty (children under 14) of 56.3 percent.
Bolivia
Bolivia's economy is highly dependent on international commodity prices. Bolivian exports areconcentrated in primary goods, mainly natural gas (82 percent of Bolivia's total exports wereconcentrated in natural gas at the end of 2019), minerals, and soybeans. However, when theboom of raw materials ended, Bolivia resorted to high public spending and increasing domestic
credit to maintain economic growth despite falling gas prices and export volumes. These
measures resulted in an increase in public debt and a gradual reduction of the macroeconomic
cushion accumulated in the bonanza.
In 2019, China was the eighth ranked destination for Bolivian exports. Bolivian exports areconcentrated in few products and few markets, the two most important being Brazil andArgentina for natural gas. Trade with China accounts for 4.5 percent of the total value of
Bolivian exports with the main products exported to that country being gold, zinc, lead andcopper ores. At the end of 2019, about 22 percent of all Bolivian imports came from China,
making it the main source of imports. Imported products include machinery and equipment,chemicals, vehicles, metals, household appliances and textiles. Bolivia shows a greater
dependence on China for imports of both consumer goods and capital goods.
China has become Bolivia's main bilateral creditor. As of February 2020, 9.3 percent of
Bolivia's total external debt was financed by China. COVID-19 could force the Asian country toreorient its investments differently and force Bolivia to seek other sources of financing. 21
On the other hand, the deterioration of the global economic situation has slowed the pace ofpoverty and inequality reduction. In the face of the global coronavirus crisis, the authorities
have deployed different economic initiatives to protect the most vulnerable populations. These21

https://publications.iadb.org/publications/spanish/document/El_impacto_del_COVID19_en_las_econom%C3%ADas_de_la_regi%C3%B3n_Regi%C3%B3n_Andina.pdf

151

include measures such as cash transfers, deferral of payments of some taxes and financial
sector credits, and partial payment of water and electricity bills. However, the global economic
downturn, aggravated by the collapse of oil prices, and social distancing measures, including anational quarantine, have resulted in an economic contraction and an increase in poverty.
Bolivia’s GDP contracted eight percent in 2020 and the poverty rate rose from just over 30
percent to close to 40 percent (CESLA 2020). This sharp decline was due in part to limitationsin the ability of the government to take remedial macroeconomic measures and difficulties inreceiving approval of external credits to address the emergency. In this context, theauthorities turned to the Central Bank of Bolivia (BCB by its acronym in Spanish) to financeboth the public and financial sectors. Given the health emergency, efforts to contain thehuman cost of the crisis and lay the groundwork for economic recovery still required support.
Post-crisis challenges, however, require Bolivia to consolidate macroeconomic stability, reduce
its fiscal and external deficits, promote the development of private investment to diversify the
economy, generate quality jobs, establish mechanisms to protect the vulnerable and makefamilies more resilient to shocks.
Chile
Chile's economy is based on mining, which takes place in 13 of the country's 15 regions.
Twenty-five different products are extracted, including copper, lithium and iodine. Livestock
and agriculture are the main activities in the central and southern regions of the country. The
most widely grown agricultural products are cereals (oats, corn and wheat), fruits (peaches,
blueberries, plums, apples, pears and grapes) and vegetables (garlic, onions, asparagus andbeans). The export of fruits, vegetables, crustaceans, fish and forestry products have reachedhistoric levels with the opening of the Asian and European markets.
Chile's economy has grown rapidly in recent decades, due to a solid economic framework thathas allowed it to cushion the effects of a volatile international context. However, more than 30
percent of the population is economically vulnerable and income inequality remains high. In awidespread context of discontent and social outrage, GDP growth slowed from 3.9 percent in2018 to 1.1 percent in 2019. Disruptions in economic activity caused a slight uptick inunemployment from 7.1 percent in December 2018 to 7.4 percent in December 2019. The
2019 – 2020 Chilean social protests led to a change in public spending, with less dedicated toinvestment promotion and more to social spending. It also led the government to call for areferendum in October 2020, the result of which paved the way for a structural reform of theconstitutional framework in place since the dictatorship era.
Colombia
The Colombian economy is fundamentally based on the production of primary goods for export
and consumer goods for the domestic market. One of the most traditional economic activities
is the cultivation of coffee, Colombia being one of the world's largest exporters of this product.
Colombia’s oil production is one of the most important on the continent: exports of oil and its
derivatives accounted for 40 percent of total exports in 2019. Coal mining, extraction andexport of gold, emeralds, sapphires and diamonds are also important sources of income.
Floriculture, banana cultivation, and livestock are important agricultural and livestock sectors.
In the industrial sector, textiles, the automotive, chemical and petrochemical industries standout.
Colombia has a track record of prudent fiscal and macroeconomic management, anchored byan inflation targeting regime, a flexible exchange rate and a rules-based fiscal framework,152

which has allowed the economy to grow steadily since 2000. In addition, Colombia has halved
poverty over the last ten years. However, productivity growth is low and has been an obstacle
to economic growth. A large infrastructure gap, low labor productivity and trade integration,and barriers to domestic competition are some of the factors limiting total factor productivity
growth. Exports are highly concentrated in non-renewable commodities (oil in particular),which increases the economy's exposure to price shocks. In addition, Colombia is one of theLatin American countries with the highest income inequality and labor market informality.
After slowing to 1.4 percent in 2017, economic growth picked up to 3.3 percent in 2019, driven
by robust private consumption and higher investment. Growth was on track to accelerate
further in 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic significantly hit the economy and triggered a very
deep recession. The Colombian government responded quickly to the crisis and took targetedfiscal measures in the health sector and social protection. It also introduced tax policies andcredit measures targeted at companies in specific sectors or that were affected by the crisis,
totaling potentially US$20.7 billion (or 6.8 percent of 2019 GDP).
These measures helped to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on the economy. The economy
contracted 7 percent in 2020, and a rebound in growth is projected in 2021 of 5 percent
provided the pandemic is contained.
Colombia's exposure to the Chinese market is relatively low. Exports of goods made to China
accounted for 1.4 percent of GDP (11 percent of total exports) in 2019. Whereas, exports to
the United States (29 percent of total exports) and the rest of the world accounted for 3.5 and7.5 percent of GDP, respectively. This dynamic contrasts with other countries in the region,such as Chile and Peru, where exports to China represent 7.8 and 5.3 percent of GDP,
respectively.
Ecuador
The Ecuadorian economy is highly dependent on the production and export of oil andtraditional agricultural products such as shrimp, bananas and plantains, flowers, tuna andcocoa, among the main products.
After consistent growth in its economy through 2017, Ecuador has been trying to bring its
economy in line with a challenging international scenario using international financial
institutions. In this context, the country promoted a reform program aimed at ensuring fiscal
sustainability, strengthening the fundamentals of dollarization, boosting private investment
and guaranteeing social protection for the most vulnerable populations. However, the fall in oil
prices in early 2020 and the COVID-19 crisis brought new challenges. Social distancing
measures, including a long national quarantine, led to a significant economic contraction,
closure of thousands of companies, massive layoffs, unemployment and increased poverty,
despite the government's efforts to prioritize public spending to address the health emergency
and protect the most vulnerable groups. It is estimated that poverty will increase by 7
percentage points (from 25.7 to 32.7 percent) and extreme poverty will grow by 5.1
percentage points (from 7.6 to 12.7 percent). (ECLAC 2020). The GDP decreased by 9 percent
in 2020 (ECLAC 2021).
Fiscal difficulties not only limited the authorities' ability to deal with the health crisis and its
effects on the economy, but also deepened the fiscal imbalance. In this context, the authorities
promoted a successful renegotiation of debt payments with international bondholders andChina to reduce immediate financing needs. Ecuador has also managed to establish a new
medium-term program with the International Monetary Fund, together with the support of153

other international financial institutions, to mitigate the effects of the crisis, restore
macroeconomic stability, guarantee the sustainability of public finances, and strengthen
institutions.
China is Ecuador's second largest trading partner after the United States. Ecuador's exports to
China in 2019 were US$2,896 million (2.7 percent of GDP) and imports were US$3,724 million(3.5 percent of GDP). Ecuador will suffer a price effect due to the drop in commodity prices,
but also a quantity effect given the slowdown in exports to the Asian country. The biggest
impact on the economy could come from a drop in oil prices. A 10 percent fall in oil prices
would generate a drop in GDP growth of approximately 0.84 percent (Goldman Sachs 2020).
Beyond the emergency, Ecuador still needs to complete structural reforms aimed at reducing
vulnerabilities arising from fiscal imbalance, promoting investment to boost growth and quality
employment, safeguarding and strengthening social protection mechanisms to protect themost vulnerable population, and improving access to opportunities for more inclusive
development.
Peru
The Peruvian economy is based on the production and export of coffee, asparagus, blueberries,
grapes, mangoes and cocoa, as well as fisheries and the exploitation of minerals (gold, copper,
zinc, silver) and hydrocarbons.
It has experienced two distinctive phases of economic development since the turn of the
century. Between 2002 and 2013, Peru was one of the fastest growing countries in Latin
America, with an average GDP growth rate of 6.1 percent. Prudent macroeconomic policies andfar-reaching structural reforms in the context of a favorable external environment generated ascenario of high growth and low inflation.
Strong employment and income growth reduced poverty rates steadily. The poverty rate
(percentage of the population living on US$5.5 a day) fell from 52.2 percent in 2005 to 26.1
percent in 2013, or the equivalent of 6.4 million people moving out of poverty during that
period. Extreme poverty (percentage of the population living on US$3.2 a day) decreased from30.9 to 11.4 percent during the same period.
Between 2014 and 2019, GDP growth was slower, at an average rate of 3.1 percent per year.
This was largely due to the fall in the international price of raw materials, including copper, thecountry's top export product. This led to a temporary reduction in private investment, lower
tax revenues and a slowdown in consumption. However, two factors mitigated the impact of
this external shock on GDP, which allowed the economy to continue growing, albeit at a slower
pace. The first was the prudent management of fiscal and monetary policies and the exchange
rate, especially during the economic boom. This allowed the country not only to withstand thefall in tax revenues without having to readjust spending significantly, but also to havesufficient international reserves for an orderly adjustment of the exchange rate. The second
factor was the increase in mining production, as projects launched in previous years matured,
which led to an increase in exports and counteracted the slowdown in domestic demand.
China is Peru's main trading partner. This country absorbs 32.7 percent of its exports, 85
percent of which are related to mining, although in recent years other products such as
fishmeal (8.9 percent of exports) have gained importance. This composition is similar to that of
Peruvian exports to Korea and Japan, which account for 4.8 and 4.3 percent, respectively, ofthe country's sales to the rest of the world. Peru's next most important trading partners are154the countries of the European Union (13.4 percent of exports) and the United States (12.4
percent of exports), economies that are also heavily affected by the crisis. Agricultural
products have a greater weight in exports to these countries. There is reason to believe thatthe elasticity of consumption of fresh products in Europe and the United States is relatively
low, which implies that the impact of the shock of the crisis is relatively small. The impact of
the shock on the agricultural sector will be more moderate.
Peru has been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. A strict generalized quarantine
led GDP to fall by 12.9 percent by the end of 2020. Results of the World Bank's household
survey as of July 2020, reveal that the loss of jobs and sources of income was quite high in
Peru and even more pronounced among the informal, self-employed and low educated sectorsof the population. Job losses decreased in June and July. About 30% of respondents mentioned
having lost their job in May, and about 15% stated the same in July 2020. At the end of July
2020, a higher proportion of men (74%) kept their jobs compared to women (53%). Also,
income losses have been very high. By May, 80% of the households surveyed reported adecline in household income.22
The government has developed a comprehensive economic compensation and assistanceprogram to protect the vulnerable population and support businesses. The program includes
cash transfers, tax deferrals and credit guarantee for the private sector. However, theslowdown in economic activity will result in a substantial increase in poverty. Considering thedepth of the recession in 2020, a strong rebound is expected by 2021 of as much as 9 percent,which presupposes an accelerated execution of public investment and better international
conditions as a result of the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Going forward, the economy is expected to stabilize at rates close to those recorded in the precrisis period. The challenges for the Peruvian economy are to accelerate GDP growth, promoteshared prosperity and provide its citizens with protection against shocks, whether of ageneralized or individual nature. This will require enhancing the effectiveness of the state inproviding public services and generating protection schemes, as well as providing better
connectivity infrastructure and formulating policies to reduce rigidities in factor and productmarkets.
Venezuela
Venezuela's main export product is oil. Therefore, any variation in the price of this commodity
has a significant impact on already declining exports revenues. Current projections for the
price of oil could put the price of Venezuelan exports below their operating cost. China was oneof the main destinations for Venezuelan oil exports, as part of the debt repayment scheme
established between these two countries. It is unclear whether the Venezuelan political regime
is currently paying China. Available information on Chinese imports from Venezuela is less than
US$100 million. On the other hand, due to blockades and sanctions from countries opposed tothe current government, China has become the main trading partner, with imports from thiscountry doubling between 2018 and 2019. Currently, Venezuela does not have access tointernational financial markets. ECLAC estimates the Venezuelan economy contracted by 30
percent in 2020 and will contract another 7 percent in 2021.
Intermittent border closures with Colombia may reduce the availability of goods and foreignexchange, as a substantial proportion of remittances come from Colombia (based on press
22

https://www.bancomundial.org/es/news/press-release/2020/09/08/crisis-por-el-coronavirus-aumento-lasdesigualdades-en-el-peru

155reports). Also, the unavailability of fuel for transportation may further damage the economy.
The collapse of public service provision is evident. The health infrastructure is in a precarious
situation. About half of the hospitals lack basic equipment. The overall health of the population
has become precarious making them highly susceptible to the outbreak of COVID-19. In 2018,25 percent of children presented with malnutrition and 64 percent of adults lost weight due tothe crisis (2018 Survey of Living Conditions). Even more, diseases such as tuberculosis andmeasles, have seen a significant resurgence. As of 2019, these diseases have affected 400,000
people.
Table 7.10 Annual and per capita gross domestic product (GDP) (year 2019)GDP
at current prices(US$ million)

GDP per capita
at constant prices(US$ per capita)

Argentina

445,445.3

9,842.8

Bolivia

40,895.3

2,579.9

Chile282,318.2

15,091.5

Colombia

323,616.0

7,838.2

Ecuador

107,435.7

5,097.1

Peru

227,423.8

6,486.6--

4,211.6

Country

Venezuela

Source: ECLAC: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean - Own estimates based on official sources.

7.5 Economic Trends
The key economic sectors that have had an impact on the natural ecosystems in the hotspot
are agriculture, livestock, hydrocarbon extraction and mining, forestry and tourism. With
respect to the economic categories shown in Table 7.11, both livestock and forestry are part of
the agricultural sector, tourism is included in the commercial sector (hotels and restaurants) as
well as the transport sector, and the mining sector includes quarrying to build roads, dams andother public works infrastructure.
Table 7.11 National Economic Profiles of the Hotspot Countries: 2019 Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) by economic activity at constant prices (millions of dollars)
Argentina

Bolivia

Chile

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Venezuela

Agriculture,
livestock, hunting,forestry and fishing

32,464.6

3,127.5

9,548.5

24,707

9,433.4

13,550.1---

Agriculture,
livestock, hunting
and forestry

31,104.4

3,127.5

7,639.0

20,817.7

8,368.25*

---

---

Fishing

1,343.1---

1,843.8

532.6

575.82*------Mining andquarrying

14,188.2

3,097

36,916.4

28,185.2

8,148.1

23,807.4

156---

Manufacturingindustries

59,320.1

3,314.6

28,199.7

47,560.2

10,814.1

27,132

Electricity, gas andwater supply

5,749.2

674.5

10,065.2

11,409.2

1,827.1

3,965.7

Construction

18,726.9

918.3

17,063.8

22,521.5

8,215.0

12,425.9

Wholesale and retailtrade, repair ofgoods, and hotels
and restaurants

58,563.1

2,784.2

Wholesale and retailtrade, and repair of
goods

50,243.8

2,102,5

Hotels andrestaurants

8,554.2

681.4

Transportation,
warehousing andcommunications

29,313.1

2,673.4---------

31,725.1

46,033.5---

10,677.2

30,237

---

---

---

---

---

32,460.1---

13,5302,414.31*

25,383.0

30,836.6

7,669.7

20,941.6------

2,332.7

15,591.2

17,363.7

361.5

9,804.5

13,324.3

2,011.87*

---

---

Transportation andcomplementary andauxiliary activities---

Mail andtelecommunications

---

---

---

Financialintermediation, realestate, business andrenting activities--60,403.2

2,903.8

58,881.0

78,226.9

13,535

21,778.7

Publicadministration,
defense, compulsory
social security,
education, healthand social services,and othercommunity, socialand personal
services.

92,893.2

5,165.7

42,917.6

66,444.3

14,105.6

39,533---Financialintermediation
services indirectly
measured (FISIM)---

1,429.3

---

---

---

---

---

Total value added

368,061.9

23,432.2

261,815.
4

358,671.1

85,418.6

193,174.
6---

Taxes on products
minus Subsidies on
products

72,717

6,951.1

24,180.9

35,881.9

3,039.4

17,716.3---

Statistical
discrepancy of GDP
by sector of origin-3,569.5-478

1,132.7

2,764.8

1,090.2-206.2---157

Gross domestic
product (GDP)440,769.2

29,702.8

286,013.
8

394,571.1

88,554.7

210,881.
6

116 067.8

Source: CEPALSTAT, 2020. Economic statistics and indicators. Annual national accounts in dollars.
Note: Data for Ecuador (*) taken from the statistical bulletin of the Central Bank of Ecuador (BCE 2020).

Agriculture
The diversity of agricultural production in the Andean countries is related to the variety ofclimatic zones, which include tropical, temperate, arid and cold. The tropical climate zone isfound mainly in the Amazon River basin. Arid climates, both cold and extremely hot, are foundin the coastal deserts and at elevations in the Andean interior. Although arid conditions makeagricultural production difficult, irrigation has allowed crop plantations to expand in these areas(National Geographic 2019; Gestión 2019). The cold, dry climates are not optimal for
agricultural production, but native species of potato and grains such as quinoa are grown
there.
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 for approximately
22 percent of jobs in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Chile (range 11 to 30 percent). In
fact, over the last decade, agricultural GDP growth (3.2 percent) was higher than total GDP(2.8 percent) (World Bank 2019).
Historically, Peru has been the world’s leading producer of asparagus, avocado, and quinoa,
while Ecuador leads in the production of cauliflower and broccoli, and Colombia is the leading
producer of coffee, carrots and turnips. Maize, beans, lima beans and melloco are grown in all
countries for subsistence purposes. Ecuador's production of quinoa, cauliflower and broccoli
has grown rapidly (more than 20 percent annually), while Peru has also experienced highlevels of growth (approximately 10 percent) in avocado, cocoa and quinoa production. The
growing demand for these crops, with high nutritional value, particularly those such as quinoa(considered a "superfood"), in international markets explains the higher levels of production ofthese in the region (Malaga et al. 2019). Agro-industrial crops within the hotspot, with a clear
orientation to external markets, include coffee, cocoa and flowers, especially in Ecuador andColombia, as well as asparagus and grapes in Peru and Chile (OEC 2019).
In Colombia, commercial sugarcane plantations are established between 500 m and 1800 m
above sea level, coffee between 800 m and 1800 m above sea level, and potatoes at 2,500 m
above sea level and higher. The department of Huila has the largest area planted with coffee inColombia, and the KBAs Serranía de las Minas (COL103) and Parque Nacional Natural Puracé(COL70) are located there. Fresh flowers grown in nurseries for export are planted in highvalleys and in the highlands of Cundinamarca and Boyacá (Colombia), and traditional
agriculture takes place along the altitudinal gradient. Coffee production is important in the
Andean regions from Venezuela to Bolivia. For a long time, Colombian coffee has been an
important product for domestic and export markets. The sector is dominated by small
producers who grow shade coffee in diverse agroforestry systems or full-sun monocultures,
although this variety has caused important levels of deforestation in the hotspot. 23 Avocado
cultivation has also increased recently and affects some KBAs such as Páramos del Sur deAntioquia (COL59), Alto Quindío (COL6) or Cuenca del Río Toche (COL32), all of them locatedin the Cordillera Central.
23

https://blogs.elespectador.com/economia/el-mal-economista/el-lado-oscuro-del-cafe
https://diarioresponsable.com/noticias/27806-el-cafe-un-arma-de-doble-filo-para-el-medio-ambiente-y-losagricultores

158

More recently, high-altitude coffee grown by smallholderfarmers on the eastern and western
slopes of the Andes of Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia has gained ground in export markets,particularly in niche markets such as organic, bird-friendly, fair trade and shade-grown coffee.
Coffee production is a significant activity in areas close to corridors such as ParaguasMunchique-Bosques Montanos del Sur de Antioquia (Colombia) and KBAs such as ParqueNacional Podocarpus (ECU50) and Abra Patricia-Alto Mayo (PER7), among others.
In the four Andean-Amazonian countries, cocoa cultivation in agroforestry systems and its
transformation into single-origin chocolate has undergone an expansion aimed at specialized
export markets. The growing demand for cocoa has stimulated a sustained increase in the area
under cocoa cultivation. Between 2006 and 2016, it increased by more than 377,000 hectares.
The increase in the area under cultivation in Latin America is concentrated in five countries:
Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Peru and the Dominican Republic, which together have increased byaround 354,000 hectares. Colombia and Peru have increased the area under cultivation bymore than 100 percent when compared to 2006 (Sanchez et al. 2018). However, most of thecocoa-growing area is at lower elevations than those occurring within the hotspot.
Coca cultivation is a widespread activity in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, which are the main
producers globally, and negatively affects the conservation of KBAs. In some cases, it also
generates violence and insecurity in nearby communities. In the national consultation
workshops it was mentioned that the following KBAs are affected by this activity: ParqueNacional y Área Natural de Manejo Integrado Cotapata (BOL45), Cristal Mayu y Alrededores(BOL14), where poppy is also planted; Yungas Inferiores de Carrasco (BOL34), Kosñipata
Carabaya (PER44), Previsto (PER74), Manu (PER60) and its buffer zone , Serranía de losParaguas (COL106), Región del Alto Calima (COL80), Parque Nacional Natural Farallones deCali (COL65), Parque Nacional Natural Munchique y extension sur (COL67), Serranía del Pinche(COL109) and Reserva Natural La Planada (COL88), the latter because of poppy cultivation.

7.5.1 Livestock
Livestock production in the hotspot consists mainly of beef and dairy cattle units, but also
includes smaller animals (e.g., sheep, lambs, pigs, hens, rabbits and guinea pigs) and thedomestic breeding of llamas and alpacas in Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Chile. In the puna,alpacas are raised for their fine wool for export markets, as well as for their meat for local
consumption. Colombia is the region's leading producer of milk, chicken and beef, while Chileis the leading producer of pork.
Animal production, which is largely for domestic consumption, experienced a significant
increase in chicken and pork production (average annual growth rates of 6 and 4.5 percent,respectively) from 2000 to 2016. Beef production had a very modest increase (1 percent),
although most of the region's agricultural land (approximately 110 million hectares)
corresponds to grasslands and permanent pastures (FAO 2019). Imports of animal products
have also expanded. Thus, there has been growth in domestic production and imports to meetthe increased demand for animal protein as the economy and household incomes increase.
Beef and dairy cattle make an important contribution to the economies of most hotspot
countries, although the sector's share of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is also significant.
In national inventories under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), emissions of these gases from livestock are accounted for, for each country, withinsubcategories of the agriculture sector. These subcategories correspond to entericfermentation, manure management, rice cultivation, agricultural soils, savanna burning and159

agricultural residue burning (or equivalent subcategories). In Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador andPeru, enteric fermentation is the subcategory that contributes most to emissions from theagriculture sector and, therefore, also to livestock, since it comes entirely from this activity.
Cattle ranching in Andean countries has the exceptional characteristic of being carried out inhigh altitude sites, something that occurs in few production systems in the world (Reyes et al.
2018). Although the cattle population in these areas is variable, dairy production is quite
important in local and export economies. Globally, livestock farming has been highlighted as aroute out of poverty in the rural areas of developing countries. This is due to its contribution tofood as a source of family income, its strategic dimension for sustainability and subsistence,
given its contribution to human nutrition in general, and for being key to economic
development.
Because of cattle ranching’s key role in national economies and its role in the fight against
climate change, all countries are implementing policies and programs aimed at improving the
economic and environmental performance of their products. For example, in Argentina, organic
beef certification systems are being implemented. In Bolivia, the Sustainable Development of
Cattle Ranching Program is advancing In Chile, the program for the Conservation andSustainable Use of the Patagonian Steppe for Sustainable Cattle Ranching is being
implemented. In Ecuador, the Climate-Smart Cattle Ranching Program is being implemented,
and in Colombia, the Sustainable Cattle Ranching Program is underway (ECLAC-FAO-IICA2019).

7.5.2 Hydrocarbons and Mining
The largest reserves and the most representative fossil fuel producing countries in all of Latin
America and the Caribbean are found in the Andes. Venezuela is the largest oil producer with
1.5 million barrels per day and ranks 13th in the world. In addition, with 303 billion barrels,
Venezuela is the first country with the largest proven oil reserves in the world and holds thesecond-largest natural gas reserves in the Western Hemisphere (BP 2019). However, it isimportant to note that most oil and natural gas exploitation occurs in territories located outside
the hotspot.
Table 7.12 Proven natural oil and gas reserves in the hotspot countries
Oil

Natural gas

Proven reserves(billions of barrels)

Daily production(thousands ofbarrels)(share of global provenreserves)

Argentina

2.0

592

0.2 %

Bolivia

--

--

0.1 %

Chile

--

--

Colombia

1.8

866

0.1 %

Ecuador

2.0

517

--

Peru

1.0

154

0.2 %

Country160

Venezuela

303.3

1,514

3.2 %

Fuentes: US Geological Survey, British Geological Survey © UKRI and World Mining Data.

Metal mining is an important sector for the economy of the countries, particularly hotspot
countries. Global copper production has experienced a considerable upswing in recent years. In
2019 it reached 20 million metric tons, that is, about 25 percent more than the amountrecorded in 2006. Chile remains by far the world's largest copper producer, although its
production decreased in 2019 (5.60 Mt, down from 5.83 Mt in 2018). Chile also dominates
copper reserves, with 200 Mt, compared to global total reserves reaching 870 Mt. Peru is theworld's second-largest copper producer, with 2019 production of 2.40 Mt. Peru's reserves are
estimated at 87 Mt. As for gold, Peru is among the world's top 10 producers, with 130 t per
year and 2,100 tons of reserves.
Three of the ten copper mines with the highest capacity globally are located in Chile. In firstplace is the Escondida mine, located in the Atacama Desert on the edge of the hotspot, with aproduction capacity of 1.37 Mt in 2018. This was the largest copper mine in the world in 2019.
In second position is the Collahuasi mining district, located in the Chilean section of thehotspot and with a production capacity of 570,000 metric tons.
In 2019, Ecuador reported the discovery of a subway mine with great potential for the
exploitation of gold, copper, and silver. Due to its size, it would be included among the largest
in the world. The "Cascabel" project, located in the province of Imbabura, has been classified
as a Tier 1 deposit, these are very rare and scarce, but they contribute more than half of theworld's copper production. Preliminary evaluations determine that the deposit called "Alpala",of the "Cascabel" project, could become the largest subway silver mine, the third-largest gold
mine and the sixth-largest copper mine in the world ranking. The study estimates mineralreserves of 10.9 million metric tons of copper and more than 23 million ounces of gold. The
mine is located in the Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas Corridor.
According to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data for 2019, Chile and Argentina accounted for
71 percent of total world reserves of lithium in 2018. At the resource level available, Chile,
Argentina and Bolivia account for 52 percent of this mineral, forming what has been called thelithium triangle (Poveda 2020). Most recently, Peru reported in 2018 that the Canadiancompany Plateau Energy Metals had discovered lithium reserves of around 2.5 million metrictons in the Andean locality of Macusani, department of Puno, at 4,500 m above sea level and
1,402 km southeast of Lima, on the border with Bolivia. This area isclose to the Cordillera
Carabaya KBA (PER27).
In 2018, Bolivia reported that a study conducted over 64 percent of the Uyuni salt flat, locatedat 3,650 m above sea level, in the Daniel Campos province of Potosi, within the Altiplanoregion of the Andes Mountains, revealed the existence of a geological reserve of 21 million
metric metric tons of lithium.24 These findings, while promising in terms of the revenue
potential they could generate for the countries' economies, also represent enormous
challenges in terms of achieving responsible use of these mineral reserves, without generating
irreversible impacts on the dynamics of the natural systems of the KBAs and nearby corridorsthat could be affected, such as the Saline Lakes Corridor of the Chilean/Bolivian Altiplano.
24

https://www.icex.es/icex/es/navegacion-principal/todos-nuestros-servicios/informacion-demercados/paises/navegacionprincipal/noticias/NEW2019811187.html?idPais=BO#:~:text=The%20executive%20director%20of%20de%2
0Fields%20of%20metric tons%20of%20m%C3%A9trical%20lithium%20.

161

Mining exploitation has had diverse social and environmental implications. The University of
Arizona conducted a mapping of extractive industries (mining and hydrocarbons) in the region,
which identified at least 226 socio-environmental conflicts in indigenous territories during theperiod between 2010 and 2013 (Del Popolo 2017). In Colombia alone, in 2013, out of 73
socio-environmental conflicts identified, 23 were located in indigenous territories (Pérez-Rincón
2014). In 2017, 22 mining concessions affected 5,677,366.51 hectares of indigenous reserves.
In Chile, the National Human Rights Institute reported 102 conflicts, 39.2 percent of which
involved indigenous territories, mainly associated with extractive mining projects of national
and transnational companies and energy projects (INDH 2015). In 2015, a total of 64 conflicts
were reported by OCMAL (2016) in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia (ECLAC 2020).
Gold mining has negative environmental impacts or threatens KBAs in all hotspot countries(see Chapter 6), as they all have significant gold reserves. The explosive growth of gold mining
has been driven by the increase in ore prices (Figure 7.1), which in turn has recently been
boosted by the COVID-19 pandemic: in the face of economic uncertainty, investors seek safe
haven securities such as gold.
Figure 7.1 International gold price (US$/oz) 2010-2020

Fuente: https://www.preciooro.com/cotizacionoro.html#:~:text=16.11.2020.,oro%20de%20hoy%20en%20d%C3%B3lares.&text=El%20lunes%20a%20l
as%2016,en%20el%20cierre%20del%20viernes.

7.5.3 Forestry
In most hotspot countries, forestry is an economically important sector that generates socioenvironmental benefits and impacts. Most of the remaining natural forests with forest speciesof high commercial value occur in the most productive Amazonian regions (Venezuela,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia) and Chocó (Colombia and Ecuador) and, to a lesser
extent, the temperate rainforests (Chile). For this reason, most large commercial logging
operations in these countries operate outside the Tropical Andes Hotspot.
Within the hotspot, small-scale activities predominate, often informal or illegal, to meet thedemand of domestic markets. Despite regulatory and public policy advances, high levels of162

informality and unsustainable forestry practices persist, usually resulting in forest degradationthat affects virtually all KBAs with forests between 500 m and 2,000 m above sea level in the
hotspot. Between 2001 and 2019, the net loss of forest cover in the hotspot was estimated ataround 4 million hectares (see Chapter 6). In Ecuador, for example, owners of relatively small
areas of forest are usually the informal forestry actors. They either sell their standing trees tologging operations or sell their logs and planks at local markets, driven mainly by middlemen.
In this country, there has been traditionally little or no financial incentive from public or private
sources to manage natural forests, resulting in negative impacts on environmental quality,
ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation.
Forest certification is an important tool for reducing informality and promoting good forest
management practices. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) provides a connection between
the forest and the consumer by ensuring the greatest social and environmental benefits.
Around the world, there is a growing niche market for certified wood products, which is mainly
exploited by a growing responsible forestry industry in the region. The FSC system offers
procedures for small producers and indigenous communities that seek to encourage formality:
1) the continuous improvement process, which promotes responsible forest management andcertification as a five-year path to formality; 2) payment for ecosystem services, which
proposes co-responsibility with companies in sectors other than timber to contribute to theconservation of water, soil, biodiversity, carbon capture and tourism services; and 3) the
certification of conservation areas to identify the shared values of territories that hold culturaland natural heritage as new ways of conserving territories. Although FSC certification is not afinancial incentive, and the process is costly, especially for small operations, there is a trend
towards certification in the hotspot. All hotspot countries currently have at least one FSCcertified forestry operation, in native forest management, forest plantations, chains of custodyand other programs that favor sustainable forest management.
Plantation forestry covers about 2.2 million hectares in central Chile, but all are outside thehotspot. In Argentina, at least two forestry initiatives are underway in the northern part of thecountry and within the hotspot area, both aimed at reforesting the yungas and establishingenvironmentally sustainable forest plantations for production (AFORSA undated, Balducci et al.
2009). Other countries have forest plantations within the hotspot in smaller areas. Ecuador
and Peru, for example, have wood industries based on pine plantations (Pinus radiata and P.
patula and other introduced conifer species) in the Andes that are certified, ensuring that there
is no change in land use and with mandatory compliance with the definition and developmentof strategies in their management plans to ensure high conservation values. The KBAs Río
Utcubamba (PER84) and Finca la Betulia Reserva la Patasola (COL37) are affected by pine
plantations.
In addition to industrial plantations, social forestry ventures, such as agroforestry aimed atmeeting the basic needs of communities and improving their well-being, are common in the
hotspot. In Colombia, for example, native bamboo forests, Guadua angustifolia, grow between
900 m and 2,000 m above sea level in the hotspot adjacent to the KBA Serranía de losParaguas (COL106) in the coffee-producing region. The sale of guadua stems in national andinternational markets generates income for rural communities (Arango et al. 2010).
Associations of guadua producers in Colombia (e.g., Asoguadua, Asobambú and Fundaguadua)and of balsa and other tropical forest timbers in Ecuador (e.g., Allpabambu and Verde
Canandé) could be important partners in conservation activities in the hotspot.
Among the relevant stakeholders are the subnational governments, which can draw up
guidelines for a landscape vision that prioritizes the zoning of areas for conservation,
sustainable use and food security purposes, but also for responsible consumption and also for163public procurement decisions that prioritize certified products for public infrastructure, forexample. Generating commercial links that shorten market circuits is one of the challenges to
producing greater utility in the prices of timber and non-timber forest products with added
value in an inclusive economic environment. The need creates demand for academia toinvestigate native species of high commercial value, as well as the applications of new species
and the development of products that can generate complementary opportunities to species
that are commercially in demand.

7.5.4 Tourism
Tourism is one of the largest contributors to Latin America's GDP. The region's gross domestic
product was estimated at approximately US$5.7 trillion in 2019, and the travel and tourism
industry contributed nearly US$400 billion that year, which is approximately 7 percent (WTO2020). Through 2019, the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) determined a 3 to 4 percent
growth in GDP in Latin America (this measure is based on the number of international tourists
arriving), and the sector accounted for 10 percent of total exports (goods and services) and 10
percent in labor (UNWTO 2019).
However, the reality changed in 2020 due to COVID-19, as tourism was one of the mostaffected economic sectors in Latin America due to COVID-19. According to ECLAC (2020), thefall in this sector could lead to a decrease in GDP growth of at least 1 to 2 percent in theemployment rate in the region by the end of the year. International tourist arrivals globally will
be reduced by between 58 percent and 78 percent due to the pandemic.
In Argentina, according to the National Institute of Statistics and Census (INDEC by its
acronym in Spanish), in 2019 the number of international tourists entering the country grewby 11.1 percent over the 2018 total. In that year, Argentina rose to seventh place among thecountries that grew the most in the world in tourism activity. But in 2020, there was a yearon-year decrease of 98.9 percent for the tourism sector overall, and the hotel sector had adecrease of 97.4 percent due to COVID-19. The travel and tourism sector's total contribution
to GDP in Argentina as of 2019 was US $51.7 billion, 10 percent of the country's GDP, and 3.5
points higher than in 2012 (CEPF 2015). In terms of tourism in protected areas, more than
4million domestic and foreign tourists visited protected areas in 2019 (Administración deParques Nacionales/Sistema de Información de Biodiversidad 2019).
For Bolivia, tourism is one of the most sustainable activities; between 2008 and 2017, it
managed to double the tourist flow in the country, although the figures are still low in theregional context. In 2018, according to the Bolivian Institute of Foreign Trade (IBCE by its
acronym in Spanish), the arrival of foreign tourists to Bolivia was 1,141,860 (representing 3
percent more compared to 2017). In 2019, on the contrary, tourism decreased by 2 percent
compared to 2018. For the first half of 2020, Bolivia recorded 7 percent fewer international
visitor arrivals compared to the previous year, according to the National Institute of Statistics(INEby its acronym in Spanish). This phenomenon was mainly due to COVID-19, but also topolitical instability during 2019.
As for nature tourism, until 2015 in Bolivia, the activity was still incipient and was aimed
mainly at backpackers with limited budgets. Up to that date, the Uyuni salt flat, in thedepartments of Potosí and Oruro and part of the Lagos Salinos del Altiplano Chileno/BolivianoCorridor was the leading tourist destination; the other was the Parque Nacional Madidi (CEPF
2015). By 2020, the trend had not changed, but Bolivia now has new tourist destinations. An
example of this is the Bosque de Polylepis de Taquesi KBA (BOL8), on the Takesi (preColumbian road) route near La Paz, which was supported by CEPF in Phase II. In this KBA, not164only have ecotourism activities been implemented, but this activity has been the driving force
in empowering women and promoting gender equity in the area. It has also contributed to theconservation of biodiversity (since there are forests and birds in danger of extinction) and to
the revaluation of heritage and culture. This KBA is also designated as an Important Area for
Birds and Biodiversity (IBA) (A1, A2), which also gives it great potential for birdwatching. The
Parque Nacional Tuni Condoriri KBA (BOL46) receives a large influx of climbers eager to ascend
Huayna Potosí, possibly the most climbed 6,000 m peak in the world. Totoroto, in the Cuencasde Ríos Caine and Mizque KBA (BOL16) is famous for its dinosaur footprints and spectaculargeological formations.
In Chile, according to the Undersecretary of Tourism, 21.1 percent fewer tourists wereregistered in 2019 than in 2018, a figure that largely responds to the decrease in Argentine
tourists due to the adverse economic situation faced by that country. Chile is one of the most
preferred destinations for Argentines but in 2019 had 40.7 percent fewer visitors from
Argentina compared to 2018). According to the latest figures published by INE, as of July
2020, a significant decrease of tourists (12 percent) was observed because of COVID-19.
In relation to nature tourism developed in protected areas in Chile, and which has domestic
tourists as its main public, for the period 2015 to 2020 there is evidence of a significant growthin the number of visitors. In 2018, 2,689,190 visits to different areas of the National System ofWildlife Protected Areas (SNASPE by its acronym in Spanish) were recorded, and in 2019 it
grew to 3,523,447 (CONAF 2020). The increase is due to the fact that a good part ofecotourism is concentrated in Antofagasta (outside the hotspot), where Los Flamencos National
Reserve is located, a place with great potential for this type of tourism (Rivas-Ortega 2018).
Up to 2015, it had already been recorded that the community of San Pedro de Atacama (within
the hotspot), in the high arid plateau in the Andes Mountains of northeastern Chile, received
significant public-private investment for its development and promotion (CEPF 2015).
In Colombia, according to the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism, the number oftourists during 2018 bordered 4.3 million visitors (equivalent to a growth of 10.4 percent
versus 2017). In 2019, the number of non-resident visitors arriving in the country was
4,515,932, with a growth of 2.7 percent compared to 2018. For the first half of 2020,
nonresident visitors fell 99.2 percent from 2019 due to COVID-19. This sector's shareaccounted for only 2 percent of GDP, declining 0.8 points from the 2015 hotspot ecosystemprofile (CEPF 2015).
In Colombia, there are many tourist attractions. One of them is the Eje Cafetero, which is an
important and well-promoted destination for both national and international tourism. This area
includes KBAs such as Cañón del Río Combeima (COL15), Reserva Natural Ibanasca (COL87)
or Alto Quindío (COL6). Up until 2015, cultural, archaeological and ecotourism options in the
Colombian Andes were often developed in response to the social conflict present in thatcountry. Until that year, the community-based Serraniagua Corporation was the only suchgroup to offer a coffee tourism and ecotourism product in the coffee-growing region ofSerranía de los Paraguas (COL106) in the Western Cordillera. In Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta, activities related to culture and protected areas were promoted (CEPF 2015). According
to Parques Nacionales Naturales of Colombia in its annual report, tourism grew in by 5.1
percent in the country’s protected areas compared to 2018, and 16.4 percent compared to2017.
In 2020, this tourism offering was complemented by the birding route of the western Andes in
the Paraguas-Munchique-Montane Forest Conservation Corridor of southern Antioquia led by
the Calidris Association with funding from CEPF in the KBAs of Valle del Cauca: Serranía de los165

Paraguas (COL106), Alto Calima Region (COL80) and Bosque de San Antonio/Km 18 (COL7).
This project was complemented by another being developed in the same area, which aimed at
empowering bird guides and local communities along the bird watching route. Within thisframework, conservation agreements have been formulated and implemented throughcommunity projects that seek to protect birds and biodiversity through environmental
education, restoration of native vegetation, and community bird monitoring.
In Ecuador, in 2019, the average annual arrival of foreign travelers to Ecuador grew by 4
percent over 2018, according to the Ministry of the Interior´s Migratory Registry. And
according to the Central Bank of Ecuador, between 2015 and 2019, tourism contributed to thecountry, on average, 1.9 percent of the national GDP (US $490 million). Ecuador is one of thehotspot countries with the largest number of protected areas in its territory, a potential that,
according to the Ministry of Environment and Water (MAAE by its acronym in Spanish) has
allowed the visit of a significant number of tourists: from 2015 to 2019 this figure bordered 2
million visitors, between nationals and foreigners (MAAE 2020).
The Ecuadorian ecotourism industry in the Tropical Andes and high Amazon, continues togrow. CEPF has made some investments to finance initiatives by local CSOs. In 2015,
birdwatching activities were developed in the northern part of the hotspot, in Mindo y
Estribaciones Occidentales del Volcán Pichincha (ECU44) and Los Bancos-Milpe (ECU41) where
the Mindo Cloudforest Foundation (MCF) bird sanctuaries are located (CEPF 2015). And
between that year and 2020, other initiatives were added such as the Corporación
Microempresarial Yunguilla (CMY) and the NGO Aves y Conservación. CMY works in the
Maquipucuna-Río Guayllabamba KBA (ECU43) promoting productive activities and experiential
tourism. Aves y Conservación promotes participatory conservation of the black-breasted
puffleg (Eriocnemis nigrivestis) in the Intag-Toisán KBA (ECU34). This CEPF project, which is
not directly related to avitourism, together with other partners, promotes productive
community enterprises and ecotourism activities in the area. 25 Subsequently, when updating
the Action Plan for this species in 2020, the recommendation to develop birdwatching andnature tourism activities in this KBA and in the Los Cedros Protected Forest (ECU14) was
followed as a key tool for conservation (Juan Carlos Valarezo pers. comm.h).
In Peru, according to the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Tourism (MINCETUR by its acronym in
Spanish), tourism growth in 2018 was 9.6 percent over 2017. But in 2019, it grew just 1
percent, which meant eight percentage points less than in 2018 (the lowest value recorded in
the last 17 years). However, and despite these figures, according to the Central Reserve Bankof Peru, inbound tourism generated US$3,904 million, in foreign exchange income, a figurethat meant an increase of 6.7 percent compared to 2018, placing tourism in 2019 in the third
position as a generator of foreign exchange. Tourism activity in Peru contributed around 4
percent to GDP in 2019 (4 points less compared to 2012), and generated an average of 1.1
million jobs. Regarding tourism in protected areas, according to the National Service of Natural
Areas Protected by the State (SERNANP by its acronym in Spanish), Peru recorded more than
2.5 million tourists visiting these sites during 2019, which represented a 14 percent annual
increase since 2015 (Peruvian News Agenda 2020).
As in 2015, tourism activities in Peru are currently centered on a) cultural tourism associatedwith Inca and pre-Inca architecture and archaeological ruins and other national monuments(e.g., Machu Picchu); b) ecotourism and nature tourism generally associated with public andprivate protected areas; and c) extreme sports such as mountain climbing, mountain biking
25

http://avesconservacion.org/web/portfolio/conservacion-participativa-del-criticamente-amenazadozamarrito-pechinegro/

166

and canoeing (CEPF 2015). However, ecotourism activities have diversified in the hotspot, with
CEPF funding in some cases. By 2020, an ecotourism and marketing plan was developed for
the Amazon Biodiversity Conservation Initiatives Network (RED DBA by its acronym in
Spanish), in the Northwestern Corridor of Peru where the Abra Patricia-Alto Mayo (PER7),
Cordillera de Colán (PER28), Río Uctubamba (PER84) and Abra Pardo de Miguel (PER6) KBAs
are located. With CEPF funds, a participatory strategic plan for tourism promotion anddevelopment and a network of tourism operators and enterprises was created and executed for
the Vilcanota Cordillera Corridor (KBA Kosñipata-Carabaya, PER44). This initiative wasundertaken by the NGO Ayuda para Vida Silvestre Amenazada (Help for Endangered Wildlife)
and the Frankfurt Zoological Society.
In Venezuela, tourism is the third-largest revenue source after oil and tax collection, making it
a truly significant socioeconomic and cultural boost for the country. According to World Travel
and Tourism Council (WTTC), the contribution of the tourism sector to the Venezuelan GDP
during 2018 stood at US$6,392 million, 34.4 percent less than 2017, and 81 percent less than2013.
In general terms, tourism, ecotourism and tourism specializing in bird and nature watching areimportant activities for the promotion and maintenance of the biodiversity of the KBAs andhotspot corridors. This is because they directly or indirectly contribute to: 1) the improvementof the quality of life of many vulnerable communities (they are a source of income that allows
them to prosper); 2) the improvement of self-esteem; 3) the revaluation of work within thecommunity; 4) the rescue of native products; 5) organizational strengthening; 6) gender
equity; 7) generational relay and 8) the conservation of natural resources.
Finally, according to the Global Wellness Institute, the global trends and needs for the next 10
years in terms of tourism in general (this also applies to hotspot) and nature tourism inparticular, can be summarized as follows:a) There will be an increasing number of conscious travelers in search of wellness.
Wellness tourism growth is projected to double that of overall tourism, reaching
US$919 billion in 2022 in Latin America, and is estimated to grow by 9.5 percent
through 2022 in the Latin American region.
b) Technology will help make the journey easier throughout the entire experience.
c) More and more services will be required to meet the expectations and needs of theadventure traveler.
d) Experiences will be required in novel, natural and little-explored destinations. The trend
is to generate the least impact on destinations, especially natural ones.
e) More and more community experiences and networking will be required to achieve this.
Experiences will tend to be collective rather than individual.
Recommendations from the profile consultations focus on considering the need to develop a
more sustainable tourism industry that can cope with new tourism flows without compromising
natural and cultural resources or the quality of life of hotspot host communities. This includes
capacity building and environmental awareness and interpretation activities. Another important
aspect discussed was to further link the sustainable management of protected areas to thedevelopment of nature tourism as an effective economic response for indigenous and peasantcommunities living in or near protected natural areas.

167

8 POLITICAL CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT
8.1 Political Conditions and Trends
The following analysis provides an overview of the political situation, initiatives andagreements for natural resource management within the region’s political trends. This analysis
is based on the review of official documents, inquiry and research of specialists, individualinterviews, and expert contributions at the national consultation workshops carried out during
the elaboration of the ecosystem profile update.

8.1.1 Political Context in the Hotspot
During the last 15 years, the Andean region has experienced important changes andtransformations, although with particularities in each country. These changes include thecontinuity of democratic governments, which contrasts with periods of strong politicalinstability. Likewise, significant economic growth and availability of economic resources by
national governments and society have facilitated social mobility, the widening of the middle
class and the generation of inclusive social policies. With respect to inclusive policies, somecountries with a progressive orientation have emphasized education, health and social welfare
programs, which has led to significant improvements in social indicators.
However, this general situation started to change in 2015, with the problems derived from theinstability of prices of raw materials such as gas, oil, copper and agricultural export products(IDB 2019). The economic situation of hotspot countries, in the internal and external markets,
deteriorated between 2018 and 2019, and became more acute in 2020 due to the effects of
the COVID-19 pandemic. In parallel, since 2016, social and political conflicts in several
countries have been escalating, while a trend towards political polarization of societies has
been gaining ground. This trend has also manifested itself in regional political alignments thathave strongly affected different regional integration mechanisms.
A climate of distrust in political systems and their institutions (parliaments, political parties)
has also been deepening and as has been distrust in democracy as a form of government thatallows solving the structural problems of societies (OECD 2020). In 2010, support for the
democratic system by the population was 61 percent and in 2018 it dropped to 48 percent,particularly among young people who question the growing inequality and privileges in certain
sectors of society (Latinobarómetro 2018).
Undoubtedly, distrust in institutions and the need for structural changes that improve thequality of life of the population while generating inclusive economic and political systems, havebeen the common denominators in a wave of social protests across the region that surged in
the last quarter of 2019.
Many of the countries in the region have had electoral processes since late 2020: presidential
and parliamentary in Bolivia (October 2020); parliamentary in Venezuela (December 2020);
presidential and parliamentary in Ecuador (February 2021), presidential and parliamentary in
Peru (April 2021), presidential and parliamentary in Chile (November 2021). Thus, the politicallandscape may change, although no breakdowns that could affect democratic stability or
essential aspects of sustainable development policies, biodiversity conservation, natural
resource management or climate change commitments, are foreseen.
Several relevant events since 2016 have helped shape current conditions in the region andneed to be taken into consideration:

168a) The peace process in Colombia and the agreement signed between the government and the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas (2016). This processcomplements the demobilization of the so-called self-defense groups since 2000. It is,however, an unfinished effort that is questioned and threatened by political groups andstrong economic interests operating in the illegal spheres of the economy, particularly
those linked to drug trafficking, illegal gold mining and corruption. The stability of peace inColombia is a determining factor for the country's development and has a major regional
impact due to Colombia's geopolitical influence in the northern Andes.
b) The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on the economy and the upcoming electoral
processes. According to several specialists, the region could be facing a new "lost" decade
like that of the 1990s, with a sharp decline in social indicators, with growing unemployment
and underemployment, a decrease in GDP and a probable increase in poverty and extreme
poverty (IDB 2020). This could contribute to social conflict and a decrease in national
budgets for rural development, biodiversity conservation and initiatives related to climatechange management. In its April 2020 special report, the Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) stated that the 2020 crisis in the region, with a 5.3%
drop in GDP, will be the worst in its history. To find a contraction of comparable magnitude,
it is necessary to go back to the Great Depression of 1930 (-5%) or even further back to1914 (-4.9%)" (ECLAC 2020).

8.1.2 Socio-Environmental Conflicts and Insecurity
The main and common security problems in the region are related to domestic violence andtheft, which are aggravated by the deterioration of employment conditions and the economic
well-being of the population. The countries that are above subregional averages in terms ofhomicide rates are Colombia and Venezuela, while other countries have achieved stable levelsin this indicator, as shown in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Annual Homicide Rate (homicides per 100 thousand inhabitants)
Country

2016

2017

2018

Argentina

6.0

5.2

5.3

Bolivia

6.2

----

----

Chile

3.4

4.2

4.4

Colombia

25.7

25.0

25.3

Ecuador

5.8

5.8

5.8

Peru

7.9

7.9

----

Venezuela

59.6

49.9

36.7

Source: UNODC, 2019 report; https://dataunodc.un.org/

Unfortunately, violence continues to be a recurring theme in Colombia. In the last two years,
there have been reports of murders of more than 200 social leaders, environmental activists
and human rights defenders, as well as demobilized ex-combatants.26 In 2020, a UN report
identified 33 massacres (133 people killed) in the country up to August 17. Between that date26

https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2020/07/29/asesinan-a-212-activistas-ambientales-en-2019-colombia-el-

pais-mas-letal/

169

and September 8, there were at least four more massacres (15 people killed) in thedepartments of Cauca, Nariño, Antioquia and Bolivar. Violent groups are also active in thenorth of Santander and Urabá regions as well as the Llanos Orientales and the Amazon.
Between January 1 and December 31, 2019, more than half of all reported killings and forced
disappearances of land and environmental defenders globally occurred in two countries,
Colombia and the Philippines. Colombia saw a sharp increase in the number of deaths, with 64
defenders killed in 2019. This is more than twice the number of killings that occurred in 2018
and the highest number ever recorded in the country (Global Witness 2020).
Among the people killed were leaders of the Great Awá Family, whose territory is located along
the border between Colombia and Ecuador and contains two KBAs where CEPF has beenworking in recent years: Territorio Étnico Awá y Alrededores (ECU70) and Reserva Natural La
Planada (COL88). In fact, the most recent attack was registered in September 2020, in the
Inda Sabaleta reservation, located in Tumaco, department of Nariño, in southwestern
Colombia.27
In addition to the human tragedy that the acts of persecution and violence cause, they are also
an important challenge for the conservation of these highly biodiverse territories, as they makeit difficult for civil society organizations to work in a safe environment.
According to some analyses, Colombia has not been able to resolve four structural issues thatare at the root of violence: a) problems related to land misappropriation. Since the 1990s
alone, an estimated 6.6 million hectares have been dispossessed by violent groups; b) the
persistence of illegal activities such as drug trafficking and illegal gold mining; c)institutionalized corruption; and d) a political system that still needs to strengthen mechanisms
for citizens and civil society organizations to participate in government decisions.
Venezuela presents a different scenario of violence and displacement. Political conflict anddemonstrations for and against the current government were particularly important between
2016 and the first half of 2019, with the self-proclamation of the President of the National
Assembly as President of the Republic. For its part, a Venezuelan NGO puts the homicide rate
at 81.4 per 100 thousand inhabitants in 2018.28
In Chile, Bolivia and Ecuador, the cases of violence reported are related to specific events
linked to the 2019 social and political protests and allegations of use of excessive violence bypolice forces.
With regard to the socio-environmental conflicts associated with extractive projects, there are
two main drivers of conflict: 1) the limited guarantees of indigenous peoples’ territorial rights,
and 2) the limited government capacity to carry out prior consultation processes aimed at
obtaining free, prior and informed consent. It is difficult to quantify the conflicts arising fromthe impact of indigenous peoples’ territorial rights violation. However, a recent ECLAC report(2020) indicates that between 2015 and the first half of 2019, 873 conflicts were recorded in
hotspot countries. These conflicts were mainly caused by mining and oil projects, at either the
exploration or exploitation stage.
These data are consistent with those presented in a recent study led by the Foundation forConservation and Sustainable Development (Fundación para la Conservación y el Desarrollo
27

Published in El Comercio Newspaper, https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/masacre-pueblo-awacolombia-ecuador.html.
28

https://www.infobae.com/america/venezuela/2018/12/28/venezuela-fue-el-pais-mas-violento-deamerica-latina-en-2018/170

Sostenible - FCDS) conducted specifically in the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot biologicalcorridors, with the support of CEPF. This study concludes that, "...environmental leadership in
this region is the most vulnerable due mainly to the mining wealth of these territories" (FCDS2020). It also presents the data collected by the Tierra de Resistentes Project, which reports
episodes of violence between 2009 and 2019 for Colombia (225 cases), Peru (36 cases),
Ecuador (59) and Bolivia (21) (FCDS 2020).
As mentioned before, the criminalization of indigenous social protests against investment
projects that affect their territories has become a generalized practice. Thus, the repression,prosecution and assassination of environmental leaders has increased, as have conflicts overthe use of water, between local populations and mining companies, and the expansion of the
agricultural frontier for extensive plantations, export crops or biofuel production. Suchconflicts are occurring, for example, in Intag-Toisán (ECU34) in Ecuador and in Tía María in
Arequipa, Peru.

8.1.3 Challenges in Regional Integration
At the regional level, international political and economic integration presents few advancesand serious challenges. Over the last decade, the hotspot countries have intensified theireconomic integration through a series of strategies and mechanisms such as regional trade
agreements, including free trade agreements, customs unions and common markets (Table
8.2). The nature of these strategies and their level of implementation depend on the political
agenda of each country and the geopolitics of the region. Regional integration processes had avery significant momentum until 2016, when political conflicts within the region, particularly in
relation to Venezuela’s situation, and changes in government slowed down the pace ofprogress in these processes and the institutional mechanisms of integration.
Among the integration processes, the Andean Integration System (Sistema Andino deIntegración) and its main structures stand out due to its seniority and permanence. Suchstructures include: health (Organismo Andino de Salud - Convenio Hipólito Unanue), financial
reserves (Fondo Latinoamericano de Reservas), financing (Banco de Desarrollo de América
Latina), higher education (Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar), Court of Justice and the Andean
Community of Nations (Comunidad Andina de Naciones - CAN), among others. This process
has advanced with the participation of four countries, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia,
which have basically placed emphasis on customs processes aimed at creating a free tradezone that, in recent years, comprised regulations related to electricity, mining (Andean
observatory), migration and control of cultural heritage.
As of 2018, several organizations have lost strength in regional integration processes. This is
the case of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Comunidad de Estados
Latinoamericanos y Caribeños - CELAC) and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our
America (Alianza Bolivariana por los Pueblos de Nuestra América - ALBA) which, due to thechanges of progressive governments that promoted them, have weakened to the point of
disappearing. A similar situation occurred with the Latin American Integration Association(Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración - ALADI), which aimed at political and economic
coordination towards a common market in Latin America. All hotspot countries are members;
however, ALADI's influence has diminished with the establishment of other international
forums. The CAN, a key body for regional political and economic integration, has lost all
dynamism. Something similar has happened with Mercosur as a result of the political crisis in
Venezuela in recent years, the radical nationalist policies in Brazil, the contraction of171

Argentina’s economy and internal political differences. However, it maintains its structure anddynamics with member and associate countries.
Possibly, the most significant change in recent years has to do with the dissolution of theUnion of South American Nations (Unión de Naciones Suramericanas - UNASUR), after mostcountries exited the union in 2018: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay
and, subsequently, Uruguay following its change in government. This has called into question
the future of regional integration. UNASUR was one of the most important integration
mechanisms in South America that made significant progress on several relevant issues:
security, defense, infrastructure, energy, conservation, education, free mobility of people,
investments in the Initiative for the Integration of South American Regional Infrastructure(Iniciativa para la Integración de la Infraestructura Regional Suramericana - IIRSA), etc. The
causes of the dissolution of UNASUR may be internal, such as the slowdown of commitments,
consensus approval mechanisms, among others but the main cause is political.
However, other integration bodies were formed, such as the Lima Group (2017). In the sameway, the Forum for the Progress and Development of South America (Foro para el Progreso deAmérica del Sur - PROSUR) was constituted in 2019, under the auspices of the governments ofChile and Colombia. The first summit was held on March 22, 2019 in Chile with theparticipation of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Paraguay and the host country, and in March
2020, Uruguay joined. However, this mechanism did not develop the expected dynamism, as itis practically paralyzed after the surge of social conflicts in several of its member countries atthe end of 2019. Another trade integration mechanism is the Pacific Alliance, which
incorporates Chile, Peru and Colombia in the region. Ecuador is in the final stages of
acceptance.
The most relevant integration mechanism in the design and execution of environmental
policies and programs, specifically for the conservation of the Amazon biome, is probably the
Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (Organización del Tratado de Cooperación Amazónica- OTCA), made up of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname andVenezuela. At the end of 2019, a global alert was activated in the face of alarming signs ofdestruction of the Amazon rainforest, reflected primarily in forest fires that destroyed nearly
three million hectares of forest. In response to this crisis, seven of the eight OTCA member
countries adopted the "Pact of Leticia". Subsequently, in the framework of the 25th United
Nations Climate Change Conference - COP 25 (Madrid, December 2019), the Action Plan of thePact of Leticia for the Amazon was adopted as an operational instrument for the, still pending
as at November 2020, implementation of this agreement.
Table 8.2 Hotspot Countries that are Parties to Regional Economic and Political
Integration Agreements
Country

CAN

OTCA

Pacific
Alliance

ALADI

MERCOSUR

Argentina

Not amemberNot amemberNot amemberMemberMemberBolivia

MemberMemberNot amemberMemberRatificationin process

Chile

Not a
memberNot amemberMemberMember

Associated
State

Colombia

MemberMemberMemberMember

Associated
State

172

EcuadorMemberMember

AssociatedState

Member

Associated
State

Peru

MemberMemberMemberMember

AssociatedState

Venezuela

Not amemberMemberNot amemberMemberMember

ALADI = Latin American Integration Association; CAN = Andean Community of Nations; MERCOSUR = SouthernCommon Market; OTCA = Amazonian Cooperation Treaty Organization.

8.2 Overview of Public Policies for Conservation in the
Hotspot
8.2.1 Global and Regional Conservation Agreements
All hotspot countries have ratified the main international environmental treaties. These include
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) and its Protocols, the Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Convention on Wetlands ofInternational Importance (Ramsar), and the Convention Concerning the Protection of theWorld Cultural and Natural Heritage (Table 8.3). Countries have also signed on to several
Memoranda of Understanding under the Convention on Migratory Species, including one on
migratory grassland birds and their habitats (Bolivia and Argentina) and one on theconservation of high Andean flamingos and their habitats (Bolivia, Argentina, Chile and Peru).
Under the CITES framework, a regional agreement for the conservation and sustainable
management of the vicuña has been implemented by Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador andPeru.
Table 8.3 Hotspot Countries that are Parties to Global Environmental Agreements
Environmental Agreements
CBD

CITES

CPB

UNFCCC

UNFF

WHC

CMS

Ramsar

UNCCD

Number ofAgreements

Argentina

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

8

Bolivia

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

9

Chile

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

8

Colombia

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

9

Ecuador

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

9

Peru

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

9

Venezuela

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

9

Country

Y=Part of the agreement, N=Not part; CBD= Convention on Biological Diversity; CITES= Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; CPB= Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; UNFCCC= United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; UNFF= United Nations Forum on Forests (all UN member states);
WHC = World Heritage Convention; CMS = Convention on Migratory Species; Ramsar = Convention on Wetlands ofInternational Importance; UNCCD = United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.

Under the CBD, hotspot countries have taken important policy and regulatory measures for its
implementation. For example, national biodiversity strategies and action plans have beendeveloped by all hotspot countries, as well as reporting on compliance with the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets until 2019. Currently, all countries in the region are part of theinternational debate on the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, which is moving towards

173greater integration of global concerns related to climate change and the fulfillment of the 2030
Agenda.
All countries in the hotspot have joined the UNFCCC, with the aim of stabilizing greenhousegas concentrations at a level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference with climate.
One of the commitments made in that convention is the Paris Agreement (2016) to combat
climate change and accelerate and intensify the actions and investments needed for asustainable low-carbon future. To achieve this, countries committed to defining their own
efforts, which are embodied in their respective Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)
that emphasize the important role of protected areas in ecosystem restoration, landscapeconnectivity and provision of ecosystem services (see Chapter 10).
Under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, hotspot countries
have designated a total of 96 Ramsar sites representing an area of more than 29.7 million
hectares, including the addition of ten new sites between 2015 and 2020. In particular, within
the hotspot there are 33 Ramsar sites, of which 31 are KBAs (Table 8.4).
Table 8.4 Ramsar Sites in the Hotspot
Country

Ramsar Sites in the Hotspot

KBA

Peru

Junín

No

Peru

Titicaca

Yes

Peru

Laguna de Salinas

Yes

Peru

Laguna del Indico-Dique de los Españoles

Yes

Peru

Lagunas Las Arrebiatadas

Yes

Peru

Lucre

Yes

Ecuador

Cajas

Yes

Ecuador

El Angel

Yes

EcuadorYacuriYes

EcuadorLlanganati

Yes

Ecuador

Podocarpus

Yes

EcuadorÑucanchi Turupamba

Yes

Colombia

Sistema Lacustre de Chingaza

Yes

Colombia

Sistema Delta Estuarino del Rio Magdalena, Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta
Yes

Colombia

Laguna del Otún

Yes

Colombia

Laguna de La Cocha

Yes

Colombia

Yes

Colombia

Complejo de Humedales Alto Rio Cauca asociado a la Laguna de
Sonso
Complejo de Humedales Urbanos del Distrito Capital de Bogotá

Chile

Salar del Huasco

Yes

Chile

Salar de Surire

Yes

Chile

Salar de Tara

Yes

Chile

Aguas Calientes IV

No

174

Yes

Chile

Pujsa

Yes

Chile

Soncor Hydrological System

Yes

Bolivia

Cuenca de Tajzara

Yes

Bolivia

Los Lípez

Yes

Bolivia

Lagos Poopó y Uru

Yes

Bolivia

Lago Titicaca

Yes

Bolivia

Rio Matos

Yes

Argentina

Lagunas Altoandinas y Puneñas de Catamarca

Yes

Argentina

Lagunas de Vilama

Yes

Argentina

Laguna de los Pozuelos

Yes

Argentina

Refugio Provincial Laguna Brava

Yes

Source: Ramsar site information services.

8.2.2 Decentralized Management of Conservation Policies
All the countries of the Andean region are unitary states, with the exception of Argentina, afederal state with high capacity for autonomous decision-making.
Regarding the decentralization of environmental management, particularly of conservation
policies, some countries have assumed decentralization and deconcentration as part of an
administrative process of efficiency and modernization of the national government. In contrast,
others have maintained an orientation towards the construction of citizen power. Thisdifference in approach is reflected in institutional design, which, in some cases, such as Chileor Colombia, explicitly incorporates consultative councils and other mechanisms for citizen
participation in the management of public policies.
Given Argentina's federal structure, environmental governance is decentralized. According to
the National Constitution, provinces have jurisdiction over their renewable (forests,
biodiversity, water) and non-renewable (hydrocarbons, mining) natural resources, while thecentral government—in agreement with the provincial legislature—is in charge of establishinglegislation on minimum budget requirements for the environment and natural resources.
Chile is strongly centralized in Santiago. The administrative organization of the country
includes regions, provinces and municipalities that have decentralized responsibilities in healthand education. In terms of environmental management, Chile has a robust institutionalframework with multiple agencies at the central and deconcentrated levels. Through theregional ministerial secretariats (SEREMI by its acronym in Spanish), the Ministry of theEnvironment coordinates with the fifteen regional environmental advisory councils, conceived
as agencies whereby the relationship between organized civil society and the Ministry of theEnvironment can be deepened and strengthened.
Peru also has a strong political and economic centralization in Lima; its territorialadministrative structure is decentralized into regions, provinces and districts with popularlyelected authorities and financial and administrative autonomy. These divisions complement thecentral government's planning, intervention and local environmental initiatives. Multiple public
institutions and agencies converge in environmental management, some operating at thenational level and others at the regional or subnational level. In recent years, several

175

institutional reforms have been undertaken to improve the performance and multilevel
coordination of environmental management.
Bolivia has several urban hubs, other than La Paz, such as the city of El Alto, which has alargely indigenous population and is a regional economic and political center. There are also
cities of great regional economic importance, such as Santa Cruz. At the subnational level,
Bolivia is organized in departments and municipalities, which are forms of local government,with elected authorities and political-administrative autonomy within the national state
structure of planning, economic management and environmental policies. Natural resource
management follows the same pattern, as Bolivia has a system of national, departmental andmunicipal protected areas. It also has growing social movements concerned about water
resources, protected areas and biodiversity.
Colombia is organized into 32 departments and the Capital District of Bogotá, in addition to
special districts in metropolitan areas. The country has an important level of departmental andmunicipal decentralization with elected authorities that implement national and departmental
environmental policies. The Regional Autonomous and Sustainable Development Corporations(Corporaciones Autónomas Regionales y de Desarrollo Sostenible) are the primaryenvironmental authorities at the regional level. They are public corporate entities, created bylaw, with administrative and financial autonomy, their own assets, and legal status,
responsible for managing the environment and renewable natural resources and promoting
sustainable development, in accordance with legal provisions and policies of the Ministry of theEnvironment.
Ecuador has high levels of decentralization and is organized into provinces, municipalities andrural parish councils, each level of government with elected authorities. National resources are
distributed among the decentralized autonomous governments, in addition to generating theirown revenues. Provincial governments are responsible for agricultural development, watershedmanagement, climate change and other environmental issues within their jurisdictions,concurrent with the executive branch. This level of government generates initiatives that are
more closely linked to biodiversity conservation within the hotspot.
Venezuela also has a decentralized state structure with environmental management
jurisdiction by state and municipal authorities that are elected every four years. The country's
economic situation has severely impacted the environmental management capacity ofdecentralized governments, including for the management of biodiversity and protected areas.

8.2.3 Sectoral Public Policies and their Relationship with the Hotspot
The pandemic and post-pandemic scenarios pose some challenges to national policy andcooperation initiatives. In some cases, it may lead to food security problems in economicallyvulnerable populations; loss of rural jobs due to a decrease in exports, as a result of possible
contractions in international demand; difficulties in access to credit and markets for family
farming and small and medium-sized companies.
The region’s economic outlook is grim, but it may not necessarily lead to political instability ora democratic governance crisis. However, there may be scenarios of popular mobilization andsocial protests that will demand consistent responses from national governments to meet thegrowing needs of the population in societies that increasingly value their social, political andenvironmental rights.

176

The COVID-19 pandemic also highlights the negative consequences of the social weakening of
national governments, the lack of investment in health, and the weakening of social protection
systems in several countries.

Agriculture
The Andean countries have a strong agricultural orientation; medium and large agriculturalcompanies coexist with extensive (palm or soybean plantations) and intensive (flowers)
production and small properties, including individual or family smallholders within the lands ofancestral peoples' communities. This bimodal agriculture is often a source of conflict overresources such as water and soil, but it has also led to the emergence of a series ofcooperation mechanisms and alliances between entrepreneurs and family or community
farmers in some experiences such as coffee, cocoa and dairy production. At the same time,
agriculture is one of the main drivers of ecosystem transformation and biodiversity loss in the
hotspot, mainly due to deforestation prior to planting, uncontrolled burning and the use ofchemicals to increase productivity and combat pests. Chapter 6 describes how this activity was
categorized as one of the four threats that have the greatest impact on the hotspot, according
to the opinion of local experts.
Between 2000 and 2016, regional agricultural production and productivity increased for mostcommodities, but growth rates vary across countries and commodities (FAO 2019). Agricultural
production in the hotspot can be broadly classified into three groups: non-traditional export
crops, traditional export crops, and crops for domestic/regional consumption. These crops
cover an area of approximately 9.5 million hectares, or about 80 percent of the region's arable
land. Nontraditional exports had the highest average annual rates of increase in production
and harvested land (5.4 and 5.2 percent, respectively) (Malaga et al. 2019).
Non-traditional products that link conservation and production include those arising fromsustainable entrepreneurship or, as it is known in some countries, bio-entrepreneurship. Thisdevelopment has been possible thanks to progress in public and private policies guided bysustainability principles which, depending on each country, adopt a particular approach andname (e.g., green growth in Colombia or bioeconomy in Ecuador, Chile or Argentina). This
environment has been favorable for cooperation agencies, NGOs and companies to explore
new ventures based on the use of biodiversity and agrobiodiversity. Thus, in the hotspot there
has been an escalation of bio-businesses and the multiplication of incubators, accelerators andeconomic promotion agencies that stimulate early entrepreneurial activity in the hotspot.
Civil society nature reserves (Reservas Naturales de la Sociedad Civil - RNSC) in Colombia, arean example of a private conservation strategy that promotes the link between conservationand production, mainly through agriculture (coffee, cacao and silvopastoral livestock), which
CEPF has supported with its investments in the hotspot. In Colombia there are 685 RNSCs
registered in the National Natural Parks system covering 44,172 hectares within the hotspot, in
addition to those that are not registered but which, for environmental purposes, fulfill thesame function. In this sense, the Investment Strategy (see Chapter 13) considers theregistration of private protected areas a means of improving the protection of KBAs.
Despite the above, the Andean region is characterized by common structural problems in rural
areas: high inequality in land distribution, fragmentation of land ownership, high rural poverty
rates that exceed those of urban poverty, difficulties for small producers in accessing markets
and limited access to credit and technical assistance. In Ecuador, for example, campesino
production is marked by small land ownership; six out of ten private production units are lessthan 5 hectares in size. Half of rural families (i.e., nearly two million Ecuadorians) survive on

177

production units of 2 hectares or less. This structural situation in access to land and othernatural resources accentuates problems of malnutrition, emigration and poverty (Pastor C.
Pazmiño. 2019).
This situation is common to all Andean countries, which are witnessing new processes of land
concentration linked to agricultural exports and of refocusing economies, as some sectors havedescribed it. In response to this land concentration, much progress has been made in legalizing
land titles and territories of ancestral peoples, particularly in Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador.
Rural development programs have lost momentum in the region over the last 30 years andthus, support for family farming is still of fundamental importance. Existing programs haveshifted their focus to improving productivity, incorporating added value, access to markets,
technology and credit, as well as promoting good environmental practices.
Despite the statistical difficulties in measuring the contributions of family farming (due to
production units’ surface area, their relationship with the market and the type of products),
there is broad consensus on its fundamental importance in guaranteeing food security in theregion. The FAO (2014) estimates that family farming and indigenous communities provide 70
percent of the food consumed in the countryside and cities.
In the last ten years, the need to generate and support initiatives aimed at strengthening
family and campesino agriculture has been placed on national political agendas. In somecountries, specific regulations and state institutions have been created to support family
farming. In the case of Peru, there is a strategy as public policy from 2014 to 2021. Other
national examples include Law 144 of the Community Agricultural Productive Revolution(Revolución Productiva Comunitaria Agropecuaria) (2011) and the Law of Mother Earth (Madre
Tierra) on food sovereignty (2012) in Bolivia, and the Law on Ancestral Lands and Territories(2016) in Ecuador.
Due to the multifunctional nature of family farms, the improvement of family agriculture allows
for the development of other non-agricultural activities, such as nature-based tourism,
agricultural product processing and agroforestry initiatives. On occasion, this allows for
successful associative policies to improve production, prices and open domestic and export
markets that promote good social and environmental practices. These aspects can, in turn,improve productive capacity and reduce rural poverty significantly, as has been proven incountries such as Bolivia in the last decade.

Forests and Silviculture
As mentioned in Chapter 7, forestry is an important economic sector in all hotspot countries.
For this reason, vigorous public policies have been adopted for the protection, restoration andsustainable use of natural forests, as well as policies to promote forest plantations forcommercial purposes. These policies are usually related to international agreements such as
the United Nations Forum on Forests, the Bonn Challenge or the UNFCCC. As a key ally in thefight against climate change, the forestry sector has taken an active part in national efforts to
reduce deforestation, illegal logging and land-use change, joining initiatives that promotesustainable forest management, forest certification and the supply of timber and other forest
resources from legal and sustainable sources.
From different perspectives, all countries have made progress in sector governance policies,
implementing dialogue and coordination processes between public, private and civil society
stakeholders, which have made it possible to update legal and regulatory frameworks,178strengthen capacities, attract investments and manage forest cooperation projects. Working
groups promoted by national REDD+ strategies have played an important role in this regard.
The integration of conservation approaches to forest production and commercial use of nontimber resources, such as bio-entrepreneurship initiatives in protected areas, demonstrates a
new forest culture that understands that societies need to use forest resources responsibly andsustainably.
Information systems that enable decision-making in sustainable forest management have also
improved. Countries’ efforts to improve general knowledge of available forest resources
through inventory processes or assessment are noteworthy. These processes have made it
possible to provide updated, official and reliable information for the design and implementationof policies in the sector, including investment decisions and forest sector development. The
hotspot countries present different situations with respect to the availability of forest
inventories. In general, the use of remote sensing technologies (which must be combined withground information) is widespread. In some cases, inventories are adapted to meet REDD+
requirements, which include the establishment of a Measurement, Reporting and Verification(MRV) system. Also noteworthy are the advances in real-time deforestation monitoring throughsatellite images that enable increased control and oversight at a lower cost.
Several countries have experience implementing incentive programs for native forest
conservation and environmental services payment mechanisms (see Chapter 11) and are
implementing several large-scale REDD+ projects. Ecuador, for example, stands out in theregion for the significant amount of funding mobilized from the Global Environment Facility(GEF) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF) under REDD+ mechanisms. Also important are
afforestation and reforestation programs, almost always associated with watershed protection,
restoration of degraded ecosystems and generation of economic incentives for forestry
production. A pending task, on which little progress has been made in the hotspot, is related toapplied research in the forestry sector to generate knowledge that will provide alternatives forthe management and harvesting of new species with commercial value and alleviate pressure
on the populations of overexploited species.
Land tenure issues in the rural sector and the associated legal insecurity are some of the mostimportant obstacles to sustainable forest resource management. This is an issue that CEPF willaddress in its investment strategy, as the conservation of several KBAs depends on securing
the land ownership rights of legitimate forest tenure holders, which are generally rural andindigenous communities located in places that include significant areas of native forest
remnants.

Water: Rural Development and Urbanization
Access to and distribution of water has been a permanent concern in Andean states andsocieties. For decades, strong public, private and community investments have enabled water
infrastructure construction to meet the growing demands of human consumption in societies
with increasing population trends and agricultural and industrial production.
Increasing water concerns include fundamental issues such as the conservation of water
sources and the quality of the resource. Water sources are threatened by the permanent
agricultural frontier expansion in forests and páramos, the expansion of cities, and the effects
of climate change, such as the loss of glaciers and precipitation anomalies. Water quality
issues are rooted in the lack of control over the use of agrochemicals in agricultural production,
the lack of control over industrial waste, particularly in activities such as illegal mining, and thelack of adequate treatment of domestic and industrial wastewater.

179

Policies for watershed and micro-watershed management increasingly incorporate theparticipation of civil society, local governments and national government institutions. These
synergic and active participation mechanisms have been most appropriate in implementing
integrated water resource management policies. Water governance policies also allow for theprevention of social conflicts arising from the violation of the human right to water. From thatperspective, integrated water resources management (IWRM) constitutes a fundamental
process that integrates resource conservation and local economic development. Its actions andpolicies range from water source protection, restoration of degraded lands, integrated fire
management and prevention, wastewater treatment, among other coordinated management
efforts that promote access and democratic distribution of the resource.
Some of the most important aspects linked to water demand include urbanization,
infrastructure construction, waste and chemical treatment and channeling compensation tocommunities and rural populations in generation or recharge sites. Latin America is one of themost urbanized regions on the planet; its population is mostly urban as countryside to city
migration continues. Around 75 percent of the population live in cities, generating a constantdemand for resources such as water. Currently, one in four cities around the world suffersfrom water stress, and projections indicate that water consumption will double every 20 years.
This situation has led to a series of measures to regulate water collection and distribution, as
well as updates in national water regulations and standards.
Chapter 11 describes the available water funds, a water resource conservation strategy inhotspot countries in detail, and Chapter 5 highlights the importance of KBAs as water
ecosystem service providers, both for human and agricultural consumption. Both initiatives
respond to increasingly recurrent pressures posed by droughts caused by climate change, forexample, those that occurred in Bolivia in 2016 and 2020, where a national emergency was
declared.

8.2.4 Biodiversity Financing Policies
Hotspot countries have developed a variety of mechanisms and instruments to finance theconservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The countries’ experience in financial
solutions management is diverse, with a greater degree of development in Colombia, Ecuador,
Peru and Chile. These countries all joined the global initiative "Finance for Biodiversity”(Finanzas para la Biodiversidad -BIOFIN) in 2015 to develop financing strategies for sectoral
policies and national biodiversity strategies, formulated to meet the Aichi Targets. As a result,
the region has a robust catalog of financial solutions adapted to national circumstances, which
are being applied by the countries to close the financial gaps identified and meet national
biodiversity conservation objectives.
Financing strategies for climate change management developed in the hotspot countries, aspart of the fulfillment of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris
Agreement, are equally important. In climate change management, the "ecosystems","biodiversity", or "natural heritage" sectors have been integrated to achieve greater efficiency
in the implementation of adaptation and mitigation measures. Climate finance, thus,
constitutes a new window of opportunity to achieve common objectives between global
agendas pursued by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. This favorable situation is reflected in Chapter 10.
As an example, Peru has achieved significant development in initiatives linked to the carbon
market regulated by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), while Ecuador and Colombia

180have done so under the mechanism of payment for results, through the REDD Early Movers(REM) program and the Green Climate Fund. Currently, these two mechanisms financemeasures and actions related to the protection of forests and water sources, restoration of
degraded ecosystems, control and surveillance, forest monitoring, and promotion of biocompanies, among other key actions taking place within the Tropical Andes Hotspot.
With the exception of Venezuela, all hotspot countries have submitted their third national
communications (TNC) to the UNFCCC. These documents detail, among other substantive
aspects, the financial flows, sources, destinations, mechanisms and instruments used bycountries to finance activities or projects aimed at or expected to result in the management ofgreenhouse gas emissions or adaptation to climate change. These reports also address themechanisms that the conservation sector has used to finance its initiatives, making them animportant reference source. At present, several hotspot countries are in the process of
preparing their fourth national communications, which is evidence of the commitment ofgovernments and states to achieve a gradual transition to low-carbon and climate-resilient
economic systems.
The following is a brief review of some of the public and private financing mechanisms thathave been implemented in the hotspot. It is intended to illustrate the orientation of public
policy and the opportunities that CSOs have been able to create, with support frominternational cooperation partners as well as the impact achieved in recent years.
In Ecuador, with an investment of approximately US$100 million, the Ministry of Environment
and Water (Ministerio del Ambiente y Agua - MAAE) administers the Socio Bosque Program(PSB by its acronym in Spanish), which has been in operation for 12 years and has led to theconservation of more than 1.6 million hectares of native forests in the country. Under its
investment in the Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena Hotspot, CEPF helped finance the pilot programthat served as the basis for establishing the Socio Bosque Program. The economic incentive
received by individual and collective landowners, especially indigenous peoples andnationalities, Afro-descendants and local communities, comes from fiscal sources andinternational cooperation. This incentive is reinvested in the protection of the area, theconservation of biodiversity and the promotion of production to meet food and incomegenerating needs. The program has three components or chapters: forests, páramos andmangroves. Several KBAs and other areas in the corridors receive funding from thismechanism: Reserva Ecológica Cofán-Bermejo (ECU60), Reserva Ecológica Cotacachi-Cayapas(ECU61), Territorio Étnico Awá y alrededores (ECU70) or Parque Nacional Sangay (ECU51), tomention just a few.
In Peru, the National Forest Conservation Program for Climate Change Mitigation (Programa
Nacional de Conservación de Bosques para la Mitigación del Cambio Climático - PNCBMCC),
administered by the Ministry of the Environment (MINAM by its acronym in Spanish), provides
an economic incentive and technical assistance to 275 communities in nine regions to promote
the conservation of approximately 2.9 million hectares of communal forests, benefiting morethan 15,000 families. Thanks to the incentive, communities are implementing sustainableproduction systems such as timber and non-timber resources management, ecotourism,
agroforestry with cacao and coffee, and fish farming, among other sustainable activities thatenable them to earn income, improve their quality of life, and ensure forest conservation.
The region has significant experience in the development of environmental funds. Chile has theEnvironmental Protection Fund, which is the first and only competitive national fund that
supports civil society environmental initiatives. The fund was created to support citizen
initiatives and fully or partially finance projects or activities aimed at protecting or repairingdamage to the environment, sustainable development, nature preservation or conservation of181

environmental heritage. In its last call, in 2019, the fund supported initiatives aimed atcontributing to the development and strengthening of the environmental education center
Parque Natural Cantalao Precordillera; Green Areas Contest; Local Environmental Management
Contest; Sustainable Schools Contest; and Indigenous Environmental Protection andManagement Contest.
Argentina Ambiental is a portal that supports the efforts of entrepreneurs, the government andthe community to improve quality of life, protect nature and promote sustainable
development. This portal operates the Fund for Environmental Conservation (Fondo para laConservación Ambiental), which in 2019 opened the tenth call to accompany and encourage
research and environmental management projects. The lines of financing are related toconservation in protected areas, management of invasive exotic species, renewable energies,
energy efficiency and urban environments. Similarly, the National Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock and Fisheries (2020) launched a call for sustainable environmental management
projects. This is a fund for non-refundable contributions of up to 60% of investments inrenewable energies and energy efficiency in productive establishments. This has been possible
thanks to the contribution of funds to technological modernization of the Provincial Agricultural
Services Program (Programa de Servicios Agrícolas Provinciales - PROSAP) managed by theGeneral Directorate of Sectoral and Special Programs and Projects (Dirección General deProgramas y Proyectos Sectoriales y Especiales - DIPROSE).
In Ecuador, the Sustainable Environmental Investment Fund (Fondo de Inversión Ambiental
Sostenible - FIAS) manages six accounts or funds with a range of themes: 1) management ofprotected areas; 2) eradication of invasive species in Galapagos; 3) payment for results indeforestation reduction; 4) financing Socio Bosque incentives; 5) management of marinecoastal ecosystems; and 6) management of the Galapagos Marine Reserve. FIAS is a trust
fund that has received contributions from various sources: international cooperation, private
sources, debt swaps, and others. It is important to highlight the contribution of approximately
US$ 2 million annually from the Protected Areas Fund (Fondo de Áreas Protegidas - FAP) tocover basic operating expenses of several protected areas, some of which are KBAs, locatedwithin the hotspot: Reserva Ecológica Cotacachi Cayapas (ECU61), Reserva Ecológica losIllinizas y alrededores (ECU42), El Angel-Cerro Golondrinas (ECU31), Parque Nacional Sangay(ECU51), Podocarpus (ECU50) and Llanganates (ECU49). Currently, this contribution isessential for the administration of the National System of Protected Areas.
In Peru, Profonanpe manages financial resources to implement programs and projects that
contribute to biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation and adaptation. With
more than 25 years of existence, Profonanpe has established itself as the most importantprivate environmental fund in Peru, whose institutional design allows it to manage trust funds.
In fact, Profonanpe leverages financial resources in the design and implementation stages of
initiatives (projects, programs and others) and applies financial strategies to achieve thehighest return on funds.
Certainly, the creation and management of environmental funds has been mainly related tothe experience of CSOs, particularly NGOs. However, in recent years, environmental funds
have gained recognition for their effectiveness and impact in meeting conservation goals andpromoting local development. At present, several environmental funds are part of public
policies in some of the hotspot countries. For example, in Ecuador, the Organic Environmental
Code (Código Orgánico del Ambiente), approved in 2017, created the National Environmental
Management Fund (Fondo Nacional de Gestión Ambiental), which is in the process of being
established.

182

Similarly, there are several environmental funds in the hotspot that maintain programs,
projects and open calls for proposals to finance initiatives for conservation, sustainable use andimprovement of the quality of life of the communities. An example of this is the Natural
Heritage Fund in Colombia, which since 2005 has executed 466 agreements in 177 projects
and programs. These have been implemented in 231 municipalities in 32 departments and 58
national protected areas, covering the country's main ecosystems. Along with Profonanpe in
Peru, the Natural Heritage Fund hosted the regional implementation team for the second phaseof CEPF's investment in the hotspot.
Regarding the management of water funds, there are several funds made up of a broad
spectrum of public organizations at the national and subnational levels, private entities andinternational cooperation: Argentina (Mendoza); Chile (Maipú river, Santiago); Peru (Lima andCallao); Ecuador (Quito, Cuenca and other municipalities in the Paute basin, Tungurahua
province with several municipalities, Guayaquil and the southern region of the country);
Colombia (Bogotá, Cali, Medellín, Cartagena, Santa Martha, Cúcuta, and Valle del Cauca withseveral municipalities) and Venezuela (Merida).
These mechanisms have allowed for mobilization of several tens of millions of dollars (seeChapter 11) to protect water sources, restore degraded ecosystems, and carry out research,environmental education, and sustainable production. CEPF has made a contribution to thedevelopment of these economic instruments for conservation. For example, between 2017 and2020, it supported Fundación Natura Bolivia in the creation of three municipal water funds inthe municipalities of Coroico, Caranavi and Yanacachi for the protection of 20,000 hectares
near several KBAs such as Cotapata (BOL13) and Parque Nacional and Área Natural de Manejo
Integrado Cotapata (BOL45), resulting in improved quantity and quality of the water supply for
4,000 families.
Finally, from the perspective of promoting innovative and sustainable ventures based on theuse and exploitation of biodiversity in the hotspot, it is important to mention the increase of
impact investments for the development of social ventures in the region. Institutions such as
Corporación de Fomento de la Producción (CORFO) in Chile or Alianza para el Empredimiento e
Inovación in Ecuador, as well as programs such as "Innóvate Perú", "Emprende Ecuador
Productivo" or "Colombia emprende e innova", are just some of the examples of financing
opportunities for sustainable ventures in which there has been significant coordination between
the government, academia and the private sector.

8.3 Overview of the Institutional Framework for Conservationin the Hotspot
8.3.1 Institutional Framework in Hotspot Countries
Argentina
Since Argentina is a federal state, its environmental governance is decentralized. According to
the National Constitution, the provinces have jurisdiction over their renewable natural
resources (forests, biodiversity, water) and non-renewable natural resources (hydrocarbons,mining), while the national government - in agreement with the provincial legislatures - is incharge of establishing legislation on minimum budget requirements for the environment andnatural resources.
The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development is the institution in charge ofenvironmental policy, sustainable development and rational use of natural resources such as

183

water, forests, wildlife, soil preservation and the fight against climate change. In addition, it
executes plans, programs and projects dedicated to these issues and is responsible for thecontrol, inspection and prevention of pollution. In addition, it promotes sustainable
development through actions that guarantee the quality of life, availability and conservation ofnatural resources.
The management and conservation of certain species, declared "national monuments", areregulated at the national level. In the hotspot area, these are the vicuña (Vicugna vicugna),
the Andean deer or taruca (Hippocamelus antisensis) and the jaguar (Panthera onca). All otherspecies are regulated under provincial legislation and regulations, as is also the case for nonrenewable natural resources.

Bolivia
The Ministry of Environment and Water is in charge of environmental planning, policy andmanagement. The Vice-Ministry of Environment, Biodiversity, Climate Change and Forest
Management and Development (VMA by its acronym in Spanish) is the national authority forbiodiversity and protected areas and supervises the national system of protected areas
through the National Protected Areas Service (Servicio Nacional de Áreas Protegidas SERNAP). In 2012, departmental governments received the power to administer protectedareas in order to improve their management. However, underfunding remains a trend,
especially due to continued budget cuts that affect SERNAP.
The Mother Earth Law has strengthened decentralization and the autonomous movement.
Subnational governments (departments and municipalities) have strengthened their legislative
frameworks (autonomous statutes and organic charters) with greater authority for landscapeplanning, sustainable use and conservation. Shared management of all protected areas thatoverlap with indigenous territories is an important mechanism that has emerged from Bolivia's
regulatory framework, affecting almost all of the country's protected areas. Shared
management of Community Territories of Origin (Territorios Comunitarios de Origen - TCO)
involves areas around several KBAs, such as the Parque Nacional y Territorio Indígena Isiboro
Sécure (TIPNIS by its acronym in Spanish) or the ANMIN Apolobamba, which borders the LecoQuechua Apolo Indigenous Territories (TCOs). In las Yungas Inferiores de Pilón Lajas (BOL37),
CEPF financed the preparation of the plan de vida (life plan) and the management plan for
Pilón Lajas Biosphere Reserve and Communal Lands, through the local indigenous authorities
during Phase II. CEPF's Phase II investments have served as catalysts for collaboration andoffer important lessons for future work in the KBAs within the Madidi-Pilón Lajas-Cotapata
Corridor.
Responsibility for granting environmental licenses for low-risk projects (those that do not
require environmental impact assessments) was transferred to the departmental and municipal
governments in 2011 (Supreme Decree No. 902) to adjust the review processes and to
expedite public investment in projects. Since 2008, road construction has been the sector withthe greatest public investment in the country and has caused conflicts with indigenous
territories (e.g., TIPNIS). Environmental authorities, both at the national and subnational
levels, often do not have the institutional capacity to significantly influence the national
government's public agenda.

Chile
The Ministry of the Environment and the Council of Ministers for Sustainability are the central
government entities that play vital roles in environmental and biodiversity issues. In addition,

184

the Environmental Advisory Councils are mechanisms for citizen participation whereenvironmental policy is formulated and discussed. The Ministerial Council includes delegatesfrom different sectors of the executive power (Agriculture, Finance, Health, Economy,
Transport, Energy, Public Works, Mines and others), while the Advisory Council represents
multiple stakeholders, e.g. academia, NGOs, private sector and labor.
Biodiversity, ecosystems and protected areas are managed by the Natural Resources andBiodiversity Division, while environmental impact in these areas is managed by autonomous
government services. The Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service is in charge of the National
System of State Wildlife Protected Areas (SNASPE by its acronym in Spanish), currently under
the National Forestry Corporation (Corporación Nacional Forestal - CONAF).
Environmental policy in the region is supervised by regional ministerial secretariats, which areentities of the Ministry of the Environment that coordinate policy implementation at the
subnational levels. These secretariats are responsible for collaborating with, and supporting,regional and municipal governments to incorporate environmental considerations into theirplans and strategies.
The Superintendency of the Environment and the Environmental Courts are responsible forenvironmental law enforcement in Chile. These functions are institutionally separate andindependent from the policy and programmatic functions of the Ministry of Environment.

Colombia
The management of natural resources and environment is organized in Colombia in the
National Environmental System (Sistema Nacional Ambiental – SINA), which integrates allnational, regional and local agencies responsible for environmental issues. The lead agency forenvironmental policy is the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MADS by
its acronym in Spanish) and it participates in various regional planning bodies to integratethese policies in other sectors. The SINA also includes:
•
•
•

•

•

Regional Autonomous Corporations (Corporaciones Autónomas Regionales - CAR),
environmental authorities with jurisdiction over specific territories established on thebasis of both political-administrative and ecological boundaries;
Departments and municipalities;
Public research institutions, which for the hotspot include the Alexander von Humboldt
Institute, the Pacific Environmental Research Institute (Instituto de Investigaciones
Ambientales del Pacífico), the Amazonian Institute of Scientific Research Sinchi(Instituto Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas Sinchi) (for the Amazonian slope of
the Andes), the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies(Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales - IDEAM) and the Center
for Research and Studies on Biodiversity and Genetic Resources (Centro deInvestigaciones y Estudios en Biodiversidad y Recursos Genéticos - CIEBREG);
The Administrative Unit of the National Parks System, which reports to the MADS, butwith a high degree of autonomy. At the operational level it is divided into six
Subsystems of Regional Protected Areas and six Thematic Subsystems of Protected
Areas.
NGOs whose missions include conservation and management of natural resources, aswell as civil society nature reserves (private protected areas) registered with thenational park system and environmental funds that are associated with the financing ofprotected areas. In Phase II, CEPF supported some projects aimed at the creation andstrengthening of CSO nature reserves.

185

CARs play a vital role in conservation and biodiversity, as they have authority over important
aspects of territorial planning, implementation and management in their jurisdictions. While
several CARs have strong institutional capacity, many still face significant gaps. In recent
years, CARs have undergone budget cut as legal reforms have reduced their share of royalty
revenues from oil and mining, historically an important source of funding for these entities, aswell as for conservation and land management. CEPF worked closely with the CAR of Cauca,
for example, to co-finance projects in some KBAs in Phase II.
Other national entities are responsible for the licensing and supervision of mining and oil
developments, including the National Environmental Licensing Authority (Autoridad Nacional de
Licencias Ambientales - ANLA), the National Mining Agency (Agencia Nacional de Minería ANM) and the National Hydrocarbons Agency (Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos - ANH), thelast two under the Ministry of Mines and Energy.

Ecuador
The Ministry of Environment and Water (Ministerio de Ambiente y Agua - MAAE) is thegoverning institution for environmental and water policy in Ecuador, with regional directorates
and technical offices distributed nationwide (the Water Secretariat merged with the Ministry ofEnvironment in 2018). Biodiversity and genetic resources are considered strategic sectors by
the Constitution; therefore, their management is the exclusive responsibility of the central
government. Biodiversity, protected areas and forests are managed by the MAAE, through theUndersecretariat of Natural Heritage, while climate change and environmental quality are
managed in conjunction with subnational governments.
Although efforts have been made to strengthen intersectoral and multilevel coordination, tomeet national biodiversity conservation objectives, in the last few years, progress has been
made only in certain areas. The subnational governments, for example, have shown keeninterest and have made significant progress in conservation area management. This has beendue, in part, to the value of natural areas for ecosystem services provision, such as water orlandscape, and the opportunity that this generates for the development of economic activities,
such as nature tourism, bio-entrepreneurship and sustainable agriculture.
For this reason, Ecuador has significantly increased the number of Conservation andSustainable Use Areas (Áreas de Conservación y Uso Sustentable - ACUS), which havecomplemented, at the subnational level, the representation of ecosystems in the National
System of Protected Areas and have contributed to connectivity between different conservation
units. CEPF has collaborated in the preparation of technical baseline studies and in the processof declaring several ACUS, including Intag-Toisán (ECU34), Abra de Zamora (ECU2), and the
Yunguilla Reserve (ECU65), contributing to local biodiversity conservation processes.

Peru
The Ministry of the Environment (MINAM by its acronym in Spanish) is the national entity incharge of environmental issues, including natural resource policy and management. Seven
institutions are part of MINAM, which include the National Service of Protected Areas (Servicio
Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado -SERNANP), responsible for theadministration of protected areas, both national and those delegated to third parties. Private
areas are important for conservation, and CEPF has contributed to strengthening them throughprojects such as the one developed in the Northeastern Conservation Corridor through the
Peruvian Society of Environmental Law (Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental – SPDA).

186

The Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (Ministerio de Desarrollo Agrario y Riego - MIDAGRI)
also plays a key role in establishing policies as well as in the administration andimplementation of forest and wildlife programs through its General Directorate of Forestry andWildlife (Dirección General Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre - DGFFS). This directorate is in chargeof proposing national policies, strategies, norms, plans, programs and projects related to thesustainable use of forest and wildlife resources and associated genetic resources, within thescope of its competence, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy andenvironmental regulations. It also acts as the CITES Management Authority.
The National Forestry and Wildlife Service (Servicio Nacional Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre SERFOR) is the national authority specialized in promoting decentralization and capacity
building of forestry authorities in the regions. San Martín, Madre de Dios and Cusco stand out
as regions that are developing institutional and regulatory capacities for environmental issues,for planning, management and enforcement in their jurisdictions.

Venezuela
Venezuela has a broad regulatory framework that supports the conservation of biodiversity,forest resources and wildlife. The management and conservation of natural resources aremainly the responsibility of central government institutions, including the Ministry of People's
Power for Ecosocialism (Ministerio del Poder Popular para el Ecosocialismo - MINEC), theMinistry of People's Power for Agriculture and Lands. (Ministerio del Poder Popular para
Agricultura y Tierras). The National Parks Institute (Instituto Nacional de Parques INPARQUES) is part of the MINEC and is responsible for the management of national parks,
monuments and Areas Under Special Administration Regime (Áreas Bajo Régimen de
Administración Especial -ABRAE). The special administration areas pertain to national territorial
development production, recreation and protection goals. INPARQUES and its subnational
offices supervise the environmental regulations that correspond to each of these protection
categories.
State governments often have Environmental and Social Development Departments that
implement projects locally. Municipalities have limited participation in conservation; theirinvolvement in environmental programs is usually confined to solid waste management andthe provision of water supply to coastal cities. State and municipal authorities contribute towater management, which offers an opportunity for partnerships to strengthen conservation
efforts.

8.3.2 Protected Area Management Legislation and Policies
All of the tropical Andean countries have made significant progress in consolidating national
protected area systems (Table 8.5). Although each country has established different
categories, standards and nomenclature for its protected areas, most of these are compatible
with the categories established by the IUCN. All countries have legal frameworks favorable toprotected areas and national agencies responsible for conducting conservation policy,
regulation, control and administration of protected area systems. While countries such as
Venezuela and Chile have regional agencies and offices in charge of protected areas, the otherhotspot countries have a central agency that coordinates the management of subnational
protected areas with regional, provincial or municipal jurisdictions.
Protected area systems also include World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves of the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), as well as Wetlands ofInternational Importance (Ramsar Convention), many of which overlap with national protected187

areas. Bolivia's protected areas system includes ecological corridors as a category ofprotection. The corridor supported by CEPF's previous investments serves as an internationalreference for successful corridor conservation. Several KBAs such as Bosque de Polylepis de
Madidi (BOL5), Cotapata (BOL13), and Yungas Inferiores de Pilón Lajas (BOL37) are part of
the Madidi-Pilón Lajas-Cotapata Corridor. CEPF's previous work in partnership with Civil
Association Armonía (Asociación Civil Armonía), Bolivian Association for Research andConservation of Andean-Amazonian Ecosystems (Asociación Boliviana para la Investigación yConservación de Ecosistemas Andino Amazónicos - ACEAA), T'simane Mosetene Regional
Council (Consejo Regional T'simane Mosetene), Wildlife Conservation Society and other CSOs
has increased the communities' capacity in territorial management and protection, as well assustainable livelihoods through cacao cultivation and ecotourism.
Subnational protected areas are also expanding, although many are under less strict protection
than national protected areas and have limited funding. In Argentina, the Federal System ofProtected Areas (Sistema Federal de Áreas Protegidas - SIFAP), coordinates the managementof protected areas across federal and provincial jurisdictions, with the intention ofstrengthening provincial protected area systems. Colombia's protected areas system also
includes both national and regional areas, with regional subsystems under the authority of the
CARs. In Peru and Ecuador, national systems integrate the conservation initiatives ofsubnational governments, although in Ecuador, several subnational governments have theirown protected area management systems (e.g. Metropolitan District of Quito) with little
articulation with the national system. Another form of area-based conservation implemented
by subnational governments in Ecuador is the ACUS. There is no national registry of the ACUS
created, but it is estimated that there are at least 15 areas under this denomination in the
hotspot.
The administration of protected area systems in the region is increasingly open to demands for
citizen participation in management and governance processes. Peru has applied a variety ofmanagement instruments, including public land concession mechanisms for long-term
conservation managed by private companies, NGOs or communities. Ecuador is building a
regulation to promote and guide social participation in protected area management. In
Colombia, civil society reserves can be formally recognized within the national system for theirrole in conservation and landscape connectivity. Ultimately, all countries have mechanisms forshared management with indigenous and local communities where protected areas overlap
collective territories.
Notwithstanding, protected areas throughout the region are still vulnerable to development
pressures from private and public projects, including road construction, mining, oil, logging
and hydro-generation concessions. Although significant progress has been made, theintegration of protected areas into territorial development models remains a pending task, as
do numerous cases of overlapping tenure and unfinished demarcation processes.

188

Table 8.5 Protected Area Institutions and GovernanceCountry

Description of
the National
SystemGovernment
Institutions
Involved

Observations on
Governance of Protected
Areas

Argentina

The Federal
System ofProtected Areas(Sistema Federalde Áreas
Protegidas -SIFAP)
supervises allnational areas andcoordinates
conservation policy
with subnational
levels.

SIFAP is managed by
an Executive
Committee formed by
the Ministry ofEnvironment andSustainable
Development(Technical
Administrative
Secretariat), COFEMA(Presidency), and APN(Coordination).

The National Parks
Administration (Administraciónde Parques Nacionales - APN) is
responsible for federal
coordination (national) with
provincial and municipal
governments. Some protectedareas of the federal system aremanaged by private
stakeholders and universities.
There are five indigenous andlocal communities with shared
management modalities with
SIFAP.

The National Protected
Areas Service (Servicio
Nacional de Áreas
Protegidas - SERNAP),
attached to the
Ministry of theEnvironment,
supervises national
areas and those undershared managementwith indigenous
groups. Municipal andlocal governments also
manage protectedareas.

Most areas have management
committees that serve as
venues for multi-stakeholder
decision-making. Where
indigenous territories overlap
protected areas, there is ashared management regime
Territorial Management with
Shared Responsibility (Gestión
Territorial con Responsabilidad
Compartida - GTRC).

Bolivia

The National
System ofProtected Areas(Sistema Nacionalde Áreas
Protegidas - SNAP)
includes areas at
the national anddepartmental
levels.

Chile

The National
System ofProtected Areas(Sistema Nacionalde Áreas
Protegidas SNASPE) includes
terrestrial, aquatic,
public and private
areas.

The SNASPE is
managed by the
National Forestry
Corporation(Corporación Nacional
Forestal - CONAF) andis responsible for the
integrated
management, often
through shared
management schemeswith private
stakeholders.

Since 2016, CONAF has been
implementing a new
management model for theadministration of nationalparks, which redefines key
aspects such as financing,biodiversity conservation andgovernance models for theState's protected wild areas.

Colombia

The National
System ofProtected Areas(Sistema Nacionalde Áreas
Protegidas SINAP) includes

SINAP is managed by
National Natural Parks(Parques Nacionales
Naturales), an
autonomous agency of
the Ministry ofEnvironment andProtection regimes include
national parks, civil society
reserves, and protected forest
reserves, among otherconservation and protectedarea categories. The CARs havethe power to declare regional

189

EcuadorPeruregional andthematic
subsystems ofnational, regional,
departmental,
municipal,
provincial,metropolitan or
any otherterritorial nature.

Sustainable
Development. It
coordinates with the
CARs, decentralized
public offices present
in each region. The
CARs have reached an
important level of
institutional
strengthening and areable to collect funding
from both public andprivate sources.

protected areas. There are 23
organizations registered with
National Parks that coordinate
natural reserves managed bycivil society. RESNATUR is thepioneer and the only one ofnational scope.

The National
System ofProtected Areas(Sistema Nacionalde Áreas
Protegidas - SNAP)
includes four
subsystems: areas
protected by thecentralgovernment; by
subnational
governments; bycommunities; andby private actors.

The Directorate ofProtected Areas andOther Forms ofConservation manage
the SNAP throughregional directorates
located throughout thecountry.
Environmental units
within the municipal orprovincial
governments
coordinate thesubnational systems ofprotected areas.

There are several indigenous
groups that have shared
management agreements
where protected areas overlap
their territories. The Private
Forest Network (Red deBosques Privados) supports thereserves of private
stakeholders (individuals,
NGOs, community
organizations). There are someconservation initiatives led bysubnational governments thathave established corridors andprotected areas.

The National Protected
Areas Service (Servicio
Nacional de Áreas
Protegidas por el
Estado - SERNANP) isthe lead agency forprotected areas and ispart of the Ministry of
the Environment.

Most protected areas havemanagement committees that
include the participation ofmultiple stakeholders.
Communal Reserves (Reservas
Comunales) are a category ofprotected area at the national
level and are managed under aspecial regime for theiradministration in which thecampesino or native
communities co-manage theseareas with the government.

The National
System ofProtected Areas(Sistema Nacionalde Áreas
Protegidas por el
Estado - SINANPE)
includes national,
regional andprivateconservation
areas.

Several private conservation
areas are managed byindigenous and local
communities and NGOs.

190

Venezuela

The National Parks
and Natural
Monuments
System (Sistema
de Parques
Nacionales y
Monumentos
Naturales) groups
all areas under theSpecialAdministration
Regime (Áreas
Bajo Régimen de
Administración
Especial - ABRAE).

The National Parks
Institute (Instituto
Nacional de Parques INPARQUES) is incharge of the System.
INPARQUES is part of
the Vice-Ministry of theEnvironment andoperates throughsubnational offices.

INPARQUES executes theconservation policy andmanages protected areas
through regional offices.

All hotspot countries have made significant progress in their financial sustainability strategies
for protected area management. Fiscal allocations, visitor revenues and the economic dynamic
generated by tourism are the main sources of income, although innovative compensation
mechanisms, payment for ecosystem services, donations, incentives, corporate responsibility
and crowdfunding have also been developed. FONAM and Fondo Patrimonio in Colombia, FIAS
in Ecuador and PROFONANPE in Peru are examples of national funds that have managed tomobilize significant financial resources for protected areas management.
In Bolivia, 50 percent of after-tax revenues from park entrance fees support protected areas
management (FUNDESNAP 2014). In Peru, resources generated in protected areas, such as
entrance fees, tourism services, payment for ecosystem services, and REDD projects are
reinvested in the SINANPE. In Venezuela, 5 percent of the budget for protected areas comesfrom resources generated by services and fees (ARA 2011). In Argentina and Chile, revenues
generated by protected areas contribute 30 and 27 percent of the protected areas budget,
respectively (RedLAC 2011).

8.4 Infrastructure and Multisectoral Development Strategies
8.4.1 Foreign Investment and Public Debt in Hotspot Countries
Foreign direct investment (FDI) has traditionally been an important element of the economies
of hotspot countries. However, unlike the period 2010 to 2015, FDI in the region has declined
since 2014 and is likely to continue to decline over the course of the following years (Figure8.1) (ECLAC 2018). In fact, since 2012, the decline in foreign investment flow has been almost
uninterrupted. In 2019, the five Latin American countries that received the highest FDI
included Colombia (9%), Chile (7%) and Peru (6%) (Figure 8.1). These values highlight therelationship of FDI flows with cycles in commodity prices, especially in South Americancountries. Indeed, according to ECLAC (2020) FDI incomes in 2019 were 25% lower than in
2012.

191

Figure 8.1 Foreign Direct Investment in Hotspot Countries (% of GDP), 2014 – 2019

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics and Balance of Payments database, World Bank,
Global Flows of Financing for Development, and World Bank and OECD GDP estimates. Available at:https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.WD.GD.ZS
A much more complex scenario for the world and for the Andean region is presented in 2020.
It is estimated that global FDI will fall by 40 percent in 2020 and by 5 to 10 percent in 2021,
with a slow recovery by 2022 (UNCTAD 2020). ECLAC estimates offer a negative outlook for
FDI in Latin America and the Caribbean, where the situation is particularly complex. Official
information for 2020, which in the case of some countries includes information up to the third
quarter and in others up to the second quarter, shows a decrease in FDI of 36% compared tothat recorded in the same period of 2019. The drops are considerably more pronounced in thecase of Peru, Colombia, Argentina and Chile as well as in countries outside the hotspot such as
Brazil and Mexico (ECLAC 2020).
In the particular case of China, the pace of international expansion slowed for the third
consecutive year in 2019, ranking fourth as an overseas investor behind Japan, the UnitedStates and the Netherlands, after having been the world's second-largest investor in 2018
(UNCTAD 2020). Between 2015 and 2020, China has emphasized acquisitions and mergers
with Latin American companies. The United States has shown a more accentuated interest in
making acquisitions in Europe. It should be kept in mind, however, that official FDI statistics
reflect the immediate origin of the capital and many of the flows arrive in the region throughthird-party countries, so it is not possible to identify them in national accounts. This isparticularly relevant in the case of Chinese investments, which tend to be underrepresented in
official statistics of FDI inflows by origin (ECLAC 2019).
Table 8.6 presents information compiled by two U.S. institutions that monitor China's global
investments. Here we can see the emphasis of this country on investing in strategic sectors
such as alternative energies and metal mining, mainly.

192

Table 8.6 Chinese Investment by Sector in the Andean Countries (US$ million)
Country

Agricult
ure

Alternative
Energies

Metals

Techn
ology

Transport$800$1,120$300$100$3,910$4,280Argentina

Financial

Logistics

Total$2,320Bolivia
Chile

$830

Colombia$9,020$230$140

Ecuador

$370

$920

Peru

$5,090Venezuela$2,070$920$4,160

$780

$110

$230

$10,370$2,070Source: China Global Investment Tracker, The American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Available in:https://www.aei.org/china-global-investment-tracker/

In terms of direct loans, excluding public debt bonds and other short-term commercial debt,
Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia are the Latin American countries most dependent on Chinese
financing.29 However, according to World Bank forecasts published in April 2020 (World Bank
2020), most Latin American countries are expected to substantially increase their public debt
this year. Ecuador, Colombia, Chile and Peru are among the seven Latin American countries
that will increase their public debt as a percentage of GDP in 2020.
From a trade perspective, the main export destinations for the hotspot countries, with the
exception of Bolivia, are the United States and China (Table 8.8).
Table 8.8 Main Export Destinations of Hotspot Countries (billions of dollars)Country

Venezuela

EcuadorColombia

Peru

United States

12.2

6.69

11.5

8.02

India

6.41

China

6.32

United ArabEmirates

1.8

Turkey

1

2.49
1.5

1.66

Chile

1.49

Panama

1.24

Argentina

10.6

4.23

25.3

4.34

0.723

13.3

3.05
3.07
1.86

South Korea

29

Chile

1.7

Peru

Ecuador

4.07

Bolivia

2.47

https://es.statista.com/grafico/19693/paises-que-mas-le-deben-a-china/

193

0.579

4.39

Japan

2.18

0.672

7.06

Brazil

1.72

3.39

Argentina

1.45

Vietnam

11

2.08

Source: The Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC). Retrieved from https://oec.world/es/profile/country/ven

8.4.2 Infrastructure and Multisectoral Development Strategies
From a regional integration perspective, infrastructure connectivity (roads, border crossings,
telecommunications, electric power) within and between the countries is still quite poor. Since
2000, South American countries have been working together to become better connected andmore integrated through infrastructure. The milestone that marked the beginning of this effort
was the creation of the Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in SouthAmerica (IIRSA by its acronym in Spanish) by South American presidents. Its objective was
the planning and implementation of infrastructure for regional integration. This initiative
allowed, for the first time, twelve South American countries to coordinate their agendas toaddress infrastructure issues jointly, taking into account the transport, energy andcommunications sectors.
Within the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) framework, the South Americancountries established a series of ministerial-level sectoral councils, one of which is the SouthAmerican Infrastructure and Planning Council (Consejo Suramericano de Infraestructura yPlaneamiento - COSIPLAN). The Council was conceived as a forum for political and strategic
discussion to plan and implement the integration of the regional infrastructure of UNASUR
member countries. IIRSA was incorporated as its technical forum. Thus, the ten years ofexperience and knowledge accumulated by this regional initiative formed the basis for
COSIPLAN's work.
The work of IIRSA between 2000 and 2010, and of COSIPLAN since 2011, was oriented to theplanning of infrastructure projects as a key component of the development of its territory. The
Indicative Territorial Planning Methodology was the instrument that made it possible to createa Portfolio of Integration Infrastructure Projects. This methodology is based on theidentification of nine integration and development axes, which organize the South American
territory and organize the project portfolio. The hotspot region is linked to two of these axes:
the Andean Axis and the Capricorn Axis. The portfolio is made up of a set of works with astrong impact on regional integration and socioeconomic development. It consists of transport,
energy and communications projects that promote regional connectivity and generate
sustainable economic and social development for South America.
The effective dissolution of UNASUR, following the departure of most of its countries in 2018,
weakened the institutional framework of IIRSA and has called into question the future of oneof the most important integration mechanisms in South America. Nevertheless, the countriesof the region continue, within their jurisdictions, to implement the main infrastructure projects
that were born within the framework of IIRSA and that were later promoted from COSIPLAN,
around the following axes: transport and logistics, air integration, ports and waterways,
railway integration, telecommunications, border integration and development, trade integrationand financing.
For 2017, COSIPLAN's project portfolio recorded a total of 562 projects with an estimatedinvestment of US$198.9 million, distributed as follows: an active portfolio composed of 409

194

projects with an estimated investment of US$150,405 million, and 153 completed projects for
an investment of US$48,496 million. Regarding the territorial dimension of the projects, 83
percent of the projects in the portfolio were national, 16 percent binational, and 1 percent
multinational. Anchor projects, i.e., those that generate synergies with others, reached an
estimated investment of US$15,475 million, which implies 8 percent of the financial effort ofthe entire portfolio (UNASUR 2017).30
The project portfolio was mostly composed of transport and energy projects, which accounted
for 72 and 28 percent of the estimated investment, respectively. The portfolio was largely
financed by the public sector (almost 60 percent of the estimated investment), a quarter was
financed by public-private initiatives, while the remaining 15 percent of the investment camefrom the private sector. The portfolio of 142 projects that are part of the Andean and Capricorn
axes, which are the ones impacting the hotspot, reached an estimated total investment of
US$43,992 million. The projects completed in the two axes represent a total investment of
US$3948 million that would have been executed up to 2017.
Table 8.8 shows information on the IIRSA project portfolio in the two integration axes that are
related to the hotspot. Further reference of the projects in the portfolio can be found in thelatest report prepared by COSIPLAN in 2017, which has been the source of information in thissection.

30

South American Council for Infrastructure and Planning (COSIPLAN), Project Portfolio 2017. UNASUR.

Quito, 2017.

195

Table 8.8 Selected IIRSA Road Projects and their Relationship with KBAs andCorridors within the Hotspot

Name

Projects andEstimated
Investment in
US$ billions

Potentially
Impacted
Corridors

Potentially Impacted KBAs

ANDEAN AXISParque Nacional Tirgua (General
Manuel Manrique) (VEN30)
Parque Nacional Macarao(VEN10)Venezuela (Norte
Llanero Axis) Colombia (NorthernZone) Connection

3 projects
Cordillera de la
Costa Central
2.0

Parque Nacional San Esteban(VEN13)
Valle de San Salvador (COL113)
Cuchilla de San Lorenzo (COL28)
Parque Nacional Henri Pittier (VEN9)Parque Natural Nacional Sierra
Nevada de Santa Marta y
Alrededores (COL110)
Reservas Comunitarias deRoncesvalles (COL95)
Haciendas Ganaderas del Norte delCauca (COL43)

Cordillera de la
Costa Central

Bosques de Tolemaida, Piscilago yalrededores (COL9)
Valle de Guayllabamba (ECU74)

Cotopaxi-Amaluza

Venezuela (Caracas)- Colombia (Bogota)- Ecuador (Quito)
current routeConnection

Refugio de Vida Silvestre Pasochoa(ECU55)

Norte de laCordillera Oriental

El Ángel - Cerro Golondrinas yalrededores (ECU31)

Cordillera Central

Fusagasuga (COL39)
Vereda Las Minas y alrededores(COL119)

10 projects

3,181.50

Parque Nacional Henri Pittier (VEN9)
Andes Venezolanos

Noreste de Quindío

Parque Nacional El Ávila yalrededores (VEN2)
Serranía de los Yariguíes (COL102)
Parque Nacional El Tamá (VEN6)

Awá-CotacachiIllinizas

Bosques Secos del Valle del Río
Chicamocha (COL12)
Rocas de Suesca (COL136)
Salinas de Ibarra (ECU93)
Rabanal (COL134)

196

Parque Nacional Cotopaxi (ECU48)
Venezuela (OrinocoApure Axis) Colombia (Bogotá)
III (low altitude
corridor) Connection

5 projects

37.3

Cordillera OrientalBogotá

Norte de laCordillera Oriental

Parque Nacional El Cocuy National(COL64)
Cañón del Río Guatiquía(COL16)

Cañón del Río Combeima (COL15)
Humedales de la Sabana de Bogotá(COL44)
Cordillera OrientalBogotá
Pacific - Bogota Meta - Orinoco Atlantic Connection

Región del Alto Calima (COL80)

4 projects

2,048.00

Reserva Natural Laguna de Sonso(COL89)ParaguasMunchique-BosquesMontanos del Sur
de Antioquia
Noreste de Quindío

Bosques de Tolemaida, Piscilago yalrededores – (COL9)
Reserva Forestal Yotoco (COL83)
Cuenca del Río Toche (COL32)
Bosques de la Falla del Tequendama(COL8)
Cañón del Río Guatiquía (COL16)

Colombia (Tumaco
port) - Ecuador(EsmeraldasGuayaquil port) Peru (Panamerican
Highway) Connection

20 projects

Colombia - Ecuador
II Connection(Bogota - Mocoa Tena - Zamora Palanda - -Loja)

5 projects

Peru - Ecuador II
Connection (Loja Integration Bridge Yurimaguas)

2 projects

Peru - Bolivia
Connection (Cusco La Paz - Tarija Bermejo)

4 projects

20,771.20

496.4

La Victoria-La
Cocha-Sibundoy
Norte de laCordillera Oriental
en Ecuador
Podocarpus Sangay

Cordillera de Huacamayos-San
Isidro-Sierra Azul (ECU25)
Alrededores de Amaluza (ECU6)Agua Rica (ECU4)
Conchay (ECU83)

Condor-KutukúPalanda

Zumba-Chito (ECU79) ColamboYacuri Protected Forest (ECU11)
Jaen-Bellavista (PER105)

Tarija-Jujuy

Reserva Biológica Cordillera de Sama
(BOL26)
Laguna Umayo (PER55) Ramis y
Arapa (Lago Titicaca, sector peruano)– (PER76) Lago Titicaca (sector
boliviano) (BOL20)

146.7

1,079.60

197

Capricorn Axis
Antofagasta - Paso
de Jama - Jujuy Resistencia Formosa - Asunción

25 projects
5,132.70

Salta - Villazón Yacuiba - Mariscal
Estigarribia

Tri-national Puna

Reserva Nacional Los Flamencos Soncor – (CHI10)
Quebrada del Toro (ARG37)
Lagunas Runtuyoc - Los Enamorados(ARG20)Quebrada del Toro (ARG37)

9 projects
899.6087 projects

TOTAL

33,795

Source: COSIPLAN-UNASUR, 2017

8.5 Indigenous Territories and Land Rights
Rights over territories, lands and natural resources are fundamental aspects for indigenous
peoples, Afro-descendants and local communities, since territory is a privileged space where
the right to self-determination and autonomy is exercised. Precisely because of theirimportance, the guarantees of territorial rights constitute the cornerstone for the design ofpolicies, plans and programs that comprehensively guarantee a set of fundamental collective
rights so that communities can develop their own agendas in line with national development
plans.
In general terms, there has been a growing recognition of indigenous peoples and their rights
in Latin American constitutions during the last four decades. Each country’s approach isdifferent: Chile does not formally recognize indigenous peoples; Colombia and Peru recognize
them as subjects of protection and include specific norms for the protection and participationof native communities; Argentina recognizes indigenous peoples as subjects of a limited set ofrights, addressing specific issues such as education in the corresponding indigenous language,
special land ownership regimes, and preventive and sanitation plans in indigenous
communities; and Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela recognize them more comprehensively as
collective subjects of rights (FILAC 2019).
To specifically verify the content, depth, robustness and integrity of the recognition ofindigenous territorial rights in the constitutions, ECLAC (2020) uses eight criteria to establish
the degree of progress in the region (Table 8.9).
Table 8.9 Constitutional Recognition of the Territorial Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Criteria/
Countries
Recognition of
the Collective
Nature of Land
Ownership
Recognition of
the Original
Nature ofIndigenous
Property Rights
Special Land
Protection

Argentina

Bolivia

X

X

X

X

X

X

Chile

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Venezuela

X

X

X

X

X

X

198

X

X

X

X

Demarcation
and Titling of
Indigenous
Lands
Expansion ofIndigenous
Lands
Control of
NaturalResources
Available on
Community
Lands
TravelProhibitions
Autonomy in
Indigenous
Territories
Source: ECLAC 2020.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

Regarding land demarcation and titling, as the main mechanism that guarantees the territorial
rights of indigenous peoples, Argentina has registered 1,687 communities, but has only
surveyed of 38.6 percent of them. Some 18.7 percent are in the process of demarcation andno property has been titled. In Bolivia, a total of 12.5 million hectares were titled by 2019. In
Colombia, 767 indigenous reserves have been legalized, with an approximate extension of 32.6
million hectares. In Peru, of 6020 campesino and indigenous communities, 78 percent weretitled as of 2019, encompassing an area of 21.2 million hectares.
In general, there is a gap in the implementation of the state’s obligation to demarcate, title
and clean up indigenous lands, the main mechanism to make these rights effective. Countries
in the region have not adapted their regulatory and institutional frameworks to the standardsof ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and the jurisprudence of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights.
As a result, indigenous peoples face multiple obstacles to the formalization of their land andterritory tenure. Among these obstacles are the following: (a) in many countries, procedures
are costly and inaccessible, and impose complex legal, technical and evidentiary requirementsthat are difficult to comply with; (b) state bodies impose delimitations that reduce community
lands by not recognizing customary law as the basis for indigenous property; (c) the
mechanisms for titling indigenous lands are usually more bureaucratic and complex than thosedefined for non-indigenous people, including companies; and (d) the absence of adequate
mechanisms for regularization prevents the real exercise of constitutional rights (ECLAC 2020).
In the hotspot, protected areas and indigenous territories frequently overlap. The
Sierra Nevada in Colombia exemplifies this often-tense relationship, as the area, which is also
affected by the country's internal armed conflict, is both a national park and home to fourindigenous groups (Kogui, Arhuacos, Wiwas and Kankuamos). There is a similar situation in
the Chimanes, Mosetenes and Tacanas territories in Bolivia, where the Biosphere Reserve andTierra Comunitaria de Origen Pilón Lajas overlap with the territory of these native groups.
Effective conservation in protected areas that overlap with native territories requires strategies
that reconcile the aspiration for indigenous autonomy over their territories with national
objectives and public conservation policies. The hotspot has been subject to interesting policy
development processes and experiences. Under the Bolivian law, for example, all protectedareas that overlap indigenous lands are subject to the principle of shared responsibility andmanagement. CEPF's previous investment in the hotspot supported capacity building in several

199

KBAs, such as Bosque de Polylepis de Madidi (BOL5) y Yungas Inferiores de Pilón Lajas(BOL37) and in the Awá territories located along the border between Ecuador and Colombia.
These experiences have generated important lessons for protected areas shared management
through multi-stakeholder dialogue.
Despite these advances, under all national laws in the hotspot countries, subsoil resources are
owned by the national government, limiting the effective authority of indigenous peoples overthe extraction of hydrocarbons and minerals from their territories. Several KBAs and corridors
experience this situation (e.g., the Trinational Puna Corridor shared by Argentina, Chile andBolivia; the Tucumán Yungas Corridor in Argentina, the Condor-Kutukú-Palanda Corridor in
Ecuador and Peru). National interests in infrastructure can cause conflicts with indigenous
territories, as was the example of the construction of the TIPNIS highway in Bolivia, which
would link the departments of Cochabamba and Beni, crossing the Isiboro Sécure Indigenous
Territory and National Park.
Processes of prior consultation with indigenous peoples in the hotspot region are being appliedwith different understandings and with different levels of depth and effectiveness. These
processes still need to be improved in order to strike a balance between state, corporate andcommunity interests, as well as to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples and local
communities.
In general, consultation processes occur in a context of political and economic asymmetry. The
underlying issue is that the development model that predominates in the region, with its focus
on the exploitation of natural resources to generate short-term income, must migrate to longterm development, based on principles of sustainability and equity with nature, poverty
alleviation, and recognition of human rights.

8.6 Conclusion
The political context in the Tropical Andes region presents multiple challenges for civilsociety organizations interested in biodiversity conservation. On the one hand, the renewal
processes for presidents, vice presidents and parliamentarians in several countries in theregion, between 2020 and 2021, occur at a particular moment in which at least threefactors of concern converge: (a) the export slowdown starting in 2018 which put an end to
the expansionary cycle initiated in 2016; (b) the crisis of political representation, corruption
and low citizen credibility in democratic institutions; and (c) the health and economic crisis
derived from COVID-19 that will cause a drop in around 9 percent of the regional GDP.
On the other hand, as a result of a series of economic and geopolitical interests at stake,previously vigorous regional integration processes have lost all dynamism and many ofthem have fallen into inaction. In this scenario, several regional agreements in favor of
biodiversity conservation have also lost attention and many of them remain a legitimate
aspiration of national governments. In addition to the unresolved political conflicts withinseveral of the hotspot countries, there are massive mobilizations of an indignant andempowered civil society, which demand profound changes in the states’ neoliberal modeland public policy management.
Furthermore, as a result of the polarization in regard to the extractive industry, especiallymining, the social, political and safety climate in certain KBAs in the hotspot has become
particularly complex. Multiple reports of persecution and even assassination of200

environmental leaders highlight how serious the current situation in the region really is.
However, even in the midst of uncertainty, examples of civil society organizations having a
positive impact on biodiversity conservation, particularly in local settings, demonstrate that
there is significant room for CEPF, its partners and allied organizations to act.

201

9 CIVIL SOCIETY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT
9.1 Introduction
CEPF's strategy is based on strengthening the capacity of civil society and improving
its impact on biodiversity conservation. Civil society is understood to include national
and international non-governmental stakeholders relevant to the achievement ofconservation objectives and goals, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
academic and research institutions, citizen networks and collectives, producer
associations, small businesses and entrepreneurial undertakings linked to biodiversity
conservation and social organizations, especially those of indigenous peoples.
CSOs have played an important role in environmental matters in the countries of theTropical Andes. However, there are limited published studies that systematically andthoroughly analyze institutional capacity to influence the environmental agenda. Mostof the publications of this nature are focused on various topics related to sustainable
development, citizen participation, democracy, governance and environmental
governance. Therefore, the information generated through 28 interviews with relevant
stakeholders in the region, surveys in all hotspot countries and four national
workshops with representatives of civil society in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia,
has been used as the basis for the preparation of this chapter.
This chapter offers an analytical look at the most dominant regional trends of the last
five years that have influenced the operation of CSOs linked to biodiversity
conservation in the hotspot, particularly their capacity to organize, mobilize andgenerate dialogue (Fleming 2017). These elements are fundamental in guiding CEPF's
intervention in the coming years, in view of the need to create enabling conditions that
contribute to the sustainability of CSOs.
The chapter is organized in four sections. The first introduces the environmental CSOs
working in the hotspot; the second presents an overview of the operating environment
for CSOs, with particular emphasis on CEPF's investment priority countries for the
coming years: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia; the third section summarizes aqualitative assessment of CSOs' capacities to positively influence conservation in the
hotspot; and finally, the chapter concludes with a synthesis of findings.

9.2 Characterization of Civil Society Actors and Networks inthe Environmental Sphere
In the 2015 ecosystem profiling process, some 300 civil society organizations working in the
Tropical Andes were identified, although it was stated that "... there are many more operating
at the local level or on related issues" (CEPF 2015). Indeed, in light of what CEPF defines ascivil society, there are certainly several hundred indigenous and campesino organizations in
the hotspot, including associations, cooperatives and microbusinesses. In other words, giventhat this is a region historically inhabited by a population that has made social organization
one of its strongholds, it is likely that there is a much larger number of CSOs in the hotspot.
During the ecosystem profile update, 390 organizations were identified, with Ecuador,
Colombia and Peru registering the highest number, as shown in Figures 9.1 and 9.2. In relative
terms, the national NGOs working in the hotspot constitute an important support base forconservation work.

202

Figure 9.1 Number of Civil Society Organizations Identified in Hotspot Countries(Total = 390)
95

100
86

90

80

No. organizations

80
70

58

60
50
40

32

30

20

20

19

10
0
Argentina

Bolivia

Chile

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Venezuela

Hotspot countries
Source: 2020 consultation process.

No. of organizations

Figure 9.2 Types of Civil Society Organizations Identified in Hotspot Countries (Total= 390)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Argentina

Bolivia

Chile

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Venezuela

Hotspot countries
National NGO

NGO Int.

PrivateAcademyLocal community

Source: 2020 consultation process.

9.2.1 Non-Governmental Organizations, Networks and Citizens' Collectives
The ecosystem profile prepared in 2015 provides a historical overview of the emergence andevolution of environmental NGOs. Trends in NGO performance in the hotspot are presented
below in order to highlight the progress made in the last five years.
Several of the national organizations that were created more than twenty years ago, such as
Fundación Natura in Colombia, Ecociencia in Ecuador and the Sociedad Peruana de Derecho
Ambiental - SPDA in Peru, continue to be key actors in their national contexts. On the other203

hand, organizations created in recent years offer a renewed perspective in terms ofapproaches, methodologies and use of tools, especially technological ones (e.g.,
LOGYCA/INVESTIGACIÓN in Colombia; BYOS in Ecuador; LIBÉLULA in Peru or ENERGÉTICA in
Bolivia).
A total of 164 national and subnational environmental NGOs, networks and citizen collectives
have been identified in the hotspot, 30 more than were identified in the previous ecosystemprofile. Their distribution by country and organizational type is presented in Figure 9.3 andTable 9.1. The increase in the number of organizations cannot necessarily be associated withgreater dynamism in the sector. As noted in the 2015 ecosystem profile, these organizations
focus on traditional activities of ecosystem conservation and restoration, sustainableproduction, research, KBA management, and endangered species protection. Fewerorganizations focus on emerging areas, such as the exploration of genetic resources, climatechange adaptation and mitigation, or biodiversity economics. Matters related to the promotionof intersectoral dialogue, political advocacy, environmental governance, conflict management,sustainable finance, promotion of rights, citizen oversight, environmental justice, among
others, are scarcely addressed.
Figure 9.3 Number of Environmental NGOs Identified in the Hotspot (Total = 164)
50
43

45

No. Organizations

40

36

35

33

30
25

19

20
15
10

13

10

10

5
0
Argentina

Bolivia

Chile

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Venezuela

Hotspot Countries
Source: 2020 consultation process.

Peru has the largest number of civil society organizations (see Figure 9.1), but ranks third interms of the number of environmental NGOs (see Figure 9.3). Colombia, on the other hand,ranks second in terms of the number of civil society organizations and is the country with thelargest number of environmental NGOs.

204

Table 9.1 National and Subnational Environmental NGOs Identified in the Hotspot
Argentina
Fundación para el Desarrollo en Justicia y Paz -FUNDAPAZ, Greenpeace; Fundación Vicuñas;
Camélidos y Ambiente -VÍCAM, Fundación Yuchán, ProYungas, Fundación para la Conservación yEstudio de la Biodiversidad -CEBIO, Fundación TEPEYAC, Acompañamiento Social de la Iglesia
Anglicana del Norte Argentino-ASOCIANA, Fundación Ecoandina.

Bolivia
Asociación Civil Armonía, Asociación Boliviana para la Investigación y Conservación de Ecosistemas
andino-Amazónicos-ACEAA, Asociación Huellitas; Centro de apoyo a la gestión sustentable del agua
y medio ambiente "Agua Sustentable", Centro de Estudios en Biología Teórica y Aplicada-BIOTA,
Cioec Bolivia, Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza – FAN, Fundación Conservación y Desarrollo
Bolivia, Fundación MedMin, Nativa Bolivia-Naturaleza, Tierra y Vida, Fundación Natura Bolivia,
Fundación para el Desarrollo del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (FUNDESNAP), Fundaciónpara el Periodismo, Fundación para el Desarrollo Productivo y Financiero PROFIN, FundaciónTRÓPICO, Liga de Defensa del Medio Ambiente -LIDEMA, Plataforma Boliviana frente al Cambio
Climático and Red de Investigadores en Herpetología-Universidad Pública de El Alto.

Chile
Así Conserva Chile, Casa de la Paz, Chile Sustentable, CODEFF, Fundación TERRAM, ParqueKatalapi, Sendero de Chile, Corporación de Estudios y Desarrollo Norte Grande, Centro de Estudiosdel Hombre del Desierto, Centro de Estudios de Humedales, Centro de Investigación del Recurso
Hídrico -CIDERH, Confraternidad Ecológica Universitaria and Proyecto para Servicios Ecosistémicos ProEcoServ.

Colombia
Asociación para el Desarrollo Campesino -ADC, Asociación para el Estudio y Conservación de las
Aves Acuáticas en Colombia -Calidris, Asociación Río Cali, Asoriobravo, CENSAT Agua Viva - Amigosde la Tierra Colombia, Centro de Investigación de Producción Agropecuaria Sostenible -CIPAV,
Corporación Autónoma Regional de las Cuencas de los Rios Negro y Nare -Cornare, Corporación
Ambiental y Forestal del Pacifico -CORFOPAL, Corporación para la Gestión Ambiental Biodiversa,
Corporación Salvamontes, Corporación Serraniagua, Corporación para el Desarrollo de Versalles Corpoversalles, Corporación Socio Ecológica para el Futuro de Bolívar -Ecofuturo, Fondo Acción,
Fondo para la Acción Ambiental y Niñez, Fondo Patrimonio Natural, Fundación Agrícola Himalaya,
Fundación Ambiental DapaViva, Fundación Conserva, Fundación Ecohabitats, Fundación Ecológica
Cafetera -FEC, Fundación Ecológica Fenicia Defensa Natural, Fundación Ecológica Los Colibríes de
Altaquer -FELCA, Fundación Ecotonos, Fundación Ecovivero, Fundación Farallones, Fundación
Ecológica Fedena, Fundación Humedales, Fundación Merenberg, Fundación Natura, Fundación parala Conservación del Patrimonio Natural de Colombia, Fundación para la Conservación y el Desarrollo
Sostenible (FCDS), Fundación para la Defensa del Interés Público, Fundación ProAves, Fundación
Pro-Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Tropenbos Colombia, Fundación Trópico, Fundación Botánica yZoológica de Barranquilla -FUNDAZOO, Maestros del Agua, Corporación Paisajes Rurales andAsociación Red Colombiana de Reservas Naturales de la Sociedad Civil -Resnatur, Red ABC (Agua,
Biodiversidad y Clima).

EcuadorAsociación de Bosques y Páramos para la Vida Imbabura, Estación Científica Los Cedros, Naturalezay Cultura Internacional, Fundación Jambatu-Centro Jambatu de Investigación y Conservación deAnfibios, Fundación Heifer Ecuador, Corporación Toisán, Mancomunidad del Chocó Andino,
Fundación Alternativa para el Desarrollo Sustentable en el Trópico -ALTRÓPICO, Fundación205

Ecológica Arcoiris -FAI, Fundación Ecuatoriana para la investigación y conservación de las aves ysus hábitats (Aves y Conservación), Centro de Derechos Económicos y Sociales -CDES,
Coordinadora Ecuatoriana de Agroecología -CEA, Centro de Educación y Promoción Popular-CEPP,
Fundación Central Ecuatoriana de Servicios Agrícolas-CESA, Fundación Ecuatoriana de Estudios
Ecológicos-Ecociencia, Corporación de Gestión y Derecho Ambiental (Ecolex), Fundación Ecominga,
Fundación Cóndor Andino, Fundación Zoológica del Ecuador, Fundación Botánica de los Andes,
Fundación Jatun Sacha, Fundación Maquipucuna, Fundación Maquita Cushunchic -MCCH,
Corporación Oikos, Fundación Pachamama, Fundación Paisajes Sostenibles -PASOS, Corporación
Nacional de Bosques y Reservas Privadas del Ecuador, Grupo Nacional de Certificación Forestal
Voluntaria CEFOVE-FSC, CEDENMA, Fundación de Conservación Jocotoco, Fondo Ecuatoriano
Populorum Progressio -FEPP, Mindo Cloudforest Foundation, CONDESAN, Consorcio TICCA,
Fundación Futuro Latinoamericano -FFLA, Fondo de Inversión Ambiental Sostenible -FIAS.

Peru
Aldea Yanapay, Amazónicos por la Amazonia -AMPA, Asociación de Conservación de la Cuenca
Amazónica -ACCA, Asociación de Producción y Desarrollo Sostenible -APRODES, Asociación dePromoción y Desarrollo "El Taller", Asociación Ecológica del Sira - ECOSIRA, Asociación EcosistemasAndinos - ECOAN, Asociación Especializada para el Desarrollo Sostenible -AEDES, Asociación
Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana -AIDESEP, Asociación para la Investigación yDesarrollo Integral -AIDER, Asociación Peruana para la Conservación de la Naturaleza -APECO,
Asociación Proyecto Mono Tocón, Avisa – Sociedad Zoológica de Fránkfurt Perú -FZS Perú, Centro
de Conservación, Investigación y Manejo de Áreas Naturales -CIMA, Centro de Estudios Andinos
Regionales "Bartolomé de las Casas"-CBC, Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo Regional -CEDER,
Centro de Estudios y Promoción del Desarrollo-DESCO, Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo Selva
Alta -CEDISA, Centro de Ornitología y Biodiversidad -CORBIDI, Centro Guamán Poma de Ayala,
Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales -DAR, Estudios Amazónicos -URKU, Instituto de Cultivos
Tropicales ICT, Fondo de las Américas -FONDAM, Fundación Peruana para la Conservación de la
Naturaleza - PRONATURALEZA, GRUPO GEA, Grupo SEPAR, Instituto de Desarrollo y Medio
Ambiente -IDMA, Instituto del Bien Común -IBC, PROVIDA, Red de Conservación Voluntaria deAmazonas -Red AMA, Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental -SPDA and Yunkawasi.

Venezuela
Asociación Venezolana para la Conservación de Áreas Naturales -ACOANA, Acción Campesina,
Fundación Programa Andes Tropicales, Geografía Viva, Tatuy, Cátedra de la Paz y Derechos
Humanos "Mons. Oscar Arnulfo Romero", ConBiVe, Fundación Tierra Viva, Provita, Fundación La
Salle.

In relative terms, Colombia (43), Ecuador (36) and Peru (33) have the largest communities ofNGOs, networks and citizen collectives working on environmental issues. Despite this, it is not
yet possible to say that a robust institutional fabric has been formed within the sector thatoffers opportunities for scaling up, sustainability and impact of conservation investments. On
the contrary, there are still several challenges and limitations to consider. One of them isrelated to the wide variation in 'NGOs' technical and financial resources, as discussed below.
Citizen Networks and Collectives
Eighty-three citizen networks and collectives have been identified in the hotspot countries(Figure 9.4.). These groups are an expression of civil society's capacity to mobilize in order toachieve common goals. The advancement of extractive industries policies, mainly for mining,has triggered the mobilization and coming together of social organizations and civil societycollectives (Table 9.2).

206

Formal networks include those promoted by governments and those linked to particular
initiatives (e.g., REDD working groups in Peru and Ecuador; national committees on wetlands,
threatened species); those associated with protected areas such as management committees(e.g., biosphere reserve networks in Bolivia, Argentina, Ecuador); and those that connect
private stakeholders and NGOs (e.g., Resnatur in Colombia, National Voluntary Certification
Group (Grupo Nacional de Certificación Voluntaria – CEFOVE) in Ecuador. However, there arealso many informal voluntary networks that are not generally recognized under national
regulations but play a role in information exchange and capacity building (e.g., working groups
and rural entrepreneurship networks). There are also five regional networks that are active
and work on the following themes: environmental funds management; collective rights, socialand environmental sustainability; climate action; conservation and sustainable use of
Amazonian ecosystems and monitoring of climate change impacts on biodiversity in the HighAndes.
Figure 9.4 Number of Networks and Citizen Collectives Identified in Hotspot
Countries (Total = 83)
25
22
19

Nº Organizations
No. organizaciones

20

15

10

9

10
8
6
4

5

5

0
Argentina

Bolivia

Chile

Colombia

Ecuador

Perú

Venezuela

Regionales

PasiesCountries
del hotspot
Hotspot

Source: 2020 profile update.

Table 9.2 Citizen Networks and Groups Identified in the Hotspot
Civil Society Networks
Argentina
Consejo Asesor del Comité para el Desarrollo de las Regiones Montañosas, technical network
coordinated by the government, Red Flamencos, network of flamingo researchers in Chile, Bolivia,
Argentina and Peru, Red Puna, network of indigenous and campesino communities of the Puna andQuebrada de Jujuy, Espejo de Sal, network of community and indigenous organizations to promotesustainable tourism, Red Agroforestal with more than 15 organizations that promote agroforestry
production in the provinces of Salta and Jujuy, Redes Chaco, a network of networks that coordinate
NGOs, community organizations, private sector and research centers promoting sustainable
development in the Chaco biome, Grupo Promotor de la Reserva de Biosfera Yungas, a multi-

207stakeholder forum established for the sustainable and collaborative management of the Reserva deBiosfera de las Yungas, Red Nacional de Áreas Protegidas Privadas, coordinated by Fundación Vida
Silvestre, Red de Reservas de Biosfera, coordinated by Comité MAB.
Chile
Red Flamencos, network of flamingo researchers in Chile, Bolivia, Argentina and Peru, Comités deGestión Pública de Humedales, government-led networks of wetland researchers, Comités de Gestión
Pública de Biodiversidad, government-led networks, Red Alianza Gato Andino, research network focusedon the Andean cat.
Bolivia
Liga de Defensa del Medio Ambiente -LIDEMA, a network of 27 environmental organizations present innine departments in Bolivia, Plataforma Boliviana de Acción Frente al Cambio Climático, Red deInvestigadores en Herpetología - Universidad Pública de El Alto, Coordinadora de Integración de
Organizaciones Económicas Campesinas, Indígenas y Originarias de Bolivia -CIOEC-BOLIVIA,
Coordinadora de Organizaciones No Gubernamentales Internacional - CONGI, GIT Oro responsable,
Central de Pueblos Indígenas de La Paz -CPILAP, joins indigenous peoples, Comité impulsor del turismo
y conservación ambiental.
Colombia
Red de Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil con Reservas Naturales - RESNATUR, with more than 280
members throughout the country, Red de Agricultura Sostenible, Red Nacional de Productores
Certificados por Rainforest Alliance, Red de organizaciones por el Agua, linked to CENSAT-Agua Viva,
which promotes sustainable watershed management, Red de Custodios de Semillas with community
organizations in the Colombian Massif, Red de Alter Extractivismo, opposed to extractive activities, Red
de Consejos Comunitarios del Pacífico Sur - RECOMPAZ, with Afro-descendant organizations mainly in
the Chocó region, Red de Turismo Sostenible, promotes exchange and good practices in sustainable
tourism, with a large number of members throughout the country (community operations, medium andlarge operations), Red por la Conservación del Cerro San Antonio, Comité de Conservación de la
Oophaga lehmanni, Comité de trabajo por el Páramo del Duende, Comité de trabajo por la Serranía delos Paraguas, Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE), Red de Observadores de Aves del Piedemonte Costerode Nariño, Paraguas-Munchique-Bosques Montanos del Sur de Antioquia and Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas
corridors’ KBA network, Group of organizations working for the protection of environmental leaders in
the Nariño lowlands, Red de Iniciativas de Conservación de Piedemonte Andino Costero Nariñense,
Corredor de Vida de la Gran Familia Awá Binacional, Mesa Técnica del ACB-Bosque de San Antonio,
SIDAP Del Valle, Mesa Técnica del ACB COL7, eight organizations.
Ecuador
Coordinadora Ecuatoriana de Organizaciones para la Defensa de la Naturaleza y el Medio Ambiente CEDENMA, Grupo Nacional de Trabajo sobre Certificación Forestal Voluntaria -CEFOVE, Mancomunidad
de la Bioregión del Chocó Andino - MCA, Corporación TOISÁN, Colectivo Caminantes, Ecuador's national
network of private forest owners (Corporación Nacional de Bosques Privados del Ecuador), Multistakeholder REDD+ Roundtable Working Group convened by the Ministerio de Ambiente y Agua,
Consorcio TICCA, Initiativa Regional de Monitoreo Hidrológico de Ecosistemas Andinos - IMHEA, a
network of public, private and mixed technical-scientific and management entities, coordinated by
CONDESAN and the Grupo de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambiente of the Universidad de Cuenca, with eight
academic partners from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Plataforma de investigación y monitoreo de labiodiversidad en la region sur del Ecuador, convenio de la Fundación Alemana para la Investigación(DFG) in coordination with Ecuadorian universities and organizations such as NCI, Fondo Regional deAgua – FORAGUA, Fondo del Agua para la Conservación de la cuenca del rio Paute -FONAPA, RED JASE,
Red de Jovenes del Chocó Andino, the Network of rural entrepreneurs, Network of rural women, RedBio,a platform for articulation between academia, society and government, to put forward proposals based208

on research, Grupo de Trabajo de anfibios en el Corredor de Conectividad Sangay Podocarpus, Grupo deTrabajo de conflictos fauna-gente en el Corredor de Conectividad Sangay Podocarpus, Grupo deTrabajo para la Conservación del Cóndor Andino, Grupo de Trabajo para la Conservación de las Aves
Rapaces de Ecuador.
Peru
Red de Conservación Privada y Comunal para San Martín, network of NGOs and community
organizations linked to conservation initiatives in the San Martin region, Grupo REDD+ Perú, national
working group on REDD+ issues, with participation of civil society, public sector and private sector,
Mesa REDD de San Martín, multi-stakeholder forum for discussion of REDD+ initiatives in the region,
Mesa REDD de Madre de Dios, Comisiones Ambientales Regionales, multi-stakeholder forums led by theConsejos Ambientales Nacionales for discussion of environmental policies at the regional level, Red deÁreas de Conservación Privada Amazonas, network of private protected areas in the Amazon region,
Red Muqui, network of national and local civil society organizations in areas affected by mining
activities, Red de Conservación Voluntaria de Amazona s -RED AMA, made up of individual andcommunal voluntary conservation initiatives in the Amazon region, Red de ciencia ciudadana para la
Amazonía, Red de Áreas de Conservación Voluntaria del Cusco.
Venezuela
Red de Aliados para la Sinergia en la Gestión Ambiental del Estado Lara, communication network forgovernment and non-governmental environmentalists working in the state of Lara, Asociación de
Productores Integrales del Páramo - PROINPA, network of producers in Mérida, Colectivo Mano a Mano,
informal coalition working in agroecology, Red de Centros de Ciencia, Tecnología y Educación Ambiental- CCTEA, network of research, technology and environmental centers linked to the Ministry of
Education, Red Social de Cooperación Andina, network of 12 organizations in Táchira, Mérida andTrujillo, promoted by Uniandes, Red ARA, network of non-governmental organizations working at thenational and subnational levels.
Regional Networks
Red de Fondos Ambientales de América Latina - REDLAC, Red Amazónica de Información
SocioAmbiental Georreferenciada -RAISG, a network of environmental organizations that generate,exchange and disseminate maps and other geospatial data on the Amazon, focused on strengthening
collective rights, social and environmental sustainability, Plataforma Climática Latinoamericana - PCL, a
network of researchers and NGOs working on issues related to climate change, with more than 25
members throughout Latin America, Articulación Regional Amazónica - ARA Regional, a Pan-Amazonian
network composed of national Amazonian networks (national ARAs) aimed at reducing deforestation asa mechanism to mitigate the effects of climate change and impacts on biodiversity, including otherdimensions of the social, environmental, and cultural problems of Amazonian ecosystems, GLORIAAndes Andean Monitoring Network, formed by institutions from Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador,
Peru and Venezuela, created to monitor and document the impact of climate change on biodiversity in
the High Andes and facilitate the analysis and exchange of information.

The national consultation workshops highlighted the importance of developing the potential of
citizen networks and collectives, as well as advancing the design of a long-term strategy that
promotes collaborative work with a view to achieving the "graduation" of organizations withrespect to the support they receive from CEPF in the hotspot. This recognition comes from the'organizations' need to build social resilience in the face of increasing threats that jeopardize
the stability of natural, economic and socio-ecological systems.

209

International Environmental NGOs
International NGOs and cooperation agencies have made contributions to the fulfillment ofinternational commitments, such as the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the
Aichi Targets, and to the implementation of the various resolutions adopted at several
conventions and protocols, such as RAMSAR, CMS, and the Man and the Biosphere Program of
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (MAB-UNESCO). The
contribution of international CSOs has been vital, both for the financial support provided andthe technical assistance given. Their successful track record highlights the importance of NGOs
as partners in conservation efforts, although, as mentioned earlier in this chapter anddescribed in Chapter 11 on current conservation investment, the financial gap in meeting
global conservation targets is widening.
The worldwide recognition of the Tropical Andes as a biodiversity hotspot of high importancehas promoted the increased participation of at least 24 international organizations (Table 9.3.)
that, in alliance with national and local organizations, have achieved significant results:
increased effectiveness of protected area management; landscape approaches to biodiversity
management; ecosystem monitoring and response to climate change; reduction of threats towild populations of endangered species; implementation of adaptation measures andsustainable land management; economic incentives for conservation, including mechanisms forpayment and reimbursement for ecosystem services.
Table 9.3 Key International Environmental NGOs Identified in the Hotspot (Total =24)
Country

Name of Organization

Bolivia

Conservation International (CI), Conservation Strategy Fund (CSF), The Nature
Conservancy (TNC), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Wildlife Fund (WWF),
Nature Serve, Panthera, Fundación CODESPA and Fundación AVINA.

Colombia

Audubon, Conservation International (CI), Rainforest Alliance, The Nature Conservancy(TNC), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Rare andPanthera.

EcuadorAmerican Bird Conservancy, BirdLife International, Conservation International (CI),International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)/South, Rainforest Alliance, The
Nature Conservancy (TNC), Nature & Culture International (NCI), Fundación AVINA,
Fauna & Flora International (FFI), CONDESAN, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS).

Peru

CARE, CARITAS, Conservation International (CI), Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS),
Rainforest Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Wildlife Fund (WWF),
Practical Action, CONDESAN, Nature & Culture International (NCI), Forest Trends,
Helvetas, Panthera, and Rainforest Alliance.

Venezuela

The Nature Conservancy (TNC).

Indigenous Peoples and Community Organizations
The forms of organization of indigenous communities, peoples and nationalities in the hotspot
reflect a diversity of cultures, visions, interests and survival strategies. However,interculturality, plurinationality and self-determination continue to be the main axes of politicalaction of indigenous movements and community-based organizations in the hotspot. The social

210

struggle has added a new meaning to these axes, mainly linked to the defense of territories
against the advance of extractive natural resources models (chiefly minerals), which puts
nature and people's lives at risk.
The historical, territorial and cultural base that nurtures the organizational life of indigenous
peoples and nations has been key in guiding, sustaining and strengthening the efforts of NGOs
and institutions concerned with the deterioration of natural resources, biodiversity loss andclimate change. The convergence of agendas of environmental and indigenous peoples'organizations has led to successful implementation of emblematic initiatives such as the
Amazonia 2.0 Project (implemented by IUCN and its allies in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador,
Guyana, Peru and Suriname), and the Adaptación a los Impactos del Cambio Climático en
Recursos Hídricos en los Andes – AICCA project, implemented by the Corporación Andina de
Fomento -CAF and executed by CONDESAN in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.
The Tropical Andes Hotspot offers abundant examples of shared management of protectedareas, protection of water sources, sustainable land management, biodiversity monitoring withthe active participation of indigenous and local communities. In countries such as Bolivia,
Ecuador, Colombia and Peru, the overlap between protected areas and indigenous territories
has tested the capacity for dialogue between governments and local communities to develop
common agendas and design instruments for collaborative natural resource management.
Thus, a number of multilevel governance mechanisms—such as management committees,roundtables, platforms and networks—offer lessons that have inspired other countries. For
example, the Consejo Regional T'simane Mosetene (CRTM) of the Reserva de Biosfera Pilón
Lajas, supported by CEPF, is an inspiring example of indigenous-led governance in a protected
area. In Ecuador, the work carried out by the Corporación Toisán on biodiversity conservationand promotion of sustainable development initiatives in the Intag Valley, with CEPF's support,
also provides positive lessons in participatory territorial management.
In the hotspot sections of the seven countries, a total of 67 second and third degreecommunity and indigenous organizations were identified (e.g., federations and confederations)(Figure 9.5 and Table 9.4). This figure is only for reference, as there could be several hundredcommunity-based organizations (first degree) in the hotspot.

211

Figure 9.5 Number of Community and Indigenous Organizations Identified in the
Hotspot (Total = 67)
17

18
15

16
13

No. Organizations

14

12

12
10
8

6

6
4

2

2

2

0
Argentina

Bolivia

Chile

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Venezuela

Hotspot Countries

In terms of the number of community organizations, of second and third degree mainly, Peru
ranks first, followed by Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador. Although these figures are merely
indicative, it is well-known that there is a limited number of community and indigenousorganizations in Venezuela and Chile that work directly within the hotspot.
Table 9.4 Community and Indigenous Organizations in the Hotspot
Country

Main Scale of
ActionNational

Argentina
Subnational

National

Bolivia
Subnational

Name of Organization
Organización Nacional de Pueblos Indígenas de la Argentina ONPIA.
Asambleas de los Pueblos Guaraníes (in the provinces of
Tucumán, Jujuy, Salta), Asociación Diaguita de Tucumán,Comunidades de Valle de Tafí, Consejo de Organizaciones
Aborígenes de Jujuy COAJ, indigenous and local communities in
Rinconada.
Confederación de Pueblos Indígenas del Oriente Boliviano CIDOB.
Central Indígena de Mujeres Lecas de Apolo -CIMLA, Central
Indígena del Pueblo Leco de Apolo -CIPLA, Central de Pueblos
Indígenas de La Paz -CPILAP, Consejo Indígena del Pueblo
Tacana -CIPTA, Consejo Regional T'simane Mosetene -CRTM,
Coordinadora de Pueblos Indígenas del Trópico de CochabambaCPITCO, Federación Originaria Intercultural de Yungas deCarijana -FOYCAE, Federación Única de Trabajadores Bautista
Saavedra, Federación Única de Trabajadores Campesinos Franz
Tamayo, Nación Kallawaya, Pueblo Indígena Leco andComunidades Originarias de Larecaja-PILCOL.

212

ChileSubnational

Consejo Nacional Aymara (in the provinces of Iquique, Arica andParinacota)

National

Proceso de Comunidades Negras -PCN, Consejo Territorial deCabildos, Organización Nacional Indígena de Colombia -ONIC,
Organización Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas de la Amazonía
Colombiana-OPIAC.

Subnational

Asociación de Desarrollo Campesino del Norte del Cauca ARDECAN, Consejo Regional Indígena del Cauca -CRIC,
Resguardos Indígenas de Arhuaco, Kogui-Malayo-Arhuaco y
Kankuamo; Unidad Indígena del Pueblo Awá -UNIPA -Resguardo
El Gran Sábalo; Asociación de productores agroecológicos delmunicipio de San José del Palmar Choco-ASOPALMAR,
Organización Gonawindua Tayrona - Resguardo Kogui Malayo
Arhuaco; Organización Wiwa Golkushe Tayrona; Resguardo
Palmar Imbi -CAMAWARI, Resguardo Pialapí Pueblo Viejo Reserva Natural la Planada, Asociación para el Desarrollo
Campesino, Asociación de Autoridades Tradicionales and Cabildos
Indígenas Awá.

National

Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador CONAIE; Confederación Nacional de Organizaciones Campesinas,
Indígenas y Negras- FENOCIN; Consejo de Pueblos yOrganizaciones Indígenas Evangélicos del Ecuador -FEINE;
Federación Ecuatoriana de Indios -FEI.

Subnational

Confederación de Pueblos de la Nacionalidad Kichwa del Ecuador-ECUARUNARI, Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas de laAmazonía Ecuatoriana -CONFENIAE, Confederación deNacionalidades Indígenas de la Costa Ecuatoriana -CONAICE,
Federación de Centros Awá del Ecuador-FCAE, Federación deCentros Chachi del Ecuador- FECCHE, Federación Interprovincial
de Centros Shuar -FICSH, Nacionalidad Shuar del EcuadorNASHE, Pueblo Shuar Arutam -PSHA.

Colombia

EcuadorNational

Peru
Subnational

Confederación Nacional Agraria -CNA; Confederación deNacionalidades Amazónicas del Perú-CONAP, Organización
Nacional de Mujeres Indígenas Andinas y Amazónicas del Perú ONAMIAP, Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva
Peruana -AIDESEP.
Comité de Gestión de Bosques in Cuzco; Comunidades Indígenas,
Nativas y Campesinas Washipaeri, Ashsaninka, Matshigenka;
Organización de comunidades Awajun in the Cordillera del Cóndor-ODECROFOC, Organización de Mujeres Kichwas chocolateras"Chocowarmi"; Gobierno Territorial Autónomo de la Nación
Wampis -GTANW, Organización Regional de Pueblos Indígenas dela Amazonía Norte del Perú -ORPIAN-P, Coordinadora deDesarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de la región San Martín CODEPISAM, Asociación Regional de Pueblos Indígenas de laSelva Central -ARPI-SC, Consejo Machiguenga del Río UrubambaCOMARU, Federación Nativa del Río Madre de Dios y AfluentesFENAMAD, Mujeres Shawi artesanas textiles y ceramistas;
Asociación de Sectoristas Villa Cadena; Asociación Camanti
Sostenible.

The nature of these organizations, which are closely linked to community management of
natural resources, has been the main strength of sustainable biodiversity conservation and213management processes promoted in the hotspot. These organizations' technical capacities
have also improved in recent years thanks, in part, to the opportunities generated by nationaland regional projects that have emphasized training, experience exchange, leadership training
and participation in international forums. Socio Bosque in Ecuador is one such national
initiative; examples of regional projects include EcoAndes in Peru and Ecuador and Amazonia
2.0 in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru and Suriname.
It is important to mention the experience of the Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenasde la Cuenca Amazónica COICA, an indigenous international organization that focuses its
efforts on the promotion, protection and security of indigenous peoples and territories throughthe defense of their ways of life, principles and values. The political presence of COICA andother organizations has revolved around the vindication of the right to self-determination andself-government of their territories. As in the case of the process of discussion of theautonomous statute being carried out by the Wampis nation in Peru. The path taken by theseorganizations in the last five years has been complex, marked by opposition, disinterest andeven persecution, so that the full exercise of their collective rights is still a pending task.
Frequently, certain public bodies and trade organizations label the struggle of indigenous
peoples as "anti-mining", thus dismissing their historical demand for the construction ofplurinational and intercultural states that manage public policies "with" and "from" thepeoples and nations. Consequently, the influence of these organizations on the public policy
agenda in the hotspot continues to be limited, especially in decisions regarding the
expansion of extractive industries and the management of its associated social andenvironmental risks.
There are several points of convergence and collaboration between indigenous organizations
and NGOs, especially in relation to protected areas that overlap with indigenous territories.
In all countries, there are lessons learned on how to promote governance systems thatreconcile conservation objectives with demands for territorial autonomy. These lessons caninspire others through experience and best practices exchanges, as well as through regional
cooperation initiatives. However, governance practices in protected areas that overlap withindigenous territories need new analytical frameworks and capacities that enable the full
exercise of the collective rights of peoples and nations.
Several community and indigenous organizations deserve recognition for their work inconservation, some of which are Phase II CEPF partners, such as the Serraniagua
Corporation in the Parque Nacional Natural Tatamá (COL74) in Colombia, the Kichwa
organizations in the Reserva de Biosfera Sumaco Napo Galeras, the Shuar organizations in
Parque Nacional Podocarpus (ECU50), and the Awá Federation near the Reserva Ecológica
Cotacachi-Cayapas in Ecuador (ECU61). The exchange of lessons learned amongorganizations in the hotspot could enrich their conceptual and methodological approaches.
Academia
There is a significant amount of knowledge and scientific capacity in academic institutions,
universities and research centers in the hotspot. During the ecosystem profile update process,73 major universities and research centers working on biodiversity-related research in the
hotspot were identified (Figure 9.6 and Table 9.5).

214Figure 9.6 Number of Universities and Research Centers Identified in the Hotspot(Total = 72)
25
22

NºNo.
organizationsorganizaciones

20

15
15
11

11
10

6

5
5
2
0
Argentina

Bolivia

Chile

Colombia

Ecuador

Perú

Venezuela

Pasies countries
del hotspot
Hotspot

Source: Stakeholder consultations conducted in 2020.

Table 9.5 Universities and Research Centers Identified in Hotspot Countries
Country

Names of Universities and Research Centers

Argentina

Facultad de Veterinaria/Cátedra de Vida Silvestre-Universidad Católica de Salta,
Instituto de Ecología Regional-Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Laboratorio deInvestigaciones Microbiológicas de Lagunas Andinas -PROIMI-CONICET, Universidad
de Jujuy -UNJU, Universidad de Salta-UNAS.

Bolivia

Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Mayor de San Andrés -UMSA, Herbario Nacional de
Bolivia, Museo de Historia Natural Alcides D'Orgbigny, Centro de Biodiversidad yGenética, Universidad Mayor de San Simón – Cochabamba, Universidad de La
Serena, Universidad Mayor de San Andrés; Universidad Mayor de San Francisco
Xavier, Colección Boliviana de Fauna, Herbario Chuquisaca - Universidad San
Francisco Xavier, Herbario Nacional de Bolivia, Museo de Historia Natural Noel
Kempff Mercado.

Chile

Centro de Estudios Avanzados de Zonas Áridas -CEAZA - Universidad Católica delNorte; Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad-Universidad de Chile.

Colombia

Centro de Estudios Técnicos -CETEC, Facultad de Ciencias Ambientales - Universidad
Tecnológica de Pereira, Instituto de Ciencias Naturales - Universidad Nacional de
Colombia, Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Biológicos Alexander von
Humboldt, Universidad de Antioquia; Universidad de la Guajira, Universidad de losAndes, Universidad del Magdalena, Universidad de Medellín, Universidad de Nariño,
Universidad del Atlántico, Universidad del Quindío, Universidad ICESI Valle delCauca, Universidad Javeriana, Universidad La Salle de Bogotá and Universidad delTolima.

215

Ecuador

Universidad de Cuenca, Universidad del Azuay, Universidad Nacional de Loja,
Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, Universidad Técnica del Norte, Universidad
Andina Simón Bolívar, Universidad de las Américas, Universidad San Francisco de
Quito, Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Universidad Yachay, Universidad Estatal
Amazónica, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Universidad Tecnológica Indoamérica,
Universidad Regional Ikiam, Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad -INABIO.

Peru

Biodiversity Institute of Kansas University; Smithsonian Institution; Missouri
Botanical Garden; Museo de Historia Natural de San Marcos -MHN-UNMSM,
Universidad Andina/Cuzco, Universidad Católica San Pablo/Arequipa, Universidad
Católica Santa María/Arequipa, Universidad Católica Sedes Sapientiae, Universidad
Cayetano Heredia, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Universidad Científica del Sur,
Universidad de Amazonas, University of Texas-Austin, Universidad de Jaén,
Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Universidad Nacional de Madre de Dios,
Universidad Nacional de San Agustín/Arequipa, Universidad Nacional de San Antonio
Abad/Cuzco, Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Universidad Nacional Hermilio
Valdizán, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Universidad Tingo María.

Venezuela

Fundación La Salle de Ciencias Naturales/Museo de Historia Natural, Instituto
Venezolano de Investigaciones Científica -IVIC, Universidad de los Andes,
Universidad Central de Venezuela, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Universidad Valle delMomboy.

Source: Stakeholder consultations conducted in 2020.

The lack of an efficient regulatory and institutional framework and necessary resources makes
it difficult to keep information on biodiversity up to date at the national and regional levels. In
recent years, hotspot countries have built significant capacity to narrow knowledge gaps and tocontribute to national conservation strategies. All countries have strengthened their national
biodiversity databases, and some of them, such as Colombia and Ecuador, have madesubstantial progress in structuring national biodiversity information systems. Some countries
have strengthened research networks and built coordination instruments despite duplication ofresearch efforts and a lack of coordination, which was identified as a worry trend in 2015.
Examples of research networks include Ecuador's National Biodiversity Research Agenda
established in 2017, Peru with its 2021 Environmental Research Agenda, and Colombia with its
XXI Century Systematics Research Agenda.
Key challenges, such as conducting research to inform policy decisions, improving NGO-led
experiences and projects, and inspiring innovative practices in companies, remain.
Strengthening research networks, communication and coordination with other sectors andstakeholders would help generate and apply scientific knowledge more effectively. There areseveral universities and centers with extensive expertise in biodiversity research that could
lead collaborative initiatives and knowledge transfer, including the Alexander von Humboldt
Institute in Colombia and the Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina-UNALM in Peru.
In addition to national universities and research centers, it is important to highlight the work of
the Missouri Botanical Garden, the New York Botanical Garden, the Biodiversity Institute of the
University of Kansas and the Smithsonian Institution. These institutions have a long history inhotspot countries and have made significant contributions to knowledge about species andecosystems through their partnerships with local universities and research organizations.
Private Sector and Producer Associations
Although the current situation seemingly offers better conditions for the private sector todemonstrate greater leadership in environmental matters, its participation in recent years has
been limited. This is because there is still a need to develop business leadership capacities toincorporate new approaches and environmental and sustainable development strategies and216

practices. In relation to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the debate about
the role of the business sector is linked to poverty eradication objectives and how businesses
can adopt environment and climate compatible practices, in the production of goods andservices.
Despite this, there are some relevant examples of partnerships between civil society and theprivate sector. Among them is the CI-Ecuador partnership with Lundin Gold in 2016 to develop
and implement a "sustainable landscape partnership" that contributes to the conservation of
biodiversity and ecosystem services in the area of influence of Fruta del Norte mining projectin the southern Ecuadorian Amazon. Another relevant alliance is the one led by Wildlife
Conservation Society -WCS since 2016, with financial support from CEPF, to form the Grupo
Interinstitucional de Trabajo en Oro Responsable -GITOR,31 with the participation of 12 civilsociety and academic institutions, in coordination with the Federación Regional de
Cooperativas Mineras Auríferas -Ferreco, the Federación de Cooperativas Mineras Auríferas delNorte de La Paz -Fecoman and the Federación Departamental de Cooperativas Mineras de La
Paz -Fedecomin-LP.
Other small-scale private initiatives linked to the implementation of REDD+ mechanisms in
Peru and Ecuador are related to biocommerce and sustainable bio-entrepreneurship. Precisely
in this field, CEPF has made investments in community ecotourism and avitourism, which have
not only contributed directly to strengthening CSOs in the hotspot, but also contributed
significantly to the conservation of KBAs (see Chapter 7). In Ecuador, for example, theCorporación Microempresarial Yunguilla, developed a sustainable community tourism proposal
and implemented a project to strengthen community management of the Área deConservación y Uso Sustentable Yunguilla – Santa Lucía, with CEPF’s support. Similarly, in
Colombia, CEPF supported the promotion of ecotourism and agrobiodiversity in the Alto Calima
Region (COL80) and Parque Natural Regional Páramo del Duende (COL75). In Peru, Avisa Frankfurt Zoological Society Peru (SZF Peru) developed and implemented a participatory
strategic tourism plan in Kosñipata-Carabaya (PER44) (Acjanaco - Atalaya tourism corridor in
the western sector of the Kosñipata KBA). They also established and trained a network of local
tourism operators and enterprises in the same corridor.
Producer organizations and associations - including farmers, ranchers, tourism operators have a significant presence in the hotspot and great potential for the implementation of
biodiversity conservation strategies. For this reason, international organizations such as Rikolto
are working to transform value chains and strengthen small-scale agriculture organizations andfood chain actors in the Tropical Andes.
Some cases stand out, such as the Bosque de Protección Alto Mayo in the San Martin region, in
northern Peru, where coffee-producing communities received support from Disney's Climate
Solutions Fund, through CI, to promote sustainable coffee cultivation. Since 2013, thiscompany developed forest carbon offset actions, becoming an excellent example of a publicprivate collaborative REDD+ project. Currently, new initiatives have emerged in the San Martin
region, such as the Alliance for Sustainable and Competitive Coffee project, which seeks tocoordinate main actors in order to implement sustainable production practices, improve
management, governance and foster associations that contribute to the implementation of the
National Plan for Peruvian Coffee 2019-2030. The participation of the National Coffee Boardand the Peruvian Chamber of Coffee and Cocoa, with the support of Solidaridad and the World
31 The Grupo Interinstitucional de Trabajo Oro Responsable -GITOR is a voluntary alliance between civilsociety and academic institutions working in Bolivia, that seeks to promote the Responsible Gold approach asa strategy to reduce negative social and environmental impacts of current gold mining activities.

217

Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), in alliance with the Regional Government of San Martin(GORESAM by its acronym in Spanish), also stand out.
In Colombia, where there is a strong tradition of associations, industry associations (e.g., theNational Federation of Coffee Growers, FEDECAFE by its acronym in Spanish) have strong
institutional capacity and are involved in several programs, including certification initiatives
with Rainforest Alliance and previous CEPF support in the Tumbes-Choco-Magdalena Hotspot.
There are sustainable cattle ranching initiatives led by the Federation of Colombian Cattle
Ranchers (FEDEGAN by its acronym in Spanish), which has a strong partnership with the NGO
CIPAV that works in the Cordillera Central of Colombia. FEDEGAN has a national goal of
returning 10 million hectares of marginal pastureland to nature while improving productivity
through more biodiversity-friendly silvopastoral systems. This would illustrate the potential
synergies between improved production systems and conservation in Colombia. On the other
hand, the National Association of Cocoa Exporters demonstrates the degree of agroindustrial
and commercial development of this sector within a framework of social responsibility andenvironmental care.
Table 9.6 shows some of the producer organizations identified in the hotspot. However, this list
is only for reference, as there are probably several dozens of productive organizations, manyof which work quietly on issues related to sustainable natural resources management andbiodiversity conservation. Table 9.7 includes some of the conservation initiatives identified in
the hotspot in which the private business sector participates.
Table 9.6 Producer Associations Identified in the Hotspot with Initiatives linked toConservation
Country

Producer Associations

Argentina

Asociación Forestal e Industrial de Jujuy, Asociación de Obrajeros de Orán, Instituto
de Cultura Popular -INCUPO, Organización de la Ruta 81, ProGrano and Asociaciónde Turismo Comunitario Las Queñoas -ATUCOQUE.

Bolivia

Artisans affiliated to CIPLA, Asociación de Turismo Comunitario Pacha Trek;
Asociación Ecoturística de Agua Blanca, Asociación de Productores de CocaADEPCOCA/Yungas, Asociación de Productores de Cacao -APCAO Mapiri y Apolo;
Asociación de Productores de Café de Apolo -APCA, Asociación Turística Comunitaria
Lagunillas; Shade Grown Coffee Producers affiliated to CIPLA, Incense producers
affiliated to CIPLA, Cámara Regional de Turismo del Destino Rurrenabaque Madidi
Pampas, Asociación de Organizaciones de productores Ecológicos de Bolivia, Central
de cooperativas El Ceibo, Federación de Cafetaleros Exportadores de Bolivia FECAFEB, Coordinadora de Integración de Organizaciones Económicas Campesinas CIOEC, Asociación de Organizaciones de Productores Ecológicas de Bolivia -AOPEB.

Colombia

Artesanías Colombia, Asociación de Apicultores de Boyacá, Asociación de Cafés
Especiales, Apisierra- Artesanos de Carzola, Federaciones y asociaciones deganaderos -FEDEGAN, Federación Nacional de Cafeteros -FEDECAFE, Red Colombia
Verde-RCV, Red EcoSierra; ISAGEN; Mesa de Ganadería Sostenible de Colombia MGS-Col, Asocomore, Asociación de campesinos agroecologicos in the buffer zone of
the Parque Natural Regional del Duende ASODUENDE, Fundación Cipav, Asociaciónde productores Agroecológicos -ASOPALMAR, Asoagroambiental Santa Clara,
Asociación de Productores de Río Bravo -ASORIOBRAVO, Asofruteros Trujillo,
Asociación Comunitaria de Productores de Mora y demás cultivos de la región ASOCOMORE, Anturios del Pacífico Grupo de mujeres artesanas tejedoras de shigras
en tiempo de paz.

218

Ecuador

Peru

Asociación de Operadores Turísticos del Noroccidente de Pichincha, Asociaciones deProductores de Cacao, Asociaciones de Productores de Café; Juntas de riego yJuntas administradoras de agua; Asociación Ecuatoriana de Industriales de laMadera -AIMA, Asociación Ecuatoriana del Cacao Nacional Fino de Aroma ACEPROCACAO, Asociación Nacional de Exportadores de Cacaco -ANECACAO,WIKIRI; Soluciones Ambientales BYOS, Corporación Microempresarial Yunguilla CMY, Alianza por el Emprendimiento y la Innovación -AEI, PACARI, VERDECANANDE
S.A., PROFAFOR; ALLPABAMBU, Federación Regional de Asociaciones de Pequeños
Cafetaleros Ecológicos del Sur del Ecuador -FAPECAFES, Asociación de Caficultores
Rio Intag -AACRI.
Asociaciones y Comités de Regantes, Asociaciones de Manejo de Bosques,
Asociación de productores y cooperativas, Asociaciones productivas de Cacao(Amazonas y San Martín), Asociaciones productivas de Café (Amazonas y San
Martín), Asociaciones de turismo comunitario (Cusco), Comités de Gestión de Áreas
Protegidas, Empresa Stevia, Mesa Centro de las empresas mineras, Área deConservación Privada Fundo Cadena, Área de Conservación Privada Santuario de la
Verónica, HERPIRO S.A.C - Titular de la Concesión con fines de Conservación
SOQTAPATA, Asociación Nacional de Ejecutores de Contratos de Administración delPerú -ANECAP, Iniciativa Interoceánica Sur -ISur, Cooperativas Agrarias Cafetalerasde los Valles de Sandia -CECOVASA, Cooperativa de Servicios Múltiples -CAPEMA,CENFROCAFE (Cajamarca y Amazonas), APROCASSI (San Ignacio y Jaén), APROECO(Moyobamba).

Table 9.7 Conservation Initiatives involving the Private Sector in the Hotspot
Country
Argentina

Bolivia

Description- Fundación Proyungas' initiatives are supported by companies in theagroindustrial sector (Ledesma, Arcor, San Miguel), hydrocarbons (Pan American
Energy), forestry (Alto Paraná), air transport (LAN), supermarkets (Carrefour)and insurance (Allianz).
- Plataforma Piensa Verde Led by Conservation Strategy Fund -CSFand Asociación
Boliviana para la investigación y conservación de ecosistemas andino-amazónicos-ACEAA, seek greater commitment from the private sector in conservation
projects; Fundación VIVA, Laboratorios Bagó de Bolivia S.A., Banco de Crédito de
Bolivia - BCP and Farmacias Chávez are participating.
- Fundación Natura and the Coca Cola Foundation develop projects for watershed
conservation.
- WCS has promoted the Interinstitutional Working Group on Responsible Gold
(Grupo Interinstitucional de Trabajo en Oro Responsable - GITOR), with theparticipation of 12 civil society and academic institutions, and in coordination
with the Federación Regional de Cooperativas Mineras Auríferas -FERRECO, laFederación de Cooperativas Mineras Auríferas del Norte de La Paz -FECOMAN and
the Federación Departamental de Cooperativas Mineras de La Paz -Fedecomin–
LP.

219

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Venezuela- Federación Nacional de Cafeteros -FEDECAFE: Certification initiatives withRainforest Alliance and previous CEPF support in Chocó.
- Federación de Ganaderos Colombianos -FEDEGAN: Sustainable livestock farming
initiatives with a strong alliance with CIPAV.
- Asociación de Cultivadores de Caña de Azúcar de Colombia -ASOCAÑA:Restoration of important ecosystems for water preservation in partnership withTNC.
- ISAGEN (hydroelectric generation company): Programa Conexión Jaguar, inalliance with South Pole and Panthera Colombia, to contribute to biodiversity
conservation and climate change mitigation.
- BANCOLOMBIA: support for the BANCO2 Program in alliance with the
Corporación Autónoma Regional. It is a voluntary strategy of payment forenvironmental services, implemented since 2016 through which an incentive isdelivered to farming families that have strategic ecosystems within theirproperties, and are willing to conserve them. The resources provided to thesefamilies come from a voluntary contribution made as carbon footprintcompensation.
- Arroz Blanquita: good (bird-friendly) practices in sugar production - reduction or
zero use of agrochemicals in partnership with Asociación Calidris.
- Ingenio Providencia (Ingenio Azucarero): forest reserve and support for researchof the Cauca guan (Penelope perspicax, EN) together with Asociación Calidris.
- Management of water funds: Cervecería Nacional and Tesalia Spring Company(FONAG and FONDAGUA); Banco Bolivariano, CODEMET, MEXICHEM(FONDAGUA).
- PRODUBANCO: green credit for the acquisition of a private reserve in the
Corredor Awacachi (ECU28).
- The National Association of Cocoa Exporters demonstrates the degree of agroindustrial and commercial development of this sector, within a framework ofsocial responsibility and environmental care.
- Sustainable landscape management in the southern Amazon (Morona Santiago):
Lundin Gold in partnership with CI (2016).
- Federación Regional de Asociaciones de Pequeños Cafetaleros Ecológicos del Sur-FAPECAFESsupports the conservation of the KBA Parque Nacional Podocarpus(ECU50).
- Asociación Agroartesanal de Caficultores "Río Intag" (AACRI) supports theconservation of the KBA Reserva Ecológica Cotacachi Cayapas (ECU61).
- Disney's Climate Solutions Fund supports the conservation of the Bosque deProtección Alto Mayo where communities of coffee growers live.
- Junta Nacional del Café and Cámara Peruana del Café y Cacao, with the supportof ICRAF and APROECO (agricultural coffee exporting cooperative), supports theconservation of the KBA Moyobamba (PER65).
- ISA REP (ISA group): company that finances jaguar conservation "jaguar
connection" through economic mechanisms (carbon credits) with the support ofPanthera.
- Polar Companies: The Fundación Polar supports the NGO Provita in the
preparation of the Red Book of Venezuelan Fauna.

In the national consultation workshops, some CSO representatives mentioned how complex itis to manage the issue of illegal mining, given the increase in the price of gold, to the extent
that the CSOs have visualized strategies to involve this sector further in order to get them toincorporate good environmental and social practices in mining operations.
Regarding the possibility of involving the business sector in corporate responsibility actions andsupport for conservation projects, according to CSO representatives, in the national
workshops, there are two factors that require further development: negotiation capacities
between CSOs and businesses in long-term associations; and enabling conditions to pique theprivate sector's interest in contributing to conservation. In fact, CSOs have not yet taken full220

advantage of companies and associations that work in coffee, cacao and non-timber forest
products. Many of these companies and associations are located in areas of influence ofcorridors and KBAs, such as FAPECAFES in the Parque Nacional Podocarpus KBA (ECU50) andAACRI in the Reserva Ecológica Cotacachi KBA (ECU61) in Ecuador; or APROECO in the
Moyobamba KBA (PER65) in Peru. This undoubtedly represents an opportunity forenvironmental CSOs in the hotspot, as biodiversity, ecosystem services and climate change
could become links to addressing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with the private
sector.

9.3 Regulatory and Operational Framework for Civil Society
Organizations
CSOs usually have methodologies or technical models to generate information, develop
participatory work, establish networks with which they build standards or indicators, carry out
social control and promote accountability. Therefore, CSO proposals tend to be more robust
because of the research and the strength of social cohesion (Marín et. al. 2017).
The legal and operational framework within which CSOs are operating in the hotspot ispresented below. Likewise, an analysis of trends and perceptions of the operation of CSOs in
the coming years is presented.

9.3.1 Regulatory Framework
There are constitutional and legal frameworks that guarantee the work of civil society
organizations in hotspot countries. In some cases, such as Peru, Colombia and Chile, theregulatory framework for establishing organizations is quite simple. In Ecuador and Bolivia, on
the other hand, regulation is somewhat more demanding. All hotspot countries havegovernment agencies in charge of registering CSOs, although there is not necessarily a formal
process for monitoring and evaluating their performance. CSO registration in Ecuador is with
the National Secretariat for Policy Management (Secretaría Nacional de Gestión de la Política);
in Bolivia, with the Vice-Ministry of Autonomies of the Ministry of the Presidency(Viceministerio de Autonomías del Ministerio de la Presidencia); in Colombia, with the Chamberof Commerce; in Peru, with the National Superintendency of Public Registries(Superintendencia Nacional de Registros Públicos); and in Chile, with the Civil and
Identification Registry of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (Registro Civil y de
Identificación del Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos). Thus, the registration,
monitoring and evaluation of CSOs responds to the administrative, political and institutional
structure of each country.
The enforceability of rights of access to environmental information and access to justice inenvironmental matters is still weak. With the exception of Chile and Venezuela, all thecountries that are part of the hotspot have adopted the Escazú Agreement (Regional
Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice inEnvironmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean); however, only Ecuador and Bolivia
have ratified it. In general, CSOs have been open and willing to share information on theiractivities. However, there have not always been formal accountability processes or spaces for
citizen oversight and questioning of results and practices. It should be noted that, according totransparency and access to information laws, public institutions in each hotspot country are
obliged to publish information, render an account of and submit their management practices topublic scrutiny.
In all countries of the region, the work of CSOs tends to be better aligned with, andincreasingly closer to, the priorities established in national development plans, as well as in221sectoral public policy plans and agendas. This is desirable in any democratic system thatrecognizes the value of institutionalization and fosters complementarity between governmental
and civil society efforts. This scenario has meant that CSOs have developed better capacities
for dialogue and negotiation of interests, adapting their action frameworks to respondproactively to the nature, dynamics and challenges of public administration. Responsibility forforeign policy is exclusive to the Executive in all countries of the region; therefore, it is central
government entities that register and monitor technical and financial cooperation, as theycount as Official Development Assistance (ODA). The exception is decentralized cooperation,
which is frequently channeled and registered directly with subnational governments.
As subnational and local governments strengthen their capacities and gain prominence inconservation efforts, the work of CSOs increasingly requires formal mechanisms forcollaboration, as well as instruments that make such articulation feasible. Several multistakeholder platforms, often linked to protected area management and promoted by civilsociety, represent important models of participatory governance that could undoubtedly enrichpublic policy approaches, methodologies and proposals.
The presence of CEPF in Bolivia, Peru, Colombia and Ecuador offers a starting point for
dialogue. Unlike decades ago, CSOs are now choosing to establish formal collaborationagreements with local governments to legitimize their presence in subnational jurisdictions andstrengthen environmental governance processes. This practice, which in the past wasperceived as bureaucratic, is now considered appropriate to strengthen democracy andtransparency while enhancing governance and the sustainability of CSOs' actions.

9.3.2 Operational Framework
The overall context in which CSOs have operated in the last five years in the hotspot countries
could be described as volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (Truedge 2018). Transition
in government administrations has not always meant continuity in biodiversity conservation
initiatives within the hotspot. Thus, CSOs have had to adapt to maintain a presence in theregion and generate advocacy in favor of biodiversity conservation in the hotspot.
An example of the above mentioned, is the dissolution of the Unión de Naciones
Suramericanas (UNASUR), following the departure of most of its countries in 2018, due todifferences among its members. This is emphasized given that the 2015 ecosystem profile
highlighted the existence of the Consejo Suramericano de Infraestructura y Planeamiento(COSIPLAN), as a UNASUR body that promoted the construction of infrastructure, transport
and telecommunications networks under sustainable social, economic and environmental
development criteria. One such example is the Initiative for the Integration of Regional
Infrastructure in South America (Iniciativa para la Integración de la Infraestructura Regional
Suramericana - IIRSA) (see Chapter 8).
Corruption scandals at high levels of political power, as well as in the private sector, havestalled the progress needed for sustainable and inclusive development. This environment has
exacerbated the crisis of governance and generated deep citizen distrust of political power anddemocratic institutions (OECD 2019). These scandals could become an opportunity to define
better legal and administrative structures to implement joint activities between the national
governments and the private sector in a transparent and honest way (Engel et al. 2018).
A large population of young people (millennials and centennials) have joined traditionalorganized groups of salaried, working class, campesino and indigenous civil society. They havebecome the protagonists of mobilizations in recent years while demonstrating civil society's

222

capacity for collective action on a variety of issues. The defense of the rights of nature and thedenunciation of the exploitation of natural resources are linked to society's demands due to a
generalized perception of lack of progress, profound inequity in the distribution of wealth,violation of rights, violence, corruption and widespread dissatisfaction with the current
democratic systems.
The global trade contraction between the end of 2018 and the beginning of 2019 has impacted
the 'CSOs' operating capacity. The contraction was due primarily to two factors: fallingcommodity prices and weakening real demand from major advanced and emerging economies.
Thus, CSOs in the hotspot have been affected by the progressive reduction of fiscal allocationsin institutional budgets earmarked for biodiversity management, which has been reflected in
the continuing reduction of public sector32 workers and the slowdown of administrative andinstitutional processes.
In this environment of uncertainty, economic contraction and institutional fragility,international cooperation agencies began to play a fundamental role in financing conservation
projects and mobilizing non-reimbursable resources, which allowed many CSOs to maintaintheir operations in the hotspot.
At the sectoral level, the exports most affected by the economic contraction are mining and oil.
The value of these sectors plummeted by 15% in the first half of 2019, after having
experienced a recovery in 2017 and 2018 (ECLAC, 2020). Several hotspot countries haverevised their exploration and exploitation plans during the last few years, relaxing
environmental regulations to maintain investment growth rates. This has occurred despite theopposition of local communities, social and environmental organizations to the risks associatedwith such operations (Dammert et. al. 2019). The tensions between those for and against
large-scale industrial mining have led to an environment of insecurity and intimidation againstsocial and environmental leaders. Such is the case of Colombia, where the highest number ofleaders have been killed from 2015 to date. Some of these leaders were fighting against
extractive megaprojects in their territories (Gonzales et al. 2018).
This is why the expansion of extractive industries in the Tropical Andes continues to be achallenge that highlights the need for civil society's collective action. The mining company
coordination roundtables in Huánuco and Pasco in the Carpish-Yanachaga Corridor in Peru, inwhich CSOs participate, is an example of how civil society can strengthen its capacity toengage with industry. There is the need for similar action in Colombia, Ecuador and Argentina,
where mining activities are an increasing threat (see Chapter 6). In Bolivia, Wildife
Conservarion Society (WCS) has worked with three gold mining cooperatives in the MadidiPilón Lajas-Cotapata Corridor to achieve international standards for sustainable mining
production, with CEPF funding. They have implemented safeguard measures in their operations
and have conducted field schools on social and environmental impact mitigation for othermining operations.
Another strategy used to address mining expansion in the hotspot is the declaration of new
protected areas. To this end, CEPF financed a project led by Fundación PRODECI, under whichthe Área de Conservación y Uso Sostenible Municipal Intag Toisán (ACUS-MIT) was establishedto prevent mining in the Intag-Toisán KBA (ECU34). It covers 126,968 hectares, including 21
water reserves and 7 protective forests,

32

289,000 people lost their jobs in the pandemic in Ecuador, retrieved fromhttps://www.nodal.am/2020/08/ecuador-registra-mas-de-289-mil-despidos-durante-la-emergencia-por-lapandemia/.

223

In the midst of this scenario, since the end of 2019, the world has had to face theconsequences of COVID-19, which triggered a global crisis in the areas of health, economy andfinance. The magnitude of the impact will depend on the duration of the pandemic, its spreadand the prevention and response measures taken by countries to contain and ease its effects.
It will also depend on the economic structure of countries in the region that are highly
dependent on exports and international commodity prices. Thus, the prospects for economic
recovery are uncertain, and much will depend on the decisions taken by governments (IDB2020).
In summary, CSOs have been present and very active in the elaboration of environmental
public policies, as well as in the implementation of plans, programs and projects promoted bygovernment agencies and international cooperation agencies. This is why, in general, the roleof CSOs in the hotspot countries is perceived as positive in terms of their achievements inbiodiversity conservation and sustainable natural resource management. However, the abilityof organizations to adapt and respond to the social demands and political processes that theregion has experienced remains a major challenge.

9.3.3 Future Trends and Scenarios
Many of the hotspot countries have been categorized as middle-income countries based on percapita income. Consequently, a large portion of development aid resources has been redirected
to low-income countries. In addition, the economic crisis in the main development cooperation
countries and the change in strategic priorities has led to a reduction of funds to the region.
On the other hand, the international environmental institutional framework is complex, given
the diversity of stakeholders involved and multiple spaces for coordination. Added to this are
the challenges of environmental governance in the Andean region, specific to each country inthe hotspot, where structural gaps in productivity, innovation, gender and environment persist.
For this reason, the role of international cooperation continues to be key to strengthening civilsociety organizations. Notwithstanding CSOs’ efforts to enhance their adaptive capacity inrecent years, they need to continue making improvements in this area in order to implement
high-impact initiatives as part of alliances and with greater involvement of the private sector.
As part of the process of the Tropical Andes Hotspot profile update during 2020, a series ofsurveys (146 respondents) and consultation workshops (268 participants) were conducted toassess perceptions regarding the operating environment of CSOs. The enquiry also sought todetermine their willingness to contribute to public initiatives, implement joint actions andaddress citizen oversight processes, among other things. The findings are shared below.

9.3.4 Perception Analysis for the Operation of CSOs
According to stakeholders who participated in the consultation process during the ecosystemprofile update, Chile and Peru offer more favorable environments for the legal incorporation
and registration of CSOs (Figure 9.7). This perception is in line with the information on theregulatory framework presented above, which points to simpler constitutional and legal
frameworks for establishing CSOs in Peru and Chile.

224

Figure 9.7 Operating Environment of CSOs
80

Percentage

60
40
20
0
Bolivia

Peru

EcuadorColombia

Argentina

Chile

Venezuela

Hotspot countries
Very favorable

Favorable

MediumUnfavorable

Source: 2020 consultation process.

Beyond the regulatory framework, there is a favorable environment for CSOs to contribute tobiodiversity conservation and sustainable development through public dialogue that influences
the public policy cycle. Although significant progress has been made in the region, with afavorable environment in several hotspot countries (e.g., Peru, Ecuador, Argentina), additional
effort is still needed to achieve CSOs’ full inclusion in the design and management of public
policies for biodiversity conservation.
The public sector's openness to implementing conservation projects and initiatives incoordination with CSOs varies across hotspot countries. In Ecuador and Colombia, there are
institutionalized and operational mechanisms that promote more joint work with CSOs (Figure9.8). These include the citizen networks and collectives described above.
It is important to note that these results are strongly influenced by the current situation in theregion, particularly in some of the countries where social mobilization has increased.
Figure 9.8 Institutionalized Mechanisms that Promote Coordinated Work with CSOs
100

Percentage

80
60
40
20
0
Bolivia

Peru

EcuadorColombia

Argentina

Chile

Hotspot countries
Very favorable

Favorable

Moderately

Source: 2020 consultation process.

225

Unfavorable

Venezuela

This is complemented by the security and citizen oversight guarantees, mainly in sensitive
areas such as extractive industry and infrastructure development. Colombia shows a markedly
unfavorable environment, while Bolivia and Peru are somewhat more favorable. Ecuador shows
signs of an environment with greater security and guarantees for CSOs to intervene inoversight and social control processes (Figure 9.9).
Figure 9.9 Security Environment and Guarantees for Social Oversight of Conservation
Policies
100

Percentage

80
60
40
20
0
Bolivia

Peru

EcuadorColombia

Argentina

Chile

Venezuela

Hotspot countries
Very favorable

Favorable

MediumUnfavorable

Source: 2020 consultation process.

The national workshops made it possible to identify the aspects that CSOs perceive as
fundamental for ensuring biodiversity conservation in the hotspot. For Ecuador, political andinstitutional stability stand out as the main factor. In Peru and Colombia, it is access tofinancing, and in Bolivia it is the existence of favorable public policies. (Figure 9.10).
Figure 9.10 Key Factors to ensure Biodiversity Conservation in the Hotspot
5Preference

4
3
2
1
0
Bolivia

Colombia

EcuadorPeru

Hostpot countries
Political and institutional stability
Updated legal framework
Access to financing

Favorable public policies
Citizen security
Access to information and knowledge

Source: 2020 consultation process.

226

Note: A value of 5 indicates a high preference, while a value of 1 indicates a low preference of the people
who participated in the national consultation workshops.

When analyzing the strategies adopted by CSOs to address the conservation challenges in the
hotspot, the different approaches of the organizations in the countries consulted are evident(Figure 9.11). There is a greater preference for constructing alternative development models(option 3), while dialogue and negotiation of interests (option 1) is the lowest priority among
the alternatives considered.
Figure 9.11 CSOs' Strategies to address Conservation Issues in the Hotspot

Preference

3

2

1

0
Option 1

Option 2
Bolivia

Colombia

EcuadorOption 3
Peru

Source: 2020 consultation process.
Notes: A value of 3 indicates a high preference, while a value of 1 indicates a low preference of the national
consultation workshops participants.
The options available for consideration are the following:
Option 1. Dialogue and negotiation of interests with political and economic power actors to findintermediate positions.
Option 2. Resistance and defense of the rights of nature, individuals and indigenous peoples.
Option 3. The construction of alternative development models, based on principles of sustainability, equity
and resilience.

With regard to access to funding opportunities, it is important to differentiate three basic
aspects: the existence of funding sources, the mechanisms for access, and the 'CSOs'
capacities to access funding. The stakeholder consultation shows that, in the last five years,
the operating environment for international donor cooperation agencies has been favorable(Figure 9.12), with the exception of Venezuela and Bolivia, despite the fact that Bolivia hasregistered several international organizations working in the hotspot.

227

Figure 9.12 Working Environment for International Cooperation Agencies
100

Percentage

80
60
40
20
0
Bolivia

Peru

EcuadorColombia

Argentina

Chile

Venezuela

Hotspot countries
Very favorable

Favorable

MediumUnfavorable

Source: 2020 consultation process.

On the other hand, the information from participants shows that, despite the existence offunding opportunities, mainly through international cooperation agencies, accessing theseresources poses several challenges to national CSOs (Figure 9.13).
Figure 9.13 Environment for Access to Sources of Financing
100

Percentage

80
60
40
20
0
Bolivia

Peru

EcuadorColombia

Argentina

Chile

Venezuela

Hotspot countries
Very favorable

Favorable

MediumUnfavorable

Source: 2020 consultation process.

The challenges could be explained in different ways. However, the national consultation
workshop participants confirmed that new funding opportunities are linked to emerging topics(e.g. climatic finance, sustainable finances, credits, investments and green financial markets),
which CSOs report having poor knowledge about new financial options (Figure 9.14).

228

Figure 9.14 Determinants of Access to Emerging Sources of Financing
5Preference

4
3
2
1
Bolivia

Colombia

EcuadorPeru

Hotspot countries
Lack of knowledge of new financing options

Sufficient funding from traditional sources

Little or no articulation with key actors

Limited ability to access new financing options

Disinterest in accessing new financing options
Source: 2020 consultation process.
Note: A value of 5 indicates a high preference, while a value of 1 indicates a low preference of the people
who participated in the national consultation workshops.

CSOs agreed that it is essential to diversify funding sources and modalities and to increase theflow of resources to guarantee the financial sustainability of conservation in the hotspot (Figure9.15).
Figure 9.15 Strategies to Increase Financial Sustainability of Conservation in the
Hotspot
5

Preference

43
2
1
Increase resource
flow

Prevent andreduce impacts

Diversify funding Optimize spending Transparency ofsources andinvestments
modalities

Options to achieve financial sustainability
Bolivia

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Source: 2020 consultation process.
Note: A value of 5 indicates a high preference, while a value of 1 indicates a low preference of the people who
participated in the national consultation workshops.

229

Finally, it is well-known that conservation CSOs have little knowledge of the opportunities
available to generate self-management mechanisms. Although Peru, Chile, Colombia, andEcuador have developed favorable conditions, regulations, institutions and financing topromote businesses based on biodiversity, forests, and genetic resources, CSOs still need togenerate the opportunities and resources necessary for their activities.
Venezuela presents an interesting case: the economic blockade is generating an environmentof limited opportunity on the one hand and is encouraging CSOs to develop self-management
mechanisms to develop conservation actions (Figure 9.16) on the other hand.
Figure 9.16 Environment of Opportunities for Entrepreneurship and Generation of
Self-Management Mechanisms by CSOs

Percentage

100
80
60
40
20
0
Bolivia

Peru

EcuadorColombia

Argentina

Chile

Venezuela

Hotspot countries
Very favorable

Favorable

MediumUnfavorable

Source: 2020 consultation process.

Stakeholders generally perceive a reduction of funding sources to address conservation
priorities in the hotspot. However, this is not corroborated by the evidence of a significant flowof technical and financial cooperation resources that the region is receiving (see Chapter 11).
The characteristic trend of the previous period (2010-2015), which was a significant
contribution from fiscal sources to cover operational or recurrent expenses of national
protected area 'systems', experienced a gradual reduction from 2018 onwards. The situation
has now been further exacerbated by the economic crisis generated by the COVID-19
pandemic.

9.4 Civil Society Organizations´ Capacities
The analysis of CSO capacities is based on information obtained from 146 surveys and 268
participants in four national workshops conducted in the process of updating the ecosystemprofile. The results presented below are oriented in two directions. Firstly, this section
examines the internal operating environment of the organizations, and their administrative,
financial, planning and management capacities. Secondly, this section examines their external
environment and relationships with other civil society actors and the national government.

9.4.1 In-house Capacities
The first aspect of capacity relates to the "themes" that CSOs cover. The 2015 observationthat "most NGOs focus on traditional conservation activities and less on emerging areas" still230

holds, although approaches and methodologies related to climate change management,
genetic resource prospecting and economic instruments for conservation are beginning to gain
space. According to information provided through surveys and national workshops, issues
related to the promotion of rights, dialogue and public advocacy, management of socioenvironmental conflicts or access to genetic resources are scarcely addressed in the
management of CSOs.
On a more administrative level, the CSOs consulted agree that participation in networks,
platforms and other coordination structures is a widespread practice that occupies a good partof the management time of their directors and technical staff. On the other hand, aspects
related to the preparation of annual work reports and accountability are basically focused on
meeting commitments to the donors, cooperation agencies and, to a lesser extent, subnational
governments with which collaboration agreements are maintained.
The contribution of CEPF and other cooperation agencies working in the hotspot has
undoubtedly helped strength CSO capacities. When asked which of these capacities have beendeveloped with greater emphasis in the last five years, the responses obtained allow forseveral interpretations (Figure 9.17).
Figure 9.17 Capabilities Developed Internally by CSOs
5

Preference

4

3

2

1

Bolivia

Colombia

Ecuador

Hotspot countries
Strategic Planning
Availability of technical resources
Access to financial resources
Institutional management systems
Management of information and communication technologies (ICT)
Systematization and knowledge management
Monitoring and evaluation
Accountability

231

Peru

Source: 2020 consultation process.
Note: A value of 5 indicates a high preference, while a value of 1 indicates a low preference of the people
who participated in the national consultation workshops.

When analyzing how these capacities developed by CSOs have made it possible to achieve
impact objectives, all the countries agree that the strengthening processes developed in thelast five years, in many cases with the support of CEPF, have made it possible to improve theeffectiveness of the organizations' management. Ecuador and Peru indicate that thisstrengthening has contributed to CSOs having more impact on public policies. In Colombia andBolivia, it has allowed them to develop a greater capacity for adaptation and institutional
resilience in the face of the adverse context in which the organizations have had to operate(Figure 9.18).
Figure 9.18 Outcome 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

Source: 2020 consultation process.
Note: A value of 6 indicates a high preference, while 1 indicates a low preference of the people who participated in thenational consultation workshops.

The strengthening of CSO capacities should be analyzed in detail in order to promote projects
that allow for the development of those capacities aimed at achieving long-term sustainability.
From a competency development perspective, and based on the responses obtained in thenational consultations, it is suggested that emphasis be placed on the following areas:
environmental and territorial governance; socio-environmental conflict management;
strategic/political communication; public policy management; territorial rights management;
dialogue, consultation and advocacy mechanisms; strategic planning; organizational
management systems; innovation project design; financial sustainability; development ofcollaborative platforms and information and communication technologies; management ofcollaboration and exchange networks; and knowledge and technology transfer.
When asked what support they consider CSOs need to improve their management capacity,
the organizations consulted coincided in pointing to the need to strengthen their strategicplanning and organizational management systems, with financing as the last option. Thissignifies a degree of maturity in the organizations, which certainly require greater
opportunities to finance their operations but recognize that this is not fundamental to232

guaranteeing effectiveness and sustainability in the management they carry out in support ofbiodiversity conservation.
This is corroborated by the fact that 50 percent of those consulted say that they have available
financial resources to sustain their operations and also report good capacity to manage theseresources in the short term (Figure 9.19). However, long-term financial sustainability is aconstant concern since there is great uncertainty about the impact of the economic crisis in theregion, which has been aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The stakeholders agree thatthe economic reactivation process will require an emphasis on the development of selfmanagement strategies based on the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Figure 9.19 Financial Resources Management Capacity of CSOs for Conservation in
the Hotspot
60

Percentage

50
40
30
20
10
0
Availability of financial Capacity to manage
Capacity to manage
Capacity to manage
resources
new financial resources financial resources in financial resources inthe short term (1 to 3 the medium term (3 toyears)
5 years)
Very good

Good

LimitedSource: 2020 consultation process.

However, this cannot be generalized to CSOs as a whole. A differentiated look at the situation
faced by academic institutions, due to the substantial decrease in public investment inresearch, development and innovation (R&D&I), reveals a worrying reality that cannot beignored, especially in view of the need to guide the region's economic reactivation along a pathof greater sustainability. The OECD points out that Latin American and Caribbean countries "...
invest less in research and development (R&D) than OECD countries. Brazil is the only Latin
American country that spends more than 1 percent of GDP on R&D, with approximately halfcoming from the business sector" (OECD 2020).

9.4.2 External Capacities
On the external front, where relationships are built, interests are negotiated, and collaborationagreements are developed that have an impact on hotspot conservation, it is evident that
CSOs still need to improve (Figure 9.20). It is common to coordinate and form alliances
between environmental organizations and, to a lesser degree, with public institutions linked toenvironmental issues. It is less common to find examples of cooperation initiatives withministries of finance, agriculture, energy, mines, public works, transportation,
telecommunications, or with industrial, trade, importers or exporters' associations. Thus, it isnecessary to strengthen capacities for the development of cooperation mechanisms between

233

public and private actors in order to move beyond "dialogue among equals" towards theconstruction of shared agendas.
Figure 9.20 Capabilities Developed in the External Domain of CSOs
5

Preference

4321
Coordination Coordination Dialogue andwith otherwith otheragreement
CSOs
sectors (publicbuilding
and private)

Bolivia

Networking
and alliancebuilding

Colombia

Mobilization
Resource Accountability
and collective mobilization
actionEcuador

Peru

Source: 2020 consultation process.
Note: A value of 5 indicates a high preference, while a value of 1 indicates a low preference of the people who
participated in the national consultation workshops.

Notwithstanding the above, the CSOs consulted recognize that intra- and intersectoral
coordination efforts have been positive, as they have contributed to the design andmanagement of public policies and have increased investments in biodiversity within the
hotspot. Peru also highlights that the replication and scaling up of initiatives have beenachieved as a result of the capacity building developed over the last five years.

9.4.3 Use of Tools that Contribute to the Internal and External Environment
With regard to the analysis of the gender monitoring tools developed by CEPF for use by its
grantees, the level of awareness developed among NGO managerial and technical staff
regarding the need to integrate gender aspects into biodiversity planning and management
processes in the hotspot is evident. There has also been significant progress in the design ofpolicies, gender-sensitive institutional strategic plans and, mainly, concrete actions at the
project level, through which approaches of equality, inclusion and respect for differences are
expressed.
The surveys and workshops conducted made it possible to confirm the progress mentioned
above: the percentage of women and men on CSO work teams is unbalanced in favor of men,in a ratio of approximately 60:40. The exception is Bolivia, which reports an inverse ratio(around 46 percent are men). Despite these unsurprising figures, all the CSOs surveyed have
women representatives in leadership and management positions, a fact that was corroborated
in the interviews conducted in addition to this activity.
Based on the stakeholder interviews, the vast majority of CSOs in Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia
have an institutional gender policy and an explicit mandate for gender mainstreaming. The
profiling team identified only one CSO in Colombia as lacking an institutional gender policy andadopting gender-sensitive practices.

234

Staff specialized in working with a gender perspective in the CSOs surveyed represent no morethan 50 percent on average in all the countries, which is why all the participating organizations
provide training to staff in accordance with their needs in this area. Ecuador was the country
where this activity was least reported (56 percent), while Peru was the country where it wasmost developed (80 percent).
Regarding the capacities of civil society organizations, CEPF promotes the use of a tool tomeasure the progress and improvement of their organizational capacities, through various
categories: financial resources, management systems, strategic planning and delivery.
In this regard, during its Phase II, CEPF promoted the use of civil society tracking tools (Civil
Society Tracking Tool - CSTT) and gender tracking tools (Gender Tracking Tool - GTT) in its
conservation projects (see Chapter 3).

9.4.4 Capacities to Promote Conservation Initiatives
For the evaluation of capacities to promote conservation initiatives, consultations were carriedout with NGOs, community and indigenous organizations, universities and producer
associations. In each case, human and financial resources and institutional capacities wereanalyzed.
The results achieved through consultations with 324 key stakeholders (180 surveys, 120
workshop participants and 24 interviews) in the hotspot are presented in Tables 9.8, 9.9, 9.10
and 9.11.
Table 9.8 Institutional Capacity of NGOs consulted in the Hotspot Countries (Total=
50)

Country

Has Sufficient
Human Resources
Yes

PartialNo

Has Sufficient
Financial
Resources
Yes

PartialNo

Institutional Capacity
Very
Good

Good

LimitedArgentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Source: 2020 consultation process.
> 60% of people
consulted

between 20 and 60% of
people consulted

235< 20 % of people
consulted

Table 9.8 indicates that in most hotspot countries, NGOs have sufficient human resources and,partial, financial resources. In terms of institutional capacities, these tend to be good to very
good in most countries.
Table 9.9 Institutional Capacity of Community and Indigenous Organizations
consulted in the Hotspot Countries (Total =13)

Country

Has Sufficient
Human Resources
Yes

PartialNo

Has Sufficient
Financial
Resources
Yes

PartialNo

Institutional Capacity
Very
Good

Good

LimitedArgentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total
Source: 2020 consultation process.
> 65% of people
consulted

between 25 and 65% of
people consulted< 25 % of people
consulted

Table 9.9 indicates that most of the people consulted in indigenous organizations within the
hotspot agree that human and financial resources and institutional capacities are only partiallyavailable.
Table 9.10 Institutional Capacity of Universities and Research Centers consulted in
the Hotspot Countries (Total = 15)

Country

Has Sufficient
Human Resources
Yes

PartialNo

Has Sufficient
Financial
Resources
Yes

PartialArgentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia

236

No

Institutional Capacity
Very
Good

Good

LimitedEcuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total
Source: 2020 consultation process.

> 65% of people
consulted

between 25 and 65% of
people consulted< 25 % of people
consulted

Table 9.10 indicates that, in the academic field, most people consulted maintain there aresufficient human resources, while financial resources are partial and institutional capacities are
good.
Table 9.11 Institutional Capacity of Producer Associations and the Private Sector
consulted in the Hotspot Countries (Total = 8)Country

Has Sufficient
Human
Resources*
Yes

PartialHas Sufficient
Financial
Resources*

No

Yes

PartialNo

Institutional Capacity*
Very
Good

Good

LimitedArgentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total
Source: 2020 consultation process.
*Refers to human, financial and institutional resources to develop conservation activities.
> 65% of people
consulted

Between 25 and 65% of
people consulted< 25 % of people
consulted

Table 9.11 indicates that in the producer associations within the hotspot, most of the people
consulted agree that human and financial resources and institutional capacities are only
partially available.

237

9.5 Conclusion
Since 2015, the political, institutional and regulatory context in the countries of the region has
made it possible for CSOs to participate in the management of public policies related tobiodiversity conservation. Despite strong public investment in conservation in the last five
years, very few of these resources have been managed by CSOs (2.1 percent, see Chapter
11). For this reason, financing channeled through international cooperation has been essential
to sustaining processes managed by CSOs, mainly in those areas that are part of the countries'
commitments to multilateral environmental agreements.
During the last few years, CSOs have strengthened their capacities in technical and operational
management. In this regard, conservation at the local scale, at the level of a protected area or
KBA, is the area of influence in which most CSOs have focused their efforts and achieved thegreatest results. On a broader scale, although there are several projects and initiatives in the
hotspot, there is still a need to consolidate networks and citizen collectives to mobilize andposition conservation policy proposals on the public agenda. The effort to consolidate longterm processes points to the need to strengthen the capacities of CSOs in the management ofdigital platforms, both in technological aspects and in the skills needed to make efficient use ofthem.
Whether at the local, national or regional scale, there is a need for mechanisms to support thefinancial sustainability of conservation processes. Hotspot countries have made progress in theimplementation of innovative financial mechanisms. Now, it is necessary to think of a financial
architecture that is attractive to private investment, the financial sector and the contribution ofinternational cooperation agencies.
There is a growing trend of private sector involvement in conservation initiatives andsustainable use of natural resources in the region. This contributes to the fulfillment of
profitability and competitiveness indicators, national development plans, the achievement of
the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs.
Finally, the uncertainty posed by the COVID-19 pandemic is particularly important to note.
Preliminary reports presented by ECLAC, IDB, OECD and the World Bank, show a downward
trend in the economies of the region and the poor performance of social, environmental andeconomic indicators in the coming years. Undoubtedly, the impacts will be reflected at the
local, national and regional levels as well as in the public and private sectors.

238

10 . CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT
Climate change is increasingly affecting different landscapes and processes, not only humanpopulations and their productive activities, but also wild populations, their habitats andnatural ecosystems in general. Almost four decades ago, the first warnings were sounded
about changes and trends in global average temperature and other climate variables. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 to provide
scientific information to governments for climate policy development. The reports producedby the IPCC are a key input to international climate change negotiations under the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty
on climate change. The IPCC is currently preparing the Sixth Assessment Report, forcompletion in 2022. This report is a comprehensive assessment of the state of scientific,
technical and socio-economic knowledge on climate change, its causes, potential impacts
and response strategies.
How does climate change affect the Tropical Andes Hotspot, what are the opportunities foradaptation and mitigation in the hotspot, and what actions are being taken at the level ofthe countries where the hotspot is present? This chapter attempts to answer these andother questions related to the impact of climate change and how different actors are
addressing these concerns across the hotspot.

10.1

Climate History of the Hotspot and its Effects on Biota

The Andes are home to a wide variety of climates that are a product of their topography,
their location along the western edge of South America, the influx of southeastern Pacificwaters (cold in the south and warm in the north) and the continental trade winds (Martinez
et al. 2012; Young 2012). Uplift of the Andes began 200 million to 250 million years ago
and continues to this day. Interactions among the Caribbean, Nazca and South American
plates have led to the current topography with three cordilleras and the outlying Sierra
Nevada de Santa Marta in Colombia, the inter-Andean valleys of Ecuador and Peru, theAltiplano of Peru and Bolivia, and the high ridges of Argentina and Chile on the periphery(Mittermeier et al. 2004; Young 2012; CEPF 2015).
Andean climates have changed over geological time due to the uplifting of the Andes, global
climate change and the restructuring of water masses caused by the severing of marine
connectivity between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans with the establishment of the Isthmus
of Panama (Hartley 2003; Garzione et al. 2008; Antonelli et al. 2018). During much of thelast 66 million years, the rain shadow of the Andes presumably caused semi-arid conditionsin the Central Andes. During the last few million years, global warming and warming of the
Humboldt Current led to the strong aridity observed today on the western slope of theTropical Andes south of the equator. During most of the last 2.6 million years, climates
throughout the Andes appear to have been 5 °C to 9 °C cooler than at present, although
precipitation does not appear to have varied sufficiently to cause different forest types fromthose that occur today (Bush et al. 2004; Tiessen 2012). A series of climatic refugia haveformed along the Andes where the local topography has formed distinct dry, humid andsuper-humid regions, which appear to persist over long time periods (Fjeldså et al. 1999;
Killeen et al. 2007). The combination of diverse climates and stable climatic refugia hascontributed to the high diversity and endemism now seen in the Tropical Andes (Martínez etal. 2012; Young 2012).
The Tropical Andes is known to contain centers of endemism for several species or species
groups, which, due to their limited distribution ranges and specialized requirements are239

particularly affected by climate change and human disturbance (Noguera-Urbano andEscalante 2015; Tognelli et al. 2018). Centers of endemism for plants and birds, forexample, occur in areas that have remained ecologically stable, so historical patterns ofclimate change have had a major impact on the current distribution of endemics (Killeen etal. 2007; Herzog et al. 2010).

10.2 Projected Impacts of Climate Change on Human
Populations and Biodiversity
Land surface temperatures have increased throughout the Tropical Andes region since the1970s, albeit at a slower rate than the global average (Marengo et al. 2012). Although
precipitation has also changed across the Andes, climatologists have so far detected no
consistent pattern to the changes. Analyses are complicated by the increasing frequency andintensity of El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, which have strongly influenced
precipitation patterns since the 1980s (Marengo et al. 2012).
Climate models suggest that future temperature increases in the Andes under greenhouse gas
emissions scenarios that match current emissions (for example, the A2 scenario of Meehl et al.
2007) will be in the order of 2 °C to 3 °C by the mid-21st century and 3 °C to 4 °C by the endof the 21st century (Marengo et al. 2012). Most models also project higher temperature
increases in the upper altitudes of the Andes (Bradley et al. 2006). The models also predict a
20 to 25 percent increase in precipitation on both slopes of the Tropical Andes (Blázquez et al.
2013; Pabón-Caicedo et al. 2020, Schoolmeester et al. 2016). In contrast, precipitation may
decrease by 10 percent in the Altiplano of the southern portion of the Tropical Andes (Neukom
et al. 2016) (Figure 10.1, adapted from Marengo et al. 2012). Paradoxically, the altitude ofcloud formation is projected to rise on the humid slopes of the Andes, leaving cloud forests
without the vital daily influx of canopy moisture (Foster 2001).
Figure 10.1 Projected Mean Daily Precipitation (mm) for the 21st Century in the
Tropical Andes

Source: Adapted from Marengo et al. 2012 by CEPF (2015).

The Tropical Andes Hotspot is home to some of the greatest biological riches on the planet andits mountain ecosystems provide goods and services to both nearby and lowland populations.

240

However, the hotspot is continuously threatened by unsustainable anthropogenic activities.
These are exacerbated by projected changes in climate, as may have happened in the pastwith Andean megafauna becoming extinct due to the effect of climate on their habitat, in
combination with human activities (Rozas-Dávila et al. 2016).
Carbon is constantly flowing into and out of ecosystems. However, as humans destroy large
areas of forest at an increasing rate, the carbon cycle is disrupted and the balance is tipped
more emphatically towards carbon outflows from ecosystems. By collecting data on carbon inforests, grasslands and wetlands, scientists have determined the amount of carbon stored inecosystems around the world and measured how long it would take to recover it if it were lost
and what this loss would mean for humanity (Goldstein et al. 2020). They have identified"irretrievable carbon" reservoirs, i.e., carbon stocks that are potentially vulnerable to releaseby human activity and, if lost, could not be restored by 2050 - the year in which the populationneeds to reach net zero emissions to avoid an unprecedented climate crisis.
The carbon stocks stored in the world's major ecosystems have been analyzed in three facets:(i) whether humans can affect these carbon stocks, (ii) the likely amount of carbon that would
be released if ecosystems are destroyed or altered, and (iii) how quickly these carbon stocks
could be restored if lost. Against this backdrop, there are certain places on Earth that we
simply cannot afford to destroy, i.e., ecosystems that are crucial for prioritizing climate action,
and where humans can really have an impact (Goldstein et al. 2020).
Table 10.1 lists the top 10 hotspots on the planet by total mass of irrecoverable carbon. The
Tropical Andes Hotspot is the second most important hotspot in the world for irrecoverable
carbon.
Table 10.1. Top ten hotspots by total mass of irrecoverable carbon
Position

Tons of irrecoverable
carbonHotspot1

Sundaland

681 546 838

2Tropical Andes

314 291 735

3Indo – Burma

270 630 066

4North American Coastal Plain

169 045 350

5Eastern Afromontane

151 730 888

6

Wallacea

122 334 166

7Chilean Winter Rainfall and Valdivian Forest

119 342 859

8Horn of Africa

118 103 598

9

Cerrado

101 453 353

10

Mesoamerica

98 802 274

Source: Moore Center, Conservation International (unpublished data, December 2020).

Ongoing climate change has already left a mark on the natural systems of the Tropical Andes,and scientists have only recently begun to document those changes. Careful observation along
an elevational transect of the eastern slope of the Andes in Peru has demonstrated an upslope
migration of trees at a rate of 2.5 to 3.5 vertical meters per year due to increasing
temperature (Feeley et al. 2011). Timberlines have also migrated upslope in other areas of theAndes, but more slowly (Lutz et al. 2013). Similarly, in Peru three high-elevation frog species

241have expanded their distribution range vertically within the past century to inhabit newly
formed ponds created by ongoing deglaciation generated by global warming (Seimon et al.
2017). Birds have also expanded their distributions to higher elevations in the Tropical Andes(Forero-Medina et al. 2011). However, many species that are capable of shifting theirdistribution upwards are moving at a much slower rate than is needed to adjust to the current
rate of climate change. Although this phenomenon is widespread in the Andes, changes instructure and composition at different elevations are not uniform (Fadrique et al. 2018). Table
10.2 provides an overview of how different species groups differ in their vulnerability to
climate change.
Table 10.2. Vulnerability of Tropical Andean Species to Climate ChangeGroups
Birds

Vulnerability factors
•
•
•
•
•

Mammals••••
Amphibians•••

Reptiles••High Andean aquatic species such as ducks, grebes, herons, ibises andflamingos may suffer from the effects of drying lagoons and rivers (Herzog
et al. 2010; CEPF 2015).
Migratory species (flycatchers, warblers, vireos) are susceptible todisruptions in food availability throughout the migratory cycle (CEPF 2015;
Wilsey et al. 2019).
Species that rely on plants that are vulnerable to climate change will sufferfrom reduced habitat quality (e.g., Polylepis specialists such as the CriticallyEndangered Cinclodes aricomae (CEPF 2015).
It is estimated that 50 percent of Andean species will suffer habitat
reduction and 10 percent may disappear by 2050 (Ramírez-Villegas et al.
2014).
Andean upland bird communities face increased threats of extinction due toincreases in average temperature, with the limits of their distribution
shifting tens of meters up the mountain in the last three decades (ForeroMedina et al. 2011).
Grazing species (guanacos, vicuñas, deer, vizcachas) are susceptible tochanges in the species composition of puna grasslands (CEPF 2015; Flores
2016). In addition, vicuñas are considered to be more vulnerable due to theincreased incidence of scabies (Pinto et al. 2008).
Increased conflicts with human activities due to the movement ofagriculture to high altitude areas - especially for high altitude species, suchas the Andean deer, Hippocamelus antisensis, and the Andean bear,
Tremarctos ornatus, that have no options for further ascent, (Lilian Painter,
personal communication).
High-elevation rodents may not have higher sites to disperse to (CEPF
2015).
All predictions, including the most conservative scenarios in terms ofdispersal and climate change, forsee major shifts in the distribution of
mammal species in the Andes (Iturralde-Pólit et al. 2017).
Many species (e.g., glass frogs, harlequin toads, poison dart frogs) areparticularly sensitive to changes in precipitation and humidity (CEPF 2015).
Populations adapted to high-altitude habitats will be affected by the gradualdrying of watercourses as glaciers retreat and their supply of water bodies
decreases (CEPF 2015; Seimon et al. 2017).
Climate change can increase susceptibility to chytridiomycosis disease(Seimon et al. 2017; CEPF 2015;), as well as population declines andextinctions (Baez et al. 2016).
Higher temperatures can reduce the number of hours with favorable
temperatures for foraging (CEPF 2015).
As temperature in reptiles acts as a controlling factor for physiologicalprocesses such as digestion, reproduction (including sex determination

242

GroupsFishesVulnerability factors•••

Beetles••

Vascular plants

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

during incubation), heart rate, locomotion, among others, climate change
may severely affect lizard and snake populations (Urbina-Cardona 2011).
Species adapted to high elevation streams and lakes (such as pupfishes andnaked sucker-mouth catfishes) may not tolerate increased watertemperatures (CEPF 2015).
Waterbodies with higher temperatures contain less dissolved oxygen,making aquatic habitats less suitable for fish with high dissolved oxygen
demand (Maldonado et al. 2012; CEPF 2015).
Range contraction for most fish species, particularly those inhabiting
uplands (Herrera-R. et al. 2020).
Loss of habitat and diversity, migration to higher elevations (Larsen 2012;
Moret et al. 2016).
Potential invasion of exotic species into current habitat due to climatechange (Baez et al. 2016).
Species with limited dispersal ability may not be able to track favorable
climates fast enough (CEPF 2015; Morueta-Holme et al. 2015).
Páramo species (frailejones, puya, grasses, others) are vulnerable tochanges in precipitation and invasive species from lower elevations (CEPF
2015).
Puna grassland species may suffer from increased fire frequency andcompetition from invading species taking advantage of climatic changes(Lutz et al. 2013; CEPF 2015).
High elevation species may not find higher sites to disperse to (CEPF 2015;
Morueta-Holme et al. 2015).
Epiphytic plants (orchids and bromeliads) are vulnerable to decreased
cloud-borne mist in montane forests (Ruiz et al. 2008; CEPF 2015).
Pollinator communities may change and reduce plant reproductive output(CEPF 2015; Rojas 2018).
Treeline species such as Polylepis may be unable to disperse uphill due todifficulty establishing in non-forest and low humidity communities (CEPF
2015; Morueta-Holme et al. 2015).
Species such as cushion plants, that depend on glacial melt will decline as
glaciers disappear (CEPF 2015).
Eighty percent of Andean species will reduce their habitat, while 10 percent
will face extinction by 2050 (Tejedor et al. 2015).
Climate change will induce habitat decline for species from colder climates,i.e., those corresponding to high altitude ecosystems (Báez et al. 2016).
Changes in biodiversity patterns and changes in the spatial distribution ofhigh-altitude forests (Báez et al. 2016).

Source: Adapted from CEPF (2015) and others.

Just as species differ in their vulnerability to the effects of climate change, so do Andean
ecosystems (Vargas et al. 2017). Based on current knowledge about the key factors
responsible for the formation of Andean ecosystems, the history of human intervention andprojected climate changes, scientists have estimated the potential vulnerability to climatechange of the major ecosystems of the Tropical Andes (Young et al. 2012). Table 10.3
summarizes these analyses. The ecosystems most vulnerable to climate change, páramos andcloud forests, are those that have had the relatively shortest history of human intervention.
Aquatic systems are also highly sensitive to changing precipitation patterns, as well as the
reduction of glacial runoff caused by a dwindling glacial mass in the Andes. A bioclimatic
modeling exercise confirmed the relative vulnerabilities to climate change of the main
ecosystems of the Tropical Andes (Tovar et al. 2013).

243

Table 10.3. Vulnerability of Major Andean Ecosystems to Climate Change
Ecosystems
PáramoElevational
range (m)> 3000Humid Puna

2000 – 6000

Puna

2000 – 6000

Montane andpre-montane
forest1000 – 3500

Andeanseasonal
forest

800 – 3100

Andean dry
forest600 - 3600

Wetlands

Throughout

Vulnerability

Examples of affected KBAs

Highly vulnerable.
Decline in area, encroachment ofwoody plants, disturbance ordegradation due to increased fire
regimes. Highly vulnerable due toisolated mountaintop location.
Moderately vulnerable.
Decrease in area, changes in soil
fertility, colonization by invasive
species.
Moderately vulnerable.
Increased fire risk, dramaticchanges in current vegetation
structure and composition.
Highly vulnerable.
Decreased occurrence of haze,
desiccation, increased incidence oflandslides and erosion, forest
senescence due to reduced naturalregeneration, vulnerability to fire.

Colombia: Páramos andBosques Altoandinos deGénova, Parque Natural
Regional Páramo del Duende(COL75)Slightly vulnerable.
Less climatic vulnerability thanother forest ecosystems, but
greater anthropogenic
vulnerability due to threat ofchange of use.
Slightly vulnerable.
Invasion of species from wetter
areas that could alter species
composition.
Highly vulnerable.
Vulnerability to temperature
increase, which may alter thehydrological balance. Progressive
disappearance due to decreasing
deglaciation water.

Peru: Kosñipata Carabaya(PER44) Bolivia: Cotapata(BOL13)
Bolivia: Parque Nacional Tuni
Condoriri (BOL46)
Bolivia: Bosque de Polylepis
de Madidi (BOL5), Bosque de
Polylepis de Taquesi (BOL8)
Ecuador: Parque Nacional
Podocarpus (ECU50)
Peru: Abra Patricia–Alto Mayo
(PER7)
Colombia: Enclave Seco delRío Dagua (COL36)

Peru: Río Utcubamba (PER84)

Colombia: Laguna de la Cocha(COL50)Source: Young et al. 2012.

The projected impacts of climate change on human populations consider:
Water availability. Higher evaporation rates are expected in lakes and other wetlands due toincreased temperature; this would lead to changes in water quality (especially temperatureand salinity), with a greater impact in areas where precipitation is projected to decrease.
Similarly, accelerated glacier melt will lead to increased surface runoff and reduced water
reserves stored in glacier ice (Vuille et al. 2018, Dussaillant et al. 2019). Natural
shrub/grasslands could experience water depletion, salinization, reduced area and increased
carbon emissions (Noh et al. 2020).
Furthermore, the accelerated retreat of glaciers in the Tropical Andes is one of the mostevident consequences of climate change and has a direct effect on the availability of water
resources for large cities and small towns in the surrounding areas. This process of glacial244retreat threatens future water availability for subsistence economies, agriculture and highAndean populations (Cuesta et al. 2012; Vargas et al. 2017; Tito et al. 2018). Reduced runoff
not only threatens water supply for drinking and irrigation, but also for hydropower production,
which is critical in the Andes (Bradley et al. 2006). Glacial melt and permafrost are also
expected to release heavy metals, especially mercury, affecting water quality for freshwaterorganisms as well as for domestic and agricultural use (Dupar et al. 2020).
Eventually, the loss of water storage capacity of the higher Andean areas will cause severe
imbalances in the lower parts of the basin due to the decreased capacity of the snowpack tostore water as ice in the cold season and provide water in liquid form during the warm season(Gonda 2019). In Bolivia, for example, for the metropolitan areas of La Paz and its sister city
El Alto, water availability is 80 percent dependent on water from nearby glaciers (Hoffmann etal. 2012). The most notable cases of glacier retreat since the 1980s are the Cordilleras deApolobamba (40 percent loss of surface area), Tres Cruces (27 percent) and Real (37 percent)(Soruco et al. 2008; Rangecroft et al. 2015).
Glacier retreat in mountain regions has accelerated worldwide in recent decades, prompting
efforts to document what will soon become landscapes of the recent past (Ramirez et al.
2020). The evident decline and loss of snow-capped mountains as a consequence ofaccelerated deglaciation and its repercussions are of growing concern within the global
scientific community. This change is considered intimately related to global climate change(Francou 2013). In the Tropical Andes, the rate of glacier retreat since 1950 has exceeded theglobal average, with a marked increase after 1970. This trend is related to an observed
increase in average surface air temperature of 0.1 °C per decade over the last seventy years in
the Tropical Andean region (Ramirez et al. 2020).
Climate-induced disasters. Changes in rainfall seasonality, floods, droughts, landslides,
hailstorms, cold or heat waves are the most widespread meteorological events. The frequency
and intensity of extreme weather and climate events have increased as a result of climatechange and will continue to increase under medium and high emissions scenarios (Dupar2019). In Bolivia, for example, the largest number of adverse events between 2005 and 2009were floods and droughts (Andrade 2017). The latter led to the declarations of national
emergencies in 2016 and 2020. People and infrastructure are increasingly exposed to natural
hazards, such as landslides, resulting from changes in frozen lands of high mountain areas(Dupar et al. 2020).
These events cause loss of life and damage to infrastructure and agriculture and are difficult toforecast over any time period (IPCC 2013), posing significant challenges to planners andemergency response and disaster risk management agencies (CEPF 2015).
Degradation of natural habitats. Rising temperatures can increase the frequency of fires,
which reduce the quality of existing agricultural lands and affect natural ecosystems (Vargas etal. 2017). The cycle can modify local weather conditions by increasing warming and reducing
precipitation, thereby exacerbating the problem and causing more pressure on natural
systems. Biomass burning also lowers air quality causing concern for human health.
Furthermore, the risks generated by degraded ecosystems alter their natural functioning andreduce their capacity to maintain the ecosystem service of protection against natural hazards
such as floods and landslides (Pacha 2020).
Disease outbreaks. Climatic conditions have a major influence on diseases transmitted bywaterborne pathogens or insect vectors. Changes in climate are likely to lengthen the seasons245

of vector-borne disease transmission and alter their geographical distribution (RodríguezPacheco et al. 2019).
Diseases such as dengue, zika and chikungunya, as well as malaria and yellow fever are
tending to increase in incidence in the countries of the region. The increase in global averagetemperature would extend the breeding range of the Aedes aegypti mosquito and thusincrease the likelihood of more people contracting these diseases (see, e.g., Márquez et al.
2019).
It is worth noting that in November 2020, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru andVenezuela presented the "Andean Health and Climate Change Plan 2020 - 2025", which sets
out the actions needed to increase the resilience of the Andean countries to climate variability
and change, protect the health of their populations and lead the region towards a sustainable
future (ORAS-CONHU 2020). This plan aims to be a key instrument to contribute to the
reduction of the negative effects of climate change on health, based on strategies for adequate
integrated management, increased resilience, stronger cooperation networks and progressive
integration among the Andean countries.
Effects on agriculture. Climate change has already been implicated in the spread of fungal
diseases in maize, potato, wheat and bean crops in Peru (Torres et al. 2001), and will almost
certainly affect more crops in the future. Similarly, it is exacerbating human-wildlife conflicts,
as wild animals tend to increase their impact not only on crops, but also on pastures anddomestic livestock (Rojas-Vera et al. 2019; Vargas et al. 2020).
Uncertainty about the impact of temperature rise, CO 2 increase, precipitation trends andemission scenarios on agricultural crop productivity and disease vulnerability has led to great
concern over the future food supply for growing populations across Latin America (Tito et al.
2018).
In summary, the rise in the Earth's temperature affects desertification processes (water
scarcity), land degradation (soil erosion, vegetation loss, forest fires, snowmelt) and foodsecurity (instabilities in crop yields and food supply). These changes put food systems,
livelihoods, human and ecosystem health at risk (Dupar 2019).

10.3

Resilience to Climate Change

One way to understand how vulnerable a hotspot is to climate change is to assess theresilience of the corridors that contribute to ensuring landscape connectivity, the connectivityof KBAs and provision of ecosystem services.
Based on the conservation corridors identified for the Tropical Andes, bioclimatic modeling has
been carried out to understand how vulnerable the hotspot is to climate change. Corridors thatcurrently encompass a broad diversity of climatic regimes provide more opportunities at theregional scale for species to track suitable climates as they move across the landscape. Suchcorridors are, therefore, more resilient than corridors with less diverse climates.
Spatial analyses scored each corridor for bioclimate diversity, based on the classifications
defined and mapped at the global level by Metzger et al. (2013). The climate model of Metzger
et al. (2013) describes the main temperature and precipitation gradients. The various
combinations of these parameters provide an indication of regional bioclimatic diversity. The
results have been marked textually as High, Medium high, Medium low and Low, for better

246

interpretation of the results (Table 10.4); thus, corridors that have been assigned Highbioclimatic diversity are considered to be more resilient to climate change.
Table 10.4. Bioclimatic Diversity of Corridors in the Tropical Andes Hotspot
Corridor nameCountry

Bioclimatic diversity(Metzger et al. 2013)
Medium low

Cordillera Oriental – Bogotá

Colombia

Carpish – Yanachaga

Medium highChilean / Bolivian Altiplano Saline Lakes

Peru
Bolivia / Chile

Cóndor – Kutukú – Palanda

Ecuador / Peru

Medium low

Cordillera de la Costa Central

Venezuela

Medium highCordillera de Vilcanota

Peru

High

Cotopaxi – Amaluza

EcuadorMedium highIsiboro – Amboró

BoliviaHigh

Tierras altas de Lima – Junín

Peru

Low

Madidi – Pilón Lajas – Cotapata

Bolivia / Peru

High

North of the Cordillera Oriental

Colombia

High

Central Cordillera

Colombia

Medium Low

Noreste de PerúParaguas–Munchique – Bosques Montanosdel Sur de Antioquia

Peru

High

Cordillera de Perijá
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta andsurrounding areas

Venezuela
Colombia

High

Sonsón – Nechi
Tarija – Jujuy

Colombia

Medium low
Medium high

Trinational Puna

Argentina / Bolivia
Chile / Argentina /Bolivia

Tucumán Yungas

Argentina

Medium highDry Forests of Tumbes – Loja

Ecuador / Peru

Medium low

Venezuelan Andes

Venezuela

HighWest Azuay

EcuadorMedium low

Northeast of Quindío
Awá – Cotacachi – Cotopaxi

Medium low

Nororiental

Colombia
Ecuador /Colombia
EcuadorSangayEcuadorMedium high

La Victoria – La Cocha – Sibundoy

Colombia

Medium highLow

Medium highColombia
High

Low

Medium low
Medium high

The analysis revealed that most corridors in the hotspot currently have High to Medium Highbioclimate diversity (Table 10.4, Figure 10.2). By this measure, the hotspot corridors should be
fairly resilient to climate change. It should be noted, however, that seven corridors: Cordillera
Oriental - Bogota, Cordillera Central, Sonsón - Nechi and Northeast Quindío (in Colombia),
West Azuay (in Ecuador), Condor - Kutukú - Palanda and Dry Forests of Tumbes – Loja
(shared by Ecuador and Peru) and Awá - Cotacachi - Cotopaxi (shared by Ecuador andColombia), have Medium low bioclimatic diversity.

247

In general, however, it is assumed that natural habitats in different bioclimates retain
connectivity that allows plants and animals to disperse as they go in search of favorable
climates (CEPF 2015). The high overall bioclimatic diversity is not surprising given the steep
elevation gradients that characterize the Tropical Andes and drive climatic variability (Young2012). The corridors with the lowest climatic diversity are found on the Pacific slope of theAndes near Lima, Peru, and in the extreme southwest of the hotspot in the border area
between Bolivia, Chile and Argentina. Both regions are characterized by dry climates and lesstopographic diversity than elsewhere in the hotspot (Josse et al. 2012; Young 2012).

10.4 Potential Impacts of Human Response to Climate
Change on Protected Areas, Natural Areas andBiodiversity
Climate change is causing many high Andean biomes to retreat to higher altitudes and undergochanges in their composition. The most affected are those in glaciated areas, páramos andmountain forests, which play a key role in the provision of ecosystem goods and services:climate regulation, water supply, reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Likewise, the displacement of species to higher altitudes can increase the risks of the spread ofinvasive species and diseases. In addition, land-use change, such as the conversion of
ecosystems for agricultural or livestock use, exerts a double pressure on Andean ecosystems.
Warming in low-lying areas generates an increase in rural migration due to the need forfarmers to find higher ground in order to maintain productivity of traditional agriculture
practices (without climate change adaptation technologies). This is being documented for crops
such as coffee and cocoa, on which a large proportion of the population in the Tropical Andes
depends. For example, a recent assessment of the impact of climate change on the Peruvian
coffee sector concluded that only 23 to 36 percent of current coffee-growing areas in thenorth-eastern region, where more than 50 percent of the country’s coffee is grown, will
maintain stable conditions for coffee production. Unfortunately, 40 percent of current coffee
growing areas will lose suitability for this crop. The same study also found that more than
440,000 hectares at higher altitudes may have agro-climatic suitability for coffee cultivation,
but these lands are mostly located in protected areas and indigenous territories (Robiglio et al.
2017).
Pressure for land will increase hunting, harvesting and extraction in remaining forests andincrease the burden on natural pasture areas so that wildlife will be marginalized to lessproductive lands to maintain viable populations.
As discussed above, climate change will require adequate planning to maintain the provision of
ecosystem services to the most populated areas, especially the provision of water to large
urban centers within the hotspot.

248

Figure 10.2. Bioclimatic Diversity of Tropical Andes Hotspot Corridors249

10.5 Opportunities for Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation in the Hotspot
Broadly speaking, Andean land-use planning must consider compatible use under a climatechange scenario and reconcile land uses in a way that maintains a balance between the
expansion of agriculture, conservation areas and other land uses, such as forest management,
agroforestry, silvopasture and others that provide ecosystem services. These uses, althoughhaving different objectives, are so closely related to each other that biological diversity flows
between protected areas and the other areas (Sayer et al. 2013).
In this regard, for example, maintaining the productive capacity of land currently in use
contributes to the permanent establishment of rural populations. This prevents expansion into
more biologically sensitive areas and promotes more intensive land-use systems, while otherland uses such as protected areas or forest production areas play a buffering and connectivity
role.
Maintaining the health of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems is crucial for mitigating climatechange, as they act as major sinks for greenhouse gases, absorbing almost 50 percent of
global emissions (Friedlingstein et al. 2019). Otherwise, degradation of these ecosystems cantransform them into sources of GHG emissions, further exacerbating climate change impacts(Shukla et al. 2020). This is particularly relevant for páramos, Andean forests and wetlands,
which represent the largest carbon stocks in the Tropical Andes (Gonda 2020).
The conservation of forests as carbon sinks and for the regulating and provisioning ecosystemservices they provide is particularly relevant as deforestation and forest degradation constitutetwo of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the hotspot. Reducing emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation (REDD) is a strategy for mitigation, biodiversity
conservation, forest management, wetland conservation and restoration, and grasslandconservation (Moreno et. al. 2016).
Adaptation is not only about conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. It is also about
increasing resilience to climate change through protected area systems, adaptive management(efficient water use, climate-resilient crops), diversified agroforestry systems and ecosystem
restoration. Adaptation actions represent an opportunity for the population to adapt to theeffects of climate change.
Consolidating protected area systems involves creating new protected areas where this is apriority and strengthening the management of these areas and their areas of influence. It also
consists of complementing them with other effective area-based conservation measures, suchas indigenous reserves, territorial reserves (for indigenous peoples in isolation and initial
contact), conservation corridors, or conservation concessions.
In addition to adaptation and mitigation actions to reduce the vulnerability of theseecosystems, it is necessary to promote the development of public policies aimed atcomprehensive landscape management at the various levels of government (national and subnational). It is also necessary to strengthen environmental governance under the various
conservation regimes (protected areas, indigenous reserves, private conservation). This would
include, for example, strengthening the governance of indigenous territories, which occupy atleast 21 percent of the hotspot area (Andrade-Pérez et al. 2011).
Climate change is changing traditional practices, which implies shifting policy priorities orallocating resources to underfunded actions. To this end, it is appropriate to update

250

information on the KBAs in the Tropical Andes Hotspot that are most threatened, taking into
account the impacts of climate change and land-use change.
Climate impacts on the hotspot have been little studied. It is appropriate, therefore, to fundand promote research to address the main knowledge gaps and disseminate the findings.

10.6

Policy Responses and Initiatives on Climate Change

All hotspot countries have joined the UNFCCC, with the aim of stabilizing greenhouse gas
concentrations at a level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system.
Various mechanisms and strategies have been implemented in the region to conserve
ecosystems and their services, cope with climate change and improve people's livelihoods.
These include policies, programs and projects linked to: Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and Nationally Determined Contributions(NDCs) (Aguilar et al. 2019; Samaniego et al. 2019).
Since 2005 and during the last decade, REDD has been part of the UNFCCC negotiations
because of its ability to maintain and enhance forest carbon sinks, which contributes positively
to global greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. It also has additional benefits related tobiodiversity enhancement, maintenance of water resources and food security.
Land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) are important sources of emissions for most
tropical countries, despite the relatively small contribution of hotspot countries to global GHG
emissions. The IPCC identifies REDD+ as the activity with the greatest potential to mitigate
these sources of GHG emissions (Table 10.5).
In the presentation of total CO2 emissions by country in Table 10.5, Argentina and Colombia
stand out. Peru and Colombia stand out in the presentation of emissions from the LULUCF
sector.
Table 10.5. Contribution of Tropical Andes Hotspot Countries to Global Emissions,and Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)

Country

Total emissions inmegatonnes CO2
equivalent

LULUCF emissions inmegatonnes CO2
equivalent

GHG emissions in the Tropical
Andes

Venezuela

243,380 (Bolivarian
Republic ofVenezuela 2017b)

6,395 (Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela
2017b)

Potentially high, especially in the highAndean zone (Bolivarian Republic ofVenezuela 2017b).

251

Country

Total emissions inmegatonnes CO2
equivalent

LULUCF emissions inmegatonnes CO2
equivalent

GHG emissions in the Tropical
Andes

Colombia

258,800 (IDEAM etal. 2016)

67,288 total (IDEAM etal. 2016)

Due to the limited extent of Andean
forest, emissions are potentially low
but severely affect water provision
services in densely inhabited areas(Etter et al. 2000).
GHG emission reduction commitment
51 percent by 2030 (Republic ofColombia 2020)

Ecuador80,627 (Republic ofEcuador 2019)

20,439 (Republic ofEcuador 2019)

The extent of Andean forests is lessthan tropical rainforest, but important
for the provision of water to cities(Republic of Ecuador 2017).

86,472 (Republic of
Peru 2020a)

Potentially high if soil carbon pools inhigh altitude peatlands are degraded(Miyamoto et al. 2018). Commits to a
40 percent reduction in projected
GHG emissions by 2030 (Republic of
Peru 2020a).

38,701 (Plurinational
State of Bolivia 2015)

Potentially high, loss of Andean
forests will lead to severe water
imbalances and biodiversity
disruption (Plurinational State of
Bolivia 2015)

No dataHas committed to reduce its CO2
emissions per unit of GDP by 36
percent from the 2005 level by 2030
(Republic of Chile 2020)

No data

It has committed not to exceed thenet emission of 359 million tons ofcarbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2eq)
by 2030 at the country level(announcement by the President ofArgentina, Alberto Fernandez, during
his participation in the Climate
Ambition Summit, December 2020).

Peru

147,095 (Republic of
Peru 2020a)

Bolivia

80,627 (Plurinational
State of Bolivia
2015)

Chile

97,000 (Aguilar et al.
2019)

Argentina

364,000 (Republic ofArgentina 2020)

REDD and REDD+ strategies (whose implementation includes conservation components,
sustainable forest management with the participation of local people and the enhancement offorest carbon stocks) are relevant for the conservation of ecosystem services and contribute to
the development of the communities that depend on them (Angelsen et al. 2019). This is why

252they are incorporated by the countries of the region in various instruments and levels ofparticipation, as shown in Table 10.6.
Table 10.6. Countries in the Tropical Andes Participating in REDD+Country

Characteristics

Venezuela

It has no registered carbon projects. It does not participate in the UN-REDD
program (UNEP 2016b).

Colombia

Has a national strategy to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation, REDD (Republic of Colombia 2016a).

EcuadorActively participates in the REDD initiative and has a results-based payment scheme(Republic of Ecuador 2016)

Peru

Actively participates with support from UN-REDD office and has a national forest andclimate change strategy (Peña 2014; Republic of Peru 2020a)

Bolivia

Participates with initiatives registered with the national authority, the Ministry ofEnvironment and Water (UNEP 2016a)

Chile

Participant of the Initiative and has a national strategy for REDD implementation(Republic of Chile 2015 and 2020)

Argentina

Participant of the Initiative and has a national REDD implementation plan (Republicof Argentina 2017 and 2019)

Overall, REDD+ has been perceived by most hotspot countries as a promising opportunity tomobilize additional financial resources for forest conservation and management under a global
mechanism for reducing GHG emissions (CEPF 2015). Reducing deforestation and degradationis seen as having important benefits for biodiversity and forest conservation, and additional
international funding is widely seen as a contribution to scaling up national sustainable
development goals. It should be noted, however, that the Government of Bolivia has been
particularly critical of REDD+ in UNFCCC negotiations and other global forums, advocating
instead for a Joint Mitigation and Adaptation Mechanism. It has also expressed a preference forthe use of public funds, as opposed to market-based regulatory mechanisms, for
implementation (Angelsen et al. 2010; Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia 2012). Argentina, Chile
and Venezuela have significant reforestation programs that create a distinctive profile at thenational level resulting in the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector being
a net sink, with reforestation activities largely concentrated outside the hotspot. Despite thepredominant role of plantations in the forestry sector, both Argentina and Chile have shown
interest in REDD+ as a mechanism to address continued significant deforestation pressures(CEPF 2015; Orduz 2015).
In 2015, the historic Paris Agreement to combat climate change was signed by UNFCCC
member countries. This agreement entered into force in 2016 and aims to prevent the increasein the global average temperature of the planet from exceeding 2 °C above pre-industrial
levels, and also seeks to promote additional efforts to ensure that global warming does notexceed 1.5 °C.
As part of the Paris Agreement, countries undertook to define their efforts to reduce emissions(mitigation) and adapt to the effects of climate change, which are set out in their respective
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The formulation and implementation of the NDCs
has required leadership at the highest political level to facilitate sectorial and territorial
articulation, as well as the development of spaces for the participation of various stakeholders(private sector, academia, indigenous peoples, civil society, etc.). Likewise, it has been253

fundamental for the hotspot countries to have a framework of policies or regulations related toclimate change management.
As countries work to comply with NDCs under the Paris Agreement, they can use REDD+ as it
offers emission reductions while protecting their forests (Bistend et al. 2019). The Paris
Agreement also recognizes that some countries are interested in transferring and tradingcarbon credits to meet NDCs.
The most salient policies and/or rules related to climate commitments and REDD+ by country
are described in Table 10.7.
Table 10.7. Climate and REDD+ policies in Tropical Andes Hotspot countries
Country

NDC and REDD+

REDD+ Policies

Venezuela

Following the Paris Agreement, which Venezuela
recognized as Law of the Republic, it signed theagreement at the United Nations in 2016 andratified it in 2017. The approval of its NDCs
occurred in 2017 without specific mention of
REDD+ (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 2017aand 2017b). The mitigation target considers anemissions reduction of 20 percent by 2030,
relative to an inertial scenario (if the mitigation
plan is not implemented). Although it does not yet
have a Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Plan, for adaptation it has prioritized measures inthe sectors of electricity, industry, housing,transport, health, biodiversity, food sovereignty
and agriculture, water and forest conservationand management, research, education andculture, waste management, land management,risk management, emergencies and disasters(Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 2017a and2017b; Villamizar et al. 2018).
It submitted its NDCs in 2015 (Republic ofColombia 2016a) and they were approved in
2018. It has prepared its 2020 update in
consultation with civil society where it presents
REDD+ as a cross-sectorial mechanism (Republicof Colombia 2020). It set a mitigation oremissions reduction target of 51 percent by 2030
compared to the projected baseline (if no action
were taken), prioritizing the sectors of transport,
energy, agriculture, housing, health, trade,
tourism, industry and protected areas (Republic ofColombia 2020).

Despite initial tacit support, there
is no mention of these policies in
official documents.

Colombia

EcuadorIt published the first version of its NDCs in 2019(defined through a participatory process during
2018), where it mentions REDD+ as a mechanism
to be applied (Republic of Ecuador 2019). The
mitigation target is a 9 percent emission reduction
by 2025 (base year 2015) and comprises theaggregate contributions of the energy,

254

Colombia has developed several
policy instruments to address
climate change, such as theColombian Low Carbon
Development Strategy (ECDBC
by its acronym in Spanish) in2012, the National Strategy for
Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest
Degradation (ENREDD+ by its
acronym in Spanish) in 2018 and
the National Climate Change
Adaptation Plan in 2016
(Republic of Colombia 2020).
The Ministry of Environment has
issued a series of agreementsthat provide a framework foraction to implement the REDD+
approach (Republic of Ecuador
2019).

Country

Peru

Bolivia

Chile

NDC and REDD+
agriculture, industrial processes and waste
sectors. For the LULUCF sector the mitigation
target is 4 percent compared to 2015. The priority
themes for adaptation are human settlements,
water resources, productive and strategic sectors,
health and food sovereignty, agriculture,
livestock, aquaculture and fisheries, with a focus
on risk management (Republic of Ecuador 2019).
In 2015, Peru submitted its NDCs to the UNFCCC,
based on REDD+ as a mechanism to achieve this(Republic of Peru 2016). It has recently
committed to a 40 percent reduction in projected
GHG emissions by 2030 (Republic of Peru 2020a).
Adaptation targets are defined according to theprioritized sectors of water, agriculture, fisheries,
forests and health (Republic of Peru 2020a). The
creation of a multi-sectorial working group for
NDC planning is noteworthy. Similarly, spaces for
dialogue have been established with the private
sector, civil society and the general public for theplanning and management of NDCs. In September
2020, a High Level Commission on Climate
Change (CANCC by its acronym in Spanish) was
officially installed, which will be in charge of
proposing climate change adaptation andmitigation measures expressed in the NDCs, aswell as updating the National Climate Change
Strategy to 2050, in order to promote Peru's
transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient
development (Republic of Peru 2020b). Similarly,
in October 2020, the Platform of Indigenous
Peoples to Confront Climate Change was officiallycreated, made up of seven indigenousorganizations and two ministries.
It submitted its NDCs to the UNFCCC in 2015 anda review and update was planned for the end of2020 (Plurinational State of Bolivia 2015; Retamal
and Gutiérrez 2020). With a focus on adaptation,
mitigation and risk management, aligned with its
Living Well Policy (Plurinational State of Bolivia2015), with targets to 2030 and prioritizing thethematic areas of water, energy and forestagriculture. No emission reduction targets wereset, but sectorial targets were set to triple water
storage capacity by 2030, increase the share of
renewable energy to 79 percent by 2030, andincrease the area of forests under integrated andsustainable management, with a community
approach, to 16.9 million hectares by 2030
(Plurinational State of Bolivia 2015).
It submitted its NDCs to the UNFCCC in 2015 andpresented an update in 2020 with a commitment
to reduce its CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 36
percent by 2030 (Republic of Chile 2020). Thistarget corresponds to an intermediate point on
the road to carbon neutrality by 2050.

255

REDD+ Policies

Despite the existence of ongoingprojects, REDD+ indicators have
not yet been established in thebudget management instrumentsof the Ministry of Environment,
MINAM for its acronym in
Spanish (Republic of Peru 2019).
In August 2019, MINAM launched
the project "Guidelines for theidentification and classification of
REDD+ Actions", which will serve
to provide clarity on the activities
that can be considered REDD+
and thus be able to: i) Include
them in the National Registry of
Mitigation Measures-RENAMI, by
its acronym in Spanish; ii)
Access Payment for Results; andiii) Access carbon markets.
(Republic of Peru 2020b)

It has started theimplementation of pilot initiativesof the joint mitigation andadaptation mechanism for the
integrated and sustainable
management of forests, analternative approach to REDD+.
The Bolivian government has
been very critical of REDD+ in
the UNFCCC negotiations, taking
a position against thecommodification of nature and infavor of climate justice (Angelsen
et al. 2019).
The forestry sector has
implemented the REDD+
initiative for the conservation ofnative forests through the
National Forestry Corporation(CONAF by its acronym inCountry

Argentina

NDC and REDD+

REDD+ Policies

Specifically, for the Land Use, Land Use Change
and Forestry (LULUCF) sector, the recovery of 200
000 ha of native forests and the afforestation of
200 000 ha with native species has been
proposed. For adaptation, actions have been
proposed within the framework of the National
Adaptation Plan and sectorial plans (Republic ofChile 2015 and 2020).
Argentina submitted its NDC in 2015 (Republic ofArgentina 2020). This version was updated andafter a revision process it submitted its NDCs tothe convention in 2016 (Republic of Argentina2016). It has adaptation measures focused on the
sectors of forests, water, crop management andbiodiversity conservation strongly linked to thesame objective (Republic of Argentina 2019).
Regarding its mitigation commitments, it
proposed not to exceed net emissions of 359
million tons of carbon equivalent by 2030, in theenergy, agriculture, forestry, transport, industry
and waste sectors. Adaptation measures arefocused on the sectors of forests, water, crop
management, health, biodiversity conservationand extreme events.

Spanish), which contributes toChile's voluntary commitment to
the UNFCCC to reduce its GHG
emissions by 36 percent(Republic of Chile 2015 and2020).
In its National Action Plan on
Forests and Climate Change itmentions the role of REDD+, but
without mentioning
implementation mechanisms(Republic of Argentina 2017).

REDD+ project-level activity is oriented towards the voluntary carbon market, which has beendeveloped in some hotspot countries, mainly in Colombia and Peru. Carbon markets make itpossible to neutralize or offset emissions through carbon credits generated by projects that
reduce emissions elsewhere. Of course, it is essential to verify or validate the emission
reductions generated by projects. In the hotspot, there are 15 projects validated under the
Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) or the Climate, Community and Biodiversity (CCB) Standard,
as shown in Table 10.8.
Table 10.8. National REDD+ Projects Validated or Verified under the Verified Carbon
Standard (VCS) or the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard (CCB), Tropical
Andes Hotspot
Country

Project

ProposerStandard

Location

Peru

Alto Mayo Conservation
Initiative

Conservation
International (CI)

VCS, CCB –Gold1

San Martin Region

Peru

REDD+ Project at theConcesión de Conservación
Alto Huayabamba (CCAH)

Amazónicos por la
Amazonía (AMPA)

VCS, CCB –Gold2

San Martin Region

Cordillera Azul National
Park REDD+ ProjectCentro deConservación,
Investigación yManejo de ÁreasNaturales (CIMA)

VCS, CCB –Gold2

San Martin, Ucayali,
Huánuco and Loreto
Regions

Peru

256

Country

Project

ProposerStandard

Location

Peru

Alto Huayabamba

Pur Project

VCS2

San Martín Region

Peru

Secure retirement:
Agroforestry andreforestation with small
farmers in Peru

Pur Project

VCS3

San Martín Region

Peru

Biocorredor Martin Sagrado
REDD+ Project

Pur Project

VCS, CCB –Gold4

San Martín Region

Peru

Shaded coffee and cocoa
reforestation project.

Société de gestion
de projets
ECOTIERRA Inc.

VCS3

Cajamarca,
Amazonas, San
Martín, Huánuco,
Ucayali, Junín,
Ayacucho, Cusco,
Puno andLambayeque
Regions

Colombia

Forestry project for the
Chinchina river basin, an
environmental andproductive alternative for thecity and the region.

South Pole Carbon
AssetManagement
S.A.S.

VCS3

Department of
CaldasColombia

REDD+ in the Otún River
forests

VCS5

Risaralda andQuindío

VCS5

Yarumal, Briceño,
Valdivia and Santa
Rosa de Osos
Municipalities.

Société de gestion
de projets
ECOTIERRA Inc.

VCS4

Bocayá,Cundinamarca,
Huila and Meta

Corporación
Autónoma
Regional del Río
Grande de la
Magdalena(CORMAGDALENA)

VCS, CCB –
Gold6

Huila

Colombia

Regeneration of Colombian
Coffee Plantation Ecosystems

PUR DesarrolloPte. Ltd.

VCS3

La Sierra, Rosas, La
Vega El Peñol, El
Tambo, La Florida
and Sandona

Colombia

Grouped project REDD+
conservation of the ecologicalcorridor of Roble Guantiva La Rusia - Iguaque

Natura Foundation

VCS, CCB –Gold7

Santander

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

Magnolios REDD+ Project
Yagual - Grouped carbon
sequestration project for
restoration, conservation andsustainable production in the
Guerrero, Sumapaz and
Rabanal páramo systems.
Grouped project for the
reduction of emissions fromdeforestation and forest
degradation (REDD) in the
Regional Natural Park:
Biological Corridor PNN
Purace-PNNN Cueva de los
Guácharos.

Empresa de
Acueducto yAlcantarillado dePereira S.A. E.S.P.
South Pole Carbon
AssetManagement
S.A.S.

257

Country

Ecuador

Project
Reforestation with native
species in the Pachijal andMira River Watersheds forcarbon sequestration.

Proposer
Mindo Cloud
ForestFoundation

Standard

Location

VCS, CCB –Gold8

Imbabura andPichincha Provinces

VCS Registered - CCB verification approval requested; 2 VCS Registered - CCB verification approved; 3 VCS
Registered; 4 VCS Registered - CCB under verification; 5 VCS in development; 6 VCS Registration requested - CCB
validation approved; 7 VCS Under validation - CCB under validation; 8 VCS in development - CCB validation expired.
Source: https://registry.verra.org/
1

Despite the relevance and accelerated progress of avoided deforestation projects, no concrete
progress has been made in the creation of a large-scale funding mechanism. REDD+, as a
cost-effective, results-based compensation and financing mechanism for forests, does not yet
exist and concrete progress is based on a patchwork of isolated REDD+ projects andprograms. Table 10.9 presents the number of registered REDD+ projects per country thateventually describe progress in the mechanism.
Table 10.9. Validated or verified REDD+ projects under the Verified Carbon Standard(VCS) or the Climate, Community and Biodiversity (CCB) Standard and Adaptation
Strategies and Plans
Country

Registered VCS
Projects/ AFOLU
Projects (*)

CCB REDD
Projects

Venezuela

0/00

Not reported

Colombia

59 / 33

10

Approved in 2016

Ecuador

3/1

0

In formulation based on 2012
national climate change strategy

Peru

28 / 21

4

In formulation

Bolivia

4/3

0

Not reported

Chile

25 / 3

1

Approved in 2014

Argentina

14 / 10

Included in national climate change
adaptation and mitigation plan 2019

National Adaptation Plans

Source: Verified Carbon Standard (2020).
(*) AFOLU: Agriculture, Forestry Sector and Land Use Change

In order to contribute to the implementation of the Paris Agreement, the UNFCCC created theGreen Climate Fund (GCF). This fund is the world's largest fund dedicated to supporting
developing countries in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and improving their capacity
to respond to climate change.
The GCF aims to catalyze a flow of climate finance to invest in low-emission, climate-resilient
development, driving a paradigm shift in the global response to climate change. An innovative
element is the use of public funds to promote private investment. Currently, there are no
projects being implemented in the hotspot; however, some countries already have concept
notes submitted to the fund, as shown in Table 10.10.

258

Table 10.10. Projects submitted to the Green Climate Fund within the Tropical
Andes Hotspot
Country

Peru

Peru

Peru

Colombia

Project

Proposer

StatusLocation

Strengthening theprevention andresponse to forest fires
intensified by climatechange in Peru.
Scaling up the comanagement model ofcommunal reserves toreduce emissions andbuild the resilience ofindigenous peoples in
the Peruvian Amazon.
Adaptation and
Ecosystem Finance for
Alpaca and Vicuña
Herders (AbE-FAV)

Fondo Fiduciario
Peruano para Parques
Nacionales y Áreas
Protegidas(PROFONANPE)

Concept
Note

National

Conservation
International (CI)

Concept
Note

Amarakaeri
Communal
Reserve

Fondo Fiduciario
Peruano para Parques
Nacionales y Áreas
Protegidas(PROFONANPE)

Concept
Note

Cusco Region

WWF Colombia

Concept
Note

National

Heritage Colombia(HECO): Maximzing thecontributions ofsustainably managed
landscapes in Colombia
to the achievement ofclimate goals

Source: https://www.greenclimate.fund/In recent years, adaptation measures have become more relevant due to significant changes inseasonal temperatures, length of seasons and increased frequency of extreme weather events,
which demand practices that moderate the damages associated with climate change (Sánchez
et al. 2015). The design and implementation of adaptation measures involve a multi-level(local, national, regional and international), multi-stakeholder (public, private and civil society)and multidisciplinary approach. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the GCF has alarger number of adaptation projects than mitigation projects. Similarly, to ensure a multi-levelapproach, it has Designated National Authorities that ensure consistency with national
priorities and are the interlocutors with the GCF and Accredited Entities responsible for
implementing projects.

10.7 Civil Society's Role in Promoting Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation
The involvement of civil society in the region in climate change policy formation and programshas resulted in important contributions in the form of policy engagement and the developmentof research with pilot activities. There are many civil society initiatives underway in all
countries, providing an important complement to larger-scale official government initiatives(CEPF 2015; Aguilar et al. 2019). However, this engagement is still disproportionate to that
undertaken by public entities. Analysis of conservation investment (see Chapter 11) showsthat of the US$146.3 million invested in the two climate change-related themes between 2015
to 2019 in the hotspot, just 7.1 percent of those resources are allocated to civil society
organizations (CSOs).

259

Civil society groups have actively promoted capacity building and technical assistance atmultiple levels: regional and national governments and for local communities in Colombia,
Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. Leaders within CSOs working in this field include Corporación
Ecoversa in Colombia; Amazónicos por la Amazonía (AMPA), Centro de Conservación,
Investigación y Manejo de Áreas Naturales (CIMA), Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental(SPDA) and Asociación para la Investigación y Desarrollo Integral (AIDER) in Peru and Practical
Action in Bolivia and Peru. International organizations dedicated to climate change include
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Conservation International(CI) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC).
In Argentina, the main actors that stand out for their participation in the definition of NDCs
and their implementation are Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales-FARN, Greenpeace
Argentina and Fundación Vida Silvestre (Aguilar et al. 2019). In Chile, key civil society actors
include the NGOs Terram, WWF Chile, Fiscalía del Medio Ambiente-FIMA and Adapt Chile(Aguilar et al. 2019).
At the regional level, several CSO networks are actively involved in climate change and REDD+
issues, including:• Articulación Regional Amazónica (ARA), a network of CSOs from the Amazon region focuseson the exchange of information and experiences regarding policies and projects for forest
conservation and development.
• Plataforma Climática Latinoamericana, a network of Latin American CSOs promoting the
integration of climate change considerations as a priority for national and international
policy making.
• Information Red Amazónica de Información SocioAmbiental Georferenciada (RAISG), which
generates and disseminates data on REDD and climate change adaptation for the Amazon
region.
• Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica (COICA) is promoting
an alternative vision which they call Amazon Indigenous REDD+ (RIA by its acronym in
Spanish), with active engagement at the national and international policy level and several
pilot projects under development.
• Red de Comunicación en Cambio Climático, LatinClima, is a climate change communication
community and information center for Latin America and the Caribbean. Created in 2015, it
is open to journalists and communicators, as well as other professionals, organizations andnetworks. It seeks to position the issue of climate change in the Latin American public bothfrom the point of view of political advocacy to reduce GHG emissions and the adaptation ofclimate change impacts at all levels.
Of particular interest are the multi-stakeholder REDD+ working groups that include the REDD+
roundtables in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, as well as at the subnational level. These working
groups are playing an important role in helping to shape national and subnational REDD+
strategies, programs and policies (CEPF 2015; Aguilar et al. 2019). Meanwhile, Chile has theprivate sector Climate Leaders Group, and among other civil society actors, there are Mesa
Ciudadana de Cambio Climático and the NDC Observatory (Aguilar et al. 2019).
As REDD+ evolves from its former focus on project activities towards broader policy andregulatory frameworks to reduce deforestation and promote low-emission rural development,
civil society has an important opportunity to shape the planning, policy and investment
decisions. It can also play a role in ensuring that biodiversity conservation objectives are inline with the REDD+ agenda (CEPF 2015; Samaniego et al. 2019).

260

Shaping public discussions, policies and investment decisions is probably the most important
opportunity for civil society at the current REDD+ juncture. While there are many opportunities
for civil society organizations to participate in government consultations, working groups andworkshops, few have dedicated staff or budgets for this purpose. Participation at this level isboth a valuable opportunity for CSOs and a net drain on limited institutional resources (CEPF
2015; Milano 2019).
Civil society has also played a particularly important role in developing offset projects for thevoluntary carbon market since the inception of the forest carbon market, with most REDD+
projects in the hotspot and beyond being led by local and international NGOs. Although themarket landscape for these projects is challenging, they often offer one of the few means ofprivate sector finance for REDD+ and provide valuable learning experience on methodologicalissues, stakeholder engagement, and effectively combating deforestation at the local scale(CEPF 2015).
Adaptation has received far less attention and funding in the civil society sector, despite its
critical importance for the long-term success of conservation efforts. With a combination ofadequate funding and research expertise, analytics and outreach, CSOs could do far more tocontribute to highlighting the potential impacts and adaptation strategies in the face of global
climate change as they relate to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services (CEPF 2015;
Aguilar et al. 2019; Milano 2019).
The role of civil society organizations in fulfilling climate commitments is addressed differently
in each country.
In Venezuela, strategies and proposals to contribute to climate change describe the importanceof the participation of organized citizens and grassroots movements (República Bolivariana deVenezuela 2017a and 2017b, Aguilar et al. 2019). However, there is limited evidence ofeffective civil society participation in the proposed commitments.
In the case of Colombia, it is worth highlighting how the state and civil society come together
to share information about proposals and bring in non-state actors' perspectives, based on theprinciples of access to information and public participation (República de Colombia 2020). Nine
territorial and sectorial climate change nodes have been established, in keeping with regional
needs, to advance climate change mitigation, adaptation and risk management actions in acoordinated manner. Within this framework, CSOs, governors' offices, municipalities,
environmental authorities, research institutes and other relevant institutions and organizations
work in coordination with the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development toimplement climate change policies, plans, projects and actions in their territories.
Also noteworthy is the active involvement of public and private sector bodies in developing the
National Adaptation Plan, with the increasing integration of groups, such as indigenous people
and women, that are traditionally under-represented in consultation processes. Therefore, theelaboration of the National Climate Change Adaptation Plan was also a process marked by
active civil society participation (Republic of Colombia 2016b).
In Colombia, there are also other climate agreement spaces and processes, such as the:• Pilar Indígena Visión Amazonía, or PIVA, which is directly related to indigenous
communities;• Finanzas del Clima Colombia, which is an annual event organized by the SISCLIMA
Financial Management Committee;

261

•
•

Mesa Intersectorial para la Democracia Ambiental (MIDA); and"Saber Hacer Colombia" strategy, which promotes the involvement of vulnerable
populations in environmental projects (Milano 2019).

In Ecuador, civil society organizations stand out as collaborators and active members of groups
and processes such as the REDD+ Working Group and the Red Ecuatoriana de Cambio
Climático (RECC) (Republic of Ecuador 2016). Both contribute to a continuous process ofclimate change capacity building through thematic dialogues and full and effective
participation. They also promote greater recognition of climate-related good practice by civilsociety actors, especially indigenous groups and women (Republic of Ecuador 2019). Since
2019, the National Climate Change Adaptation Plan has been under development, with support
from UNDP and in coordination with civil society and all sectors. The process aims to achieve
institutional and technical strengthening that stimulates both institutions and decision-makers
to develop climate change policies and plans in their area of specialization.
In Peru, an active consultation and information process has been established with civil society,mainly through the REDD+ Peru group, which includes indigenous organizations, so that policy
instruments such as the NDCs are developed in a transparent and participatory manner.
Dissemination and awareness-raising activities on climate change reached a very high pointwith the staging of COP 20 in Lima. Currently, the management of the Peruvian NDCs includes
consultations with civil society to define mechanisms for the implementation of mitigation andadaptation measures (Aguilar et al. 2019). An indigenous platform has recently been set up to
facilitate dialogue between indigenous organizations and all levels of government. In 2021, theparticipatory process of updating Peru’s National Climate Change Strategy, which will have a2050 planning horizon, will begin (Republic of Peru 2020a). Already in 2020, the National
Climate Change Adaptation Plan was developed in a participatory manner with CSOs.
In Bolivia, the need to include civil society in climate consultation and participation processes isrecognized. The country’s primary instrument for national and sectoral planning, the Social
Economic Development Plan, or PDES by its acronym in Spanish, includes the issue of forestsand integrates the strategy of horizontal and vertical articulation, which considers theparticipation of civil society (Aguilar et al. 2019).
Additionally, the NDCs consider community management of social organizations as afundamental basis for achieving adaptive capacity, but without adding details on the form of
implementation (Plurinational State of Bolivia 2015).
It is worth noting the significant role of international cooperation, through government
agencies and NGOs, in providing and channeling the necessary resources to civil society
organizations to implement interventions that improve the relationship with the public sector,
as well as the decentralized generation and dissemination of information (Milano 2019).
Additionally, the discussions and forums promoted by civil society have helped to defineintervention complements, such as safeguards and other mechanisms, that should supplement
the adaptation and mitigation actions to be implemented by national states in the frameworkof their climate commitments. In the region, there are signed agreements between
governments, such as those of Norway, Germany and the United Kingdom with Colombia,
Ecuador and Peru, to reduce deforestation and forest degradation in the framework of theactions described by their national environmental policy instruments (Gauna 2017).

10.8 Recommendations for Strengthening Adaptation and
Mitigation Policies and Approaches
262Based on the national consultations and the analysis conducted in this chapter, the six mostsalient recommendations for strengthening climate change adaptation and mitigation policies
and approaches in the Tropical Andes Hotspot have been considered. They can be summarized
as follows:•

Strengthen local government action, coordinated with national and subnational policies, forthe development of sustainable economic activities, conservation of landscapes resilient toclimate change and establishment of protected areas that efficiently contribute tobiodiversity conservation and the maintenance of associated ecosystem services. For
example, through conservation actions and maintenance of natural infrastructure:o Restoration of Andean forests and scrublands;o Management and conservation of springs and wetlands;o Protection of large sections of whole forests from Venezuela and Colombia toArgentina and Chile; ando Protection, management or restoration and maintenance of connectivity
corridors and for the permanent production of ecosystem services.

•

Encourage the control, and promote the management, of forest fires. This requires nationalfire management plans that include funding for equipment and capacity building for theselection of crop seeds of native species with proven adaptation to changes in climaticconditions, promotion of pollinators and native melliferous plant species, agriculturalextension with an impact on good soil and water management practices, establishment ofwater reservoirs for times of scarcity, reduction in use of inorganic pesticides, containmentof invasive exotic species, among others.

•

Articulate conservation initiatives promoted by local governments and actors with the
management of national protected areas systems and territorial planning, as well as withthe management and public investment of sub-national governments. Protected area
management plans should include climate change adaptation actions, as well as thevaluation of the ecosystem services they provide, in close coordination with government
planning at different levels, as well as with the livelihood plans of local populations.

•

Strengthen the capacity of CSOs to access funding that contributes to national targets andcomprehensive and innovative climate change management since, in the current scenario,
adaptation costs in developing countries could range from US$140 to 300 billion per yearby 2030. Despite climate risks, investment in the sector has barely reached US$22 billion
in 2016 (Micale et al. 2018). KBAs such as the Zona Protectora Macizo Montañoso delTurimiquire in Venezuela (VEN26), Mindo y Estribaciones Occidentales del Volcán Pichincha(ECU44) in Ecuador or the Parque Nacional Natural Chingaza y alrededores (COL61) and
the Parque Nacional Natural Farallones de Cali (COL65), both in Colombia, provide essential
water supply services to nearby cities, with CSOs needing to catalyze funding for theirconservation.

•

Strengthen the capacity of local populations to engage in sustainable economic initiatives
and promote their more active participation in awareness-raising, communication andeducation processes linked to the conservation of forests and other natural ecosystems
throughout the hotspot. This may require increasing their knowledge and capacities on theimportance of climate change adaptation and mitigation.

•

Generate spaces for peer-to-peer exchange and learning among communities and local
people to share experiences, achievements, common problems and initiatives in relation to263

forest management practices. These knowledge management processes should be
documented and disseminated to share experiences and promote scaling up.

264

11 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONSERVATION INVESTMENT
11.1

General Aspects

This chapter examines investments in natural resource management and biodiversity
conservation in the Tropical Andes Hotspot between 2015 and 2019.
The analysis shows that public sources33 and international donors34 financed 1,229 investments
for a total of US$676.6 million during the period of analysis, for a wide variety of projects
related to natural resource management, which have been grouped into the following thematic
areas:35
1. Species conservation
2. Planning, policy and institutional strengthening
3. Management of protected areas
4. Climate change: adaptation and mitigation
5. Community development and local governance
6. Watershed conservation
7. Sustainable management of forests and other natural resources
8. Capacity building
9. Landscape conservation and biological corridors
10. Climate change - REDD+
11. Biodiversity research and environmental monitoring
12. Economic incentives for conservation
Approximately 48 percent of this funding (US$323.6 million) went to support programs at thenational level that benefited the seven hotspot countries, while 52 percent (US$353.0 million)
33

Public sources include national governments, regional governments, as well as other public sources fromthe non-financial sector in the hotspot countries (local governments, institutes, universities, etc.).
34
Among international donors, the profile considered bilateral donors, multilateral donors, foundations andother international donors (e.g., investment from the Corporate Social Responsibility areas of somecompanies). In the case of foundations, we considered those projects whose main objectives were natural
resource management. Other projects that finance human rights, poverty alleviation and democracy issues
have been omitted, even if they had some environmental components among their actions.
35
Includes investments made between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019, organized by source(national, bilateral, multilateral, foundations, public and private sectors, and strategic financing initiatives),country, and thematic areas. Data are from internet sources and direct donor consultations. All investments
were entered into an Excel table containing data on: project name, start and end date, whether it is aregional project or not, donor name, type of donor, whether public or private, country(ies) that received theinvestment, project location (at district, municipality, province or similar level), whether the project location
is within a prioritized corridor or not, thematic (in the case of species conservation the taxon was specified),
total amount of the project, amount of co-financing in cash, whether the project received co-financing inkind or not, adjustment of the total amount by area and years, adjusted amount, project executor, type of
executor (if CSO or not), project reference and project objective.
In addition, the following was taken into account when registering the projects:
i. Avoid double counting of investments.
ii. Country-level investments that were not specifically targeted to the Tropical Andes region were adjusted
for the proportion of the country within the hotspot. This is a representative value that assumes thatcountry-level investments were evenly distributed throughout the country, which could over orunderestimate actual expenditures directed to hotspot conservation.
iii. Only those investments that affected at least 20 percent of the hotspot area were included (thusexcluding investments at the country level in Argentina, Chile and Venezuela).
iv. Data collection relied on publicly available sources describing conservation investments and it is likelythat some funding sources and projects were omitted and others may have been over or underestimated.
In some cases where information was not publicly available, donors were contacted directly.
v. Data related to national investment in protected area management were limited for the hotspot countries
and, when available, budgets for individual protected areas were not disaggregated.

265was invested in supporting programs and projects directly in the hotspot area in the sevencountries (Figure 11.1). On average, total investments are equivalent to US$70.6 million peryear for projects in the hotspot.
Figure 11.1. Direct Investment in the Tropical Andes Hotspot and at the National
Level for Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation (Total =US$676.6 million), 2015 - 2019

US$ 324
million;

US$ 353
million;48%

52%

Investment of programs and projects directly in the hotspot area.
Investments at the national level that benefited the hotspot.

Of the total amount, as shown in Figure 11.2, US$307.3 million (45.4 percent) was channeled
to activities that had biodiversity conservation as their primary objective. About 14.9 percentof the total funds, the equivalent of US$100.7 million, were channeled through CSOs, 36
however, only US$57.6 million (8.5 percent) went to projects executed by national CSOs basedin one of the seven hotspot countries, while US$43 million was implemented by large
international CSOs.
Figure 11.2. Breakdown of Investment for Natural Resource Management andBiodiversity Conservation in the Hotspot, 2015 -2019

36

A distinction was made between the execution of projects by national CSOs based in one of the hotspot
countries and international CSOs (generally large foreign non-governmental organizations), such as WWF,
Conservation International, Nature and Culture International and WCS, among others. These international
CSOs executed fewer projects but with a much larger amount per project than national CSOs (see Chapter
11.3).

266

This section compares investments identified between the first and second ecosystem profiles
for the Tropical Andes, for Phase I from 2009 – 2013 and for Phase II from 2015 – 2019. This
comparative analysis should be considered as is indicative rather than conclusive due todifferences in the ability of the profiing teams to access information on conservation
investments and to slight methodological variations in assessing these investments.
Between the two periods under review, there appears to be a slight increase of US$62 million
in the total investment in natural resource management in the hotspot. However, investment
in biodiversity conservation fell by about US$28.7 million. It is worth noting that for the period
2015 – 2019, 1,229 investments were analyzed for a total of US$676.6 million (with anaverage of US$550,566 per investment) while for the previous CEPF period, 2009 – 2013, 712
investments were analyzed for a total of US$614.6 million (with an average of US$863,000 per
investment). Thus, more investments would have been made, but with a smaller amount perinvestment than during CEPF Phase I.
Table 11.1. Investment Difference Between the 2009 - 2013 and 2015 - 2019 Periods
Investment
characteristics

Amount for the 2009
- 2013 period (US$millions)

Amount for the 2015
- 2019 period (US$million)Difference(US$million)Natural resource
management

614.6

676.6

62.0

Biodiversity conservation

336

307.3

-28.7

11.2

Thematic Distribution of Hotspot Investment

Funding for natural resource management was spread across 12 thematic areas, as shown in
Figure 11.3. Four thematic areas accounted for almost 60 percent of all investments: 1)
protected area management (18.9 percent); 2) sustainable management of forests and othernatural resources (14.7 percent); 3) climate change adaptation and mitigation (14.5 percent);
and 4) landscape and biological corridor conservation (11.9 percent). Capacity buildingreceived the least amount of investment, accounting for only 0.7 percent of the total
investment in natural resource management within the hotspot.

267

Figure 11.3. Investment in Natural Resource Management in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot by Theme for the 2015 - 2019 Period (Total US$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

20.8

20.0

4.7

11.2.1

Capacity building

Biodiversity research and environmental
monitoring

Economic incentives for conservation

Species conservation

Community development and local
governance

Watershed conservation

Climate change REDD+

Planning, policy and institutional
strengthening

Conservation of landscapes and biologicalcorridors

Climate change: adaptation andmitigation

Sustainable management of forests andother natural resources

Protected area management

0.0

Investments in Biodiversity Conservation

A total of US$307.3 million directly supported biodiversity conservation within the following
five thematic areas: 1) protected area management; 2) landscape and biological corridor
conservation; 3) climate change-REDD+; 4) species conservation; and 5) biodiversity
research.
Protected Area Management
Protected area management in the hotspot received US$127.7 million, approximately US$33.9
million less than in the previous period (2009 - 2013). As will be described subsequently foreach country, even when this is the most funded theme in the hotspot, this amount falls far
short from what is needed to support adequate and effective management of protected areasin the hotspot countries, based on official documents published by governments about thesustainability of their protected natural areas systems. 37
37

Peru: RM 200-2016-MINAM (https://www.minam.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/RM-N%C2%B0200-2016-MINAM.pdf) ; Bolivia: Ministry of Environment and Water (http://sernap.gob.bo/wpcontent/uploads/2018/08/PEI-SERNAP-2016-2020_Final-Articulado.pdf) ; Colombia: PNN and MINAMBIENTE(https://www.parquesnacionales.gov.co/portal/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/brecha-financiera-pag-web.pdf)
and (https://www.parquesnacionales.gov.co/portal/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Modelo-escenarios-brechaDTAN-DTCA-Version-Final-06AGOSTO2018.pdf).

268

Less than half of the funding for protected areas in the hotspot comes from the national
governments38 (47.8 percent) and the remainder comes from external sources (approximately
52.2 percent). Of the US$127.7 million in funding allocated to protected areas in the hotspot,
US$35.5 million (27.8 percent) has come from bilateral sources. Among these, KfW, the stateowned development bank of the Federal Republic of Germany, stands out, with its agreements
to finance protected area systems in Peru, Colombia and Ecuador. In Bolivia, KfW provided
funding until 2013. On the other hand, multilateral sources financed US$21.8 million,
particularly the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the United Nations Development Program(UNDP) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). CEPF is estimated to have provided
approximately US$3.2 million for the hotspot's protected areas. Finally, foundations funded
US$11.6 million, mostly through the Moore Foundation and Andes Amazon Fund (Figure 11.4).
Figure 11.4. Funding Percentage for Protected Areas by type of Financial Source,
2015 – 2019

27.8%

Bilateral
Foundations

47.8%

MultilateralNational Public

9.1%

15.3%
In terms of funding by country, the least funding for protected areas in the hotspot has been in
Bolivia (US$9.1 million, 9.1 percent), although in this particular case, the investment could beunderestimated due to restrictions in access to public information. In relation to the surface
area of the hotspot's protected areas, Colombia was the country that received the mostresources (Table 11.2).

38

Mostly from central governments.

269

Table 11.2. Funding for Protected Areas in the Tropical Andes Hotspot by Country,
2015 to 2019

Country

Argentina

Size ofprotected areasin the hotspot(ha)Total funding(US$ million)(2015 - 2019)

Average funding
per year (US$million)Average hotspot
funding per
hectare per year(US$)

5,349,965.8

Not available

Not available

Not available

Bolivia

9,923,061.9

9.1

1.8

0.18

Chile

810,670.8

Not available

Not available

Not available

Colombia

9,034,801.9

51.8

10.4

1.15

Ecuador

5,737,404.4

17.7

3.5

0.62

Peru

10,004,274.4

49.0

9.8

0.98

Venezuela

1,901,862.3

Not available

Not available

Not available

Bolivia
The type of funding source that contributed the most to the system was bilateral (US$3.2
million). Although the European Union supported Bolivia's SNAP for five years (2011 - 2015)
with more than US$11 million, from 2015 onwards, it invested less than US$1 million. This wasdone primarily through the project "Deciding Our Future: Sustainable Management of theMunicipal Protected Areas of Ixiamas, with a territorial approach for local development".
The donor group that contributed second most to Bolivia's protected areas in the hotspot isprivate foundations. Some US$ 2.7 million (29.7 percent) was channeled into the country byfoundations, mainly through the Moore Foundation and the Andes Amazon Fund.
Multilateral cooperation accounted for 11.5 percent of all funding, with support from the CEPF
totaling an estimated US$499.637.
The SNAP also received almost US$2.3 million through the Fundación para El Desarrollo Del
Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (FUNDESNAP by its acronym in Spanish),39 whichchanneled funding from organizations such as the Moore Foundation, the World Bank and
DANIDA, among others.
The estimated US$9.1 million in funding for the protected areas of the hotspot in Bolivia (2015- 2019) is far from what is required to meet their needs. In fact, in its Institutional Strategic
Plan 2016-2020, the National Protected Areas Service (SERNAP by its acronym in Spanish40)
estimated that more than twice that amount (around US$20.2 million) would be needed toeffectively manage the protected areas of the Bolivian portion of the hotspot.

Colombia
Although Colombia received significant support through bilateral (especially from KfW and
USAID) and multilateral cooperation, it was national public funding that contributed the most
39

This foundation (FUNDESNAP) is a Conservation Patrimony Fund (CPF). CPFs are legally independent,
private and mixed donor institutions that make grants that can be used to support the long-term costs ofprotected areas and biodiversity conservation, among other goals.
40
http://sernap.gob.bo/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PEI-SERNAP-2016-2020_Final-Articulado.pdf

270to the protected areas in the Colombian hotspot. This public investment represented
approximately 62.7 percent of the total (US$32.5 million) for the country.
Bilateral cooperation funded an estimated US$4.5 million in the protected areas of theColombian hotspot through KfW's "Biological Diversity and Protected Areas of Colombia"
Program.
Multilateral cooperation financed more than US$8.1 million in the protected areas of theColombian hotspot, mainly through the GEF and the IDB. In addition, foundations invested
more than US$ 1.3 million. This sum included funds from the Moore Foundation and the Andes
Amazon Fund.
Finally, the Natural Heritage Fund is a mixed 41 (public and private) entity that channeled close
to US$8.3 million from Colombian public entities (Regional Autonomous Corporations, among
others), foundations (mainly the Andes Amazon Fund and the Moore Foundation) andmultilateral sources (mainly GEF).
The US$51.8 million funding provided for the SINAP areas included in the hotspot would also
be insufficient to ensure the sustainability of the system. The document "Estimation of the
Financial Gap of the Protected Areas of the National Natural Parks System" (2018) of the
Sustainability and Environmental Business Sub-Directorate of National Natural Parks (PNN by
its acronym in Spanish) of Colombia, 42 acknowledged that for an initial scenario (including only
the basic needs necessary for operation and maintenance of the system), an estimated US$
8.9 million more per year would be needed. For an improved baseline scenario (including
needs to improve efficiency) an estimated US$ 12.9 million more per year would be needed,
and for an optimal scenario, an estimated US$21.6 million more per year would be needed forthe protected areas of the Colombian hotspot.

EcuadorAn estimated of US$17.7 million in funding was allocated for the protected areas of the hotspot
in Ecuador between 2015 and 2019.
Ecuador’s National System of Protected Areas (SNAP by its acronym in Spanish) receives
technical and financial cooperation under three mechanisms:•••

Endowment through the Protected Areas Fund (FAP by its acronym in Spanish),covering basic operating expenses for 42 protected areas (out of 60 that are part of theSNAP). This fund is administered by the Sustainable Environmental Investment Fund(FIAS by its acronym in Spanish).
Donations, including:o Specific contributions from GEF projects, contributions from water funds andother environmental funds of subnational governments.
o International cooperationo Companies (minor contributions from hydroelectric and other companies under
the concept of corporate social responsibility)
Tax allocations

41

It is a Conservation Patrimony Fund, as is FUNDESNAP (Bolivia).
https://www.parquesnacionales.gov.co/portal/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/brecha-financiera-pagweb.pdf
42271

It is estimated that bilateral financial sources have contributed the most to the protected areasof the Ecuadorian hotspot (37.8 percent), with contributions of more than US$6.7 million from
KfW, followed by multilaterals (28.7 percent), with contributions of around US$4.2 million andalmost US$1 million from CEPF, followed by national public funding (28.6 percent) andfoundations (5 percent). Foundations provided almost US$1 million for protected areas in the
Ecuadorian hotspot through the Moore Foundation and Andes Amazon Fund.
Large projects, such as the SNAP Support Program (with a budget of around US$5 million),
indicated that there were also important gaps in Ecuador's National Protected Areas System.

Peru
In Peru, there has been an investment of US$49 million for protected areas in its hotspot, withgreater investment from international cooperation agencies (56.4 percent) than from statepublic financing. Bilateral cooperation stands out with 32.1 percent of total investment. Most of
the financing has come from KfW, through the different agreements obtained with the Peruvian
government in recent years for the financing of the National System of Natural Areas Protectedby the State (SINANPE by its acronym in Spanish) between 2015 and 2019. Thus, it can beseen that more than US$50 million has been allocated to Peru's protected areas in recent
years through KfW,43 of which an estimated US$10 million have financed protected areas in
the Peruvian hotspot. KfW will also continue to finance SINANPE in the coming years, having
extended its commitment through a new agreement signed at the end of 2020. 44
On the other hand, multilateral sources financed about US$5.3 million (10.8 percent), mainly
through GEF, and foundations financed US$ 6.6 million (13.5 percent), with major
contributions from the Moore Foundation, Andes Amazon Fund and Rainforest Trust.
Finally, the Fondo de Promoción de la Áreas Naturales Protegidas del Perú (PROFONANPE by its
acronym in Spanish), an endowment fund in Peru, channeled approximately US$4.5 million forthe conservation and management of SINANPE. The funds were channeled from multilateralorganizations (GEF), bilateral organizations (KfW), and the Moore Foundation.
According to the Financial Plan of the National Service of State Protected Areas (SERNANP by
its acronym in Spanish),45 funding needs for the protected areas of the hotspot in Peru were
estimated at more than US$10.3 million per year.
The following figure and table show a summary of financing by type, amount and percentage
in each of the four countries described.

https://www.sernanp.gob.pe/noticias-leer-mas/-/publicaciones/c/minam-y-sernanp-reciben-del-gobiernoaleman-una-de-las-252612
44
https://www.gob.pe/institucion/mef/noticias/321977-mef-y-banco-de-desarrollo-aleman-kfw-firmanacuerdo-por-20-millones-de-euros-para-conservacion-de-12-areas-naturales-protegidas
45
https://www.minam.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/RM-N%C2%B0-200-2016-MINAM.pdf
43272

Figure 11.5. Funding in Protected Areas by Country by Source, 2015 - 2019
100%
90%

24.2%

28.6%

80%
70%

43.6%
11.2%

62.7%

60%
50%

10.7%

29.7%
5.0%

40%
30%
20%

National Public

28.7%

Multilateral
Foundations

13.5%

Bilateral

15.6%
34.9%

10%

2.7%

37.8%

32.2%

19.0%

0%
Bolivia

Colombia

Ecuador

Perú

Table 11.3. Protected Area Financing by Country by Source (in US$ million), 2015 to2019
SourceBilateral
Foundations
MultilateralNational public
Total

Bolivia
3.2
2.7
1.0
2.2
9.1

Colombia
9.9
1.4
8.1
32.5
51.8

Ecuador
6.7
0.9
5.1
5.1
17.7

Peru
15.7
6.6
5.3
21.3
49.0

In conclusion, taking into account the US$33.94 reduction with respect to the previous
investment period, and the national governments’ declarations regarding funding gaps (needs)
for their protected area systems, it would be necessary to increase investment in protectedareas in the hotspot by several tens of millions of dollars per year.
Landscape Conservation and Biological Corridors
Landscape conservation and biological corridors include projects that support sustainable
landscape management,46 improvements to connectivity and sustainable production in large
landscape areas and biodiversity corridors, as well as mitigating the impacts of large-scaletransport infrastructure and extractive industry projects.
A total of US$80.5 million was invested in this theme in the hotspot during the period understudy, about US$15 million less than in the previous period (2009 - 2013).
Most of the investment in this area was made in Peru (44.1 percent), approximately US$35.5
million, followed by Ecuador (22.4 percent), Colombia (19.9 percent) and Bolivia (13.5
percent) (see Table 11.4). National public sources have funded landscape and biological46

Landscape is defined as any part of the territory as perceived by the population, whose character is theresult of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors.

273

corridor conservation the most (US$30.1 million, 37.4 percent) followed by multilateral funding(US$24.5 million, 30.4 percent), see Table 11.5.
Table 11.4. Investment in Landscape Conservation and Biological Corridors by
Country, 2015 – 2019
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total

Total
investment(US$ million)
0.0
10.8
0.0
16.0
18.0
35.5
0.1
80.5

Percentage
0.0
13.5
0.0
19.9
22.4
44.1
0.1
100.0

Table 11.5. Investment in Landscape Conservation and Biological Corridors by Source

SourceBilateral
Foundations
Multilateral
Other donors
National public
Total

Total
investment(US$ million)
13.5
12.4
24.5
0.0
30.1
80.5

Percentage
16.8
15.4
30.4
0.0
37.4
100.0

In Peru, the outstanding USAID project "Alliance for Sustainable Landscapes - SLP-P" financed
an estimated US$2 million in Moyobamba and Rioja in the 2015 - 2019 period. In Ecuador, it isestimated that the "National Program for Forest Restoration for Environmental Conservation,
Watershed Protection and Alternative Benefits", with Ecuadorian public funding, financed close
to US$13 million in the hotspot for the 2015 - 2019 period.
One regional initiative was and will be of particular relevance in the coming decade.47 The“Supporting Initiative 20x20: a country-led effort to bring 20 million hectares of degraded landin Latin America and the Caribbean into restoration by 2020" project was channeled throughthe International Climate Initiative (IKI), which is managed by the Federal Ministry for theEnvironment, Nature Conservation and Security (BMU). The 20x20 Initiative is a country-led
effort that seeks to change the dynamics of land degradation in Latin America and the
Caribbean through protection and restoration of 20 million hectares of forests, farms,
grasslands and other landscapes by 2020. The initiative, formally launched at COP 20 in Lima,
supports the Bonn Challenge, a global commitment to restore 150 million hectares of theworld's deforested and degraded lands by 2020, and the New York Declaration on Forests
which aims to restore 350 million hectares by 2030.
Climate Change-REDD+
47

UN New Decade for Ecosystem Restoration (https://www.unenvironment.org/es/noticias-yreportajes/comunicado-de-prensa/nueva-decada-de-la-onu-para-la-restauracion-de-los).

274

REDD+ projects reduced their funding by US$10.7 million, from US$58.7 million in the 2009 2013 period to US$48.0 million in the period 2015 -2019.
The country that received the most funding under this facility is Ecuador (US$30.1 million,
62.6 percent), followed by Peru (US$10.6 million, 22 percent) and Colombia (US$7.1 million,
14.9 percent) (Table 11.6).
Table 11.6. Climate Change Investment - REDD+ by Country, 2015 - 2019
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total

Total
investment(US$ million)
0.0
0.2
0.0
7.1
30.1
10.6
0.0
48.0

Percentage
0.0
0.4
0.1
14.9
62.6
22.0
0.0
100.0

Bilateral sources were the largest contributors (US$26.8 million, 55.8 percent), with donors
such as the Norwegian Agency for International Development (NORAD), that donated US$4.4
million to implement projects such as “Involving local communities in the fight against climatechange", and KfW, that invested an estimated US$16 million, through outstanding projects
such as the "Forest Conservation and REDD+ Program", which also received Ecuadorian publicfunding. After bilateral sources, multilateral sources have been the second most importantsource (US$15.4 million, 32.1 percent). Among the most outstanding projects, the "Financial
and land use planning instruments to reduce emissions from deforestation" financed by theGreen Climate Fund (GCF) stands out with an estimated impact on the hotspot of US$9.4
million. Finally, other donors include the Walt Disney Company, through its corporate social
responsibility commitment, which provided US$3.5 million to Conservation International for
conservation in Alto Mayo (Peru). See Table 11.7.
The larger REDD+ agreements, programs and projects implemented by national governments
are generally financed through international cooperation,48 with co-financing from the national
governments. Given that deforestation is generally the main cause of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in several hotspot countries, it might be interesting to further encourage this type ofinvestment.
Table 11.7. Climate Change Investment - REDD+ by Source, 2015 – 2019

SourceBilateral
Foundations
Multilateral

Total investment(US$ million)

Percentage

26.8
0.0
15.4

55.8
0.0
32.1

48

For example, the Joint Declaration of Intent (JIU) on REDD - Between Peru, Norway and Germany(https://sinia.minam.gob.pe/documentos/declaracion-conjunta-intencion-dci-redd-entre-peru-noruegaalemania)

275

Other donors
National public
Total

3.5
2.3
48.0

7.3
4.9
100.0

Biodiversity Research and Environmental Monitoring
Many projects include activities and actions in biodiversity research and environmental
monitoring among their components; thus, it is difficult to differentiate the specific amountallocated to this area. However, according to the methodology applied, biodiversity researchand environmental monitoring would have experienced an increase with respect to theprevious period, going from US$10.7 million between 2009 and 2013 to US$20.8 million
between 2015 and 2019. The countries that have benefited most in this area are Colombia(US$10.6 million or 51.1 percent) and Peru (US$7.8 million or 37.5 percent). See Table 11.8.
Table 11.8. Investment in Biodiversity Research and Environmental Monitoring by
Country, 2015 to 2019
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total

Total investment(US$ million)

Percentage

0.0
0.3
0.0
10.6
2.1
7.8
0.0

0.0
1.2
0.1
51.1
10.0
37.5
0.0

20.8

100.0

By source, there is a similar proportion (50/50) between national government andinternational cooperation financing (Table 11.9).
Table 11.9. Investment in Biodiversity Research and Environmental Monitoring by
Source, 2015 – 2019
SourceBilateral
Foundations
Multilateral
Other donors
National public
Total

Total investment(US$ million)
4.2
1.6
4.5
0.0
10.4
20.8

Percentage
20.3
7.9
21.8
0.0
50.0
100.0

Among the international cooperation funding sources, multilateral donors (US$4.5 million, 21.8
percent) and bilateral donors (US$4.2 million, 20.3 percent) stand out. Among the former,
CEPF financed close to US$0.5 million through seven projects on this theme for all hotspot
countries, and among the latter, KfW co-financed the "support for national forest monitoring"in Ecuador (with an estimated US$1.1 million). Among the public financing by the national
governments, Colombia's financing stands out, through investments such as "Strengthening ofplanning, evaluation and follow-up processes for the management carried out by theenvironmental sector at the national level," "Strengthening and consolidation of the Colombian276

environmental information system (SIAC by its acronym in Spanish)" and "Research andproduction of knowledge for the integrated management of biodiversity and ecosystemservices in the national territory," among others.
Species Conservation
Many biodiversity investments have species conservation among their objectives, although it isdifficult to differentiate the amount of funding directed specifically to this subject area. For the2015 - 2019 period, funding was estimated at US$30.4 million, which represents an increaseof US$20.5 million over the previous period.
The country that benefited the most was Ecuador (US$21.0 million, 69.1 percent) and bysource, foundations were the largest funding source (US$11.1 million, 36.5 percent). See
Tables 11.10 and 11.11.
Table 11.10. Species Conservation Investment by Country and Percentage of Total,
2015 – 2019
Country

Total investment(US$ million)

Percentage

Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total

0.0
0.7
0.0
5.1
21.0
3.6
0.0
30.4

0.0
2.2
0.1
16.8
69.1
11.7
0.1
100.0

Table 11.11. Investment in Species Conservation by Source and Percentage of Total,
2015 – 2019

SourceBilateral
Foundations
Multilateral
Other donors
National public
Total

Total investment(US$ million)

Percentage

3.8
11.1
7.2
0.0
8.2
30.4

12.6
36.5
23.8
0.0
27.1
100.0

Almost a third of the funding for species conservation (US$10.3 million) was included in asingle project, the "Conservation of Ecuadorian amphibian diversity and sustainable use of
their genetic resources",49 co-financed by various stakeholders, including GEF, UNDP, theJambatu and Amaru foundations and Ecuador's national and local governments, among others.
Other important projects have been the "Protection of Critical Wintering Habitat for Neotropical
Migratory Birds in Ecuador," funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (US$1.0
million) for the protection of the Canada warbler and its wintering ecosystems, or the "Saving
49

https://www.thegef.org/project/conservation-ecuadorian-amphibian-diversity-and-sustainable-use-itsgenetic-resources277

the largest remaining Chocó forest corridor in western Ecuador" project funded by the
Rainforest Trust Foundation (US$2.0 million), which promoted the conservation of species suchas the brown-headed spider monkey, the glass frog, the green macaw, the jaguar and the
banded ground cuckoo. CEPF has made a particularly important contribution for species
conservation, providing US$1.4 million in 29 projects.
At the level of taxonomic groups, amphibians are the largest recipients of species-focused
funding (42 percent of the total amount financed), followed by birds (31 percent), mammals(29.9 percent) and plants (11.4 percent). Only about 1.5 percent of the total was invested in
the protection of reptiles, fish and insects. While project funding for these fauna may not be as
attractive, insect, fish and reptile species are basic food sources for birds and mammals. Thus,
conservation of their habitats could improve their conservation status and ultimately the
integrity of the entire food chain.
As described in Chapter 6, illegal wildlife trafficking and hunting is a significant threat toAndean species. The profile identifies eight projects engaging in this issue at national andregional levels; none specifically target the problem within the hotspot. Their total budget is
US$5.1 million, and they are funded by NORAD, USFWS and the European Union. These
projects mostly support policy and institutional strengthening, particularly for national andlocal governments, to tackle illegal wildlife trafficking and hunting.

11.2.2Other Natural Resources Management Investments

Investment in other natural resource management issues, apart from the categories
mentioned in the previous section, amounted to US$369.3 million and often supported
initiatives that indirectly benefit biodiversity. These included sustainable management offorests and other natural resources, climate change adaptation and mitigation, planning, policy
and institutional strengthening, watershed conservation, community development and local
governance, leveraging economic incentives for conservation and capacity building.
Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
Climate change adaptation and mitigation funding experienced an increase of US$7.1 million
over the previous period, from US$91.1 million in the period 2009 - 2013 to US$98.2 million
for the period 2015 - 2019.
The countries that benefited most were Bolivia (US$33.2 million, 33.8 percent) and Ecuador(US$31.2 million, 31.7 percent). See Table 11.12.
Table 11.12. Investment in Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation by Country in
the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 - 2019
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total

Total investment(US$ million)
0.4
33.2
0.8
14.2
31.2
17.0
1.4
98.2

278

Percentage
0.4
33.8
0.8
14.5
31.7
17.3
1.4
100.0

By source, bilateral sources invested the most in climate change adaptation and mitigation in
the hotspot (US$57.2 million, 58.2 percent), followed by multilateral sources (US$24.1 million,
24.5 percent). National public financing contributed 16.9 percent of the investment in thisarea, which seems to be an underestimate since hydroelectric or other clean energy projects
were not considered in the methodology, which add up to large amounts and are financed bynational governments. In that sense, countries are making great efforts to determine public
spending on mitigation and adaptation, as part of the national climate finance strategicplanning (Table 11.13).
Table 11.13. Investment in Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation by Source in
the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 - 2019
SourceBilateral
Foundations
Multilateral
Other donors
National public
Total

Total investment(US$ million)
57.2
0.0
24.1
0.3
16.6
98.2

Percentage
58.2
0.0
24.5
0.3
16.9
100.0

Among bilateral sources, the Swiss Cooperation financed around US$22 million in projects suchas "Biocultura" (Bolivia, US$4.7 million), "Sharing knowledge and experiences to protect
Andean forest ecosystems" (in the seven countries of the hotspot, US$8.9 million) or phase IIof the "Andean Forests Program" (in the seven countries of the hotspot, US$1.2 million). On
the other hand, German cooperation, through the BMU and the German Agency forInternational Cooperation (GIZ), financed US$16.3 million in the climate change adaptationand mitigation hotspot, including the "Strengthening resilience to climate change through theprotection and sustainable use of fragile ecosystems; ProCamBío II" project, Ecuador (US$4.4
million).
Multilateral sources include the World Bank, GEF, and the Nordic Development Fund (NDF).
Projects to note include the "Climate Change Resilience and Integrated Watershed
Management Project in Bolivia," financed by the World Bank in Bolivia (US$4.16 million) andthe "Ecuador NDC Support Program," co-financed by UNDP, the European Union, and GIZ50(US$3.0 million). In addition, the "Promotion of climate-smart livestock management that
integrates the reversal of land degradation and the reduction of desertification risks invulnerable provinces" project in Ecuador, was financed by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) with an estimated US$2.9 million in the hotspot.
Finally, the Nordic Development Fund's "Pilot adaptation action plan for high inter-valley
communities" invested nearly US$2.1 million in Bolivia.
Economic Incentives for Conservation
The economic incentives for conservation theme include all those projects that stimulate agreen and sustainable economy, the improvement of market accessibility to biodiversity
products and ecosystem services payment. This includes projects that enhance the value ofthe natural capital of ecosystems, thus increasing their economic, environmental and social
interest and providing conservation incentives.
50

European Union and GIZ are bilateral donors.

279

The execution of these types of projects for the current period amounts to US$21.6 million,
with an increase of US$10.7 million with respect to the previous period (2009 - 2013). Its
development has been more important in two of the hotspot countries, Ecuador (US$9.4
million, 43.3 percent) and Colombia (US$8.6 million, 39.7 percent) have benefited the most in
this area. Only US$2.7 million has been financed in Peru and US$0.8 million in Bolivia (Table
11.14). These types of projects are important because they encourage sustainable
development by linking the economy, society and the environment - the three legs ofsustainability.
Table 11.14 Investment in Economic Incentives for Conservation by Country in the
Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 – 2019
Country

Total investment(US$ million)

Percentage

Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total

0.0
0.8
0.0
8.6
9.4
2.7
0.1
21.6

0.1
3.9
0.1
39.7
43.3
12.6
0.2
100.0

By source, 54.7 percent of funding comes from international cooperation (47.5 percent frombilateral sources, 6.7 percent from multilateral sources and 0.5 percent from foundations). On
the other hand, 45.3 percent of funding comes from national public sources, which havefinanced some payment for environmental services projects. In the case of Peru, thismechanism is already regulated by Law Nº 30215 - Law on mechanisms of retribution forecosystem services.51 See Table 11.15.
Table 11.15. Investment in Economic Incentives for Natural Resource Management
by Source in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 – 2019
SourceBilateral
Foundations
Multilateral
Other donors
National public
Total

Total investment(US$ million)

Percentage

10.2
0.1
1.4
0.0
9.8
21.5

47.5
0.5
6.7
0.0
45.3
100.0

Among the most important projects is the “Socio Bosque” project (Ecuador), co-financed by
the Ecuadorian government and KfW, with an estimated US$5.3 million for the 2015 - 2019
period in the hotspot. Socio Bosque52 provides economic incentives to farmers and indigenous
communities that voluntarily commit to the conservation and protection of their native forests,
páramos or other native vegetation. On the other hand, Peru implements Conditional Direct
51
52

http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/es/c/LEX-FAOC135640/
http://sociobosque.ambiente.gob.ec/

280

Transfers (TDC by its acronym in Spanish)53, which provide communities with an incentive toconserve their forests.
Sustainable Management of Forests and Other Natural Resources
Sustainable management of forests and other natural resources projects include improving themanagement and sustainable use of forest stands and other ecosystems for timber and nontimber products (e.g., fiber, fruit or even tourism). Funding for this theme has increased by
US$21.9 million, from US$77.9 million for the period 2009 - 2013 to US$99.8 million for theperiod 2015 - 2019.
With respect to funding by country, Peru has benefited the most (US$54.0 million, 54.1
percent), followed by Ecuador (US$26.4 million, 15 percent), Colombia (US$15.0 million, 15
percent) and Bolivia (US$4.2 million, 4.2 percent). See Table 11.16.
Table 11.16. Investment in Sustainable Management of Forests and other Natural
Resources by Country in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 – 2019
Country

Total investment(US$ million)

Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total

0.0
4.2
0.0
15.0
26.4
54.0
0.1
99.8

Percentage
0.0
4.2
0.0
15.0
26.5
54.1
0.1
100.0

By type of funding source (Table 11.17), national public sources invested US$42.1 million(42.2 percent) and international cooperation US$57.7 (57.8 percent).
Table 11.17 Investment in Sustainable Management of Forests and Other Natural
Resources by Source in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 – 2019
SourceBilateral
Foundations
Multilateral
Other donors
National public
Total

Total investment(US$ million)

Percentage

28.8
2.3
26.5
0.0
42.1

28.9
2.3
26.6
0.0
42.2

99.8

100.0

Among the national public investment projects, the "Recovered forest areas with adequate
forest and wildlife management" project stands out, having invested more than US$9.4 million
in the Peruvian hotspot between 2015 and 2019.54
http://www.bosques.gob.pe/transferencias-directas-condicionadas
This investment is coded with the number 3000384 according to the Ministry of Economy and Finance at:https://apps5.mineco.gob.pe/transparencia/Navegador/default.aspx.
53
54

281

Among the projects financed by bilateral sources in Peru, the following stand out: 1) the"Forest Conservation Program in the Amazonas, Lambayeque, Loreto, Piura, San Martín,
Tumbes and Ucayali departments", financed by the Japan International Cooperation Agency(JICA), which, although it financed only part of the hotspot, it provided approximately US$4.0
million to sustainable management of Andean forests; and 2) the Belgian cooperation’s"Integrated management of natural resources in the departments of Apurimac, Ayacucho and
Huancavelica (PRODERN II)" project, which had an impact in all areas of the hotspot, leaving
an estimated investment of US$4.8 million for this theme for the 2015 - 2019 period.55 In
Colombia, the "Deforestation-free supply chains through public-private partnerships andmobilization of Asian and U.S. markets" project (NORAD, US$1.7 million) sought to improvesustainable forest management through good practices in climate-smart agriculture.56
With respect to projects from multilateral sources, the "Additional Financing for the Colombian
Sustainable Livestock Project" project financed by the World Bank, invested around US$4.2 in
the Colombian hotspot between 2015 and 2019.
Community Development and Local GovernanceAccording to Peru's National Forest and Climate Change Strategy 57 native community forests
suffer less deforestation than those without this administrative structure, d emonstrating that
good local governance of ecosystems is important to reduce the risk of biodiversity loss.
Investment in this area compared to the previous period shows an increase of US$2.4 million
compared to the 2009 - 2013 period, growing from US$35.4 to US$37.8 in this period.
By country, Ecuador (35.3 percent), Peru (29.6 percent) and Colombia (25.4 percent) received
more or less similar investment. See Table 11.18.
Table 11.18. Investment in Community Development and Local Governance byCountry in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 – 2019
Country

Total investment(US$ million)

Percentage

Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total

0.0
3.4
0.0
9.6
13.4
11.2
0.2
37.8

0.0
9.1
0.0
25.4
35.3
29.6
0.6
100

By source, bilateral international cooperation stands out with 43.6 percent of the amountinvested in this area (Table 11.19).

https://prodern.minam.gob.pe/
https://www.norad.no/en/front/funding/climate-and-forest-initiative-support-scheme/grants-20132015/projects/deforestation_free_supply_chains_through_public_private_partnerships_and_mobilising_asian_and_us_markets/
57
http://www.bosques.gob.pe/archivo/ff3f54_ESTRATEGIACAMBIOCLIMATICO2016_ok.pdf
55
56

282

Table 11.19. Investment in Community Development and Local Governance bySource in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 – 2019
SourceBilateral
Foundations
Multilateral
Other donors
National public
Total

Total investment(US$ million)

Percentage

16.5
2.1
10.5
0.7
8.0
37.8

43.6
5.6
27.8
1.7
21.2
100

Planning, Policy and Institutional Strengthening
Funds for planning, policy and institutional strengthening are included within projects that seek
to improve the structure, functioning and sustainability of public institutions and the proper
implementation of the rule of law and democracy in natural resource management in the
hotspot. For the 2015 - 2019 period, investment in this area has been estimated at US$61.3
million. In comparison with the previous period (2009 - 2013) for which US$26.9 million was
estimated. This US$34.4 million increase between the two periods could be an overestimation,
since public information is more accessible today than six years ago and it was precisely thenational public source that contributed the most information by far. In fact, for the previous
profile, national sources represented only 20 percent of all investment, while for this profile
they represent approximately 36.9 percent.
By country, Colombia (61.6 percent) and Peru (34.5 percent) accounted for the majority offunding in this area. By source, national governments contributed the most (67.6 percent),
followed by bilateral sources (18.9 percent), multilateral sources (11.8 percent) andfoundations (1.7 percent). In other words, the National governments have been investing inthemselves to strengthen their institutions and develop their plans and policies, with support
from international cooperation (Table 11.20 and Table 11.21).
Table 11.20. Investment in Planning, Policy and Institutional Strengthening by
Country in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 - 2019
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total

Total investment(US$ million)
0.0
1.9
0.0
37.8
0.4
21.1
0.0
61.3

283

Percentage
0.0
3.2
0.0
61.6
0.7
34.5
0.0
100.0

Table 11.21. Investment in Planning, Policy and Institutional Strengthening by
Source in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 - 2019
SourceTotal investment(US$ million)

Percentage

11.6
1.0
7.3
0.0
41.5

18.9
1.7
11.8
0.0
67.6

61.3

100.0

Bilateral
Foundations
Multilateral
Other donors
National public
Total

Within the category of international cooperation support, the "Contribution to Peru's
Environmental Goals - Proambiente" project (in its phases I and II), financed by GIZ, stands
out. Although it invested in strengthening national environmental and forestry management
systems and improving cooperation between national and subnational institutions, it isestimated that it benefited natural resource management in the hotspot by around US$8.4
million between 2015 and 2019.
Watershed Conservation
Watershed conservation includes projects that seek to conserve natural resources or protect
against environmental degradation (e.g., conserving water resources and soil, reducing
erosion), as well as those that seek to restore damage from environmental liabilities caused bymining projects or infrastructure construction. Ecosystem restoration has been listed by theUnited Nations (UN) as a priority objective for the 2021 to 2030 decade 58.
For the current period (2015 - 2019), US$45.9 million has been invested in this area, US$18.7
million higher than for the previous period (2009 - 2013).
By country, Bolivia has benefited the most (US$15.0 million, 32.7 percent), followed by
Colombia (US$14.9 million, 32.5 percent), Peru (US$12.0 million, 26.2 percent) and Ecuador(US$3.9 million, 8.5 percent). See Table 11.22.
Table 11.22. Investment in Watershed Conservation by Country in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot, 2015 – 2019
Country

Total investment(US$ million)

Percentage

Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total

0.0
15.0
0.0
14.9
3.9
12.0
0.0
45.9

0.0
32.7
0.0
32.5
8.5
26.2
0.1
100.0

https://www.unenvironment.org/es/noticias-y-reportajes/comunicado-de-prensa/nueva-decada-de-laonu-para-la-restauracion-de-los
58284

By source (Table 11.23), national public public investments stand out (35.5 percent), followedby support from multilateral (28.8 percent) and bilateral (28.4 percent) sources andfoundations (7.4 percent).
Table 11.23 Investment in Watershed Conservation by Source in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot, 2015 – 2019
SourceBilateral
Foundations
Multilateral
Other donors
National public
Total

Total investment(US$ million)

Percentage

13.0
3.4
13.2
0.0
16.3
45.9

28.4
7.4
28.8
0.0
35.5
100.0

Important projects include: 1) "Natural Infrastructure for Water Security" (USAID, US$2.9
million in Peru); 2) "Support for Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) in Colombia"(IDB, US$3.7 million in Colombia); 3) "Sustainable Management and Conservation of
Biodiversity in the Magdalena River Basin" (GEF, US$4.6 million in Colombia); 4) "Integrated
Management of Water and Natural Resources" (European Union, US$4.5 million for this issue
in Bolivia59); 5) "Integrated Rural Development in Watersheds (PROCUENCA)" (GIZ, US$5.6
million in Bolivia); 6) "Climate Change Resilience and Integrated Watershed Management
Project in Bolivia" (World Bank, US$4.1 million in Bolivia); and 7) "Integrated Environmental
Management in the Puyango River Basin" (of national funding, US$2.3 million in Bolivia).
Capacity Building
For this calculation, only projects with an explicit objective of capacity building were taken into
account, without considering many other projects that have some component or specificactions for capacity building but have a primary focus or main objectives on other issues. For
this reason, investment in this area could be an underestimation.
According to the methodology used, capacity building was the least funded thematic area inthis period (2015 - 2019), with an estimated US$4.7 million, having reduced investment by
US$2.5 million compared to the 2009 -2013 period, where it was also the thematic area withthe lowest investment.
By country, Peru benefited the most, with 80.1 percent of the total invested, and by source,
more than two-thirds of the financing in this area came from national public funds (Tables
11.24 and 11.25).

This project, with a total budget of approximately US$61 million, financed around US$13.5 million in the
hotspot for the 2015 to 2019 period. Of this US$13.5 million, an estimated US$4.5 million was earmarked
for watershed conservation in specific watersheds.
59285

Table 11.24. Investment in Capacity Building by Country in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot, 2015 – 2019
Country
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total

Total investment(US$ million)

Percentage

0.0
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.4
3.7
0.1

0.0
1.5
0.0
6.6
9.2
80.1
2.6

4.7

100

Table 11.25. Investment in Capacity Building by Source in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot, 2015 – 2019
SourceBilateral
Foundations
Multilateral
Other donors
National public
Total

Total investment(US$ million)

Percentage

0.7
0.1
0.8
0.0
3.1

14.2
1.5
18.2
0.0
66.1

4.7

100

Some of the most important projects were: 1) "Strengthening of capacities in theconservation, management and sustainable use of the vicuña (Vicugna vicugna) in the ruralcommunities of the Junín region", with national public funding from Peru, US$1.0 million, and
2) "Capacity Building Project for Forest Conservation and REDD+ Mechanisms", funded by JICA
in Peru with US$0.5 million.
Following these, CEPF funding provided close to US$300,000 distributed across six projects
exclusively focused on capacity building, most notably "Strengthening conservation practices
and network learning with social and community actors of the Paraguas-Munchique andCotacachi-Awá Corridors" and "Formulation of protective measures and strategies forenvironmental leaders and organizations at risk in the Tropical Andes Hotspot". In addition, 80
percent of CEPF projects have capacity building objectives that are represented in othercategories in this chapter.
Overall, forty projects were financed in this area. Excluding the eight projects with the mostfunding, the average investment per project (for the remaining 32) was very low, around
US$24,500 per project.

11.2.3Comparison of Investments by Theme with Respect to the Previous
ProfileAs explained at the beginning of the chapter, this comparison is for guidance purposes, as
there may be differences in the availability of information and slight changes in themethodologies used between the periods 2009 - 2013 and 2015 - 2019.

286

With that in mind, some differences in investment between the previous period (2009 - 2013)
and the current period (2015 - 2019) are presented. The most important one is that, although
total investment in natural resource management has increased by US$62 million, investment
for biodiversity conservation has decreased by US$28.7 million. See Figures 11.6 and 11.7.
Figure 11.6. Comparison in Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity
Conservation Investment between the periods 2009 - 2013 and 2015 – 2019
US$ mill

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100

Total investments,
2009 - 2013 period
US$ 614.6 million

Total investment, 2015
to 2019 period
US$ 676.6 million

Other investments in
Natural Resources
Management
US$ 369.3 million

Other investments in
Natural Resources
Management
US$ 278.6 million

Biodiversity
conservation
US$ 336 million

Biodiversity
conservation
US$ 307.3
million2009 a 20132015 a 20190

Although there are no major differences in general, funding for protected area management,
landscape and biological corridor conservation and REDD+, which were the most funded
conservation areas in the previous period, have been reduced.

287

Figure 11.7 Comparison in Natural Resource Management Investment between the
periods 2009 - 2013 and 2015 - 2019 by Theme
US$ mill2009 a 2013180 161.6
2015 a 2019
160
127.7
140
120
99.8
98.2 95.4
91.1
100
80.5
77.9
80
61.3 58.7
60
48.0 45.9
37.8
35.4
30.4
27.2
26.9
40
21.6
20.8
9.9
10.9
10.7
7.24.720
0Capacity building

Biodiversity research andenvironmental monitoring

Economic incentives forconservation

Species conservation

Community development
and local governance

Watershed conservation

Climate change REDD+

Planning, policy andinstitutional strengthening

Landscape conservation
and biological corridors

Climate change:
adaptation and mitigation

Sustainable managementof forests and othernatural resources

Protected area
management

11.3

Investments in Civil Society

The hotspot CSOs had very limited access to conservation funding. The total funding received
by CSOs this period (US$100.7 million) has more than doubled compared to the previous
period (US$45.0 million). However, much of this funding was expended by a few large,
international CSOs (42.7 percent for 102 projects).60 National CSOs executed the majority of
projects, but with a much smaller amount per project (57.2 percent but for 584 projects). See
Table 11.26.
Table 11.26. Investments Executed by CSOs and Difference Between the 2009 - 2013
and 2015 - 2019 Periods

Type of CSO
All CSOs
International
CSOs
National CSOs

55.66

No. ofprojects(2015 a2019)686

US$ average
per project(2015 a2019)
146,738

N/A

N/A

102

422,027

N/A

N/A

584

98,656

Millions of
US$ (2015 2019)

Millions of
US$ (2009 2013)

Difference,
Millions of
US$

100.7

45.0

43.0
57.6

As the most important in estimated execution in the hotspot for the period 2015 to 2019, WCS would haveexecuted more than US$11.1 million in 25 projects, followed by ACCA (US$6.7 million, 10 projects),
Conservation International (US$6.4 million, 7 projects) and WWF (US$5.2 million, 13 projects).
60288

By country, Peruvian CSOs expended the most, (US$38.6 million), followed by CSOs in
Colombia (US$25.2 million) and Ecuador (US$21.6 million). The ecosystem profile was notable to identify any funding for CSOs in Argentina or Chile and in the case of Argentina,
minimal financing was identified.
Table 11.27. CSO Executed Investment in the Tropical Andes Hotspot by Country,
2015 – 2019
Country

Total investment(US$ million)

Percentage

Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Total

0.03
12.2
0.0
25.7
21.9
39.1
1.6
100.7

0.0
12.0
0.0
25.5
21.7
39.0
1.6
100.0

By source, project funding for CSOs for all countries in the hotspot came almost exclusively
from international cooperation (97.9 percent), while only 2.1 percent was funded by national
governments. Thus, CSOs of Colombia, Ecuador, Perú and Bolivia have received funding forcapacity building through foundations (US$38.1 million, 37.8 percent), followed by multilateral(US$28.5 million, 28.3 percent) and bilateral sources (US$26.3 million, 26.11 percent). In thecase of Peru, US$3.5 million was financed through the Walt Disney Company's support toConservation International for the execution of the "Alto Mayo Protected Forest REDD+"
project (listed in Figure 11.8 below as "other donors").
Figure 11.8. CSO Investment Ratio in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, by Source andCountry, 2015 – 2019
100%

8%

10%

90%
80%

32%

32%

70%

10%

53%

National public

60%

41%

50%
40%

Multilateral
51%

Foundations

60%
14%

30%

Bilateral

20%

38%
25%

10%
0%

Other donors

8%
Bolivia

Colombia

17%
EcuadorPerú

The foundation that has financed the most projects for CSOs in the hotspot was been the
Moore Foundation (US$16.9 million), with projects aimed at protected area management,289

landscape and biological corridor conservation, and watershed conservation, among others. It
is followed by The Rainforest Trust (US$10.7 million), with almost a 100 percent focus on
species conservation and the establishment of protected areas. Then comes The Andes
Amazon Fund, which financed US$4.4 million in projects aimed at establishing and managing
protected areas and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which provided
US$4.2 million for watershed, landscape and biological corridor conservation, as well as
community development, local governance and biodiversity research.
Table 11.28. Major Donor Foundations for CSOs in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015
– 2019

Moore Foundation

Amount US$ million
2015 - 2019
16.9

Rainforest Trust

10.7

Andes Amazon Fund

4.4

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

4.2

Tinker Foundation

1.0

Others0.92

Foundation

Regarding multilateral donors’ investments for CSOs in the hotspot for the 2015 - 2019 period,
the main donor was the GEF Small Grants Program (SGP) which financed US$9.7 million in 337
projects. However, its contribution was been distributed across a large number of projects withan average of US$30,000 per project. The executing CSOs were mainly small localorganizations. These organizations are the backbone of the territory because of their close
relationships with local communities and their knowledge of the territory and its associatedproblems, which is why this program is so important. In addition, their wide distribution
throughout the hotspot area ensures an equitable distribution of resources.
After SGP, the multilateral donor that contributed the most funds to CSOs was CEPF, whichinvested an estimated US$7.5 million in the 2015 - 2019 period. The amount would rise to
US$9.5 million if the period under consideration were extended to 2020. More than 75 percentof CEPF funds was spent by national and local CSOs, strengthening territory structure andgovernance capacities of rural communities due to the close connection between implementing
CSOs and local populations. CEPF’s themes were varied and included the conservation ofendangered species, community development and local governance, management of protectedareas and KBAs and landscape and biological corridor conservation, among others. Moreinformation on CEPF's investment in the hotspot can be found in Chapter 3.
After CEPF, the World Bank financed US$6.0 million in the "Sustainable Colombian Livestock
Project" (US$4.2 million), which was executed by the Colombian Federation of Cattle Ranchers(FEDEGÁN by its acronym in Spanish), among others, and sought to improve the production of
the cattle business through environmentally friendly work, with the use of different types oftrees integrated into livestock production (silvopasture systems), and the conservation ofnative forests on the farms.

290

Table 11.29 Major Multilateral Donors for CSOs in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 –2019
Multilateral donor

Amount US$ million 2015 - 2019

GEF small grants

9.7

CEPF

7.5

World Bank

6.0

GEF

4.2

Others1.9

Bilateral donors invested US$27.3 million, which was channeled mainly through large
international CSOs.
USAID (US$9.2 million) sought to improve the conditions for access and sustainable use of
biodiversity resources and their accessibility to markets, promoting a bioeconomy with a focus
on conservation and proper local governance. Its projects were often implemented throughlarge CSOs.
NORAD financed US$6.2 million in projects focused on community development anddeforestation reduction. Its implementing partners were often indigenous organizations andfederations or their associated CSOs.
The European Union financed US$4.0 million focused on climate change.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) funded US$3.9 million in projects generally
oriented towards species conservation. Its partners were both international and national CSOs,
with greater emphasis on the latter.
Finally, AFD (France) financed US$2.7 million in projects that focused on community
development and local governance. The investment was channeled through French-basedorganizations.
Table 11.30 Major Bilateral Donors to CSOs in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 –2019
Bilateral donor

Amount US$ million 2015 - 2019

USAID

9.2

NORAD

6.2

European Union
USFWS

4.0

AFD

2.7

Others

1.3

3.9

291

11.4

Strategic Funding Mechanisms

Numerous strategies have emerged as important environmental funding mechanisms in the
hotspot in recent decades, including Conservation Trust Funds (CTFs) and water funds. 61
Conservation Trust Funds (CTF)
CTFs are legally independent, private and mixed donor institutions that provide grants that canbe used to support the long-term costs of protected areas and biodiversity conservation,
among other goals. They are frequently financed through debt swaps, grants or donations, aswell as other financing mechanisms such as taxes. CTFs are considered important because
they offer stable funding flows that are largely independent of changes in government
authorities and regimes.
Bolivia's CTF is the Fundación para el Desarrollo del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas De
Bolivia (FUNDESNAP). It channeled about US$2.3 million mainly through four projects in the
hotspot for the 2015 - 2019 period. FUNDESNAP seeks to contribute to the strengthening andsustainability of biodiversity conservation processes and support the National System ofProtected Areas. The projects focused on the regional implementation team (RIT) in the
Tropical Andes, financing for Bolivia's protected areas, promotion of sustainable, productive
innovations and territorial development in communities. FUNDESNAP's projects were supportedby the Moore Foundation, CEPF, the World Bank and DANIDA, among others. The European
Union supported SERNAP with protected area management in Bolivia until 2014.
Colombia's two CTFs are Fondo Patrimonio Natural and Fondo para la Acción Ambiental y la
Niñez. Fondo Patrimonio Natural expended US$8.3 million on 27 projects in the hotspot for the2015 - 2019 period, a lower amount than during the previous period (2009 - 2013) when it
disbursed US$14.3 million. Fondo Patrimonio Natural seeks to promote strategic investments
to conserve the country's natural areas and ecosystem services. Some of Fondo Patrimonio's
donors are multilateral sources such as GEF, CEPF and IDB, international NGO such as TNC,
Moore and Andes Amazon Fund, and the Colombian government. While Fondo para la Acción
Ambiental y la Niñez (Fondo Acción) disbursed US$2.36 million across 89 projects in the 2015
- 2019 period, this figure was also lower than the previous period, when it disbursed US$8.4
million. Fondo Acción's goal is to protect and promote the sustainable use of biodiversity bysupporting sustainable production.
The Fondo de Inversión Ambiental Sostenible (FIAS by its acronym in Spanish) replaced
Ecuador's National Environmental Fund in 2017. Between the two, an estimated US$9.8 million
was channeled to conservation between 2015 and 2019. FIAS, in turn, manages several funds,of which Fondo de Áreas Protegidas (FAP by its acronym in Spanish) and the Socio Bosque
Fund (which finances the Socio Bosque Program) have particular relevance to the hotspot. The
FAP was created in 2002 to support Ecuador's National System of Protected Areas (SNAP by its
acronym in Spanish). The FAP covers the basic operating expenses of the protected areas andcontributes to the self-sustainable development of the communities. The Socio Bosque Fundsupports the Socio Bosque program, which was founded with the help of CEPF, with theConservation Trust Funds and water funds were not included as sources or donors in the total conservation
investment figures reported above, as they are often a vehicle for the disbursement of funds from existingfunding sources identified in the previous sections, i.e., they are recipients or conduits of funds frominternational cooperation and national governments.
61292

administration of resources provided by international cooperation, mainly KfW, for thepayment of economic incentives to farmers and indigenous communities that voluntarily
commit to the conservation and protection of their native forests, páramos or other native
vegetation.
In Peru, the Fondo de Promoción de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas del Perú (PROFONANPE)
seeks the proper management of Natural Protected Areas (NPAs), strategic and operational
planning, and to support the civil society in these areas. It channeled about US$4.8 million into
the hotspot (2015 - 2019), a lower amount than during the previous period, when it channeledan estimated US$16.7 million. PROFONANPE's main donors have been GEF, the Moore
Foundation and CEPF, but above all KfW, which provided the CTF with more than US$3.6
million for its "Effective Management of Natural Protected Areas" project. The project resourceswere used to strengthen the management of SERNANP and the management model of selected
NPAs for the achievement of effective and sustainable objectives defined in the Guiding Planand Master Plans and for consistency with the Strategic Plan for Biological Diversity goals.
Finally, the Fondo de las Américas (FONDAM), which closed its funding during this period(2015 - 2019), financed only an estimated US$750,000 for the hotspot, which corresponded tothe closure of projects pending completion.
Table 11.31. Active Conservation Trust Funds in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 –2019

Country

Bolivia

Objectives

Hotspot
investment
US$millions

FUNDESNAP

Contribute to the strengthening andsustainability of the conservation processesof the country's broad biodiversity, as anenvironmental fund specialized insupporting the National System ofProtected Areas at the national and subnational levels.

2.3

Fondo Patrimonio
NaturalPromote strategic investments in and withcompanies, government and society for theconservation of the country's natural areas
and the services provided by ecosystems,
while contributing to the improvement of
the quality of life and capacity building of
local communities.

8.3

Fondo para la
AcciónAmbiental y la
Niñez (Fondo
Acción)Protection and sustainable use of
biodiversity by supporting sustainableproduction systems.

2.36

Name ofConservation
Trust Fund

Colombia

293

EcuadorProtection, conservation and improvement
Fondo de Inversión
of natural resources and the environment,
Ambiental
management of protected areas, control of
Sostenible (FIAS)
invasive species and work with Amazonian/1
communities, among others.

9.8

Peru

Fondo dePromoción de lasManagement of natural protected areas,Áreas Naturales
strategic and operational planning, andProtegidas del Perú support to civil society.
(PROFONANPE)

4.8

Note: Approximate contributions to the hotspot from the Fondo de Áreas Protegidas (FAP) and Socio Bosque
Fund have been taken into account.

Water Funds
Certain conservation organizations have designated water as a target to promote theconservation of natural landscapes in the region, generating commitments from stakeholders
that are not necessarily motivated by emblematic species or ecosystems. Using trust funds asa financial vehicle to channel resources from water users leverages investment forconservation action for natural areas and landscapes important for water supply.
Water funds channel conservation resources towards local stakeholders and beneficiaries thatare interested in securing water supply and quality. Water users make payments to a fundthat, in turn, pays for watershed conservation that protects the water supply. Watersheds canbe protected in a variety of ways, such as preventing forest disturbance, protecting ripariansystems or reforesting degraded lands in the watershed. Some water funds, such as that of the
Cauca Valley in Colombia, involve partnerships between private companies, environmental
authorities, NGOs, grassroots groups and local governments. Because most KBAs are locatedin watersheds that supply water to communities, industries, hydropower plants and/or
agriculture, there is significant potential for water funds to contribute to the protection of
KBAs. While there are several notable successes in the region, there is a tremendous need andpotential for scaling up and replication in this area.
The hotspot has 16 active water funds, which generated about US$73 million in the 2015 2019 period. Table 11.32 also shows the KBAs or corridors that benefit from these funds.
In addition, in Bolivia, Fundación Natura Bolivia has implemented the "Acuerdos Recíprocos por
Agua" (ARAs or Reciprocal Water Agreements)62, which are conservation schemes based on
incentives given to farmers in the upper watersheds to get them involved in the conservationof forests associated with water sources. CEPF financed the creation of ARAs in its Phase IIinvestment in Bolivia. Unlike the conceptually similar "payments for environmental services",the key attributes of ARAs are the precautionary principle and local institution building andalignment.

62

https://www.naturabolivia.org/es/acuerdos-reciprocos-por-agua/

294

Table 11.32. Active Water Funds in the Tropical Andes Hotspot
Country

City orRegionBolivia

Santa Cruzde la Sierra

FONACRUZ

Santa Marta
Cartagena

Fondo de Agua deSanta Marta yCiénaga
Fondo de Agua deCartagena

CúcutaMedellín

El Fondo de Agua deNorte de Santander
Cuenca VerdeColombia
Bogotá

Cali
Cauca Valley
Quito
Provinces of
Azuay and
Cañar
Tungurahua

EcuadorGuayaquil

Name of Water
Fund

KBAs/Corridors
Parque Nacional
AmboróParque Nacional
Natural Sierra
Nevada de Santa
Marta y alrededores
None

None
None
Parque Nacional
Natural Chingaza
Agua Somosy alrededores,
Parque Nacional
Natural Sumapaz
Parque Nacional
Natural Farallones
Madre Aguade Cali
Fondo de Agua por
Parque Nacionalla vida y la
Natural Farallones
sostenibilidad
de Cali
Fondo para laCordillera
Protección del Agua Nororiental in(FONAG)
EcuadorFondo del Agua para Parque Nacionalla conservación de la Sangay, Bosquecuenca del río Paute Protector Dudas(FONAPA)
Mazar
Fondo de Páramos
Tungurahua
None

Fondo para laConservación delAgua de Guayaquil

None

Corredor de bosquessecos Tumbes-Loja,
Loja, Zamora
Parque Nacionaland Carchi
FORAGUA
Podocarpus,
Provinces
corredor AwáCotacachi-Cotopaxi
Fondo del Agua para Corredor della conservación de la occidente en Azuay,
Fonapacuenca del río Paute Parque Nacional(FONAPA)
Sangay, Bosque

295

Leveraged
resources US$NA322,996
312,180430
8,200,000

9,100,000

NA
15,900,000
22,500,000

NA3,500,000
US$145,000 per
year from private
partners and
US$2.5 million
from the WorldBank for the
implementation of
an Automatic
Water Quality
Network (SAICA
Network).
US$6,000,000
from 2011 to 2019

5,000,000

Protector DudasMazar

Lima

Peru

Piura

11.5

Fondo de Agua para
Lima y Callao(Aquafondo)

Aquafondo
Fondo Regional delAgua (FORASAN)

3,400,000
52,000None

Sources of Investment

More than 20 bilateral sources, 14 multilateral sources, 15 foundations and other donors werereviewed. Among the national governments' investment, funding at the national, regional, andlocal levels and from other public bodies was reviewed. According to this methodology, public
investment funding predominated in the 2015 - 2019 period, followed by bilateral donors,
multilateral and foundations (Figure 11.9).
Figure 11.9. Amount Spent in the Tropical Andes Hotspot according to Financial
Source, 2015 – 2019

National
governments
US$249.5
millions
37%

Other donors
US$4.4 millions

Bilateral
US$221.9 millions
33%

Foundations
US$45.8 millions
7%
Multilateral
US$155.0 millions
23%

The comparison of investment by source with respect to the previous period is also subject toimprovements in the access to public financing information in the last five years, which could
overestimate the difference between the two periods.
When comparing this 2015 - 2019 period with the previous one (2009 - 2013), there is adecrease of US$65.5 million in international cooperation investment, which generally finances
thematic areas directly linked to biodiversity conservation. On the other hand, funding fromnational public sources increased by US$128.3 million, which generally finance themes related
to natural resource management. This explains why, even though total investment has
increased by US$62.8 million over the previous period, funding for biodiversity conservation
has decreased by US$28 million, from US$336 million (2009 - 2013) to US$307.3 million(2015 - 2019). Figure 11.10 shows this variation by source.

296

As discussed above, the observed increase in public funding may be misleading, given theregion-wide economic contraction since the end of 2017 and the reduced fiscal budgets in all
hotspot countries. It is unlikely that national governments have doubled investment in natural
resource management. Therefore, this difference is best explained by the substantial
improvement in transparency and access to information in the national governments, which
has strongly influenced the differences observed in Figure 11.10.
Figure 11.10 Variation of the Amount (in US$ million) Financed by Source in the
Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2009 - 2013 and 2015 – 2019
300.0
257.9
250.0
216.0

249.5

221.9
investment(US$ millions
2009 -2013

200.0
155.0
150.0
121.2

investment(US$ millions
2015 -2019

100.0
45.8

50.0

14.7

4.0 4.4

0.0
Bilateral

Foundations Multilateral

Other
donorsNational
publicThe following is a description of what the investment in natural resources management in the
hotspot meant for each source.
Multilateral Sources
Multilateral sources funded US$155.0 million for the 2015 - 2019 period in the hotspot,
US$102.9 million less than for the 2009 - 2013 period. The most funded themes were:
sustainable management of forests and other natural resources (US$26.5 million, 17.1
percent), landscape and biological corridor conservation (US$24.5 million, 15.8 percent),climate change adaptation and mitigation (US$24.0 million, 15.5 percent), and protected area
management (US$19.5 million, 12.6 percent). The most significant donors in order ofimportance based on the amount invested were: GEF, World Bank, IDB, Green Climate Fund,
CEPF, UNDP, NDF, FAO, UNEP, UN-REDD and ITTO.
GEF was the largest multilateral donor in the hotspot, funding US$78 million in the 2015 2019 period. GEF projects are typically large and often include co-financing from othermultilateral sources, bilateral, foundations and national governments. GEF generally funds297

national agencies and large international organizations, including the environment ministries of
hotspot countries or agencies that manage protected areas. Thus, GEF has supported the
management of protected area systems in Peru, Colombia and Ecuador in particular, throughthe following projects: "Securing the Future of Peru's Natural Protected Areas" (Peru, US$1
million), "Consolidation of the National System of Protected Areas at the National and Regional
Level" (Colombia, US$0.6 million), "Sustainable Financing of Ecuador's National System ofProtected Areas (SNAP) and Associated Private and Community PA Subsystems" (Ecuador,
US$1.4 million). GEF also supports other areas such as landscape and biological corridors
conservation and the management of forests and other natural resources, among others. GEF’s
projects include "Sustainable Productive Landscapes in the Peruvian Amazon" (Peru, US$5.8
million), "Multiplying Environmental and Carbon Benefits in High Andean Ecosystems" (Ecuador
and Peru, US$3.8 million) and "Biodiversity Protection in the Amboró-Madidi Corridor" (Bolivia,
US$2.8 million).
The World Bank provided US$20.2 million over the study period. The World Bank financed nineprojects, but the average investment amount was quite high (US$2.2 million). The World Bank
projects are also aimed at large national agencies or ministries; however, it financed the"Sustainable Livestock Project" and its extension "Additional Financing for the Sustainable
Colombian Livestock Project" (Colombia, US$5.2 million), which was executed by theFederación Colombiana de Ganaderos (FEDEGÁN). The themes prioritized by the World Bankare climate change adaptation and mitigation, sustainable management of forests and othernatural resources, and watershed conservation. Among the significant projects were the"Climate Change Resilience and Integrated Watershed Management Project in Bolivia" (US$8.3
million) and the "Low Carbon Sustainable Development Project in the Orinoquia Region"(Colombia, US$3.0 million), although the latter had only a partial influence on the hotspot.
The IDB financed 16 projects to the tune of US$11.9 million in the 2015 - 2019 period. The
IDB finances projects that are generally executed by government agencies or partners. Its
priorities have been climate change (both adaptation and mitigation and REDD+) andwatershed conservation. Some important projects were "Support for integrated water
resources management (IWRM) in Colombia" (US$3.7 million) and "Adaptation to climate
impacts on water regulation and supply for the Chingaza-Sumapaz-Guerrero area" (Colombia,
US$3.5 million). In addition, IDB financed the "Forest Investment Projects (FIP)", which, eventhough they influenced only part of the hotspot, were estimated to have channeled at least
US$0.9 million in 2019.
The GEF Small Grants Program (SGP) disbursed about US$9.7 million in the 2015 - 2019
period in the hotspot. The SGP is particularly important as it finances a large number ofprojects (336 or 27 percent of all projects analyzed in this document) with small amounts(US$30,000 on average) that are implemented by national CSOs. GEF/SGP recipients are
generally small organizations that are integrated in the territory and rural communities. This is
why SGP improves territorial resilience through the improvement of local governance,sustainable management of forests and other natural resources and community development,
encouraging economic, social and environmental sustainability.
The GCF is a climate fund that receives contributions from countries in order to comply withthe 2015 Paris agreement. The GCF finances large projects that are implemented bygovernment agencies or international CSOs, which must first be accredited to be eligible for298

funding. This accreditation process is not accessible to small national CSOs. For the current
period, the project "Financial and land use planning instruments to reduce emissions fromdeforestation" (Ecuador, US$9.4 million) stands out.
CEPF funded an estimated US$7.5 million for the period 2015 - 2019, which increased to
US$9.5 million for the period 2015 - 2020. Of the 65 CSOs that received CEPF funds, 55
grantees are Andean-based groups, and 10 are international NGOs. CEPF funded 100 projects,
averaging US$95,000 per project. CEPF's priorities included KBA management, protected areas
creation, species conservation, research, community development and local governance,landscape and biological corridor conservation, capacity building, among other topics.63
UNDP financed projects worth US$5.1 million in the period 2015 - 2019 in the hotspot.
Projects with a medium-high investment (over US$300,000) are implemented throughgovernment agencies or environment ministries with support from UNDP country offices in the
hotspot countries. However, smaller investments, between US$30,000 and US$300,000, canbe executed by CSOs. UNDP focuses on climate change, community development andprotected area management. Support to the NDC in Ecuador was funded with US$2.1 million
by UNDP.
The Nordic Development Fund (NDF)64 financed projects valued at more than US$4.5 million.
The NDF focused almost exclusively on supporting Bolivian public institutions in climate change
adaptation and mitigation. An important project was the "Pilot adaptation action plan for highinter-valley communities" (Bolivia, US$2.1 million).
The FAO, funded US$3.8 million in the hotspot (2015 - 2019). It channels its investments
through national governments and focuses on climate change and management of forests andother natural resources. A relevant project was "Promotion of climate-smart livestock
management integrating land degradation reversal and desertification risk reduction invulnerable provinces" (Ecuador, US$2.9 million).
Other funds invested in the hotspot in the 2015 – 2019 period came from:• UNEP (US$2.4 million), focused on climate change and planning, policy and institutional
strengthening of national public institutions;• the UN-REDD program (US$2.0 million), focused exclusively on climate change(channeling its investments through government ministries); and• ITTO (US$163,000), executed by various CSOs under public entity supervision.

63
64More information on the CEPF information in the hotspot can be found in Chapter 3.
https://www.ndf.fi/

299

Table 11.33. Summary of Major Multilateral Donors in the Tropical Andes Hotspot,2015 – 2019
Amount(US$
million)2015 - 2019

Average perintervention(US$ million/ project)

Donor

Main areas of intervention

Number of
projects

GEF

Support for protected areasystems, landscape and biologicalcorridor conservation andmanagement of forests and othernatural resources, among others.

44

78.0

1.8

World Bank

Climate change adaptation andmitigation, sustainable
management of forests and othernatural resources and watershed
conservation.

9

20.2

2.2

IDB

Climate change (adaptation,
mitigation and REDD+) andwatershed conservation.

15

11.9

0.8

GEF small
grantsEnhancing resilience of theterritories by improving local
governance through thesustainable management of forestsand other natural resources andcommunity development,
encouraging economic, social andenvironmental sustainability in the
territories.

336

9.7

0.03

2

9.5

4.7

CEPF

Territorial structuring andimprovement of local governance,
biodiversity research andmonitoring, species conservation,
management of protected areas
and KBAs and conservation of
biological corridors.

95

7.5

0.08

UNDP

Climate change, community
development and protected area
management.

22

5.1

0.2

NordicClimate change: adaptation andDevelopment
mitigation.
Fund (NDF)

5

3.9

0.8

Climate change, management offorests and other natural
resources, improving living
conditions, reducing hunger andimproving agriculture and soils.

4

3.8

1.0

Green
Climate change, adaptation,
Climate Fund mitigation and REDD+.

FAO

300

Others
UNEP, UNREDD, ITTO

Various.

NA

5.4

NA

Bilateral Sources
Bilateral sources financed US$221.9 million for the 2015 - 2019 period in the hotspot, US$5.9
million more than for the 2009 - 2013 period.65 The most funded themes by this type of donor
were: climate change adaptation and mitigation (US$57.2 million, 25.8 percent), protectedarea management (US$35.5 million, 16.0 percent), sustainable management of forests andother natural resources (US$28.8 million, 13.0 percent) and climate change REDD+ (US$26.8
million, 12.1 percent).
German cooperation was the most important bilateral source in terms of resources invested.
Between the KfW, GIZ, and the BMU, provided more than US$88.3 million in financing. The
KfW financed 13 projects for a total of US$45.0 million, with most of the funding directed tosupporting protected area systems in the hotspot countries. Thus, KfW's donation 66 for theefficient management of the protected areas of the hotspot in the 2015 - 2019 period is
estimated at US$14.1 million and there is also an agreement for the extension of its donation
beyond 2020.67 In Colombia, the "Biodiversity and Protected Areas" Program provided an
estimated US$4.5 million for the same purpose. In Ecuador, the "Management of Biosphere
Reserves and Protected Areas" project was funded with US$1.5 million. KfW also financed
other projects in Ecuador: the "Forest Conservation and REDD+ Program" (US$12.3 million)
and the "Proyecto Socio Bosque de Conservación" (US$0.8 million), a system of economic
incentives for the protection of forests, páramos and native vegetation benefiting indigenous
and local farmer communities throughout the country. KfW's implementation partners include
national entities, state public institutions and communities.
Regarding other German cooperation institutions, GIZ financed around US$30.5 million
focusing on climate change, institutional strengthening, watershed conservation and economic
incentives for conservation. Some of the most significant investments were: "ProgramaContribución a las metas ambientales - Proambiente (fases I and II)" (Peru, US$8.4 million)and "Desarrollo rural integrado en cuencas hidrográficas (PROCUENCA)" (Bolivia, US$11.2
million). The BMU financed approximately US$8.1 million in projects, with preference given toclimate change and sustainable forest management. The BMU invested an estimated US$1.6
million in the implementation of the NDCs in Ecuador, together with cooperation from othercountries. Finally, the IKI climate fund 68 channeled additional BMU resources of about US$4.7
million for climate change projects and economic incentives for conservation. As with KfW, theimplementing partners of these donors are national governments or public institutions.
United States of America (US) cooperation was second among bilateral sources in terms ofamount invested. USAID and the USFWS invested US$40.9 million in 70 projects. With respect
to other US cooperation agencies profiled in the previous period: the US Department of State(USDoS) did not finance natural resource management projects in the hotspot area, andIn the last profile the European Union was considered as a multilateral donor
Donation to the Peruvian government and PROFONANPE.
67
https://www.gob.pe/institucion/mef/noticias/321977-mef-y-banco-de-desarrollo-aleman-kfw-firmanacuerdo-por-20-millones-de-euros-para-conservacion-de-12-areas-naturales-protegidas
68Internationale Klimaschutzinitiative (IKI) (https://www.international-climate-initiative.com/de/)
65
66

301

information on US Forest Service (USFS) projects could not be accessed, but it is known tohave channeled USAID funds, mostly in the Amazon, for the 2015 -2019 period.69 . Finally, theInter-American Foundation (IAF) invested about US$100,000 in the hotspot in the 2015 - 2019
period.
USAID provided an estimated US$36.9 million in funding for the 2015 - 2019 period. This sum
is US$92 million less than in the 2009 -2013 period because: 1) the aid focused more on the
Amazonian lowlands and less on the Andean mountain range and 2) it was not then funding in
Bolivia and it reduced its allocation for Ecuador due to disagreements with the government
there. USAID has, therefore, focused on the Amazon or the Colombian Orinoco region and alarge proportion of funds went gone to coca eradication, and supporting public institutions in
Peru and Colombia. These projects have not been considered in this chapter because they are
not directly related to biodiversity conservation. In the hotspot, USAID has focused on corridor
and landscape conservation, forest management, REDD+ and protected areas, among others.
Some important projects included: "Initiative for Conservation in the Andean Amazon (ICAA)"(Peru, Colombia and Ecuador, US$2.5 million), "Alliance for Sustainable Landscapes. (SLPP)
SLP-P" (Peru, US$2.0 million);70 and the "Alianza Perú Cacao Phase II" (Peru, US$4.0 million),among others. USAID channels its donations through public institutions and CSOs, but thelatter mostly include international foundations or large NGOs with a recognized track record in
the countries where they are located.
The USFWS financed an estimated US$4.1 million, focusing almost exclusively on theconservation of species and critical habitats. An important point to note for this donor is that it
tends to finance national CSOs, promoting improved governance and local development. The
most important project financed by the USFWS was been the "Protection of critical wintering
habitat for neotropical migrant birds in Ecuador" (US$1 million).
The European Union (EU) financed US$35 million in the 2015 - 2019 period. The EU's large
projects are also aimed at government agencies or various public and private agents. The
preferred topics are watershed conservation, landscape and biological corridors conservation,
climate change adaptation and mitigation, and the promotion of economic incentives forconservation, among others. Some noteworthy projects include: "Integral Management of
Water and Natural Resources" (Bolivia, US$13.5 million), the "Páramos: Biodiversity and Water
Resources in the Northern Andes" regional project (Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, US$4.8
million) and "Sector Reform Contract for Sustainable Local Development in Colombia"(Colombia, US$3.5 million). The latter was a project that sought to promote local sustainable
development and the livelihoods of populations living in socially and environmentally sensitive
areas through the responsible use of biodiversity, ecosystems, goods and services (green
growth). The EU supported the management of the protected areas system in Bolivia until
2014, ceasing to do so as of 2015.71
The United States Forest Service (USFS) provided technical assistance to Peru in the areas of forest
management, institutional strengthening and transparency and channeling USAID funds. It had a major
impact especially in the Amazon region. A USFS project of high importance was: Peru Forest Sector Initiative- PFSI, executed until 2017. (http://www.brucebyersconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PeruForest-Sector-Initiative-PFSI-Final-Evaluation-Report-September-2017.pdf)
70
The Sustainable Landscapes Partnership Project. SLP-P seeks landscape conservation in Rioja andMoyobamba. Implemented by Conservation International, it seeks to promote economic development while
protecting nature through the implementation of "sustainable landscapes". See more at:https://www.conservation.org/peru/iniciativas-actuales/slp-miradas-sonstenibles-por-un-futuro-mejor
71
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND WATER and SERNAP, 2017. Institutional Strategic Plan 2016 - 2020.
69

302

The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) provided around US$22.4 million in
financing for the 2015- 2019 period, focusing exclusively on climate change. The Biocultura
Program funded an estimated US$4.7 million in Bolivia. The "Sharing Knowledge andExperiences to Protect Andean Forest Ecosystems" project invested an estimated US$8.9
million in the seven hotspot countries. Finally, the "Andean Forests" program 72 provided
US$1.2 million in support to the seven countries of the hotspot in its phase II. The SDC has
finances projects that are been executed by public institutions but with occasional support
from CSOs.
NORAD invested US$17.4 million in nine projects, mainly focused on reducing deforestation
and related emissions (REDD+), as well as sustainable management of forests and othernatural resources. The beneficiaries of NORAD grants have sometimes been indigenousorganizations at the national level, as well as governments and government agencies. Notableprojects include: "Providing intelligence to combat illegal logging and timber trade" (Colombia
and Peru, US$4.3 million); "Deforestation-free supply chains through public-private
partnerships and mobilizing Asian and U.S. markets" (Colombia and Peru, US$3.5 million); and"Reducing deforestation by working with policy-makers" (Peru, US$2.2 million), among others.
The Belgian cooperation (CTB) financed two projects with US$6.4 million in the period 2015 –2019. The most important of these, the "Integrated management of natural resources in thedepartments of Apurímac, Ayacucho and Huancavelica (PRODERN II)" project (Peru, US$4.8
million) has sought to conserve and sustainably use natural resources and biological diversity
and contribute to poverty alleviation. Belgian cooperation has exclusively finances ministries ofthe environment and other public institutions.
Japanese cooperation, through JICA, has also financed two projects for an estimated US$4.5
million. The most important of these was the "Forest Conservation Program in the departmentsof Amazonas, Lambayeque, Loreto, Piura, San Martín, Tumbes and Ucayali", which partiallyinfluenced the hotspot with an estimated US$4.0 million". JICA has exclusively finances public
institutions in the national governments.
France, through the French Development Agency (AFD by its acronym in French), has invested
US$3.1 million in four projects dedicated to community development and local governance, as
well as watershed conservation. AFD has channels its investments through CSOs.
Danish cooperation (DANIDA) financed projects worth US$2.0 million (almost exclusively to
public institutions in Bolivia and FUNDESNAP), including the "Support to the National Protected
Areas Service of Bolivia - SERNAP" and the "Innovation Fund for the Promotion of Sustainable
Productive Innovations in Bolivia (FI)", executed by FUNDESNAP, with US$0.8 million divided
among other projects. This cooperating source reduced its funding compared to the previous
period when it invested US$8.3 million in the hotspot.
Other bilateral donors with smaller contributions to the hotspot were the Government of
Canada, with the "Forest Carbon Partnership Facility" as one of its largest contributions, andthe "Strengthening Natural Resource Management in Peru" project (US$1.0 million). On theother hand, Australian Cooperation funded US$0.3 million and the Spanish Agency for72

http://www.bosquesandinos.org/

303

International Development Cooperation (AECID by its acronym in Spanish), which also greatly
reduced its contribution, invested US$20 000.
Table 11.34. Summary of Major Bilateral Donors in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015
– 2019Country

Donor

KfW

GIZ
Germany

BMU

International
ClimateInitiative
(IKI)

USAID
UnitedStatesMain areas ofintervention
Support for protectedareas systems in
hotspot countries,
climate change(REDD+) and economic
incentives forconservation, among
others.
Climate change,
institutional
strengthening,watershed conservationand economic
incentives forconservation
Climate change andsustainable
management of forestsand other natural
resources
Climate change (andindirectly other issues
such as economic
incentives forconservation)
Corridor and landscapeconservation, forest
management, REDD+
and protected areas,among others.

Numberofprojects

Amount (US$million) 2015
- 2019Average perintervention(US$ million /project)

12

45.0

3.7

15

30.5

2.0

13

12.8

1.0

12

4.7

0.4

34

36.9

1.1

USFWS

Conservation of species
and critical habitats

36

4.0

0.1

InterAmerican
Foundation IAF

Community
development and local
governance

1

0.10

0.1

53

35.0

0.7

6

22.4

3.7

European
Union

Switzerland SDC---

Watershedconservation, landscapeand biological corridor
conservation, climatechange adaptation andmitigation and thepromotion of economic
incentives forconservation, among
othersClimate change:
adaptation andmitigation.

304

Norway

NORAD

Belgium

CTB

Japan

JICA

FranceAFD

Denmark

DANIDA

CanadaGovernmentof Canada

Australia

Spain

Reducing deforestationand emissions fromdeforestation (REDD+),as well as sustainable
management of forestsand other natural
resources.
Conserve andsustainably use natural
resources and biologicaldiversity and contributeto poverty alleviation
Forest conservation,
environmental
monitoring and capacity
building.
Community
development and local
governance, as well aswatershedconservation.
Promotion ofsustainable productive
innovations and support
for protected areas in
Bolivia.
Climate change(REDD+) and economic
incentives forconservation.

Australian
Climate change:
Agency foradaptation andInternational
mitigation
Development
Climate change:
adaptation and
AECID
mitigation andwatershed conservation

8

17.4

2.2

2

6.4

3.2

2

4.5

2.3

4

3.1

0.8

7

2.0

0.3

3

1.4

0.5

2

0.3

0.1

1

0.02

0.0

National Public Investment
Public investment funded US$249.5 million for the 2015 - 2019 period in the hotspot. Public
investment from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru is analyzed below. Argentina, Chile andVenezuela, have not been analyzed because they are outside the scope of the study.
The protection and proper management of national governments’ protected area (PA) systems
are directly linked to biodiversity conservation. Of the total amount invested in the
management of protected areas in the hotspot, estimated at US$127.7 million, the national
governments have contributed around US$61.1 million (24.5 percent) for the coordination andadministration of their PAs, a lower amount than that provided by international cooperation(US$66.6 million) for the same task. It is estimated that from the US$66.6 million contributed
by international cooperation, about US$50 million was channeled through ministries,
government agencies or other national or regional public agents.
An estimate of US$30.1 million (12.1 percent) was invested by national governments inlandscape and biological corridor conservation. The most important project in this area wasfinanced by Ecuador: "National Forest Restoration Program for Environmental Conservation,
Watershed Protection and Alternate Benefits", of which, an estimate of US$13 million, from its

305

original US$288.7 million budget, has been executed in the hotspot during the 2015 - 2019
period. Biodiversity research and environmental monitoring benefited from a public investment
of US$10.4 million (4.2 percent) and species conservation from a public investment of US$8.2
million (3.3 percent).
National government financing for REDD+ plans was been significant. However, allexpenditures made have not been recorded under this mechanism, so its quantification is achallenge. An approximation of the investment made in the hotspot shows that national
governments invested US$2.3 million (0.9 percent of total public investment, and only 5
percent of total REDD+ funding). In other words, investment for REDD+ projects came mostly
from external sources, which channeled almost all funding through the national governments,
with a few exceptions.73
Regarding other issues related to natural resource management, public investment was
directed towards forest and other natural resource management (US$42.1 million) andplanning and policy and institutional strengthening (US$41.5 million). Topics such as climatechange adaptation and mitigation received less attention. Of the US$98.2 million investment inclimate change adaptation and mitigation, only US$16.6 million came from public investment,
mostly from Ecuador (US$13 million), through co-financing of the GEF project ¨Promoting
climate-smart livestock management that integrates the reversal of land degradation andreduction of desertification risks in vulnerable provinces". Finally, investments for local
governance and community development, as well as capacity building, were very limited(about US$11 million, 4 percent of total public investment).
Regarding the type of investment agent, more than three quarters (76.8 percent) of public
investment came from national agents (ministries, national governments, general secretariats,etc.), almost one fifth (18.9 percent) came from regional sources (regional governments,
regional environmental corporations, etc.) and 4.3 percent came from other sources of public
investment (local governments, regulatory bodies and other public sector sources).
Table 11.35. Summary of Public Investment in the Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 2019 period

State

Main areas of intervention

Numberofprojects

Amount (US$million) 2015
- 2019Average perintervention(US$ million /project)

Bolivia*

Management of protected areas

16

2.2

0.1

Colombia

Planning, policy and institutional
strengthening; Protected areas
management; Research on biodiversity
and environmental monitoring

159

98.6

0.6

"Promoting Indigenous Peoples rights in REDD+ in Myanmar and Peru" (NORAD, US$754,000), implemented
by indigenous organizations or associations; "Focus on the Frontline" (NORAD, US$487,000), also implemented
by such organizations; "Improving governance and land use management for addressing the causes of forest
loss and degradation and enhancing carbon stocks in Honduras and Peru" (EU, US$300,000), executed by
Amazonía Viva; "Alto Mayo Protection Forest" (Walt Disney CSR, US$3.5 million), executed by Conservation
International in Peru.
73

306

Ecuador

Climate change: adaptation andmitigation; Sustainable forest management
and other natural resources; Landscapeconservation and biological corridors.

25

69.3

2.8

Peru

Sustainable forest management and othernatural resources; Management ofprotected areas; Landscape conservation
and biological corridors

121

79.4

0.7

*Limitations applied to public investment information accessibility in Bolivia.

Foundations
The present study has taken into account foundations with an environmental orientation thathave supported projects with natural resource management as their main objective. There areother foundations that fund projects within the hotspot for the improvement of human rights,
poverty alleviation, democracy and others. These projects have not been analyzed, even if
they had some component or action related to natural resource management. According to themethodology used, foundations donated US$45.8 million across 190 projects in the hotspot forthe 2015 - 2019 period. This represents an estimated increase of US$31.1 million over theprevious period. Foundations are a very important source of investment for CSOs; of the total
funded, US$38.1 million (83.2 percent) was expended by international CSOs and US$17.4
million (38 percent) by domestic CSOs (i.e., generally small NGOs based in the countries of thehotspot).
The increase compared to the previous profile could be due to the fact that, some sources,
such as the Blue Moon Foundation, have stopped investing, or the investments of Global
Wildlife Conservation and the Swift Foundation are no longer available. On the other hand,
other funds such as the Andes Amazon Fund and the Rainforest Trust (the second and third
most important) have recently been implemented, which together account for an investment of
US$15.6 million.
In order of resources invested, the main foundations, main themes and partners, among
others, are described below.
The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation is the foundation that invested the most in the
hotspot in the 2015 - 2019 period, with US$19.8 million (43.2 percent) in 43 projects,
US$17.5 million more than for the previous period (2009 - 2013). The prioritized themes were:landscape and biological corridor conservation (54 percent) and protected areas management(29 percent). The implementation partners of the projects financed by the Moore Foundation
are almost exclusively CSOs (85 percent), while only 15 percent of the investment is executedby governmental organizations, heritage funds (such as Profonanpe, Fondo Patrimonio or
Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia) and universities (such as the Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú, PUCP or the Universidad de Ingeniería y Tecnología, UNI). Among the mostimportant projects, the "Consolidation of high biodiversity mosaics in the Andean Amazon"
project is estimated to have invested more than US$2 million in Madidi-Tambopata landscape(Bolivia, Peru). On the other hand, the national project "Peru's Natural Legacy: Securing the
Future of Peru's Protected Areas" is estimated to have invested around US$1.1 million in the
hotspot.

307

Rainforest Trust is the foundation with the second largest investment in the hotspot. It has
funded US$10.67 million in 30 projects (on average US$355,667). This foundation almost
exclusively funds the conservation of critical species and habitats, sometimes through theproper protected areas management in coordination with local communities. The execution of
its investment is almost 100 percent through national CSOs such as Fundación deConservación Jocotoco in Ecuador and Fundación ProAves in Colombia.
The Andes Amazon Fund (AAF) invested US$4.9 million (10.7 percent) in the hotspot for the
2015- 2019 period in 12 projects. AAF funded both national and international CSOs. This
foundation, which was new to this hotspot during the 2015 - 2019 investment period, seeks toconserve the biodiversity, ecosystems and health of the Andes and the Amazon. To do so, they
establish and expand protected areas so that indigenous cultures and nature can thrive under
greater protection.
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation invested US$4.67 million in 35 projects inthe 2015 - 2019 period. The investment was lower than in the previous period (US$7.6
million). During the 2015 - 2019 period, it financed topics related to watershed conservation(47 percent of the amount invested) or local governance. Its investments have generally beenchanneled by international CSOs or large national CSOs. This foundation has no plans tocontinue funding projects in the hotspot in the coming years.
The Tinker Foundation funded US$1 million in 11 projects and was almost entirely involved inwatershed conservation in the following countries, in descending order of the amount invested:
Bolivia (58 percent), Ecuador (36 percent), Peru (5 percent) and Colombia (1 percent). This
foundation funded large international CSOs.
Rainforest Alliance participated in the co-financing of the GEF project "Conservation andSustainable Use of the Biodiversity, Forests, Soil and Water for Good Living (Buen Vivir /Sumac Kasay) in Napo Province" with US$400,000. The objective of the project was toincrease and improve the supply of goods and ecosystem services in the Napo Province in asustainable manner. This project was also co-financed by the GEF, Napo province government,
ministry of environment, municipalities, GIZ, USAID and FAO.
The Overbrook Foundation invested approximately US$332,000 in 10 projects, US$47,000
more than in the previous period. The priority topics were watershed conservation (60 percent)and capacity building (28 percent). This fund prioritized Ecuador (65 percent of the amountinvested), Peru (30 percent), and Colombia (5 percent). This foundation financed CSOs in their
entirety.
The Mohamed bin Zayed Conservation Fund invested US$175,000 in CSO projects almost
exclusively for species conservation (97 percent). Of the investment in species conservation,
47 percent was for amphibian conservation, 32 percent for bird conservation, 11 percent for
primate conservation, 5 percent for bat conservation, and 5 percent for the conservation offelines such as Leopardus tigrinus.
The JRS Biodiversity Foundation invested just over US$103,000 in six projects. The projects
prioritized research of biodiversity and environmental monitoring (68 percent) and planning,
policy and institutional strengthening (32 percent).

308

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) financed US$133,460 for the Agua Somos Program (Colombia),
executed by Fondo Patrimonio. Other foundations that have invested in the hotspot during thisperiod are: Save Our Species, 11.11.11., WeEffect, Christian AID, Satoyama Development
Mechanism (SDM-IGES) and other national organizations that have co-financed some larger
projects. For example, Condensan and the Otonga Foundation, which have participated in GEF
projects of more than US$3 million.
Table 11.36. Summary of Major Foundations Investing in Natural Resource
Management in the Tropical Andes Hotspot for 2015 - 2019 Period
Numberofprojects

Amount (US$million) 2015 2019

Average perintervention (US$ /project)

43

19.8

460,24730

10.7

355,761

Protected area
establishment andAndes Amazon Fund expansion for the
benefit of nature andindigenous cultures.

12

4.9

412,067

John D. andCatherine T.
MacArthurFoundation

33

4.5

136,50211

1.0

95,3021

0.4

400,000

10

0.3

33,250

Donor

Moore Foundation

Rainforest Trust

Tinker Foundation

Rainforest Alliance

The Overbrook
Foundation

Main areas ofintervention
Landscapeconservation andbiological corridors(54 %) and protectedareas management(29 %)
Conservation of
species and critical
habitats through theproper managementof protected areas andin coordination withlocal communities.

Watershedconservation (47% of
the amount invested).
Watershedconservation
Conservation andsustainable use of
biodiversity, forests,
soil and water
Watershedconservation (60%)
and capacity building(28%).

Mohamed bin Zayed
Conservation Fund

Species conservation

22

0.2

7,969

JRS Biodiversity
Foundation

Biodiversity researchand environmental
monitoring (68%) andplanning, policy andinstitutional
strengthening (32%).

6

0.1

17,261TNC

Climate change, land
and water protection

30.1

44,487

Other Donors

309

The remaining 0.4 percent of the total conservation investment in the hotspot originated fromtwo private companies. Walt Disney financed the REDD+ project "Alto Mayo Protected Forest"
through its Corporate Social Responsibility and the company Verde Canandé co-financed the
GEF project "Sustainable Development of the Ecuadorian Amazon: Integrated Management ofMultiple Use Landscapes and High Value Conservation Forests". See Table 11.37.
Table 11.37. Summary of other Donors Investing in Natural Resource Management in
the Tropical Andes Hotspot for 2015 - 2019 period

Donor

Countries where investments were
madeMain areas ofintervention

Amount(US$)

Walt Disney

Peru (1 intervention): "Alto Mayo
Protected Forest REDD+ Project".

Climate Change
REDD+

3,500,000

Verde
CanandéEcuador (1 intervention): co-financingof the GEF project "Sustainable
Development of the EcuadorianAmazon: Integrated Management ofMultiple Use Landscapes and High Value
Conservation Forests".

Community
development
and local
governance653,000

11.6

Investment Summary by Country

By country, the largest investment in the hotspot for the 2015 - 2019 period was made in Peru
(US$192.2 million, 28.4 percent), followed by Colombia (US$173.2 million, 25.6 percent),
Ecuador (US$160.1 million, 23.7 percent), Bolivia (US$70.5 million, 10.4 percent), Venezuela(US$1.6 million, 0.2 percent), Chile (US$135,000, 0.1 percent) and Argentina (US$32,000,
0.03 percent). However, it should be noted that the investment figures for the latter three
countries are underestimated because public investment 74 and a large part of international75
cooperation were not considered.

74

This investment was considered outside the scope of this study.
Only country-level projects were considered for those countries with at least 20 percent of their surface
area in the hotspot, thus excluding country-level investments in Argentina, Chile and Venezuela.
75

310

Figure 11.11. Investments in Natural Resource Management by Country (in US$
Millions and Percentage of Total). Total = US$676.6 Million, 2015 - 2019 period
250
200

28.4%
192

25.6%
173

23.7%
160

150
100
50
00

11.7%
79

10.4%
71
0.2%
02

0.02% 0.005%
00
0.03* The regional column considers projects financed by two or more hotspot countries.

In Colombia, public sources contribute a higher percentage (57 percent) of total financing thaninternational cooperation (43 percent). On the other hand, in both Peru and Ecuador,
international cooperation has a greater weight (58 percent) than public investment (42percent). In the case of Bolivia, it is possible that public investment is underestimated, but it isinteresting to note that bilateral sources outweigh multilateral sources and foundations. Finally,
we do not have sufficient data for Venezuela, Chile and Argentina in general, as the inclusionof projects was conditional on the methodology and scope of the study (Figure 11.12).

311

Figure 11.12 Percentage of Total Investment in the Tropical Andes Hotspot for
Natural Resource Management by Source and Country, 2015 - 2019 period
100%

2%

3%

90%
80%

41%

50%
40%

2.0%

34%

41%

6%

3%

0.4%

100%

18%

30%
20%

33%

57%

70%
60%

42%

92%

National Public

19%

Other donors

25%
24%

8%

Multilateral
60%

Foundations

58%

Bilateral

46%
33%

10%

3%
16%

24%
8%
0%

0%

Finally, an analysis of project execution by organization shows that most of the investment isexpended by organizations other than CSOs (governments, ministries, education institutes,
endowments, etc.), only regional initiatives have a slightly higher percentage of execution by
CSOs (Figure 11.13).
Figure 11.13 Proportion of Investment Execution by Executor and by Country in the
Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 - 2019 period
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

71%
86%

87%

88%

92%

50%

No CSO
OSC

40%
30%
20%
10%

29%
14%

13%

12%

Peru

Colombia

Ecuador8%0%

Bolivia

312

Regional

Eighty-seven projects identified as regional initiatives, with financing in more than one hotspot
country, totaled almost US$79 million investment. The most important regional donors were:
NORAD (US$14.5 million), GEF (US$12.6 million), European Union (US$11.8 million), Moore
Foundation (US$11.7 million), SDC (US$10.1 million), USAID (US$5.8 million), Germany
through the International Climate Initiative (IKI, US$4.7 million), UNEP (US$2.1 million) and
CEPF (US$2.0 million). At the regional level, biodiversity conservation funded about US$32.1
million (40.8 percent), while other themes encompassing natural resource management
executed US$46.7 million (59.2 percent). These projects are generally channeled throughpartnerships between various public and private actors.

11.7

Gap and Opportunity Analysis

Geographic funding gaps
Investments for natural resource management were unevenly distributed across the seven
Tropical Andes countries. Thus, when measuring the total amount invested per country’s
hotspot area, the country in which the most was invested the most per hotspot hectare was
Ecuador (US$14.8 /ha), followed by Colombia (US$5.5 /ha), Peru (US$5.0 /ha), Bolivia(US$2.2 /ha), Venezuela (US$0.3 /ha), Chile (US$0.12 /ha) and Argentina (US$0.03 /ha).
The summary of natural resource management investment in corridors prioritized in this profileis shown in Table 11.38.
Table 11.38. Investment in Natural Resource Management in Priority Corridors in the
Tropical Andes Hotspot, 2015 - 2019 period

CorridorCountry

No ofprojects

Adjusted
amount (US$million)Corridorarea (ha)Amount /corridorarea(US$/ha)Northeastern Peru

Peru

24

8.3

1,811,338

4.6

Madidi-Pilón LajasCotapata

Bolivia Peru

29

3.9

5,055,482

0.8Northeastern

Ecuador17

3.3

1,290,706

2.6

Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas

Ecuador Colombia

33

3.2

2,039,201

1.6

Cordillera de Vilcanota

Peru

22

2.5

2,186,306

1.1

Paraguas-MunchiqueBosques Montanos delSur de Antioquia

Colombia

36

2.3

2,068,599

1.1

Sangay Podocarpus

Ecuador15

1.5

927,2121.6

25.0

15,378,844

2.3

Total

176

Source: Own elaboration

CEPF was the largest donor in terms of investment and number of projects financed in priority
corridors, with an investment of US$7.5 million in 95 projects (Table 11.39). Some of the mostfunded projects were: 1) "Strengthening Local Capacities to Conserve Polylepis Forests andtheir Threatened Biodiversity in the Madidi and Cotapata national parks in Bolivia"(US$226,428), 2) "Strengthening a community conservation model in the Serranía de losParaguas in Colombia" (US$268,090), 3) "Promoting altitudinal connectivity and conservation313

in the Cotacachi-Awa Conservation Corridor in Ecuador" (US$195,329). In addition, the project"Protection and Sustainable Development in the Kosñipata Carabaya Key Biodiversity Area in
Peru - Phase II," co-financed with the Rainforest Trust Foundation and currently under
execution, has an investment of US$368,600.
Two donors financed 72.7 percent of the amount invested in the Northeastern Peru Corridor:
Walt Disney with its REDD+ investment in the Alto Mayo Protected Forest (US$3.5 million) and
USAID (US$2.1 million), with its "Alliance for Sustainable Landscapes" project implemented in
the upper Alto Mayo river basin. These two projects have made a difference and havepositioned Peru's Northeastern Corridor as the most financed of the priority corridors.
The GEF was the third largest donor in the priority corridors with a total investment of US$2.8
million. Its projects were "Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, Forests, Soil andWater to Achieve Good Living (Buen Vivir/Sumac Kawsay) in Napo Province" with a GEF
allocation of US$2.1 million, with national co-financing, and "Sustainable Management of
Biodiversity and Water Resources in the Ibarra-San Lorenzo Corridor" (US$675,000).
In addition, the Andes Amazon Fund (AAF) invested US$2.7 million in eight projects to improvethe management and expansion of the protected areas system in some prioritized corridors.
The largest project was in the Cusco Region (Peru): "Creation of a regional system of protectedareas in the southern Peruvian Amazon" in the Vilcanota Cordillera Corridor. In addition, four
AAF projects in the Madidi-Pilon-Lajas-Cotapata corridor totaled more than US$2.0 million.
Finally, in the Sangay Podocarpus Corridor (Ecuador), US$1.2 million was invested, of whichapproximately 70 percent has been expended by the Nature and Culture International
Foundation (NCI) in projects financed by CEPF, AAF and Rainforest Trust.
Table 11.39 summarizes the amounts and number of projects invested by for major donors in
the priority corridors.
Table 11.39. Major Donors in Priority Corridors, by Number of Projects and by
Amount Invested (US$ Millions), 2015 - 2019 period

CEPF

95

Amount invested inprioritized corridors(US$ millions)
7.5

Walt Disney

1

3.5

GEF

2

2.8

Andes Amazon Fund

8

2.7

USAID

1

2.1

Rainforest Trust

10

1.7

GORE San Martín
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation
GEF small grants

3

1.2

4

0.9

26

0.7

USFWS

5

0.4

DANIDA

5

0.3

1

0.1

15
176

1.1

SourceNo of projects

Tinker Foundation
Others
Total

314

25.0

Thematic Gaps and Opportunities
Although investment in natural resource management, which includes funding for issues notdirectly related to conservation, has increased (US$62 million over the previous period),
investment in biodiversity conservation, resources that are directly related to conservation,
decreased by US$28.7 million. The availability of financial resources is not the only limiting
factor. For conservation to be more effective, the right people/organizations need to beprovided with the right type of support, at the right time. While the resources available forinvestment in the hotspot by CEPF are only modest in the context of the overall funding
landscape, they can have a disproportionate impact if they are well targeted. Investment insustainable forests management and other natural resources, planning, policy and institutional
strengthening or economic incentives for conservation, among others, has increased, while
funding for protected area management, landscape and biological corridor conservation or
REDD+ has decreased. Some of these are all topics that CEPF has invested in significantly insome of these thematic issues in recent years.
National governments are an important source of the financing for protected areas, although
they are still very dependent on international cooperation (52.2 percent). In addition, planningdocuments on the sustainability of protected area systems have shown that in most of them,
there are still huge financing gaps that threaten their economic and environmental
sustainability.76 This, added to the US$33.9 million less allocated for this theme, would indicate
the need to increase funding for protected areas in the hotspot for the next funding period. It
should also be noted that a thorough assessment of the efficiency of the investments is not
being made, however, not only more funding is needed, but greater efficiency would also benecessary. CEPF can help to close these gaps with strategic investments.
Landscape and biological corridor conservation has also suffered a reduction in funding of
US$15 million with respect to the previous period. Considering that the United Nations General
Assembly declared 2021-2030 as the United Nations Decade for Ecosystem Restoration andthat FAO and UNEP will lead the implementation of projects, this could be an opportunity for
CSOs to join initiatives or platforms in pursuit of restoration. In that sense, the 20x20 initiative
seeks to change the dynamics of land degradation in Latin America and the Caribbean throughrestoration of 20 million hectares of forests, farms, grasslands and other landscapes.
Thanks to international cooperation and large climate funding agencies such as GCF, GEF and
IKI, fubds for climate change adaptation and mitigation increased by US$7.1 million over theprevious period. For the next funding period, it would be beneficial to enhance the linkage 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 andthe firm commitment of the European Union to climate change goals predict an increase in the76

According to the Institutional Strategic Plan 2016 - 2020 of the National Protected Areas Service –(SERNAP by its acronym in Spanish) in Bolivia, it is estimated that more than double the financial resources(around US$ 20.2 million) would be needed to carry out effective management in the protected areas of the
Bolivian hotspot. Following the document "Estimation of the Financial Gap of the Protected Areas of the
National Natural Parks System" (2018) of the Sustainability and Environmental Business Sub-Directorate of
PNN of Colombia, the gap in the protected areas of the Colombian hotspot would be estimated to be between
US$8.9 million and US$21.6 million more per year. Finally, through the Financial Plan of the National Serviceof State Protected Areas (SERNANP by its acronym in Spanish) in Peru, financing needs for the protectedareas of the Peruvian hotspot are estimated at more than US$10.3 million per year.

315funds available for this issue, so it is strategic for Andean CSOs to strengthen their capacity to
manage these types of projects.
Projects with economic incentives for conservation have increased their investment in the
hotspot by more than US$10 million, which indicates their merit for continued support. A good
way to maintain biodiversity is to incentivize conservation by enhancing the economic value of
intact forests. Pilot projects implemented by CSOs are an interesting strategy that can beeasily scaled, as they impact the local economy in a sustainable way and have synergies withecosystem conservation.
CSOs had very limited access to conservation funding. Only US$57.6 million was available tonational CSOs based in any of the hotspot countries for the period 2015 - 2019 (8.1 percent of
total investment in the hotspot). However, if the ten largest projects (over US$1 million each77
) are not taken into account, funding for the remaining 400+ CSOs and 575 projects has
been only US$36.1 million, which is equivalent to US$18,050 per CSO per year. These CSOs,
on the other hand, are backbone entities of the territory since they are in direct contact withthe local population and know the territory where they are located. For this reason, it would be
extremely important to dedicate more funds to financing projects executed by national CSOs
based in the hotspot territories. CEPF's investments in strengthening the capacities of CSOs
will increase the impact of its conservation actions.
The GEF SGP grants are large in number and small in size (US$30,000 on average). These
grants are usually executed by CSOs, are geographically balanced and are executed byorganizations devoted to the territory, thus, in close contact with rural populations andindigenous communities. A similar benefit to territorial structuring is offered by CEPF and theRainforest Trust grants.
The extraordinarily threatened biodiversity of the Tropical Andes Hotspot is not matched by the
resources needed for its conservation. Only 4.5 percent of the resources allocated to the entire
hotspot is allocated for species-specific conservation projects. CEPF can contribute tonarrowing this gap.
The US$676.6 million invested in the hotspot in the 2015 - 2019 period is a very low amountrelative to investment in large mining or infrastructure projects, which cause profound impacts
on the environment. As a comparison, COSIPLAN's 2017 portfolio of road infrastructure
projects registered a total of 562 projects with an estimated investment of US$198 billion, as
explained in detail in Chapter 8. Increased control by national governments and improved
measures for monitoring and mitigation of environmental and social impacts are key tomaintaining peace and not reversing what has been achieved through investments inconservation. To this end, planning, policy and institutional strengthening must continue to be
improved.

77

Executed by: Forest Trends, AIDESEP, FEDEGÁN or the Jocotoco Conservation Foundation.

316

12. CEPF INVESTMENT NICHE
Chapters 3 to 11 examine a wide variety of key drivers and factors that influence theconservation of biodiversity in the Tropical Andes Hotspot. These chapters also identify
opportunities that hold promise for shaping biodiversity conservation for not only the next fiveyear investment phase, but for many decades to come. The preparation of the CEPF
investment niche represents a distillation of the key findings from the analysis undertaken inthis update of the ecosystem profile, consultations from more than 268 stakeholders from thehotspot, and recommendations arising from the Tropical Andes long-term vision that seeks to
put the hotspot on a strong trajectory toward independence from CEPF funding over the
medium to long term.
The fundamental mission of CEPF is to empower civil society to be stewards of their criticalecosystems. CEPF seeks to strengthen local civil society groups so that they can effectively
respond to current and future conservation challenges in the hotspot. The key findings form
the profile help to inform the CEPF investment niche.

12.1 Key Findings
The results presented in the ecosystem profile reaffirm previous research and highlight theextraordinary biodiversity of the Tropical Andes Hotspot. Its more than 130 ecosystems arehome to more than 35,000 plant and vertebrate species, of which almost half are endemic and1,451 are threatened with extinction according to the IUCN Red List, including 239 CriticallyEndangered (CR) and 625 Endangered (EN) species.
The hotspot provides essential ecosystem services for the planet and for the approximately
59.7 million people living within the Tropical Andes. Its mountains are the headwaters of the
Amazon River and major tributaries of the Orinoco River and the Paraguay River, the threemain river arteries of South America. The Tropical Andes is the second most important hotspot
in the world for irrecoverable carbon stocks. It guarantees the provision of water for
consumption and agricultural production, food, energy and materials for housing construction,
climate regulation and disaster prevention, to name a few of the key ecosystem services.
Despite their strategic importance, of the 474 KBAs in the hotspot, 173 KBAs lack protection,and of these, 44 KBAs correspond to AZE sites.
The majority of the hotspot's population is mestizo; however, some 10 million indigenous
people, belonging to 50 peoples and nations, call 21 percent of the hotspot's surface area,
including several KBAs, as their ancestral territory. The indigenous people of the hotspot areoften natural allies, and as such, any conservation strategy must collaborate closely withindigenous organizations to strengthen their capacities for the sustainable management of
their territories.
The total estimated investment in natural resource management in the hotspot for the period
from 2015 to 2019 amounted to US$676.6 million, which is an increase in overall funding fornatural resource management by US$62 million. However, funding specifically dedicated tobiodiversity conservation fell by US$28.7 million when compared with the 2009 to 2013 period.
Despite its exuberant diversity of species, species-level conservation received just 4.5 percentof the total investment dedicated to conserving the hotspot between 2015 and 2019. The
allocation to local civil society groups for conservation was US$57.6 million between 2015 to2019, which may appear significant. However, considering the funding was for a five-year
period and spread across a land area three times the size of Spain, it is immediately clear the317

funding allocation is dwarfed by the needs of a hotspot as large, as threatened, and as
biodiverse as the Tropical Andes.
The hotspot faces serious problems: mining, climate change, agricultural encroachment,
logging, illegal land occupation, hunting and wildlife trafficking and infrastructure development,
among others. In the period from 2001 to 2019, the hotspot lost almost 4 million hectares offorest. Similarly, glacier masses continue to decrease to the point that, in a few years,
Venezuela will be the first Andean country to lose all its glaciers. Likewise, mining concessions
granted by national governments cover 11 percent of the hotspot and illegal mining continues
to be a problem that is difficult to solve. Agricultural expansion affects 65 percent of the 474
KBAs in the hotspot to varying degrees and has altered 31 percent of the hotspot's surface
area.
These threats directly impact environmentalists and indigenous communities. According to areport by Global Witness, Colombia was the country with the highest rate of assassinations
worldwide of environmental leaders in 2019, and that high rate continues to date, including inseveral KBAs where CEPF has invested. Environmental defenders throughout the Andes work
courageously under threats to their physical wellbeing. CEPF has supported strategies andactivities to counteract these threats to its partners with good results, however threats
continue and reflect the urgency to safeguard those environmental defenders and theircommunities at risk.
Between 2019 and 2021, the hotspot countries suffered the consequences of severe politicalinstability and governance crises that resulted in civil unrest, particularly in the capitals andmajor cities of Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. For example, during the preparationof this ecosystem profile, Peru had three presidents in one week in November 2020.
The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected the Tropical Andes. It resulted in the deathof nearly 110,000 people in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia as of January 2021. According
to the IMF, the pandemic is causing the worst regional recession recorded in history. The
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean states that in 2020 the GDP of thehotspot countries decreased between 5.2 percent in Bolivia and 12.9 percent in Peru. The
economic crisis resulted in budget cuts to conservation programs, which will continue in the
coming years. The budget cuts have hit many protected areas management especially hard,including KBAs. Furthermore, the serious economic crisis is already increasing poverty, which
is putting more pressure on natural resources.
In this context of humanitarian crisis and economic uncertainty, the price of an ounce of gold
reached an all-time high and surpassed US$2,000, which has intensified gold mining in the
hotspot. This confluence of factors has led to an increase in threats to the hotspot's
biodiversity and uncertainty about the ability to manage these threats in the short term.
However, with increasing evidence of the linkages between anthropogenic impacts on natureand the spread of zoonotic diseases such as COVID-19, the pandemic may generate newfunding opportunities to drive economic recovery based on green policies. These new windowsof opportunity should be seized to leverage funding during the implementation of the CEPF
Phase III investment.
CEPF has had a long-standing commitment to conservation of the Tropical Andes Hotspot
through two investment phases. In Phase I, CEPF invested US$8.135 million through 67
projects in Bolivia and Peru between 2001 and 2006 with a consolidation phase from 2009 to318

2013. In Phase II, CEPF invested US$9.5 million through 100 projects in Colombia, Ecuador,
Peru, and Bolivia, from 2015 to 2021.
The results of these investments were significant. More than 5.1 million hectares came under
new legal protection, and approximately 11 million hectares of habitat possessing among thehighest levels of biodiversity and levels of threat in the hotspot experienced management
improvements in support of biodiversity conservation and local communities. In the Phase IIinvestment period, 286 globally threatened species benefited directly from CEPF funding, and
CEPF grantees identified an astounding 74 species as being new to science. More than 294
indigenous and mestizo communities scattered across the far reaches of highest mountain
range of the Americas benefitted from the conservation of their ecosystems, through thegeneration of new sources of income, improved access to clean plentiful water, improved foodsecurity, and strengthened governance of their lands. Nine indigenous groups developed newtools and capacities resulting in improved protection and management of their territories. Morethan 100 stakeholder alliances brought governmental, civil society, community, and private
sector stakeholders together to collaborate on conservation and sustainable development
initiatives.
In Phase II, 55 Andean-based civil society organizations were grant recipients. More than 80
percent of the 100 grants awarded supported capacity building activities to local organizations
and stakeholders. CEPF funded an array of institutional building activities, such asorganizational strategic plans, fundraising plans, financial manuals, communication strategies,
upgraded websites and financial systems, to name a few. More than 10,000 people received
formal training focused on project management and a variety of technical areas.
The second investment phase established a solid foundation to launch the third phase:partners and CEPF are strengthened to face crises and execute portfolio projects successfullyto achieve long-term impact results.
In summary, while the countries of the Tropical Andes are home to the world’s most
biologically diverse hotspot that has the second most important stocks for irrecoverable
carbon, the hotspot is undergoing a crisis not encountered in the last century. Pressures onnatural habitats and biodiversity are increasing while governments are forced to reduce theirbudgets for biodiversity conservation. Governments are emphasizing a model of economic
growth based on the exploitation of their rich natural and mineral resources. The historicalgains in eradicating poverty and conserving biodiversity are fundamentally at risk in somecountries. This trend may well continue for several years until the Andean economies recover.
Juxtaposed to these significant challenges, the impacts of climate change will continue tostress the hotspot’s carry capacity.
Civil society has a critic role to play to facilitate a green recovery that supports development
models based on social and environmental sustainability and resilience, built upon theconservation of vital habitats and species. Through CEPF, civil society organizations haveworked in complex and at times contradictory environments. They have built relationships oftrust with communities and public entities at all levels. Their accumulated experience puts thecivil society community in an outstanding position to promote solutions for sustainable
development, conservation, and the fight against climate change.

12.2 The CEPF 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 to319

foster the long-term sustainability and resiliency of the results achieved through previous CEPF
investments. CEPF support is also intended 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 and regional
consultations. The niche also supports the recommendations of the long-term vision for of theTropical Andes hotspot.
Phase III continues CEPF support to four of the seven Andean countries: Colombia, Ecuador,
Peru and Bolivia. Direct investment in Argentina and Chile are excluded because of their KBAs
have significantly lower relatively biodiversity values than KBAs located in their northernneighboring countries. Similarly, KBAs in Venezuela are excluded from direct investment due
to the challenging operating environment in the country. However, civil society organizations
from Argentina, Chile and Venezuela will be invited to participate in virtual capacity building
and networking 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 long term, andinstitutionalizing conservation outcomes into public and private sector strategies and practice.
Strengthening indigenous and environmental civil society groups is also a high priority. Climatechange was identified as the most important threat in the hotspot, and it offers the opportunity
for funding future conservation projects. For these reasons, the new niche puts a stronger
focus than in previous investments periods on integrating climate change mitigation andadaptation 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 civil society
organizations can add the greatest value, and addresses gaps in the overall landscape of 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 resilience andsustainability 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 theconservation of the Tropical Andes’ unique and irreplaceable biodiversity and ecosystemservices of global importance. It also presents an apportunity for nature-based solutions for
dealing with climate change.

320

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 a roadmap to achieve this ambitious mission over the 2021 to 2026 period.
The strategy is based on the three planning exercises described in Chapter 2. The first exercise
was carried out in Ecuador in preparation of KfW funding for the country. The second exercise
relates to the preparation of this ecosystem profile, and simultaneously, the third exercise
constitutes the development of the long-term vision for the hotspot. This strategy reflects thepriorities 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 a rigorous methodologicalprocess to identify conservation outcomes and analysis conducted in Chapters 3 to 11,
complemented by a participatory process that engaged 268 stakeholders from civil society andgovernment agencies throughout the hotspot. This chapter, therefore, presents CEPF's
investment strategy in recognition of these three planning processes.

13.1 KBA and Corridor Prioritization
To ensure that the investment strategy delivers significant and sustained impacts forbiodiversity conservation in the KBAs and corridors where investment is expected, the profile
identifies a set of priority sites from among the 474 KBAs and 28 corridors identified in Chapter
5 to focus its investments. A detailed description of the prioritization process is provided inAppendix 13.1 and the data for the individual KBAs analyzed are presented in Appendix 13.2.
The process relied on the evaluation of national experts on the highest ranked KBAs in termsof nine criteria:
1. Biological importance. Relative biodiversity value of an individual KBA as determinedby the presence of threatened species on the IUCN Global Red List.
2. Degree of threat. Vulnerability scores based on the risk to a KBA’s ecological integrity
over a given period of time.
3. Funding need. Level of investment by national and international donors forconservation, and the valued added of CEPF funding.
4. Management need. Degree of legal protection afforded to the KBA and the capacity
and importance of improving the management of the KBA.
5. Civil society capacity. Established through the number, capacity, and interest of CSOs
working in the area through a common agenda.
6. Operational feasibility. Viability of civil society to work effectively at a site, based on aconsideration of security risk, legal restrictions and other factors.
7. Opportunity for landscape-level conservation. Ability to achieve landscape-scaleconservation through linkage to other KBAs.
8. Alignment with national priorities. Degree of overlap of the KBA with national
conservation priorities established by each country.
9. Consolidate results achieved by CEPF. Opportunity and need to consolidate and give321

sustainability to the results achieved by previous CEPF investment.
Of the 474 KBAs identified in the hotspot, 52 KBAs have been selected as priorities for funding
under the investment strategy (see Tables 13.1 and 13.4). These 52 KBAs cover 4,040,579
hectares, which equals 12.4 percent of the 32.5 million hectares that fall within the boundaries
of hotspot’s KBAs. Collectively, the 52 KBAs represent the sites with the highest biologicalvalue, are under the most threat, are in urgent need of management improvement, are safe towork 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 and consolidate previous CEPF
investments. As recommended by stakeholder consultations and the Tropical Andes long-term
vision, the 52 KBAs are located within priority conservation corridors in each of the four
countries funded in Phase II, to allow for the consolidation and replication of results and bestpractices obtained by CEPF projects in Phase II, and to ensure that CEPF’s investments
achieved hotspot-wide results and impacts.
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 (Table 13.1). 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 deApolobamba in Bolivia, with the average size being 77,703 hectares. Most priority KBAs
provide vital ecosystem services, supplying water to major cities and agricultural areas, while
harboring vast tracts of carbon-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 (Figure 13.1), which cover 15,378,844
hectares, or about 9.7 percent of the entire hotspot area. CEPF invested in six of the sevencorridors previous investment phases. The largest corridor is Madidi-Pilón Lajas-Cotapata,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. Figure 13.2 presents detailed
maps of the priority KBAs and corridors. The investment strategy’s focus on supporting priority
KBAs within a priority conservation corridor aims to avoid the dispersal of CEPF funding acrossa large geographic area. It is intended to facilitate an economy of scales and synergies
between grants implemented in relative close proximity of each other, to achieve connectivity
between KBAs, and ultimately, to achieve durable, resilient corridor-level results and impacts.
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 scoresin the hotspot’s northern countries, which are described in detail in Appendix 13.1, with themost influential factor being the presence of 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 northerncounterparts, as described in Chapter 5. In Venezuela, low operational feasibility makes CEPF
engagement difficult.

322

Figure 13.1. Priority KBAs and Corridors for CEPF Investment in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot323

Table 13.1. Priority KBAs for CEPF Phase III Investment in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot#

Country

CEPF
code

KBA

KBA area(has)

HectaresandPercentage
of KBA
protected

1

Bolivia

BOL8

Bosque de
Polylepis deTaquesi

3,455.83

0 (0%)

Yes

27

2

Bolivia

BOL13

Cotapata

227,549.41

954.5(0.42%)

Yes

29

57,238.61

56,106.2(98.02%)Yes

30

249,857.65

238,854.9(95.6%)Yes

28

Parque Nacionaly Área Naturalde Manejo
Integrado
Cotapata
YungasInferiores dePilón Lajas

Previous
CEPF
fundingPrioritization
Score*

3

Bolivia

BOL45

4

Bolivia

BOL37

5

Bolivia

BOL39

YungasSuperiores deApolobamba

436,794.12

436,717.2(99.9%)

No

27

6

Colombia

COL5

Alto de Pisones

1,380.61

135.1(9.78%)

No

29

7

Colombia

COL7

Bosque de San
Antonio Km 18

5,993.74

4,365.4(72.83%)

Yes

33

8

Colombia

COL11

BosquesMontanos delSur de Antioquia

200,574.65

59,772.5(29.8%)

No

28

9

Colombia

COL36

Enclave Seco delRío Dagua

8,509.33

No

28

10

Colombia

COL45

La Empalada

10,560.8

No

28

11

Colombia

COL75

Parque Natural
Regional Páramo
del Duende

32,136.29

10,672.9(33.2%)

Yes

30

12

Colombia

COL80

Región del Alto
Calima21,917.65

16,436.9
(75%)

Yes

30

13

Colombia

COL86

Reserva Natural
El Pangán

7,726.93

0 (0%)

No

28

14

Colombia

COL88

Reserva Natural
La Planada

4,519.83

4,496.4(99.5%)

Yes

28

15

Colombia

COL91

Reserva Natural
Río Ñambí

8,595.15

1,384.15(16.1%)

Yes

32

16

Colombia

COL106

Yes

30

17

Colombia

COL109Yes

30

Serranía de losParaguas
Serranía delPinche259,592.27
4,870.4324

4,571.6(53.7%)
2,571.7(24.3%)

40,093.3(15.4%)
1,139.2(23.4%)

18

Colombia

COL65

Parque Nacional
NaturalFarallones de
Cali

19

Colombia

COL74

Parque Nacional
Natural Tatamá

59,414.17

20

Ecuador

ECU1

1 km al oeste deLoja

672.0921

Ecuador

ECU2Abra de Zamora

7,833.86

22

Ecuador

ECU3

23

Ecuador

ECU6

24

Ecuador

ECU14

25

Ecuador

ECU16

26

Ecuador

ECU25

27

Ecuador

ECU28

28

Ecuador

ECU86

29

Ecuador

ECU34

Intag-Toisán

63,884.53

30

Ecuador

ECU41

Los Bancos Milpe

3,316.05

31

Ecuador

ECU43

Maquipucuna-Río
Guayllabamba

21,069.58

32

Ecuador

ECU89

Mashpi-Pachijal

AcanamáGuashapambaAguirre
Alrededores deAmaluza
Bosque Protector
Los Cedros
Bosque Protector
Moya-Molón
Cordillera de
Huacamayos-San
Isidro-Sierra
Azul
Corredor
Awacachi
Gualaceo Limón Indanza

220,153.48

219,762.7(99.82%)

No

26

37,091.94(62.43%)

No

25

No

29

Yes

37

672.09(100%)
7,833.86(100%)

1,994.67

1,174.15(58.8%)

No33

109,051.44

41,428.8
(38%)

Yes

32

5,619.44

0 (0%)

No35

12,376.49

989.82 (8%)

No

29

69,671.31

65,666.3(94.2%)

No

33

Si

29

No

29

Yes

29

Yes

36

20,923.6(99.3%)

Yes

35

39,525.55

39,525.55(100%)

No30

94,710.22

93,185.09(98.4%)

Yes

35

16,668.8
20,315.81

1,970.1(11.82%)
5,061.9(24.9%)
2,291.48(3.6%)
3,316.05(100%)

33

EcuadorECU44

Mindo yEstribaciones
Occidentales delvolcán Pichincha

34

Ecuador

ECU45

Montañas deZapote-Najda

9,699.6

2,801.17(28.8%)

No

32

35

Ecuador

ECU50

Parque Nacional
Podocarpus

142,945.61

142,945.61(100%)

Yes

28

36

Ecuador

ECU52

217,629.87

217,629.87(100%)

No

33

37

EcuadorECU61

361,615.47

285,668.57
(79%)

No

32

38

EcuadorECU42

169,316.06

141,523.35
(83%)

No

28

39

EcuadorECU54

Río Caoní

9,101.37

0 (0%)

Yes

32

ECU66

Río ToachiChiriboga

7,11883,429.71(4.8%)

No

33

40

Ecuador

Parque Nacional
Sumaco-Napo
GalerasReserva
Ecológica
CotacachiCayapas
Reserva
Ecológica Los
Illinizas yalrededores

325

Saraguro Las
AntenasReserva
Tapichalaca
Territorio étnicoAwá yalrededores
6 km sur deOcobamba
Abra MálagaVilcanota
Cordillera deColánKosñipata
Carabaya

41

EcuadorECU81

1,876.24

42

Ecuador

ECU64

43

Ecuador

ECU70

44

Peru

PER3

45

Peru

PER5

46

Peru

PER28

47

Peru

PER44

48

Peru

PER50

Lagos Yanacocha

2,439.65

49

Peru

PER65

Moyobamba

91,527.42

50

Peru

PER75

Quincemil

58,324.08

51

Peru

PER97

Río Araza

33,956.27

52

Peru

PER84

Río Utcubamba

35,534.28

3,925.89
204,930.15
76,568.58
31,083.45
134,874.13
96,492.93

1,860.56(99.1%)
3,925.89(100%)

No

33

No

28

Yes

30

No

26

No

29

Yes

28

Yes

31

No

27

No

26

No

27

0 (0%)

No

26

1683.1 (5%)

Yes

30

12,569.86(6.1%)
1,151.5(1.5%)
3,282.75(10.6%)
88,855.9(66%)
9,676.9(10%)
549.3(22.5%)
3,336.5(3.6%)
9,016.8(15%)*Appendix 13.2 shows the ratings for each criterion which, when added together, result in the final
quantification.

Table 13.2. Priority Conservation Corridors for CEPF Investment in the Tropical
Andes Hotspot
Corridor

ParaguasMunchique/Páramo de Urrao-Tatamá(Colombia)

Awá-CotacachiIllinizas(ColombiaEcuador)

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

326

Northwest(Ecuador)

SangayPodocarpus(Ecuador)

Northeast of Peru
(Peru)

Cordillera de
Vilcanota (Peru)

Madidi-Pilón
Lajas-Cotapata(Bolivia)

Total

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

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

327

The seven priority corridors share several attributes that make them excellent
candidates for CEPF support.
Paraguas-Munchique/Bosques Montanos del Sur de Antioquia Corridor (Colombia).
This corridor is a result of the northward extension of the previous Paraguas-Munchique
Corridor of Phase II. It has 11 priority KBAs containing 53 threatened species (17 CR and 36
EN): 28 amphibians, 10 birds, seven plants, six fish, one mammal and one reptile. Amongthese species are the Cauca fishing snake (Synophis plectovertebralis, CR), endemic to the
KBA of the same name, and the black-headed spider monkey (Ateles fusciceps, EN). The
corridor is impacted by mining, agricultural expansion, colonization, illicit crops, anddeforestation resulting from these activities. The corridor provides water to the cities of Cali,
Palmira and smaller towns such as Yotoco. Opportunities exist to work with Navera Drua andEmberá indigenous communities.
Awá-Cotacachi-Illinizas Corridor (Colombia and Ecuador). This corridor contains 15 priority
KBAs, which harbor 76 endangered species (13 CR and 63 EN), of which 33 are amphibians,
15 are plants, 14 are reptiles, seven are birds, five are mammals and two are fish.
Opportunities exist to conserve the black and chestnut eagle (Spizaetus isidori, EN), glass
frogs (Centrolene ballux, EN and C. scirtetes, EN), great green macaw (Ara ambiguus, EN) andthe endemic plant to Ecuador Puya hirtzii (CR). The KBAs on the southern quadrant havemedium to high levels of irrecoverable carbon storage. The water availability of its KBAs is highand very high, as they supply water to the cities of San Miguel de Ibarra and Otavalo, as wellas to the surrounding agricultural regions. Other cities outside the hotspot, such as Esmeraldas
and San Lorenzo, depend on the water resources of this corridor. The corridor has high foodsecurity values and offers excellent ecotourism services. However, the corridor is threatenedby mining, illegal logging, agricultural expansion, hydrocarbons, cattle grazing, and illegal cocaand poppy cultivation, which has presented grave security threats to Awá communities along
the Ecuador – Colombia border. CEPF supported the Awá people in both countries to help
conserve their territory and increase their security.
Northeastern Corridor (Ecuador). The corridor contains two priority KBAs that host 22
threatened species (2 CR and 20 EN), including 13 amphibians, four plants, three mammals,
one reptile and one bird. These species include the colorful and endemic Peters's stubfoot toad(Atelopus petersi, EN). Its ecosystem services medium to high carbon storage. New to CEPF,
the Northeastern Corridor is a high national priority for conservation funding.
Sangay-Podocarpus Corridor (Ecuador). The first legally established connectivity corridor in
Ecuador, the Sangay-Podocarpus Corridor includes 10 prioritized KBAs that host 50 threatened
species (13 CR and 37 EN), distributed among 20 amphibians, 20 plants, five reptiles, threebirds and two mammals, and nine plants (including genus Puya). The Pale-headed brushfinch(Atlapetes pallidiceps, EN) is endemic to the arid low scrublands of southern Ecuador. The
corridor’s threat level is high due to mining and road expansion. It has high carbon storage
and high water availability, which supplies water to the city of Loja. The corridor is inhabitedby the Saraguro, Cañari and Shuar indigenous groups.
Northeastern Peru Corridor (Peru). The Northeastern Peru Corridor hosts three priority
KBAs that harbor 16 threatened species (2 CR and 14 EN), of which five are birds, five aremammals, five are amphibians and one is a plant. These include the emblematic yellow-tailed
woolly monkey (Lagothrix flavicauda, CR) and the Rio Mayo titi (Plecturocebus oenananthe,
CR). Among the threats facing this corridor are mining, agricultural expansion and roaddevelopment, that together generate a high level of threat. Its KBAs have medium to high328

levels of carbon storage. Attractions such as Gocta Waterfall (Peru’s highest waterfall) andKuélap's archaeological ruins attracted a growing albeit chaotic tourism sector prior to thepandemic. CEPF support to local communities enabled them to take advantage of growinginterest in nature tourism. In addition, CI manages a successful conservation project in the
Alto Mayo KBA, which is an excellent model for replication to link biodiversity with carbon
financing.
Cordillera de Vilcanota Corridor (Peru). This corridor contains 16 threatened species (4 CR
and 13 EN) in six prioritized KBAs: five birds, eight amphibians, two mammals and one fish.
Among its mammals, the charismatic Andean mountain cat (Leopardus jacobita, EN) and the
Peruvian spider monkey (Ateles chamek, EN) stand out. Its ecosystem services include watersupply to the city of Cusco, medium to very high carbon storage in its KBAs, as well as tourism
services to Machu Picchu and the Sacred Valley. The corridor has two oil pipelines and theSouthern Inter-Oceanic Highway, connecting Peru and Brazil. Other prominent threats include
mining, new roads, illicit crops and the expansion of the agricultural frontier. The corridor
offers the opportunity to continue CEPF’s collaboration with the Q'ero indigenous communities
and to promote nature tourism.
Madidi-Pilón Lajas-Cotapata Corridor (Peru and Bolivia). This corridor contains five priority
KBAs that together harbor 22 threatened species (6 CR and 16 EN): 10 plants, fiveamphibians, five birds, one mammal and one reptile. The royal cinclodes (Cinclodes aricomae,CR), with less than 250 adult individuals and three Critically Endangered amphibians of thegenus Microkayla stand out. The main threats include mining, expansion of the agricultural
frontier (including coca cultivation), and dam and road construction. Its ecosystem services
include high carbon storage and water provisioning to numerous municipalities. The corridor
provides opportunities to work with the Lecos, Tacana, Quechua, Aymara, Esse Eja, Chimane,
Tsimane and Mosetene indigenous communities. CEPF has a long standing relationship in Pilon
Lajas with the Tsimane and Mosetene people.
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) (Table 5.1), of which 183
species are priorities for CEPF (see Table 13.3 and Appendix 13.3) based on their locations
within priority corridors and KBAs. Amphibians are the most threatened taxonomic groupaccording to assessments to date, due to habitat loss, pollution and chytrid fungus, resulting in
the decline and extinction of amphibian populations. However, there are also other emblematic
species such as the Cauca guan (Penelope perspicax), the Andean mountain cat (Leopardus
jacobita), and yellow-tailed woolly monkey (Lagothrix flavicauda, CR), that merit directedconservation support as well. In Phase II, CEPF laid a solid foundation to conserve globallythreatened species upon which build on for the next investment period. In addition, CEPF will
respond to the high threat posed by wildlife trafficking and hunting in the conservation
corridors and KBAs, which is a new area of engagement for the fund.

329

Table 13.3. Summary of Species Priorities for the Tropical Andes Hotspot
Taxonomic Group

Number of species

Amphibians
Birds
Mammals
Fish
Plants
Reptiles
Total

82
32
11
7
41
10
183

Figures 13.2. Priority KBAs and Corridors

330

Figure 13.2.i. Colombia

331Figure 13.2.ii. Ecuador

332

Figure 13.2.iii. Northern Peru

333

Figure 13.2.iv. Southern Peru and Bolivia

13.2 Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities
To respond to the current crisis and to address longstanding threats to biodiversity and theirroot 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 13.4. The strategy seeks to address short-term conservation needs to stem
environmental degradation resulting from the pandemic, through support to the most impacted334

communities and sites, strengthening land tenure for communities, encouraging sustainable
livelihoods opportunities and stopping wildlife trafficking and hunting impacting the KBAs. The
investment strategy also supports the long-term vision for the hotspot: to build local
conservation capacity for civil society, secure more stable and diversified sources of funding,institutionalize conservation outcomes, and foster strong private sector engagement forconservation. Furthermore, the strategy emphasizes linkages between biodiversity
conservation in the priority KBAs and corridors with the provision of vital ecosystem services,
for water provisioning. Phase III fosters multi-sectoral collaboration between local
communities, civil society, government, and the private sector by building on the multistakeholder alliances established and strengthened in previous investments.
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 and projects; 3)
strengthening of capacities of indigenous peoples and local civil society; 4) fostering long-term
financial sustainability; and 5) contributing to climate change adaptation and 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 13.4. CEPF Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities for the Tropical
Andes Hotspot
Strategic
Directions

Investment Priorities

1. Strengthen
protection andmanagement of 52
priority KBAs to foster
participatory
governance, green
recovery fromCOVID-19, climatechange resilience,
species conservation,and financial
sustainability.

1.1 Facilitate the establishment, upgrading, and/or expansion of
public and private protected areas.

2. In the sevenpriority corridors,
collaborate withpublic and private
sector stakeholders toenable biodiversity
conservation, a green
recovery fromCOVID-19, andenvironmental,

1.2 Prepare and implement participatory management plans andother relevant 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.
2.2 Support the preparation of policies, programs, and projects that
foster biodiversity conservation, particularly at sub-national levels,and that 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.

335

financial, and social
sustainability, in
benefit of the priority
KBAs.

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 conservationcommitments.
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.

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

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 topriority 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
in Appendix 13.3.
3.2 Support strategies and information campaigns to combat illegal
wildlife trafficking and hunting in the KBAs and conservation
corridors.
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
and civil 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.

336

Strategic Direction 1. Strengthen protection and management of 52 priority KBAs
to foster participatory governance, green recovery from COVID-19, climatechange resilience, species conservation, and financial sustainability.
The protection and conservation of the KBAs lie at the heart of CEPF's strategy to conservation
the hotspot’s biodiversity. Important gains in improving KBA viability, protection andmanagement were made through previous CEPF investments. In Phase III, 52 KBAs areprioritized for funding under this strategic direction, as listed in Table 13.1. CEPF achieved
important conservation gains in Phase II; however, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemicin March 2020, many of the conservation activities have been significantly restricted and, inmost cases, they have been completely halted. During the early stages of Phase III, CEPF
expects to assist in the reactivation of conservation initiatives that were frozen due to thepandemic restrictions.
The main objective of this direction is to consolidate and make sustainable the achievements
obtained in Phase II, and to replicate the best practices in neighboring KBAs within the priority
corridors to allow for landscape-scale conservation.
To improve the protection of KBAs in need, CEPF will focus on promoting the designation
and/or expansion of protected areas and the protection of indigenous territories in unprotected
KBAs to mitigate threats and stimulate local support for their conservation. In addition,
management and governance capacity will be strengthened through participatory approaches
to ensure that protected areas meet their conservation objectives. Consolidation andamplification of successful approaches undertaken in Phase II will be sought as part of astrategy to design governance structures that promote long-term resilient conservation. CEPF
will also emphasize linkages between the conservation of the priority KBAs with the vital
ecosystem services, including for water provisioning and as nature-based solutions to theclimate crisis.
CEPF also recognizes that advancing secure land tenure of campesino and indigenous
communities, particularly in light of new pressures on land and natural resources due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, is fundamental to ensure the success of conservation and sustainable
development initiatives. CEPF will therefore put a high priority on advancing secure land tenure
in communities that play a strategic role in conserving the KBAs.
This strategic direction seeks to improve management in those KBAs that have demonstrated
high need for investment. In the case of KBAs that received CEPF resources in the past, theaim will be to consolidate their management and protection by promoting governancemechanisms that integrate the conservation of endangered species, climate change goals, agreen recovery from COVID-19, and financial sustainability to achieve the long-term resilienceof these KBAs and the graduation of civil society organizations with respect to CEPF support
To strengthen the financial sustainability of conservation actions, CEPF will help link CSO
financing with incentive programs for biodiversity conservation, for example through water
funds or payments for environmental services. Special emphasis will be placed onstrengthening the processes for consolidation and replication initiated in Phase II.
In the context of economic recovery, many ventures will require strengthening strategic
alliances and productive linkages with the private sector. In this vein, CEPF will fundimplementation and replication of pilot projects and support for marketing networks andinitiatives to scale up products and services compatible with conservation in the KBAs.

337

Increasing and leveraging private sector participation and funding for biodiversity represents a
key opportunity to support sustainable land-use practices.

Investment Priority 1.1. Facilitate the establishment, upgrading, and/or
expansion of public and private protected areas.
This investment priority is based on analysis that shows that 35 of the 52 priority KBAs are
only partially protected or completely unprotected (Table 13.5). Of the 4.0 million hectares
that lie within the priority KBAs, 0.8 million hectares found in 14 KBAs are unprotected, while
1.45 million hectares found in 21 KBAs are only partially protected.
Table 13.5. CEPF Priority KBAs under Legal Protection in the Hotspot

Protected1

Partially
Protected

Unprotected

Total

Number,percentage of KBA

17 (32.7%)

21 (40.4%)

14 (26.9%)

52

Area of KBA (ha),percentage of total

1,741,056(43%)

1,454,724.5(36%)

844,799.3(21%)

4,040,579.8

Rating: Protected: >80 percent of the KBA overlaps with a protected area.
Partially: 10-80 percent overlap; Unprotected: <10 percent overlap.
1This investment priority will aim to strengthen legal protection for the 35 priority KBAs listed inTable 13.6 that are currently unprotected or partially protected, and where conditions are
conducive to strengthening their legal protection.
CEPF will support civil society efforts to advance the technical and legal processes to formalize
the protected area status of these priority sites. CEPF will support a wide array of activities:
stakeholder consultations, field data collection or administrative arrangements for private
protected areas; declaration of new national, subnational, local, indigenous, or private
protected areas; and setting up governance frameworks, including management plans andmechanisms for collaborative decision making (e.g., management committees mentioned in
the previous priority) and other participatory management arrangements. Particular attention
will be given to sites where there is already a prior commitment to advancing protection by
local governments and stakeholders.
Table 13.6. Unprotected or Partially Protected CEPF Priority KBAs#

Country

CEPF
Code

KBA

Area
(has)

1

Bolivia

BOL8

Bosque de Polylepis de Taquesi

3,455.83

2

Bolivia

BOL13

Cotapata

227,549.41

3

Colombia

COL5

Alto de Pisones

1,380.61

4

Colombia

COL7

Bosque de San Antonio Km 18

5,993.74

5

Colombia

COL11

Bosques Montanos del Sur de Antioquia

200,574.65

338

6

Colombia

COL36

Enclave Seco del Río Dagua

8,509.33

7

Colombia

COL45

La Empalada

10,560.88

Colombia

COL75

Parque Natural Regional Páramo del Duende

32,136.29

9

Colombia

COL80

Región del Alto Calima

21,917.65

10Colombia

COL86

Reserva Natural El Pangán

7,726.93

11

Colombia

COL91

Reserva Natural Río Ñambí

8,595.15

12

Colombia

COL106

Serranía de los Paraguas

259,592.27

13

Colombia

COL109Serranía del Pinche

4,870.4

14

Colombia

COL74

Parque Nacional Natural Tatamá

59,414.17

15

Ecuador

ECU3

Acanamá-Guashapamba-Aguirre

1,994.67

16

Ecuador

ECU6

Alrededores de Amaluza

109,051.44

17

Ecuador

ECU14

Bosque Protector Los Cedros

5,619.44

18

Ecuador

ECU16

Bosque Protector Moya-Molón

12,376.49

19

Ecuador

ECU28

Corredor Awacachi

16,668.8

20

Ecuador

ECU86

Gualaceo - Limón Indanza

20,315.81

21

Ecuador

ECU34

Intag-Toisán

63,884.53

22

Ecuador

ECU45

Montañas de Zapote-Najda

9,699.6

23

EcuadorECU61

Reserva Ecológica Cotacachi-Cayapas

361,615.47

24

EcuadorECU54

Río Caoní

9,101.37

25

Ecuador

ECU66

Río Toachi-Chiriboga

71,18826

Ecuador

ECU70

Territorio étnico Awá y alrededores

204,930.15

27

Peru

PER3

6 km sur de Ocobamba

76,568.58

28

Peru

PER5

Abra Málaga-Vilcanota

31,083.45

29

Peru

PER28

Cordillera de Colán

134,874.13

30

Peru

PER44

Kosñipata Carabaya

96,492.93

31

Peru

PER50

Lagos Yanacocha

2,439.65

32

Peru

PER65

Moyobamba

91,527.42

33

Peru

PER75

Quincemil

58,324.08

34

Peru

PER97

Río Araza

33,956.27

35

Peru

PER84

Río Utcubamba

35,534.28

339

Investment Priority 1.2. Prepare and implement participatory management plansand other relevant KBA management instruments that support broad stakeholder
collaboration.
CEPF will support civil society efforts to prepare or update management plans for priority sites.
Special emphasis will be given to the development of plans that involve local communities andanticipate a role for CSOs and communities in the implementation process, for example,
through co-management arrangements. These plans should ensure the adoption of the CEPF´sfive cross-cutting strategic themes: 1) revival of COVID-19 impacted sites and economies
based on green objectives; 2) mainstreaming of gender equality into conservation strategies;
3) strengthening of capacities of indigenous peoples and local civil society; 4) fostering longterm financial sustainability; and 5) contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation.
For the 24 KBAs that previously received CEPF funding and that already have management
plans, CEPF will support implementation of targeted strategies and actions that are geared
toward improving management effectiveness and long-term sustainability, and thatcomplement other priorities within the CEPF investment strategy. Special emphasis will beplaced on consolidating the results achieved through previous investments, and building
governance frameworks, for example, through the establishment of local management
committees or community management schemes involving local stakeholder groups. Building
sustainability, through development and implementation of long-term financial mechanisms
will be encouraged. CEPF partners will monitor and evaluate the impact of management
interventions to identify changes and trends over time, as well as to measure progress towards
management goals under an adaptive approach.
For those KBAs that do not have management plans or that have outdated plans, CEPF willchannel resources to help prepare updated management plans. Priority will be given to efforts
that involve local communities and that reinforce a role of CSOs, for example, through comanagement agreements. Involvement of environmental authorities and the private sector will
be important for successful plan formulation. The plans should include management
recommendations to conserve globally threatened species found within the KBA (see Appendix
13.4 for a complete list IUCN Red Listed species for each priority KBA), alignment with climatechange mitigation and adaptation goals, recovery from COVID-19 impacts, and financial
sustainability. A priority will be to leverage funds from local governments and other donors toserve as counterpart financing.
Where necessary to guide conservation planning and action, CEPF will support CSO efforts tofill critical gaps in knowledge and information, including highly targeted field surveys forselected sites and species, and preparation of community assessments or socioeconomic
surveys.

Investment Priority 1.3. Strengthen land tenure, management, and governanceof indigenous territories and campesino communities.
Some priority KBAs overlap with indigenous territories and most of them have within theirborder or buffer zones campesino communities that maintain a direct relationship with thenatural areas as part of their livelihood strategies. Often, insecure land tenure hinders theparticipation of campesinos and indigenous peoples in conservation processes. Having secureland tenure is often an essential pre-condition for communities to engage meaningfully inconservation efforts. For indigenous communities of the Andes hotspot, the preparation and340

adoption of planes de vida, or life plans, serve as important tools toward their empowerment
and development.
In addition, the panedemic has resulted in large-scale migration of people leaving their homes
in the cities and returning to their ancestrial villages, putting new pressures on the KBAs andcorridors. The implication is that those KBAs where communities do not have secure land
tenure are vulnerable to encroachment. Without secure land tenure, livelihoods projects thatoffer longer-term community benefits will be harder to sustain.
To this end, an important priority within the strategy will be to support activities that help toclarify and secure land ownership regimes for campesino and indigenous communities (such as
regularization, legalization, and resolution of land tenure conflicts), to assist with legal
recognition of traditional territorial rights in support of conservation and sustainable
development goals in priority KBAs. CEPF will also support development of planes de vida andleveraging funding for their implementation.

Investment Priority 1.4. Enable local communities to enter and remain in
incentive programs that benefit biodiversity conservation.
CEPF recognizes the importance of incentivizing local communities to participate inconservation programs and ensuring tangible economic benefits that can be sustained into thelong term. The Tropical Andes hosts several schemes that provide financial incentives tocommunities and landowners to conservation their resources, most notably, water funds or
payments for environmental services. At times, however, communities are limited in theirability to apply for these programs or to maintain their eligibility. CEPF will facilitate processes
for communities to apply for, receive and remain in conservation incentive programs. To
expand the benefits of these initiatives. CEPF will support CSOs working with communities toenter and remain in these conservation incentive programs. Activities may include capacity
building and management planning, as well as collaboration with public agencies responsible
for these programs to facilitate community access.

Investment Priority 1.5. Promote and strengthen bio-enterprises that support
biodiversity conservation and provide gender-equitable benefits to local
communities.
Building from Phase II, CEPF will support small and medium-sized conservation enterprisesthat demonstrate linkages between conservation and the generation of environmentally
sustainable sources of income for communities. CEPF will support CSOs to conceive, develop
and implement ecologically sustainable and economically viable livelihood projects forcommunities and their organizations, such as initiatives that support nature tourism,
conservation coffee and cacao.
These enterprises should demonstrate direct benefits from the conservation of biodiversity
and/or demonstrate how the enterprise will reduce threats that directly impact a priority KBA.
The identification and sharing of best practices for the development and scaling up ofconservation enterprises will also be eligible for support, as will promotion of greatercollaboration in vital areas, such as marketing. Co-funding and leveraging additional resources
will be strongly encouraged.
CEPF recognizes that the ecotourism projects supported under Phase II may require support toadopt COVID-19 mitigation protocols and to enhance marketing and their tourism services aspart of their recovery from COVID-19.

341

Strategic Direction 2. In the seven priority corridors, collaborate with public andprivate sector stakeholders to enable biodiversity conservation, a green recovery
from COVID-19, and environmental, financial, and social sustainability, in benefitof the priority KBAs.
The 52 priority KBAs are linked by their locations in seven corridors, and by their dependence
on ecosystem services and administrative linkages to governmental entities found beyond theirborders. CEPF recognizes that pockets of protection and sustainable management within the
KBAs do not necessarily mitigate against pressures in buffer zones nor maintain ecosystem
functionality at a landscape-scale, particularly when the pressures to biodiversity originate inareas beyond the borders of a KBA.
In Phase II, CEPF worked with sub-national governments in six corridors to build their capacity
and strengthen their conservation policies and programs. To mainstream conservation andsustainable development into sub-national policies, CEPF partners worked closely with local
authorities to pass 52 local ordinances. In Bolivia, CEPF partners successfully engaged themining sector to develop pilot projects and policies that integrated social and environmental
safeguards into mining practices and policies. These examples demonstrated how CSOs canserve as trusted advisors to governments and the private sector to achieve positive results.
CSOs have increased their participation in recent years in public policy formulation related toterritorial planning and sustainable use of natural resources at national, local and regional
levels. Strengthening partnership between CSOs and subnational governments is particularly
important since, under the hotspot’s decentralized approach to environmental management,
local governments often have lead authority for natural resources management. They view
environmental CSOs as credible and trust technical advisors.
In Phase III, CEPF will build on these successes to collaborate with the public and private
sectors to advance those enabling conditions required to promote conservation and sustainable
development in seven conservation corridors that house the priority KBAs. CEPF will pay
particular attention to supporting the development of public policies aimed at promoting green
recovery that takes into consideration conservation and the adoption of social andenvironmental safeguards in development policies and specifically in mining and infrastructure
projects. In addition, CEPF will highlight the importance of conserving the KBAs and corridors
for their ecosystem services, particularly for water provisioning and as important sites tosupport nature-based solutions to climate change.
CEPF will help institutionalize the adoption of KBAs and globally Red Listed species asconservation planning tools within public sector agencies for determining national andsubnational conservation outcomes and for supporting various management instruments. CEPF
will also support the updating of KBA boundaries to ensure that CEPF and other donor
investments are channeled strategically within the priority sites.
The seven priority corridors extend across productive landscapes within and outside of thepriority KBAs, that encompass agricultural, mining, livestock and forestry land uses. This
mosaic necessitates the inclusion of the private sector as key actors to bring about economic
recovery based on environmentally sustainable principles. Several private sector actors are at
the forefront of environmental sustainability and innovation, often motivated by their own
social responsibility objectives. Voluntary private sector mechanisms (e.g., codes of conduct,
protocols, standards and certifications) and market incentives for environmental sustainability
are creating opportunities for more innovative private sector approaches for CEPF to support.

342

CEPF will strengthen the link between CSOs and the private sector interested in working in
biodiversity conservation. Opportunities may include strengthening sustainable supply chainsand forging strategic alliances with new commercial partners. CEPF will promote pilot projects,
support for marketing networks and initiatives aimed at scaling up products and services
compatible with conservation in priority KBAs. Increasing and leveraging private sector
participation and funding for biodiversity represent key opportunities to support sustainable
land use.

Investment Priority 2.1. Support participatory land-use and development plans
and governance frameworks to foster a shared vision of conservation andsustainable development to guide future investments.
Poor land-use planning and inappropriate agricultural, mining and infrastructure development
are key contributors to the degradation of the hotspot. CEPF will build on its landscape-level
work under its previous investments and will continue to support the planning and adoption of
local and corridor-level land-use plans that create consensus by stakeholders on a long-term
vision for conservation and development. CEPF will support CSOs working in a participatory
manner through multi-stakeholder alliances with governments, the private sector, and otherstakeholders to establish the planning and governance conditions necessary for landscapescale conservation in the seven priority corridors. Activities may include providing strategic
input in the preparation of land development and management plans (PDyOT by its acronym in
Spanish), land-use and management plans (PUGS by its acronym in Spanish), and watershedmanagement plans. CEPF will also support the alliances by which these planning frameworks
will be implemented.
CEPF will also fund corridor-level action plans that seek to integrate the various conservation
initiatives and projects implemented within the corridors within a coherent, corridor-level
conservation action plan.
CEPF will support public instruments that leverage new funding to implement these plans andassociated projects. In addition, CEPF will support the formation and maintenance of alliancesand needed training to facilitate dialogue and implementation. CEPF may also assist in thedesign of supporting legal mechanisms, such as ordinances or decrees, that formalize
commitments.

Investment Priority 2.2. Support the preparation of policies, programs, andprojects that foster biodiversity conservation, particularly at sub-national levels,and that leverage funding for their implementation.
Development programs that depend on environmental quality (e.g., water resource
management, climate change, natural disaster prevention, agriculture and public health) offer
opportunities to create synergies and leverage the benefits of biodiversity in generating humanwell-being. To forge stronger links between biodiversity conservation and development
programs, CEPF will fund activities dedicated to mainstreaming biodiversity considerations into
public initiatives linked to land use in the priority corridors, particularly at sub-national levels.
Activities may include technical analysis and assistance, stakeholder consultations, capacity
building, and strategy formulation dedicated to mainstreaming conservation objectives into
sub-national development policies. Focal areas may include COVID-19 recovery, climatechange adaption and mitigation, water resources management, agricultural development,
tourism promotion, mining, public health, and finance. Grants may focus on raising awarenessamong decision makers and donors regarding the substantial and cost-effective benefits of343

biodiversity and ecosystem services vital for economic development, human well-being andclimate change risk mitigation.

Investment Priority 2.3. Support the dissemination and integration of theconservation outcomes (threatened species, KBAs and corridors) in the strategicplans and public policies of governments, donors, and the private sector.
CEPF’s experience in Phase II revealed that the hotspot’s governments, private sector, andlocal donor representatives are unaware of the Tropical Andes hotspot’s importance to global
conservation. They are unfamiliar with KBAs and the Global Red List as the global standard forconservation priority setting. In addition, a critical mass of KBAs is in dire need of having theirboundaries updated. With the passage of time, new information has become available, andKBAs have undergone transformational changes. CEPF and other donors have found that theKBA delineations of 2014 are outdated, and their effectiveness for conservation priority-setting
is diminished.
To ensure the long-term sustainability of CEPF’s conservation outcomes, the use of KBAs andglobally threatened species for conservation planning and implementation must be adopted
and institutionalized by local governments and donors. This investment priority will therefore
support KBA updating, particularly of outdated boundaries. Subsequently, CEPF will support
the dissemination of the conservation outcomes through a communication campaign aimed at
strategic actors, with the goal of integrating the conservation outcomes as priorities within
local public policies and donor agendas. CEPF will emphasize leveraging of co-funding to
implement this investment priority.

Investment Priority 2.4. Establish and strengthen traditional and innovative
financial mechanisms and leverage financing initiatives for conservation,
including payments for ecosystem services, carbon credits and compensation
mechanisms.
A core objective of the Tropical Andes long-term vision is to promote long-term funding
mechanisms to finance the costs of maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services, and tocover the core operating costs of environmental civil society groups, so that they are fully
empowered to serve as effective local stewards of their critical ecosystems, as embodied in
CEPF’s mission.
Under this investment priority, CEPF will fund the development of sustainable funding
feasibility studies, business plans and strategies to support promising sustainable funding
schemes for conservation and ecosystem services projects dedicated to supporting the CEPF
conservation outcomes. CEPF may also support business plans and fund raising strategies,
payment for ecosystem services schemes, membership and philanthropy strategies,
crowdfunding, and climate change mitigation and/or adaptation proposals. CEPF will support
those initiatives that demonstrate interest from other strategic actors to collaborate in theirdevelopment. It is important to note that CEPF funds cannot be used to capitalize trust funds.

Investment Priority 2.5. Promote and scale up bio-enterprises to benefit
communities, biodiversity, connectivity and ecosystem services in the corridors
to benefit priority KBAs.
CEPF will support civil society organizations working in multiple KBAs to develop ventures thatoffer direct conservation benefits, improve connectivity between KBAs, and/or respond in a
direct way to a threat within a priority KBA. The focus will be on land uses that are both key

344

drivers of biodiversity loss and important opportunities to enhance agroforestry systems suchas coffee and cocoa. The focus will also include innovative conservation-based products andventures that demonstrate social and economic benefits and strengthen resilience to climatechange. Grants could support civil society organizations working with rural producers,
associations or extension agencies to develop and disseminate technologies and best practices
to include biodiversity conservation. CEPF could also help create voluntary commitments tosustainable production and improve access and market linkages for biodiversity-friendly
products. This may include developing strategic plans to promote certain sustainable activities(such as ecotourism) for KBAs within an entire corridor, for example. CEPF will also support
civil society organizations working with exemplary and promising ecotourism initiatives that
include effective mechanisms linking profits and benefits to local communities.

Investment Priority 2.6. Promote private sector actors and their associations tointegrate conservation into their business practices and to implement corporatesocial responsibility policies and voluntary conservation commitments.
CEPF will support civil society partners working directly with those strategic companies andindustries and their associations that are present in the corridors and are committed todeveloping and complying with guidelines, standards and policies that include biodiversity
objectives. Areas of particular interest could include agriculture, forestry and tourism.
CEPF will fund efforts to increase the awareness and understanding of business leaders andtechnical staff to incorporate biodiversity conservation considerations and opportunities.
Activities eligible for CEPF funding include facilitating dialogue, disseminating successful
approaches and best practices, and providing technical assistance in the application of best
environmental practices. Among strategic industries, CEPF will support technical assistance tointegrate biodiversity conservation into business and production practices, strategies andpolicies. All proposed activities must have a benefit for a priority KBA.

Investment Priority 2.7. Integrate biodiversity conservation objectives into
policies and programs related to mining and infrastructure and promote related
demonstration projects.
To help integrate biodiversity conservation considerations into program and project planning,
CEPF will support technical assistance, including analysis to identify potential environmental
and social impacts and costs/benefits of individual projects; and guidance to develop anddisseminate best practices for integrating conservation considerations into the planning,
implementation and monitoring of these projects. This may include guidance on different typesof good environmental practices and national and international environmental certification(CEPF does not fund the certification itself). CEPF may also support dialogue and exchanges
among stakeholders to ensure their participation in the development of such projects, policies,
or programs.

Investment Priority 2.8. Strengthen local capacity, facilitate public consultation,and support partnerships to implement mitigation measures in projects that
present a risk to priority KBAs, with a focus on mining and infrastructure.
Local communities and civil society organizations are important stakeholders that needdetailed knowledge of the potential impacts of large development projects, as well as theexpertise to engage constructively in the planning and implementation processes of theseprojects. CEPF will work with local civil society groups to play a meaningful role in the design,
implementation and monitoring of projects that impact priority KBAs, their communities and345

ecosystems, with an emphasis on mining and infrastructure projects. Special importance will
be given to ensuring the sustainability of these processes in order to contribute to theprevention and mitigation of negative impacts of projects that pose a risk to priority KBAs.
Support will be given to such activities as capacity building, facilitating dialogues andpartnerships between communities and other civil society actors to ensure robust community
participation in the processes of designing projects and monitoring environmental and social
impacts. Funds may be channeled to help local organizations to actively participate inenvironmental impact assessment processes, including the identification of potential impacts
and negotiations to avoid and/or mitigate them. Ensuring that the provisions of participatory
impact assessments are implemented and monitored during and after project construction will
also be vital to avoid any unexpected impacts.

Strategic Direction 3. Safeguard priority globally threatened species.
The number of globally threatened species in the hotspot increased by 75 percent since the2015 CEPF assessment, going from 814 to 1,451 threatened species. This is not only due tothe assessment of new taxa, but also to persistent and increasing pressures on Andean floraand fauna.
In addition, Chapter 6 finds that illegal wildlife trade and hunting has become a significant
threat in recent years in several priority KBAs, imperiling globally endangered amphibians,
mammals, reptiles, birds and plants alike. The COVID-19 pandemic is suspected to be
exacerbating the problem as migrants fleeing cities in search of livelihoods and food put morepressure on wildlife. Species subject to hunting and trade include the white-bellied spider
monkey (Ateles belzebuth, EN), mountain tapir (Tapirus pinchaque, EN), Red-and-green
macaw (Ara chloropterus), green iguana (Iguana iguana), poison dart frogs (Dendrobatidaespp.) and jaguar (Panthera onca), to name a few target species. While international
conservation groups and donors are working nationally with authorities to increase
governmental capacity, the scale of the threat is not matched by sufficient response at the siteand corridor level in the hotspot. Given the links between the wildlife trade and the emergenceof zoonotic diseases, reducing trade and consumption of wildlife in the hotspot will secure
benefits not only to wildlife, but also mitigate the risk of future zoonotic diseases.
In Phase II, CEPF investments directly benefitted 73 globally threatened and endangered
species and indirectly benefited 213 species, through a variety of actions, including thedevelopment and implementation of species conservation plans with significant community
involvement; integration species conservation recommendations into protected areas
management plans; inventories, monitoring plans, distribution maps; and the assessment ofspecies presence, status, and habitats in the KBAs and corridors. This strategic direction builds
on the important successes of Phase II investments by supporting conservation of thosespecies that are among the most endangered in the hotspot. To date, CEPF has not funded
projects related to illegal wildlife trade and hunting.

Investment Priority 3.1 Prepare, implement, and institutionalize conservation
action plans that include climate change resilience for 183 critically endangered(CR) species and Endangered (EN), and for select genera, presented in Appendix
13.3.
CEPF will support the development, update and implementation of conservation plans focusedon the 183 Critically Endangered (CR) or Endangered (EN) species that include climate change
adaptation and financial sustainability goals and actions (Table 13.3 and Appendix 13.3).
Species-level projects should proactively involve local communities through environmental346

education, engagement in field research, dissemination of field research, and site-based
conservation actions, as a means of raising local appreciation for species conservation.
Grantees should seek formal approval and adoption of species conservation plans bygovernments, local communities, universities, and the private sector as an avenue toward
securing co-funding, building scientific capacity of upcoming biologists, and ensuring
sustainability beyond CEPF funding. Activities may also support at risk genera wereappropriate, such as for frailejones, puyas, and Pristimantis, found in Appendix 13.3.

Investment Priority 3.2 Support strategies and information campaigns to combat
illegal wildlife trafficking and hunting in the KBAs and conservation corridors.
CEPF will support CSOs partnering with relevant existing projects and governmental agencies
and initiatives to develop and implement strategies dedicated to stopping illegal wildlife
trafficking and hunting of globally threatened species in the priority KBAs and corridors where
the problem is most egregious. Such strategies may include raising awareness of the public
and local governments of the importance of maintaining their wildlife populations and on
enforcing relevant laws, generating of information and intelligence on the extent and nature of
the problem in priority sites, providing alternative livelihoods to people who rely on the illegal
trade and bushmeat hunting, advocating for legal and policy reforms, and supporting
enforcement capacities of local government agencies and park guards.

Strategic Direction 4. Cultivate a highly-trained, well-coordinated and resilient
civil society sector at the local, corridor, and hotspot levels to achieve CEPF'sconservation outcomes.
The Tropical Andes long-term vision relies on the growth of a robust and effective
environmental civil society sector and multi-sectoral partnerships to provide strategic
leadership and technical guidance to direct environmental and development policy towardsustainability over the next 20 years. Vital to this objective is enhancing the capacity ofAndean civil society at the local, national and hotspot levels.
CEPF has a successful track record of investment in CSO capacity building that has achieved
valuable conservation results. However, technical, and institutional capacity gaps remain,suggesting the need to address continued attention to this priority. Strengthening collaboration
with CSOs and other vital conservation partners is an important tool to optimize the resources
invested in conservation. The objective of this strategic direction is to strengthen Andean CSOs
through five investment priorities to achieve the conservation goals envisioned in thisinvestment strategy and in the long-term hotspot vision. CEPF will also aim to engage invirtual platforms and capacity building efforts civil society groups working the in the hotspot
KBAs and corridors of Argentina, Chile and Venezuela.

Investment Priority 4.1. Strengthen the institutional capacities (administrative,
financial, fundraising, communications, governance, and project management) of
CEPF's strategic partners to implement biodiversity conservation programs.
CEPF will support efforts to strengthen the institutional capacity of Andean conservation
organizations that have an important role to play in achieving CEPF's strategic directions.
Funds will be provided for comprehensive institutional capacity building packages. These
packages will aim to develop the institutional capacity required to carry out biodiversity
conservation. Special attention will be given to supporting sustainable fundraising andfinancing capacity.

347

Investment Priority 4.2. Strengthen the technical knowledge and skills of civilsociety through short-term courses to implement practical conservation actions
based on an evaluation and training strategy.
Based on the achievements of previous training processes promoted by CEPF and the results of
the Phase II evaluation, CEPF will support the design and implementation of capacity building
plans and programs in the areas prioritized in this strategic direction, particularly short-term,
virtual courses to benefit CEPF partners in the four portfolio countries. CEPF will focus onbuilding capacity that helps sustain results carried out under the other strategic directions.
Special attention will be given to technical capacity building for the formulation of projects
related to climate change adaptation and mitigation, sustainable finances, COVID-19 recovery
and sustainable enterprises. Virtual courses may include participants working in KBAs andcorridors in Argentina, Chile and Venezuela.
Through this investment priority, CEPF will support participation in short-term training courses,
exchanges, peer learning and mentorship. Support under this investment priority will dovetailwith project implementation and will be provided for activities that are linked to a conservation
goal. In keeping with global CEPF policy, support will not include funding for academic studies.
At the start of the new phase, CEPF will commission a capacity-building needs assessment andstrategy.

Investment Priority 4.3. Support a security strategy and alliance to safeguard atrisk environmental and indigenous defenders.
To support at-risk environmental and indigenous defenders, CEPF will fund the expansion of
the security strategy developed for Colombian defenders to cover the entire hotspot. CEPF willfund the expansion of the Colombian environmental defenders alliance to attract a broadcoalition of actors dedicated to supporting strategy implementation. Grants may assist with
implementation of priority actions within the strategy, such as establishment and fund raising
for an emergency fund, improved security measures for at-risk defenders, communication toraise public awareness of the problem, and outreach to national and international entities toimprove security and protection of at-risk defenders in the KBAs. CEPF will not fund activites
that correspond to security functions of governments.

Investment Priority 4.4. Strengthen the strategic communication capacity of themedia and civil society networks to create conservation awareness among the
public and decision makers.
To support CEPF grantees and the CEPF conservation outcomes, this investment priority calls
for strengthening CSO communication capacities. The investment priority supports innovative
approaches to communication, for example, through social media and the application of new
information and communication technologies. Furthermore, CEPF seeks to build the capacities
of national and local journalists to report on conservation, particularly on the species, KBAs
and corridors. Funding will be available to foster partnerships with local media, environmental
journalists, and public relations companies, and to create networks between CEPF partners andjournalists covering KBAs, corridors and relevant thematic priorities.

348

Investment Priority 4.5. Strengthen the capacities and involvement of women in
CEPF initiatives.
The ecosystem profile finds that women's participation in conservation is underrepresented andundervalued, even though women play a vital role in natural resources management
throughout the hotspot. Based on the findings of the Phase II gender assessments of CEPF
grantees, this investment priority calls for financing grants aimed at strengthening women's
strategic involvement in conservation initiatives in the prioritized KBAs and corridors. Activities
may include capacity building to promote opportunities for women engagement in CEPF
projects, development and implementation of gender policies, and promoting women's
empowerment in decision-making processes. For more information, consult the Gender Toolkit
on the CEPF website.

Investment Priority 4.6. Improve stakeholder cooperation and strengthen
alliances and foster information exchange and lessons learned.
In Phase II, CEPF facilitated peer-to-peer exchanges at corridor, national and regional levels,
to support knowledge-sharing and provide a space for genuine relationship building. CEPF
partners valued their ability to share lessons and information across a broad array of topics,
which engendered a true spirit of partnership among participating organizations. In
consultations to develop this investment strategy, Andean CSOs demonstrated strong interestin receiving funding to continue building on the partnerships and learning networks establishedin Phase II.
Under this investment priority, CEPF will continue to support alliances and collaborations.
Investments may focus on new approaches (e.g., informal and formal networks and alliances,collaborative action and learning, and the use of social media, apps and online technology) tobuild capacity and cooperation in strategic areas of importance, including nature tourism,
sustainable financing and fund raising, mining development, climate change, communications,species and site conservation, and policy and legislation. CEPF funds will support projects that
stimulate learning and catalyze conservation action by civil society actors and will focus on
best practices relevant to the Andes and the specific barriers and challenges confronting CSOs.
CEPF will seek to engage civil society groups working in KBAs and corridors in Argentina, Chile
and Venezuela in opportunities for virtual networking and information exchange.

Strategic Direction 5. In the hotspot, provide strategic leadership and effective
coordination of CEPF investment through a regional implementation team (RIT).
CEPF will support a regional implementation team (RIT) to translate ecosystem profile plans
into a cohesive portfolio of grants in which the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Each
RIT will consist of one or more CSOs active in conservation in the region. For example, a team
could be a partnership of civil society groups or it could be a lead organization with a formal
plan to involve others in overseeing implementation, for example, through an inclusive
advisory committee. The RIT will operate in a transparent and open manner, in accordancewith CEPF's mission and all provisions of CEPF's Operational Manual. Organizations that are
members of the RIT will not be eligible to apply for other CEPF grants within the hotspot.
Formal affiliate applications will be accepted from those organizations that have an
independently operating board of directors, subject to additional external review.

349

Investment Priority 5.1. Create a broad community of civil society groups
working across institutional and geographic boundaries, to strengthen theircapacities and promote their long-term resilience, to support CEPF's mission andconservation goals.
The RIT will provide strategic leadership and local knowledge to form a broad community ofcivil society support groups working across institutional and political boundaries to achieve theconservation objectives outlined in the ecosystem profile and promote the resilience, or
adaptive management capacity, of CSOs over the long term. The RIT will seek opportunities toinclude civil society groups from hotspot in Venezuela in capacity building and networking
efforts, particularly in virtual efforts. The main functions and specific activities of the team will
be based on the approved terms of reference. The main functions of the team will be:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Coordinate CEPF investments in the hotspot.
Support the integration of biodiversity into public policies and private sector businesspractices.
Communicate the CEPF investment throughout the hotspot.
Contribute to the development of civil society capacities.
Support the operation of the CEPF Secretariat in the solicitation and review of
proposals for large grants.
Administer a small grants program in accordance with CEPF's operating manual.
Monitor and evaluate the impact of large and small grants.
Support the CEPF Secretariat in monitoring the large grant portfolio and ensuring
compliance with CEPF funding terms.

350

14.

LOGICAL FRAMEWORKTable 14.1 Logical Framework for CEPF Investment in the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot
Portfolio
Objective
Engage civil society
in the conservationof globallythreatened
biodiversity throughtargeted
investments withmaximum impact
on the highest
conservation andecosystem services
priorities.

Targets

Means of Verification

At least 60 CSOs, including at least 50 domesticorganizations, actively participate in conservation
actions guided by the ecosystem profile.
At least 2.0 million hectares have new orstrengthen management in 30 priority KBAs.
At least 250,000 hectares of production
landscapes with strengthened management of
biodiversity.

Grantee and RIT progress
reports
Annual portfolio overview
reports; portfolio mid-term andfinal assessment
Protected Areas Tracking Tool
(SP1 METT)At least 50 alliances and networks formed among
civil society actors to avoid duplication of effort
and maximize impact in support of the CEPF
ecosystem profile.

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 guideand coordinate conservation action in the
Tropical Andes Hotspot.

At least 3 corridor development plans or policies
integrate biodiversity conservation goals.

Stakeholder interests remain stable orincrease with respect to working in
partnership with CSOs to achieve the CEPF
conservation outcomes.

At least five sustainable funding mechanisms
established or strengthened, to leverage US$1.0
million in sustainable funding for the conservation
outcomes.

Regulatory and institutional environment
for conservation, environmental protection,and civil society engagement remains
stable or improves.

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.

Investments by other donors supportcomplementary activities that reduce
threats to priority corridors, sites andspecies and improve the operating
environment for civil society.

At least eight indigenous and/or Afro-descendant
territories and their communities under improved
land management and governance.

351

At least 200 communities, totalling at least
12,500 people, receive non-cash benefits fromthe management of their biological resources.

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

CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports

At least 15 protected areas experience, on
average, an improvement of at least 10 points intheir METT score.

Protected Area Management
Effectiveness Tracking Tool
(SP1 METT)

15 protected areas experience a 10%
improvement in 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.

Formal legal declarations orcommunity agreements
designating new protected
areasManagement plans and reports
on management activities
Monitoring reports linked toincentive programs and bioenterprises with genderequitable benefits to local
communities.
World Database of KBAs
Third-party impact evaluation
reports.

At least 15 KBAs support successful small andmedium-level conservation enterprises withgender-equitable sustainable livelihoods forcommunities.
In at least 5 KBAs, 30 communities receive cash
benefits from incentive schemes for the effective
management of biodiversity.

352

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.
Indigenous and campesino communities
are receptive to form alliances with CSO to
improve land tenure.
Government policies provide forcommunity management of natural
resources.
CSOs have adequate capacity and areinterested in engaging in conservation andmanagement of KBAs and corridors.
Suitable and sufficient funding sources areavailable 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.
US$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.

Grantee and RIT progress
reports
CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports

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
and outcomes into their policies and operations.
At least four sub-national governments in four
corridors provide funding or in-kind support to
CEPF-funded projects.
Boundaries of KBAs in CEPF focal countries are
updated, disseminated, and integrated into local
and national public and donor conservation
strategies.

Official land-use anddevelopment plans and policies
covering the priority corridors.
Integrated management plans
Subnational government
reports and budgets forconservation in priority
corridors.
Private sector reports.
Public-private partnershipagreements

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 nonmonetary incentives for biodiversity in fivecorridors.
At least 3 demonstration projects created and/or
replicated with co-financing from the private
sector, that integrate conservation, ecosystemservices, and/or irrecoverable carbon into theirproduction practices.
At least two businesses and/or businessassociations influenced to better incorporate
biodiversity, ecosystem services andirrecoverable carbon in their business andproduction practices, strategies, and policies in
two corridors.

353

Decision-makers are receptive to working
with CSOs and sympathetic toconservation and sustainable developmentof the priority KBAs and corridors.
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 canbe built.

At least three mining or infrastructure projects in
two corridors integrate and co-finance social andenvironmental safeguards to prevent and/or
mitigate environmental hazards in theiroperations.
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.
US$1,600,000

Conservation attention focused on at least 50
globally Endangered and Critically Endangered
species and/or their genera to improve theirthreat status.

Grantee and RIT progress
reports

Conservation action plans developed, approved,
and implemented for at least 20 priority CriticallyEndangered and Endangered species, with in-kindor monetary support provided by governmental
and/or private sector entities to promote theirsustainability after CEPF support.
Action plans developed, approved, andimplemented in two corridors to combat illegal
wildlife trade and hunting, with in-kind ormonetary support provided by governmental
and/or private sector entities to promote theirsustainability after CEPF support.

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 andsite conservation (e.g. private companies,
high net worth individuals, etc.) can be
identified and accessed.
National and international laws provide anappropriate basis for species-focusedconservation action.

354

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

At least 80 percent of local CSOs demonstrate
improved capacity and performance on their
CSTT and GTT.

Grantee and RIT progress
reports and site visits

100 percent of CEPF projects working with
communities incorporate gender considerations
and capacity building to achieve gender equitablebenefits.
CSO sustainable financing strategies developedand implemented by at least 10 partners,
leveraging at least US$100,000 in sustainablefunding.

CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports
CEPF’s gender tracking tool
CEPF’s civil society
organizational capacity
tracking tool
National and regional policy
documents

At least 5,000 people, with 50 percent targeting
women, receive structured training.
One capacity needs assessment undertaken andimplemented to support capacity building onpriority conservation topics of direct relevance toimplementation of the CEPF investment strategy.
Baseline and final evaluation of virtual technicaland administrative courses demonstrate
improved capacity of at least 250 Andeanconservation practitioners to implement
conservation projects and secure new financing.
A security strategy to reduce threats to at-risk
environmental and indigenous defenders
developed and promoted to attract a broadcoalition 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, andcarbon stocks.
At least 2 communication campaigns
implemented to link the KBAs and theirecosystem services with climate resilience andhuman welfare.

355

The operating environment for civil society
will remain constant or improve across 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).
US$2,100,000

Awareness of local conservation issues and rights
and opportunities related to natural resource
management raised among local communities
within at least 5 priority sites.
At least 60 CSOs, including 50 domesticorganizations, actively participate in conservation
actions guided by the ecosystem profile.
At least 20 CSOs leverage new funding topromote the sustainability of CEPF grants.
At least 50 small grants and 50 large grants
successfully achieve their main conservation
objectives.

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

At least 30 small grantees and 20 large grants
consisting of grassroots and indigenous CSOs
demonstrate improvements in their CSTT and
GTT scores following CEPF support.
One communication mechanism supported toenable active sharing of CEPF results, reports,
best practices, and lessons learned among CSOs
throughout the hotspot.
At least one alliance of CEPF partners in each of
the seven conservation corridors and/or focal
countries coordinates their conservation andsustainable development projects to achievesynergies.
At least 2 participatory assessments undertaken
and lessons learned and best practices from thehotspot are documented and disseminated.

Total Budget:

US$14,000,000

356

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.

15.

SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainability is a multi-dimensional concept with interrelated environmental, financial,social, and institutional elements that are all critical to achieving sustained conservation
impact (Kammerbauer 2001). Sustainability is a continuous process of change andimprovement towards a common goal: the use of natural resources, the direction of
investments, the orientation of technological processes and the modification of institutions
match the needs of present and future generations (WorldCommission on Environment andDevelopment 1987).
To achieve this, sufficient and sustainable funding resources need to be allocated forconservation in the long term. It is also necessary to strengthen the organizational
capacities of CSOs to generate greater impact and influence regulatory frameworks,
governance systems, promotion of incentives and allocation of public budgets forconservation. All these elements are aligned with the long-term strategic vision of theTropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot, which defines lines of action for financial sustainability,
CSO capacity building, the development of an enabling institutional and policy conditions,and conservation priorities and best practices.
CEPF links biodiversity conservation with the ecosystems and services provided by KBAs
and their corridors, along with the well-being of the stakeholder present in these importantbiodiversity sites. With this in mind, CEPF will support activities in the Tropical Andes
Biodiversity Hotspot over the next five years, seeking to guarantee long-term conservation
outcomes and thus ensuring a positive and significant impact in the region. It will also seek
to improve the enabling environment for conservation, including the policy and legal
framework, governance, funding opportunities, and greater coherence around nature,conservation and ecosystem services.
Table 15.1 Sustainability and the CEPF Strategic Directions in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot
Sustainability Element

Strategic Direction
SD1. Strengthen protection and management of 52
priority KBAs to foster participatory governance, green
recovery from COVID-19, climate change resilience,
species conservation, and financial sustainability.

Environmental Resilience

Financial Sustainability

SD2. In the seven priority corridors, collaborate withpublic and private sector stakeholders to enablebiodiversity conservation, a green recovery fromCOVID-19, and environmental, financial, and social
sustainability, in benefit of the priority KBAs.
SD3. Safeguard 183 species designated as globally
critically endangered (CR) and endangered (EN).
SD5. In the hotspot, provide strategic leadership andeffective coordination of CEPF investment through aregional implementation team (RIT).
SD1. Strengthen protection and management of 52
priority KBAs to foster participatory governance, green
recovery from COVID-19, climate change resilience,
species conservation, and financial sustainability.
SD2. In the seven priority corridors, collaborate withpublic and private sector stakeholders to enablebiodiversity conservation, a green recovery from357

COVID-19, and environmental, financial, and social
sustainability, in benefit of the priority KBAs.
SD4. Cultivate a well-trained, well-coordinated andresilient civil society sector at the local, corridor, andhotspot levels to achieve CEPF’s conservation
outcomes.
SD1. Strengthen protection and management of 52
priority KBAs to foster participatory governance, green
recovery from COVID-19, climate change resilience,
species conservation, and financial sustainability.
Social Sustainability

Civil Society Capacity

SD2. In the seven priority corridors, collaborate withpublic and private sector stakeholders to enablebiodiversity conservation, a green recovery fromCOVID-19, and environmental, financial, and social
sustainability, in benefit of the priority KBAs.
SD4. Cultivate a well-trained, well-coordinated andresilient civil society sector at the local, corridor, andhotspot levels to achieve CEPF’s conservation
outcomes.

Environmental Resilience
The investment strategy aims to strengthen ecosystem functionality and build resilience
towards prioritized species, KBAs and corridors through the Strategic Directions 1, 2 and 3.
Within the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot, it addresses the establishment andgovernance of protected areas and the development of management instruments in theprioritized KBAs, considering climate change management and the recovery from COVID-19
as cross-cutting elements. These elements are addressed through Strategic Directions 1, 2
and 3.
Financial Sustainability
CEPF will focus on opportunities whose financing can complement and create conditions forlong-term financing, funding and commitments. The investment strategy promotes andstrengthens bio-enterprises that support biodiversity conservation and generate benefits tolocal communities around KBAs and conservation corridors. The strategy emphasizes thedevelopment of innovative funding approaches, relying on payments for ecosystems
services and carbon financing.
Furthermore, incentives for private sector participation will be actively promoted for thedevelopment of business practices, corporate social responsibility policies and voluntarycommitments based on conservation. Additionally, the capacities of CSOs for fundraisingand financial sustainability linked to biodiversity conservation will be strengthened. These
aspects are addressed through Strategic Directions 1, 2 and 4.
Social Sustainability
With its focus on sustainable livelihoods, participatory management, environmental
governance (public policies), and governance of indigenous and campesino communities,
under Strategic Directions 1 and 2, the strategy ensures that the direct users of natural
resources or beneficiaries derive benefits from conservation actions.

358

The elements addressed by these strategic directions promote integrated approaches forplanning, management and land-use planning, through multi-stakeholder cooperation
mechanisms, at the different governmental levels, and with the participation andcooperation of civil society and the private sector. A strong emphasis is placed on fostering
participatory approaches to ensure strong local, multi-actor governance of the KBAs.
The inclusion of gender as a cross-cutting theme further supports social equity.
Additionally, the strategy explicitly seeks to build a community of civil society groups,
transcending institutional and geographical boundaries, to support conservation andincrease understanding of the social and economic value of ecosystems and their services,
through Strategic Directions 4 and 5.
Civil Society Capacity
The new phase of CEPF investment will build upon the important capacity gains madethrough previous investments, to continue to increase the capacity of NGOs and other CSOs
based in the hotspot, to help address the economic crisis and recovery from the effects ofthe global health crisis. A major focus will be on supporting the diversification of funding
sources toward securing long-term financing, particularly to cover core institutional costs.
Through Strategic Direction 4, CEPF will support CSOs to strengthen their technical andorganizational capacities to implement biodiversity conservation programs and activities. It
will also enhance CSOs' abilities to implement conservation actions and to improve theircommunication capacities to raise environmental awareness and reach out to decisionmakers.
The Role of the RIT in Delivering Sustainability
The RIT’s contribution to the sustainability of the overall impact of the CEPF program
encompasses grant selection and management, as well as establishing linkages between
the program and government decision makers and regional processes.
Through its grant management, the RIT will contribute to sustainability, by considering
each potential project’s relevance in the local political and cultural context, as well asalignment with national priorities and commitments under international conventions.
Through its regional networking role, the RIT is expected to be aware of other funding
opportunities and relevant programs, and to be proactive in ensuring that grantees are
involved, including through sharing information on the CEPF program with other donors.
By helping facilitate linkages to government, the RIT will help grantees draw the attentionof decision makers to the results and lessons learned from their projects, and demonstrate
ways that they can contribute to government agendas. Where strategic opportunities to do
so arise, the RIT will also support grantees in their outreach to private sector entities. The
RIT will contribute to securing additional and continuing funding for projects initiated under
the CEPF program, including working with partners on innovative financing mechanisms.

359

16.

. REFERENCES

Abrahamczyk, S., Souto–Vilarós, D., and Renner, S.S. (2014). Escape fromextreme specialization: passionflowers, bats and the sword–billedhummingbird. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,281(1795), 20140888.
Abuelafia, E. (2020). Migración en la región andina: Impacto de la crisis yexpectativas en el mediano plazo. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID).
Documento para discusión No. IDB-DP-0777.
Acosta–Galvis, A.R. (2015). Una nueva especie del género Pristimantis (Anura:
Craugastoridae) del complejo de páramos Merchán–Iguaque (Boyacá,
Colombia). Biota Colombiana, 16(2), 107–127.
Agencia Peruana de Noticias Andina (2020). Accessed 10/11/2020. Available at:https://andina.pe/agencia/noticia-mas-25-millones-turistas-visitaron-lasareas-naturales-protegidas-del-peru-2019786896.aspx#:~:text=Bicentennial,M%C3%A1s%20of%202.5%20million%20of%20tourists%20visited%20the%20protected%20of%20Per%20Per%20C3%BA%20in%202019.
Aguilar, M.A., Calero, D., Cigarán, M.P., Chambi, C., Proaño, C., and Zevallos, P.
(2019). Avances en la acción climática de América Latina: Contribuciones
nacionalmente determinadas al 2019. Brussels: European Commission,
EUROCLIMA+ Program. 171p.
Aguilar–Puntriano, C., Ramírez, C., Castillo, E., Mendoza, A., Vargas, V.J., andSites, J.W. (2019). Three new lizard species of the Liolaemus montanus groupfrom Perú. Diversity, 11(9), 161–179.
Aguilar, C., Wood, P.L., Jr, Cusi, J.C., Guzmán, A., Huari, F., Lundberg, M.,
Mortensen, E., Ramírez, C., Robles, D., Suárez, J., Ticona, A., Vargas, V.J.,
Venegas, P.J., and Sites, J.W., Jr. (2013) Integrative taxonomy andpreliminary assessment of species limits in the Liolaemus walker complex(Squamata, Liolaemidae) with descriptions of three new species from Peru.
ZooKeys 364, 47–91.
Aguirre, C., Miranda, C., and Verhasselt, L. (2001). Contribución al conocimientodel sistema del lago Titicaca. Memorias del Simposio Internacional sobre el
Sistema del Lago Titicaca. May of 2001. La Paz, Bolivia.
Albán, M. (2007). Información disponible sobre los servicios de ecosistemas demontaña en los Andes del Norte y Centro. Memorias del taller Servicios deecosistemas de montaña en los Andes del Norte y Centro. Papallacta,
Ecuador, October 2007. Challenge Programme for Water and Food Project.
Amador-Jiménez, M., Millner, N., Palmer, C. (2020). The Unintended Impact ofColombia's Covid-19 Lockdown on Forest Fires. Environ Resource
Econ 76, 1081-1105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00501-5.
Anderson, E.P., Marengo, J.A., Villalba, R., Halloy, S.R., Young, B.E., Cordero, D.,
Gast, F., Jaimes, E., and Ruiz, D. (2012). Consecuencias del cambio climático
en los ecosistemas y servicios ecosistémicos de los Andes Tropicales. En: S.K.
Herzog, R. Martínez, P. Jorgensen, y H. Tiessen (Eds.). Cambio climático ybiodiversidad en los Andes Tropicales. (pp. 1–22). Paris: IAI and SCOPE.
Andrade, A., Herrera, B., and Cazzolla, R. (eds.) (2010). Building Resilience to
Climate Change: Ecosystem-based adaptation and lessons from the field.
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 164 p.
Andrade, M. (Ed.). (2017). Atlas. Clima y eventos extremos del Altiplano Central
peruano–boliviano, 1981 – 2010. La Paz y Lima: Servicio Nacional deMeteorología e Hidrología, Bolivia y Servicio Nacional de Meteorología e
Hidrología, Peru.
Andrade–Pérez, G.I., Sandino, J.C., and Aldana–Domínguez, J. (2011).
Biodiversidad y territorio. Innovación para la gestión adaptativa frente alcambio global: insumos técnicos para el Plan Nacional para la Gestión Integral360

de la Biodiversidad y los Servicios Ecosistémicos. Bogota: Alexander Von
Humboldt Institute. 64 p.
Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Kanninen, M., Sills, E., Sunderlin, W.D., and Wertz–
Kanounnikoff, S. (Eds.) 2010. La implementación de REDD+: estrategia
nacional y opciones de política. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Angelsen, A., Martius, C., de Sy, V., Duchelle, A.E., Larson, A.M., and Pham, T.T.
(2019). REDD+: la transformación – Lecciones y nuevas direcciones. Bogor,
Indonesia: CIFOR.
Anteparra, M., Berrios, M., Granado, L., and Díaz, W. (2018). Insectos
polinizadores presentes de sacha inchi (Plukenetia volubilis L.) en el distrito
de Chinchao, provincia de Huánuco. Investigación y Amazonía, 3(2), 94–98.
Antonelli, A., Kissling, W.D., Flantua, S.G., Bermúdez, M.A., Mulch, A., Muellner–
Riehl, A.N., Kreft, H., Linder, H.P., Badgley, C., Fjeldså, J., Fritz, S.A.,
Rahbek, C., Herman, F., Hooghiemstra, H., and Hoorn, C. (2018a). Geologicaland climatic influences on mountain biodiversity. Nature Geoscience, 11(10),718–725.
Antonelli, A., Zizka, A., Carvalho, F.A., Scharn, R., Bacon, C.D., Silvestro, D., andCondamine, F.L. (2018b). Amazonia is the primary source of Neotropicalbiodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(23),6034–6039.
Aparecido, L. M. T., Teodoro, G. S., Mosquera, G., Brum, M., Barros, F. D. V.,
Pompeu, P. V., ... and Asbjornsen, H. (2018). Ecohydrological drivers of
Neotropical vegetation in montane ecosystems. Ecohydrology, 11(3), e1932.
Aquino, R., García, G., Charpentier, E., y López, L. (2017). Estado de conservaciónde Lagothrix flavicauda y otros primates en bosques montanos de San Martíny Huánuco, Perú. Revista Peruana de Biología, 24(1), 25–34.
Aquino, R., López, L., García, G., and Charpentier, E. (2015). Inventario yevaluación de primates y amenazas para sus poblaciones en bosque montano
de la Región Huánuco, Perú. Ciencia Amazónica, 5(1), 61–69.
Ariza-Montobbio, Pere et al. (2020). Ecosystem-based Adaptation in Ecuador: Good
Practices for Adaptive Co-Management. Ambiente & Sociedade, 23, e03152.
Epub August 03, 2020. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/18094422asoc20180315r2vu2020l4ao
Armesto, L. O., and Señaris, J. C. (2017). Anuros del norte de los Andes: patronesde riqueza de especies y estado de conservación. Papeis avulsos de zoologia,
57(39), 491-526.
Arteaga, A., Mebert, K., Valencia, J.H., Cisneros–Heredia, D.F., Peñafiel, N., Reyes–
Puig, C., Vieira–Fernandes, J.L., and Guayasamín, J.M. (2017). Molecularphylogeny of Atractus (Serpentes, Dipsadidae), with emphasis on Ecuadorianspecies and the description of three new taxa. ZooKeys, 661, 91–123.
Arteaga, A., Salazar–Valenzuela, D., Mebert, K., Peñafiel, N., Aguiar, G., Sánchez–
Nivicela, J.C., Pyron, R.A., Colston, T.J., Cisneros–Heredia, D.F., Yánez–Muñoz, M.H., Venegas, P.J., Guayasamín, J.M., and Torres–Carvajal, O.
(2018). Systematics of South American snail–eating snakes (Serpentes,
Dipsadini), with the description of five new species from Ecuador and Peru.
ZooKeys, 766, 79–147.
Asturizaga, A.S., Øllgaard, B., and Balslev, H. (2006). Frutos comestibles. En: M.
Moraes, B. Øllgaard, L.P. Kvist, F. Borchsenius and H. Balslev. (Eds.).
Botánica económica de los Andes Centrales. (pp. 329–346). La Paz:
Universidad Mayor de San Andrés.
Avendaño, J.E., Cuervo, A.M., López-O., J.P., Gutiérrez–Pinto, N., Cortés–Diago, A.,
and Cadena, C.D. (2015). A new species of tapaculo (Rhinocryptidae:
Scytalopus) from the Serranía de Perijá of Colombia and Venezuela. The Auk,132(2), 450–466.
Avitabile, V., Herold, M., Heuvelink, G. B., Lewis, S. L., Phillips, O. L., Asner, G. P.,... and Berry, N. J. (2016). An integrated pan‐tropical biomass map using
multiple reference datasets. Global change biology, 22(4), 1406-1420.

361

Bacon, C.D., Silvestro, D., Jaramillo, C., Tilston Smith, B.T., Chakrabarty, P., andAntonelli, A. (2015). Biological evidence supports an early and complex
emergence of the Isthmus of Panama. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences, PNAS 112(19), 6110–6115
Báez, S., Jaramillo, L., Cuesta, F., and Donoso, D.A. (2016). Effects of climatechange on Andean biodiversity: a synthesis of studies published until 2015.
Neotropical Biodiversity, 2(1), 181–194.
Baguette, M., Blanchet, S., Legrand, D., Stevens, V. M., and Turlure, C. (2013).
Individual dispersal, landscape connectivity and ecological networks.
Biological Reviews, 88(2), 310-326.
Baiker, J. (2011). Guía ecoturística: Mancomunidad Saywite–Choquequirao–Ampay(Apurímac, Perú): con especial referencia a la identificación de fauna, flora,
hongos y líquenes en el departamento de Apurímac y sitios adyacentes en el
departamento de Cusco. Lima: Ecobona Intercooperation Regional
Programme. 968 p.
Barriga, R. (2012) Lista de peces de agua dulce e intermareales del Ecuador.
Politécnica, 30, 83–119.
Bax, V., and Francesconi, W. (2019). Conservation gaps and priorities in the
Tropical Andes biodiversity hotspot: Implications for the expansion ofprotected areas. Journal of environmental management, 232, 387-396.
Bazoberry O. and Ruiz C. 2010. ¿Qué esperar de las ONG? enfoques y prácticas
de desarrollo rural en los países andinos. Quito-Ecuador. Editorial Abya Yala.
Beck, S.G., Hernandez, P.A., Jørgensen, P.M., Paniagua, L., Timaná, M., and Young,
B.E. (2007). Vascular plants. En: B.E. Young (Ed.) Endemic Species
Distributions on the East Slope of the Andes in Peru and Bolivia. (pp. 18 –
34). Arlington: NatureServe.
Benavides, J.C., D.H. Vitt and R.K. Wieder (2013). The influence of climate change
on recent peat accumulation patterns of Distichia muscoides chushions bogs
inthe high- elevation tropical Andes of Colombia. Journal of Geophysical.
Berenguel, R A., Elías, R.K., Weaver, T.J., and Reading, R.P. (2016). Chytrid
fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, in wild populations of the Lake
Titicaca frog, Telmatobius culeus, in Peru. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 52(4),973–975.
Beverinotti, B., Deza, M.C., and Manzano, O. (2020). Productive sectors in the
Andean region vis-à-vis COVID-19. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).
Discussion Paper No. IDB-DP-00788. Available at:https://publications.iadb.org/publications/spanish/document/Los-sectoresproductivos-en-la-region-andina-frente-a-la-COVID-19.pdf
BirdLife International and Conservation International. (2005). Áreas importantes
para la conservación de las aves en las Andes Tropicales: Sitios prioritariospara la conservación de la biodiversidad. BirdLife Conservation Series No 14.
Quito: BirdLife International.
BirdLife International. (2018). Ara rubrogenys. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2018: e.T22685572A131382876.
BirdLife International. (2016a). Grallaria ridgelyi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2016: e.T22724628A94874688.
BirdLife International. (2016b). Spizaetus isidori. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2016: e.T22696207A93549661.
BirdLife International. (2020a) Important Bird Areas factsheet: Parque Nacional
Perijá. Retrieved from http://www.birdlife.org
BirdLife International. (2020b) Important Bird Areas factsheet: Parque Natural
Regional Páramo del Duende. Retrieved from http://www.birdlife.org
BirdLife International. (2020c) Important Bird Areas factsheet: Selva de Florencia.
Retrieved from http://www.birdlife.org
BirdLife International. (2020d) Important Bird Areas factsheet: Zona Protectora
Macizo Montañoso del Turimiquire. Retrieved from http://www.birdlife.org

362

BirdLife International. (2020e) Important Bird Areas factsheet: Zona Protectora San
Rafael de Guasare. Retrieved from http://www.birdlife.org
Bistend, M., Iyer, G., Edmonds, J., Vogt–Schilb, A., Arguello, R., Cadena, A.,
Delgado, R., Feijoo, F., Lucena, A.F.P., McJeon, H., Miralles–Wilhelm, F., andSharma, A. (2019). Implicaciones del Acuerdo de París sobre activos
abandonados en América Latina y el Caribe. IDB, Climate Change Division.
Discussion Paper No IDB–DP–00699.
Blázquez, J., and Nuñez, M.N. (2013). Analysis of uncertainties in future climate
projections for South America: comparison of WCRP–CMIP3 and WCRP–CMIP5
models. Climate Dynamics, 41(3), 27–42.
BP (2019). Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 | 68Th edition
Bradley, R.S., Vuille, M., Díaz, H.F. and Vergara, W. (2006). Threats to watersupplies in the tropical Andes. Science 312, 1755–1756.
Brezzi, M. and L. De Mello (2016). Inequalities in Latin America: Trends andimplications for growth. Hacienda Pública Española, Vol. 219/4, pp. 93-120.
Brito, J., and Almendáriz, A. (2018). Una especie nueva de rana Pristimantis(Amphibia: Strabomantidae) de ojos rojos de la Cordillera de Cóndor,
Ecuador. Cuadernos de Herpetología, 32(1), 31–40.
Brito, C. and Ivanovic, C. (2019). Mujeres rurales, protección social y seguridad
alimentaria en América Latina y el Caribe. Serie 2030 – Alimentación,
agricultura y desarrollo rural en América Latina y el Caribe, No. 23. FAO.
Santiago de Chile.
Brown, J.L., Siu–Ting, K., Twomey, E., Guillory, W.X., Deutsch, M.S., and Chávez,G. (2019). Systematics of the Ameerega rubriventris complex (Anura:
Dendrobatidae) with descriptions of two new cryptic species from the EastAndean versant of Peru. Zootaxa, 4712(2), 211–235.
Bruijnzeel, L. A., Mulligan, M., and Scatena, F. N. (2011). Hydrometeorology oftropical montane cloud forests: emerging patterns. Hydrological Processes,
25(3), 465-498.
Burgin, C.J., Colella, J.P., Kahn, P.L., and Upham, N.S. (2018). How many species
of mammals are there? Journal of Mammalogy, 99(1), 1–14.
Burney, D. A. and Flannery, T.F. (2005). Fifty millennia of catastrophic extinctions
after human contact. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20, 395–401.
Bush, M.B., Silman, M.R. and Urrego, D.H. (2004). 48,000 years of climate andforest change in a biodiversity hotspot. Science, 303, 827–829.
Bustos, E., Arnosio, J.M., and Norini, G. (2015). Análisis morfológico del complejo
volcánico La Hoyada puna austral mediante la aplicación de modelos deelevación digital. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina, 72(2), 279–
291.
Buytaert, W. y B. de Bievre (2012). Water for cities: The impact of climate change
and demographic growth in the tropical Andes. Water Resources Research
48: W08503.
BYOS- UASB (Consultora Soluciones Ambientales BYOS - Universidad Andina Simón
Bolívar) (2020) Principales problemas ambientales del Hotspot Andes
Tropicales. CEPF, Futuro Latinoamericano, PROFONANPE, Patrimonio Natual.
Quito, October 2020.
Cala–Cala, P. (2019). Medio ambiente y diversidad de los peces de agua dulce deColombia. Bogotá: Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y
Naturales. 525 p.
Campos, M. R., y Lasso, C. A. (2015). Libro Rojo de cangrejos dulceacuícolas deColombia.
Cannatella, D.C. 2015. Review: Marsupial frogs: Gastrotheca and allied genera.
Phyllomedusa 14, 167–170.
Cano, A., Delgado, A., Mendoza, W., Trinidad, H., Gonzáles, P., La Torre, M. I.,
Chanco, M., Aponte, H., Roque, J., Valencia, N., and Navarro, E. (2011). Floray vegetación de suelos crioturbados y hábitats asociados en los alrededores

363

del abra Apacheta, Ayacucho-Huancavelica (Perú). Revista Peruana de
Biología, 18(2), 169–178.
Cano, A., Mendoza, W., Castillo, S., Morales, M., La Torre, M.I., Aponte, H.,
Delgado, A., Valencia, N. and Vega, N. (2010). Flora y vegetación de suelos
crioturbados y hábitats asociados en la Cordillera Blanca, Ancash, Perú.
Revista Peruana de Biología, 17(1), 95–104.
Carlson, David C. (2001). Scarabaeidae Latreille, 1802, Scarab beetles. Retrieved
from https://web.archive.org/web/20080629061156/http://wwwmuseum.unl.edu/research/entomology/Guide/Scarabaeoidea/Scarabaeidae/Sc
arabaeidae-pages/Scarabaeidae-Overview/ScarabaeidaeO.html
Carrillo, J.D., Forasiepi, A., Jaramillo, C., and Sánchez–Villagra, M.R. (2015).
Neotropical mammal diversity and the Great American Biotic Interchange:
spatial and temporal variation in South America's fossil record. Frontiers in
Genetics, 5(451), 1–11.
Carvajalino, A. (2018). Territorio e identidad en la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta(Colombia). Revista Latina de Sociología, 8(3), 94–112.
Castillo, L. S., C. A. Correa, C. L. Matallana Tobón , G. Corzo, A. Areiza , R.
González-M., F. Serrano, L. Chalán Briceño , F. Sánchez Puertas, A. More, O.
Franco, H. Bloomfield, V. L. Aguilera Orrury, C. Rivadeneira Canedo, V.
Morón-Zambrano, E. Yerena, J. Papadakis, J. J. Cárdenas, R. E. Golden Kronerand O. Godínez-Gómez (2020) Connectivity of Protected Areas: Effect of
Human Pressure and Subnational Contributions in the Ecoregions of TropicalAndean Countries.
Catenazzi, A., and Lehr, E. (2018). Pristimantis antisuyu sp. n. and Pristimantis
erythroinguinis sp. n., two new species of terrestrial-breeding frogs (Anura,
Strabomantidae) from the eastern slopes of the Andes in Manu National Park,
Peru. Zootaxa, 4394(2), 185–206.
Catenazzi, A., Lehr, E., Rodríguez, L.O., and Vredenburg, V.T. (2011).
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and the collapse of anuran species richness
and abundance in the upper Manu National Park, southeastern Peru.
Conservation Biology, 25(2), 382–391.
Catenazzi, A., and Ttito, A. (2016). A new species of Psychrophrynella (Amphibia,
Anura, Craugastoridae) from the humid montane forests of Cusco, eastern
slopes of the Peruvian Andes. PeerJ, 4, e1807.
Catenazzi, A., and Ttito, A. (2019). Noblella thiuni sp. n., a new (singleton) speciesof minute terrestrial-breeding frog (Amphibia, Anura, Strabomantidae) fromthe montane forest of the Amazonian Andes of Puno, Peru. PeerJ, 7, e6780.
Catenazzi, A., Uscapi, V., and von May, R. (2015). A new species of Noblella(Amphibia, Anura, Craugastoridae) from the humid montane forests of Cusco,
Peru. ZooKeys, 516, 71–84.
Catenazzi, A., and von May, R. (2014). Conservation status of amphibians in Peru.
Herpetological Monographs, 28(1), 1–23.
Cerrón, J., del Castillo, J., Bonnesoeur, V., Peralvo, M., and Mathez–Stiefel, S.L.
(2019). Relación entre árboles, cobertura y uso de la tierra y servicios
hidrológicos en los Andes Tropicales: Una síntesis del conocimiento.
Occasional Paper No 27. Lima: ICRAF and CONDESAN. 72 p.
CEPF (2015). Ecosystem profile: Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot. Arlington.
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund.
Chasiluisa, V.D., Caminer, M.A., Varela–Jaramillo, A. and Ron, S. (2020)
Description and phylogenetic relationships of a new species of treefrog of the
Osteocephalus buckleyi species group (Anura: Hylidae). Neotropical
Biodiversity, 6(1), 21–36.
Chávez, G., Ayachi, L.A.G., and Catenazzi, A. (2020). A new species of frog
(Terrarana, Strabomantidae, Phrynopus) from the Peruvian Andean
grasslands. PeerJ, 8, e9433.

364

Chávez, G., and Catenazzi, A. (2016). A new species of frog of the genus
Pristimantis from Tingo María National Park, Huánuco Department, central
Peru (Anura, Craugastoridae). ZooKeys, 610, 113–130.
Chávez, G., Catenazzi, A., and Venegas, P.J. (2017). A new species of arboreal
microteiid lizard of the genus Euspondylus (Gymnophtalmidae:
Cercosaurinae) from the Andean slopes of central Peru with comments on
Peruvian Euspondylus. Zootaxa, 4350(2), 301–316.
Chávez, G., Santa Cruz, R., Rodríguez, D., and Lehr, E. (2015). Two new species offrogs of the genus Phrynopus (Anura: Terrarana: Craugastoridae) from the
Peruvian Andes. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, 9(1), 15–25.
Chero, J., Cruces, C., Iannacone, J., Sáez, G., Alvariño, L., Da Silva, R. J. andMorales, V. (2014). Parásitos gastrointestinales en tres especies deTelmatobius (Anura: Telmatobiidae) de la zona altoandina, Perú. Neotropicalhelminthology, 8(2), 439–461.
Chesser, R.T., Isler, M.L., Cuervo, A.M., Cadena, C.D., Galen, S.C., Bergner, L.M.,
Fleischer, R.C., Bravo, G.A., Lane, D.F., and Hosner, P.A. (2020).
Conservative plumage masks extraordinary phylogenetic diversity in the
Grallaria rufula (Rufous Antpitta) complex of the humid Andes. The Auk,
137(3), 1–25.
Chiriboga, M. (1995). Las ONGs y el Desarrollo Rural en los Países Andinos:
Dilemas y Desafíos. En: Ecuador Debate. No. 35. p. 109-125. CAAP. Quito.
Cincotta, R.P., Wisnewski, J., and Engelman, R. (2000). Human population in thebiodiversity hotspots. Nature, 404, 990–992.
Cione, A.L., Gasparini, G.M., Soibelzon, E., Soibelzon, L.H., and Tonni, E.P. (2015).
The great American biotic interchange: a South American perspective.
Netherlands: Springer. 97 p.
Cipriani, I., and Rivera, M. (2009). Detección de alcaloides en la piel de cuatro
especies de anfibios ecuatorianos (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Revista
Ecuatoriana de Medicina y Ciencias Biológicas, 30(1), 42–49.
Clapperton, C.M. (1993). Quaternary geology and geomorphology of SouthAmerica. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press. 795 p.
Clerici, N., Armenteras,D., Kareiva, P. Botero, R., Ramírez-Delgado, J., ForeroMedina, G., Ochoa, J. Pedraza, C. Schneider, L. Lora, C.Gómez, C. Linares, M.
Hirashiki & Biggs, D. (2020) Deforestation in Colombian protected areas
increased during post-confict periods.
Coloma, L., Duellman, W., Almendáriz, A., Ron, S., Terán–Valdez, A., andGuayasamín, J. (2010). Five new (extinct?) species of Atelopus (Anura:
Bufonidae) from Andean Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Zootaxa 2574, 1–54.
Coloma, L. E. (2016). Jambato negro del páramo, Atelopus ignescens, resucitó.
IMCiencia.
Comer, P.J., Faber- Langendoen, D. (2013). Assessing ecological integrity ofwetlands from national to local scales, exploring the predictive power andlimitations of spacial models. No. 3 May/June 2013. National Wetlands
Newsletter Special Issue on Wetland mapping and Assesment. Vol. 35.
Enviromental Law Institute, Washington D.C.
Condori, F.P., Acevedo, A.A., Mamani, L., Delgado, J.A., and Chaparro, J.C. (2020).
A new species of terrestrial-breeding frog of the genus Psychrophrynella(Anura: Strabomantidae) from the Cordillera de Vilcabamba, southeastern
Peru. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation, 14(3), 127–137.
Correa Ayram CA, Etter A, Díaz-Timoté J, Rodríguez Buriticá S, Ramírez W, Corzo
G. (2020). Spatiotemporal evaluation of the human footprint in Colombia:
Four decades of anthropic impact in highly biod iverse ecosystems. Ecological
Indicators 117: 106630.
Cuesta, F., Peralvo, M., and Valarezo, N. (2009). Los bosques montanos de losAndes Tropicales. Una evaluación regional de su estado de conservación y desu vulnerabilidad a efectos del cambio climático. Research and365

Systematization Series No 5. Quito: Regional Program ECOBONAIntercooperation. 41 p.
Cuesta, F., Bustamante, M., Becerra, M.T., Postigo, J., and Peralvo, J. (Eds.)(2012a). Panorama andino de cambio climático: Vulnerabilidad y adaptación
en los Andes Tropicales. Lima: CONDESAN, SGCAN.
Cuesta, F., Muriel, P., Beck, S., Meneses, R.I., Halloy, S., Salgado, S., Ortiz, E., andBecerra, M.T. (Eds.) (2012b). Biodiversidad y cambio climático en los Andes
Tropicales – Conformación de una red de investigación para monitorear sus
impactos y delinear acciones de adaptación. Lima and Quito: Gloria–Andes
Network. 180 p.
Culliney, T.W. (2013). Role of arthropods in maintaining soil fertility. Agriculture,3(4), 629–659.
Cusi, J.C., Gagliardi, G., Brcko, I.C., Wake, D.B., and von May, R. (2020).
Taxonomic status of the Neotropical salamanders Bolitoglossa altamazonica
and Bolitoglossa peruviana (Amphibia: Caudata: Plethodontidae), with thedescription of a new species from Northern Peru. Zootaxa, 4834(3), 365–406.
Cusi, J.C., Moravec, J., Lehr, E., and Gvoždík, V. (2017). A new species ofsemiarboreal toad of the Rhinella festae group (Anura, Bufonidae) from theCordillera Azul National Park, Peru. ZooKeys, 673, 21–47.
Cuvi, N. (2013). Los Andes tropicales. Donde conviven visiones plurales de lanaturaleza. Nuevas historias ambientales de América Latina y el Caribe. RCC
Perspectives, 7, 25–32.
Dammer, J. and Arellano, J. (ed). (2020). Gobernanza de las Industrias Extractivas
en América Latina. Natural Resources Governance Institute. At:
https://resourcegovernance.org/sites/default/files/documents/gobernanza-delas-industrias-extractivas-en-america-latina-introductorio.pdf
Dantas, M., G. G. Figueroa, and A. Laguens (2014) Llamas in the Cornfield:
Prehispanic Agro-Pastoral System in the Southern Andes. International
Journal of Osteoarchaeology 24 (2): 149-65. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.235
Devenish, C. and Gianella, C. 2012. 20 años de Desarrollo Sostenible en los Andes:de Río 1992 al 2012 y hacia el futuro CONDESAN/COSUDE, Lima. Duchicela,
S. A., Cuesta, F., Pinto, E., Gosling, W. D., and Young, K. R. 2019. Indicators
for assessing tropical alpine rehabilitation practices. Ecosphere, 10(2),[e02595]. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2595.
De Groot, R., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Gowdy, J., Haines–
Young, R., Maltby, E., Neuville, A., Polasky, S., Portela, R. and Ring, I.
(2010). Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity
and ecosystem service valuation. En: P. Kumar (Ed.). The economics of
ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB). (pp. 149–172). London: The Ecologicaland Economics Foundations.
Del Popolo, F. (ed.) (2017). Los pueblos indígenas en América (Abya Yala): desafíospara la igualdad en la diversidad. Libros de la CEPAL, N° 151(LC/PUB.2017/26), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the
Caribbean (ECLAC), December.
De La Barra, E., Zubieta, J., Aguilera, G., Maldonado, M., Pouilly, M., and Oberdorff,
T. (2016). ¿Qué factores determinan la distribución altitudinal de los peces deríos tropicales andinos? Revista de Biología Tropical, 64(1), 157–176.
De Munter, K., Trujillo, F., and Rocha, R. (2019). Atencionalidad y líneas de vida enla malla Poopó–uru–qotzuñi (“gente del agua”). Antípoda, 34, 19–40.
Doan, T.M., and Adams, G. (2015). A novel species of Euspondylus (Squamata:Gymnophthalmidae) from the Andes mountains of central Peru. Zootaxa,
4033(1), 129–136.
Dourojeanni, M.J. (2019). Conservación de insectos en la Amazonia. Ecología
Aplicada, 18(2), 189–202.
Dourojeanni, M. (2016) Estudios de impacto ambiental y el área deinfluencia indirecta de las carreteras. Downloaded from:366https://www.actualidadambiental.pe/estudios-de-impacto-ambiental-y-elarea-de-influencia-indirecta-de-las-carreteras/
DoNascimiento, C., Herrera–Collazos, E.E., and Maldonado–Ocampo, J.A. (2018):
Lista de especies de peces de agua dulce de Colombia / Checklist of the
freshwater fishes of Colombia. v2.10. Colombian Association of Icthyologists.
Dataset/Checklist. http://doi.org/10.15472/numrso
DoNascimiento, C., Herrera–Collazos, E.E., Herrera–R., G.A., Ortega–Lara, A.,
Villa–Navarro, F.A., Usma, J.S., and Maldonado–Ocampo, J.A. (2017).
Checklist of the freshwater fishes of Colombia: a Darwin Core alternative tothe updating problem. ZooKeys, (708), 25–138.
Duellman, W.E., Barley, A.J., and Venegas, P.J. (2014). Cryptic species diversity inmarsupial frogs (Anura: Hemiphractidae: Gastrotheca) in the Andes ofnorthern Peru. Zootaxa, 3768(2), 159–177.
Duellman, W.E., and Venegas, P.J. (2016). Diversity of marsupial frogs (Anura:
Hemiphractidae: Gastrotheca) in the northern Cordillera Central, Peru, withthe descriptions of two new species. Phyllomedusa, 15(2), 103–117.
Dupar, M. (2019). El informe especial del IPCC sobre cambio climático y la Tierra:¿Qué significa para América Latina? Cape Town: Climate and Development
Knowledge Network (CDKN), Overseas Development Institute (ODI),SouthSouthNorth (SSN) and Fundación Futuro Latinoamericano.
Dupar, M., and Pacha, M.J. (2020). El informe especial del IPCC sobre el océano yla criósfera en un clima cambiante. ¿Qué significa para América Latina? Cape
Town: Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), Overseas
Development Institute (ODI), Fundación Futuro Latinoamericano ySouthSouthNorth (SSN).
Dussaillant, I., Berthier, E., Brun, F., Masiokas, M., Hugonnet, R., Favier, V.,
Rabatel, A., Pitte, P., and Ruiz, L. (2019). Two decades of glacier mass loss
along the Andes. Nature Geoscience, 12(10), 802–808.
Echevarría, L., Barboza, A., and Venegas, P. (2015). A new species of montane
gymnophthalmid lizard, genus Cercosaura (Squamata: Gymnophthalmidae),from the Amazon slope of northern Peru. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation,
9(1), 34–44.
Echevarría, L.Y., and Venegas, P.J. (2015). A new elusive species of Petracola(Squamata: Gymnophthalmidae) from the Utcubamba basin in the Andes ofnorthern Peru. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation, 9, 26–33.
ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) (2019).
Derechos de los pueblos indígenas: marcos jurídicos e institucionales en losestados miembros del FILAC a diciembre de 2018. Comisión Económica para
América Latina y el Caribe, sobre la base de Fondo para el Desarrollo de losPueblos Indígenas de América Latina y el Caribe (FILAC). Cuadernos de los
Saberes, Nº 1, La Paz.
ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) (2020).
Dimensionar los efectos del COVID-19 para pensar en la reactivación. Informe
especial No. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago.
ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) (2020). Los
pueblos indígenas de América Latina - Abya Yala y la Agenda 2030 para el
Desarrollo Sostenible: tensiones y desafíos desde una perspectiva territorial.
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)/Fund forthe Development of Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean(FILAC). Project Documents (LC/TS.2020/47), Santiago, 2020.
ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) (2020). La
Inversión Extranjera Directa en América Latina y el Caribe, 2020. Comisión
Económica para América Latina y el Caribe. (LC/PUB.2020/15-P), Santiago
2020.
ECLAC, FAO and IICA. (2019). Prospects for agriculture and rural development in
the Americas: a look at Latin America and the Caribbean 2019-2020. ECLAC,
FAO, IICA. - San José, C.R.: IICA, 2019. 144 p.

367

ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean), Prospects forInternational Trade in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2019
(LC/PUB.2019/20-P), Santiago, 2019. At:
https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/44918/7/S1900748_es.
pdf
ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) (2020). Reporton the economic impact of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on Latin America
and the Caribbean: Study prepared by the ECLAC. Santiago
Eisenberg, J.F., and Redford, K.H. (1989). Mammals of the Neotropics, Volume 3:
Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
El Comercio (Ecuador) (2019) Ecuador afronta una implacable lucha contra eltráfico de vida silvestre. Downloaded fromhttps://www.elcomercio.com/tendencias/ecuador-lucha-trafico-animalesflora.html
El Comercio (Ecuador) (2020) La deforestación en Perú alcanzó 147,000 ha en
2019. Downloaded from: El Comercio (Ecuador) (2019).
https://www.elcomercio.com/tendencias/deforestacion-peru-hectareas-2019agriculture.html

El Tiempo (Colombia) (2019) Los problemas que enfrenta Colombia por el tráfico
ilegal de animales. Downloaded from https://www.eltiempo.com/vida/medioambiente/problemas-para-colombia-por-el-trafico-ilegal-de-animales-402474
Engel, E. et al. (2018), Report of the Expert Advisory Group on Anti-Corruption,
Transparency, and Integrity in Latin America and the Caribbean, InterAmerican Development Bank, Washington D.C
Erdes, P. (2020). Carbon Budget Calculator. Retrieved from:https://carbonbudgetcalculator.com
Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia (2015). Contribución prevista determinada
nacionalmente del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia. La Paz.
Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia (2012). Mecanismo conjunto de mitigación yadaptación para el manejo integral y sustentable de los bosques y la Madre
Tierra. La Paz: Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores and Ministerio de Medio
Ambiente y Agua.
Fadrique, B., Báez, S., Duque, A., Malizia, A., Blundo, C., Carilla, J., Osinaga–
Acosta, O., Malizia, L., Silman, M., Farfán–Ríos, W., Malhi, Y., …, and Feeley,
K.J. (2018). Widespread but heterogeneous responses of Andean forests toclimate change. Nature, 564(7735), 207–212.
FAO (2017). Latin America and the Caribbean is the Region with the Greatest
Inequality in the Distribution of Land. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/americas/noticias/ver/en/c/878998/
Feeley, K.J., Silman, M.R., Bush, M.B., Farfan, W., García, K., Malhi, Y., Meir, P.,
Salinas, N., Raurau, M.N., and Saatchi, S. (2011) Upslope migration of
Andean trees. Journal of Biogeography 38, 783–791.
Ferguson-Lees, J., y Christie, D. A. (2001). Raptors of the Ahoworld. A&C Black.
FILAC (2019). Derechos de los pueblos indígenas: marcos jurídicos e institucionales
en los estados miembros del FILAC a diciembre de 2018. Fondo para el
Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y el Caribe. Cuadernosde los Saberes, Nº 1, La Paz.
Fjeldså, J., Bowie, R.C. and Rahbek, C. (2012). The role of mountain ranges in thediversification of birds. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics,
43, 249–265.
Fjeldså, J., and Krabbe, N. (1990) Birds of the High Andes – A manual to the birdsof the temperate zone of the Andes and Patagonia, South America.
Copenhagen: Apollo. 880 p.
Fjeldså, J., Lambin, E., and Mertens, B. (1999) Correlation between endemism andlocal ecoclimatic stability documented by comparing Andean bird distributions
and remotely sensed land surface data. Ecography, 22, 63–87.

368

Fjeldså, J., and Rahbek, C. (2006) Diversification of tanagers, a species rich birdgroup, from lowlands to montane regions of South America. Integrative andComparative Biology 46, 72–81.
Flanagan, J. N., Franke, I., and Salinas, L. (2005). Aves y endemismo en losbosques relictos de la vertiente occidental andina del norte del Perú y sur delEcuador. Revista peruana de biología, 12(2), 239-248.
Fleming, T. (2003). Habermas on Civil Society, Lifeworld and System: Unearthing
the Social Transformation Theory 2002 [cited November 18 2003].
Flores, E.R. (2016). Cambio climático: pastizales altoandinos y seguridad
alimentaria. Revista de Glaciares y Ecosistemas de Montaña, 1, 73–80.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2015. Amazon
Basin. Accesed 25/10/2020. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/basins/amazon/print1.stm
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2018. FAOSTAT.
Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2019. FAOSTAT
Crops Data. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2018. Overview ofrural poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean. 21st century solutions to
end poverty in the countryside. Santiago, Chile. 112 p.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2017. The role ofwomen in fisheries and aquaculture in Latin American countries. Policy note.
Santiago, Chile.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014. The State ofFood and Agriculture. Rome, Italy.
Forero–Medina, G., Terborgh, J., Socolar, S.J., and Pimm, S.L. (2011). Elevational
ranges of birds on a tropical montane gradient lag behind warming
temperatures. PLoS One, 6(12), e28535.
Foster, P. (2001). The potential negative impacts of global change on tropicalmontane cloud forests. Earth–Science Reviews, 55, 73–106.
Francou, B. (2013). El rápido retroceso de los glaciares en los Andes Tropicales: Un
desafío para el estudio de la dinámica de los ecosistemas de alta montaña.
Ecología en Bolivia, 48(2), 69–71.
Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M.W., O’Sullivan, M., Andrew, R.M., Hauck, J., Peters,
G.P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Le Quéré, C., Bakker, D.C.E.,
Canadell, J.G., …, and Zaehle, S. (2019). Global carbon budget 2019. Earth
System Science Data, 11, 1783–1838.
Fundación para la Conservación y el Desarrollo Sostenible (2020). Diagnóstico delnivel de riesgo de los líderes y las organizaciones ambientales y de lasmedidas emprendidas en cada país (Bolivia, Ecuador, Perú y Colombia) hacia
su prevención y protección. Informe de trabajo. Fondo de Patrimonio Natural,
CEPF.
Fuselli, S., Tarazona–Santos, E., Dupanloup, I., Soto, I., Luiselli, D., and Pettener,
D. (2003) Mitochondrial DNA diversity in South America and the genetic
history of Andean highlanders. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 20, 1682–
1691.
Galán, A., Méndez, E., Linares, E., Campos, J., and Vicente, J.A. (2014). Las
comunidades vegetales relacionadas con los procesos criogénicos en losAndes peruanos. Phytocoenologia, 44(1–2), 121–161.
Gammons, C. H., Slotton, D. G., Gerbrandt, B., Weight, W., Young, C. A.,
McNearny, R. L., Cámac, E., Calderón, R., and Tapia, H. (2006). Mercury
concentrations of fish, river water, and sediment in the Río Ramis-Lake
Titicaca watershed, Peru. Science of the Total Environment, 368(2-3), 637648.

369

García, R., and Chacón de Ulloa, P. (2005). Estafilínidos (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae)
en fragmentos de bosque seco del valle geográfico del río Cauca. Colombian
Journal of Entomology, 31(1), 43–50.
Garzione, C.N., Hoke, G.D., Libarkin, J.C., Withers, S., MacFadden, B., Eiler, J.,
Ghosh, P, and Mulch, A. (2008). Rise of the Andes. Science, 320(5881),
1304–1307.
Gauna, L.B. (2017). Cooperación internacional para el cambio climático. Estudio decasos: América Latina y la Unión Europea. M+A Revista Electrónica deMedioambiente, 18(1), 27–48.
Gentry, A.H. (1995) Patterns of diversity and floristic composition in Neotropicalmontane forests. En: S.P. Churchill, Balslev, H., Forero, E. y Luteyn, J.L.
(Eds.). Biodiversity and conservation of Neotropical montane forests. (pp.
103–126) New York: New York Botanical Garden.
Gestion, R. 2019, March 1. Agroexportaciones Sumaron US$ 7,030 Millones en
2018, ¿Qué Productos Tuvieron Más Ventas? Available at:https://gestion.pe/economia/agroexportaciones-sumaron-us-7-030-millones2018productos-tuvieron-ventas-254606.
Global Financial Integrity (2017). Transnational Crime and the Developing World.
GFI
Goldstein, A., Turner, W.R., Spawn, S.A., Anderson–Teixeira, K.J., Cook–Patton, S.,
Fargione, J., …, and Hole, D.G. (2020). Protecting irrecoverable carbon in
Earth’s ecosystems. Nature Climate Change, 10(4), 287–295.
Gómez, T. (2020). Bats: Resistant to viruses, but not to humans. Retrieved fromhttps://news.mongabay.com/2020/05/bats-resistant-to-viruses-but-not-tohumans/
Gonda, C. (2020). Cambio climático y biodiversidad en los Andes Tropicales.
Buenos Aires: Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN). 34 p.
Gonda, C. (2019). El cambio climático y la criósfera andina. Buenos Aires:Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN). 59 p.
Gonzales, L. et al. Homicidio de defensores y defensoras de paz: una tragedia queno se detiene. IDEPAZ, 2018. Bogotá, Colombia.
Gorenflo, L.J. Warner D.B. (2016). Integrating biodiversity conservation and water
development: in search of long-term solutions. WIREs Water 3: 301–311.
Grisales–Martínez, F., Velasco, J.A., Bolivar–García, W and Daza, J.M. 2017. The
taxonomic and phylogenetic status of some poorly known Anolis species fromthe Andes of Colombia with the description of a nomen nudum taxa. Zootaxa
4303, 213–230.
Gutiérrez, R.C., Chaparro, J.C., Vásquez, M.Y., Quiroz, A.J., Aguilar–Kirigin, A., andAbdala, C.S. (2018). Descripción y relaciones filogenéticas de una nueva
especie de Liolaemus (Iguania: Liolaemidae) y notas sobre el grupo de L.
montanus de Perú. Cuadernos de Herpetología, 32., 81–99.
Guzmán–Mendoza, R., Calzontzi–Marín, J., Salas–Araiza, M.D., and Martínez–Yáñez, R. (2016). La riqueza biológica de los insectos: análisis de su
importancia multidimensional. Acta zoológica mexicana, 32(3), 370–379.
Haffer, J. and Prance, G. (2001). Climatic forcing of evolution in Amazonia during
the Cenozoic: on the refuge theory of biotic differentiation. Amazoniana,
16(3–4), 579–607.
Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R. Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A.,
Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S. V.,Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T. R.,
Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C. O. and Townshend, J. R. G.
2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-Century. Science, 342.
doi:10.1126/science.1244693
Hardy, D.R., and Hardy, S.P. (2008). White–winged Diuca Finch (Diuca speculifera)
nesting on Quelccaya Ice Cap, Perú. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology,
120(3), 613–617.
Hartley, A.J. (2003). Andean uplift and climate change. Journal of the GeologicalSociety, 160, 7–10.

370

Heinz, M., Schmidt, V., and Schaefer, M. (2005). New distributional record for the
Jocotoco Antpitta Grallaria ridgelyi in south Ecuador. Cotinga, 23, 24-26.
Helgen, K.M., Pinto, C.M., Kays, R., Helgen, L.E., Tsuchiya, M.T.N., Quinn, A.,
Wilson, D.E., and Maldonado, J.E. 2013. Taxonomic revision of the olingos(Bassaricyon), with description of a new species, the Olinguito. ZooKeys, 324,
1–83.
Herrera–Alva, V., Díaz, V., Castillo, E., Rodolfo, C., and Catenazzi, A. (2020). A new
species of Atelopus (Anura: Bufonidae) from southern Peru. Zootaxa, 4853,
404–420.
Herrera–R., G.A., Oberdorff, T., Anderson, E.P., Brosse, S., Carvajal–Vallejos, F.M.,
Frederico, R.G., Hidalgo, M., Jezequel, C., Maldonado, M., Maldonado–
Ocampo, J.A., … and Tedesco, P.A. (2020). The combined effects of climatechange and river fragmentation on the distribution of Andean Amazon fishes.
Global Change Biology, 26(10), 5509–5523.
Herzog, S.K., Jørgensen, P.M., Martínez, R., Martius, C., Anderson, E.P., Hole, D.G.,
Larsen, T.H., Marengo, J.A., Ruiz, D. and Tiessen, H. (2010). Efectos delcambio climático en la biodiversidad de los Andes Tropicales: el estado delconocimiento científico. São José dos Campos, Brasil: IAI. 32 p.
Herzog, S.K., and Kattan, G.H. (2012). Patrones de diversidad y endemismo en lasaves de los Andes tropicales. En: S.K. Herzog, R. Martínez, P. Jorgensen, y H.
Tiessen (Eds.). Cambio climático y biodiversidad en los Andes Tropicales. (pp.
287–305). Paris: IAI y SCOPE.
Hoffmann, C., García Márquez, J.R., Krueger, T. (2018). A local perspective on
drivers and measures to slow deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian foothillsof Colombia. Land use policy 77, 379–391. Downdloaded fromhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.043
Hoffmann, D., and Requena, C. (2012). Bolivia en un mundo 4 grados más caliente.
Escenarios sociopolíticos ante el cambio climático para los años 2030 y 2060
en el Altiplano norte. La Paz: Bolivian Mountain Institute (BMI). 168 p.
Huasasquiche J. and Kometter R. (2018). Aporte de los saberes comunales andinos
en la utilización de los bienes y servicios ecosistémicos. Estudio de la
Mancomunidad Saywite Choquequirao Ampay, Región Apurímac–Perú. Lima:
Andean Forest Program, Helvetas. 25 p.
Huber, O., and Riina, R. (Eds.) (1997). Glosario fitoecológico de las Américas.
Volumen I, América del Sur: países hispanoparlantes. Caracas: UNESCO andFundación Instituto Botánico de Venezuela. 500 p.
Huamaní, L., Quiroz, A.J., Gutiérrez, R.C., Aguilar, A., Huanca, W., Valladares, P.,
Cerdeña, J., Chaparro, J.C., Santa Cruz, R., and Abdala, C.S. (2020). Some
color in the desert: description of a new species of Liolaemus (Iguania:
Liolaemidae) from southern Peru, and its conservation status. Amphibian &Reptile Conservation, 14(3), 1–30.
Hofstede, R., Calles, J., López, V., Polanco, R., Torres, F., Ulloa, J., Vásquez, A.,
and Cerra, M. (2014). Los páramos andinos ¿Qué sabemos? Estado deconocimiento sobre el impacto del cambio climático en el ecosistema páramo.
Quito: UICN.
Hofstede, R., Segarra, P., and Mena, P. (2003). Los páramos del mundo. Proyecto
Atlas Mundial de los Páramos. Quito: Global Peatland Initiative / NC-IUCN /EcoCiencia.
Ibañez, A.N., La Torre, M. Á., and Mallma, G.A. (2018). Using foresight to gain alocal perspective on the future of ecosystem services in a mountain protectedarea in Peru. Mountain Research and Development, 38(3), 192–202.
IDB (Inter-American Development Bank) (2020). Policies to combat the pandemic.
Macroeconomic Report for Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter-American
Development Bank.
IDB (Inter-American Development Bank) (2019a). The impact of COVID-19 on theeconomies of the region. Inter-American Development Bank. Andean Groupcountries department.

371

IDB (Inter-American Development Bank) (2019b). Rough Patch: Latin America andthe Caribbean amid the global trade slowdown. "Trade and Integration
Monitor 2019." Inter-American Development Bank.
IDEAM, PNUD, MADS, DNP, and Cancillería. (2016). Inventario nacional ydepartamental de Gases Efecto Invernadero – Colombia. Tercera
Comunicación Nacional de Cambio Climático. Bogotá: IDEAM, PNUD, MADS,DNP, Cancillería, FMAM.
International Monetary Fund, United States of America (IMF). 2019. World
Economic Outlook Update: Still Sluggish Global Growth. Washington, D. C.,
United States of America. 9 p. Accessed 10/11/2020. Available athttps://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2019/07/18/WEOupdateJuly2019.
Investors in Leaders, Living in a VUCA World. 2018. Disponible en:https://www.truedgeconsulting.com/innovation/vuca/
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2013). Working Group I
contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Climate change 2013: thephysical science basis summary for policymakers. Cambridge, UK: IPCC.
Ipenza, C. (2020) Diagnóstico que evalúa la presencia de actividad minera aurífera
y sus impactos a nivel de tres corredores, así ́ como áreas naturales
protegidas vinculadas, en el hotspot Andes Tropicales del Perú. Frankfurt
Zoological Society. Lima.
Isler, M.L., Chesser, R.T., Robbins, M.B., Cuervo, A.M., Cadena, C.D., and Hosner,
P.A. (2020). Taxonomic evaluation of the Grallaria rufula (Rufous Antpitta)
complex (Aves: Passeriformes: Grallariidae) distinguishes sixteen species.
Zootaxa, 4817(1), 1–74.
Iturralde–Pólit, P., Dangles, O., Burneo, S.F., and Meynard, C.N. (2017). The
effects of climate change on a mega–diverse country: predicted shifts in
mammalian species richness and turnover in continental Ecuador. Biotropica,
49(6), 821.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2016). A Global Standard
for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas. Version 1.0. First edition.
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature (2020). The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2020-2. Retrieved from:https://www.iucnredlist.org
IUCN SSC (IUCN Species Survival Commission) Amphibian Specialist Group. (2020).
Telmatobius culeus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020:
e.T57334A3058114. Retrieved from:https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T57334A3058114.en
IWGIA (2019). The indigenous world 2019. International Work Group for
Indigenous Affairs. Copenhagen.
Jiménez, P., Aguirre, W., Laaz, E., Navarrete, R., Nugra, N., Revolledo, E., Torres,A., and Valdiviezo, J. (2015). Guía de peces para aguas continentales en lavertiente occidental del Ecuador. Esmeraldas: Ecuador. Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Ecuador, Sede Esmeraldas. 416 p.
Jiménez, C.F., and Pacheco, V. (2016). A new species of grass mouse, genus
Akodon Meyen, 1833 (Rodentia, Sigmodontinae), from the central Peruvian
Yungas. Therya, 7(3), 449–464.
Jiménez, I., Distler, T., and Jørgensen, P. M. (2009). Estimated plant richness
pattern across northwest South America provides similar support for the
species‐energy and spatial heterogeneity hypotheses. Ecography, 32(3), 433448.
Jorgensen, P., Herzog, S., Martínez, S., and Tiessen, H. (2012). Patrones regionales
de diversidad y endemismo en las plantas vasculares. En: S.K. Herzog, R.
Martínez, P. Jorgensen, and H. Tiessen (Eds.). Cambio climático ybiodiversidad en los Andes Tropicales. (pp. 221–234). Paris: IAI and SCOPE.

372

Jørgensen, P. M., Ulloa Ulloa, C., León, B., León-Yánez, S., Beck, S. G., Nee, M., ...
and Gradstein, R. (2011). Regional patterns of vascular plant diversity andendemism. Climate Change and Biodiversity in the Tropical Andes. InterAmerican Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) and Scientific Committee
on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), 192-203.
Josse, C., Cuesta, F., Navarro, G., Barrena, V., Becerra, M.T., Cabrera, E., Chacón–
Moreno, E, Ferreira, W., Peralvo, M., Saito, J., and Tovar, A. (2012).
Geografía física y ecosistemas de los Andes Tropicales. En: S.K. Herzog, R.
Martínez, P. Jorgensen, and H. Tiessen (Eds.). Cambio climático ybiodiversidad en los Andes Tropicales. (pp. 177–194). Paris: IAI and SCOPE.
Josse, C., Cuesta. F., Navarro, G., Barrena, V., Cabrera, E., Chacón–Moreno. E.,
Ferreira, W., Peralvo, M., Saito, J., and Tovar, A. (2009). Ecosistemas de losAndes del Norte y Centro. Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú y Venezuela.
Lima: Secretaría General de la Comunidad Andina, Programa Regional
ECOBONA–Intercooperation, CONDESAN–Proyecto Páramo Andino, Programa
BioAndes, EcoCiencia, NatureServe, IAvH, LTA–UNALM, ICAE–ULA, CDC–
UNALM, RumBOL SRL.
Josse, C., C. Morales and X. Cornejo (2013) Bosque siempreverde estacional detierras bajas del Chocó ecuatorial. Pp. 39–41, en: Sistema de clasificación delos ecosistemas del Ecuador continental. Proyecto Mapa de Vegetation
Ecuador, Ministry of Environment of Ecuador. Quito.
Joppa, L.N., Roberts, D.L., Myers, N., and Pimm, S.L. (2011). Biodiversity hotspots
house most undiscovered plant species. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences, 108(32), 13171–13176.
Kahn, T.R., La Marca, E., Lötters, S., Brown, J.L., Twomey, E., and Amézquita, A.
(2016). Aposematic poison frogs (Dendrobatidae) of the Andean countries:
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. Conservation International
Tropical Field Guide Series. Arlington: Conservation International. 588 p.
Kattan, G. H., Franco, P., Rojas, V., and Morales, G. (2004). Biologicaldiversification in a complex region: a spatial analysis of faunistic diversity andbiogeography of the Andes of Colombia. Journal of Biogeography, 31(11),1829-1839.
KBA Standards and Appeals Committee. (2020). Guidelines for using a Global
Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas. Version 1.1.
Prepared by the KBA Standards and Appeals Committee of the IUCN Species
Survival Commission and IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN.
Kendall A. and Chepstow-Lusty, A. (2006). Cultural and environmental change in
the Cuzco region of Peru: rural development implication of combinedarchaeological and palaeoecological evidence. Pp 185-197 P. Dransart, ed.
Kay Pacha: cultivating earth and water in the Andes. Oxford, UK: BAR
International Series 1478.
Key Biodiversity Areas Partnership (2020) Key Biodiversity Areas factsheet: La
Victoria (Nariño). Extracted from the World Database of Key Biodiversity
Areas. Developed by the Key Biodiversity Areas Partnership: BirdLife
International, IUCN, American Bird Conservancy, Amphibian Survival Alliance,
Conservation International, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Global
Environment Facility, Global Wildlife Conservation, NatureServe, Rainforest
Trust, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, World Wildlife Fund andWildlife Conservation Society. Recuperado de www.keybiodiversityareas.org.
Killeen, T.J., Douglas, M., Consiglio, T., Jørgensen, P.M., and Mejía, J. (2007). Dry
spots and wet spots in the Andean hotspot. Journal of Biogeography, 34,
1357–1373.
Koch, C., and Venegas, P.J. (2016). A large and unusually colored new snake
species of the genus Tantilla (Squamata; Colubridae) from the Peruvian
Andes. PeerJ, 4, e2767.

373

Koch, C., Venegas, P.J., and Böhme, W. (2015). Three new endemic species of
Epictia Gray, 1845 (Serpentes: Leptotyphlopidae). Zootaxa, 3964(2), 228–
244.
Koehler, G., and Lehr, E. (2015). Two new species of lizards of the genus
Stenocercus (Iguania, Tropiduridae) from central Peru. Zootaxa, 3956(3),413–427.
Köhler, G., and Lehr, E. (2004). Comments on Euspondylus and Proctoporus(Squamata: Gymnophthalmidae) from Peru, with the description of three new
species and a key to the Peruvian species. Herpetologica, 60(4), 501-518.
Krabbe, N.K. (2017). A new species of Megascops (Strigidae) from the Sierra
Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia, with notes on voices of New World
screech-owls. Ornitología Colombiana, 16, 1–27.
Krabbe, N.K., Schulenberg, T.S., Hosner, P.A., Rosenberg, K.V., Davis, T.J.,
Rosenberg, G.H., Lane, D.F., Andersen, M.J., Robbins, M.B., Cadena, C.D.,
Valqui, T., Salter, J.F., Spencer, A.J., Angulo, F., and Fjeldså, J. (2020).
Untangling cryptic diversity in the High Andes: Revision of the Scytalopus[magellanicus] complex (Rhinocryptidae) in Peru reveals three new species.
The Auk, 137(2), 1–26.
Kuhar, F., Pfister, D., and Truong, C. (2020). Stilbohypoxylon macrosporum. The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T172740470A172861187.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20202.RLTS.T172740470A172861187.en.
La Marca, E., Lips, K. R., Lötters, S., Puschendorf, R., Ibáñez, R., Rueda‐Almonacid,
J. V., ... and García‐Pérez, J. E. (2005). Catastrophic population declines andextinctions in Neotropical harlequin frogs (Bufonidae: Atelopus) 1. Biotropica:
The Journal of Biology and Conservation, 37(2), 190-201.
Landauro, C.Z., García–Bravo, A., and Venegas, P.J. (2015). An endemic new
species of Ameiva (Squamata: Teiidae) from an isolated dry forest in southern
Peru. Zootaxa, 3946(3), 387–400.
Lane, D.F., Kratter, A.W., and O’Neill, J.P. (2017). A new species of manakin (Aves:
Pipridae; Machaeropterus) from Peru with a taxonomic reassessment of theStriped Manakin (M. regulus) complex. Zootaxa, 4320(2), 379–390.
Latinobarómetro (2018). 2018 Report. Corporación Latinobarómetro. Santiago deChile.
Lehr, E., and Moravec, J. (2017). A new species of Pristimantis (Amphibia, Anura,
Craugastoridae) from a montane forest of the Pui Pui Protected Forest in
central Peru (Región Junín). ZooKeys, 645, 85–102.
Lehr, E., Moravec, J., Lundberg, M., Köhler, G., Catenazzi, A., and Šmíd, J. (2019).
A new genus and species of arboreal lizard (Gymnophthalmidae:
Cercosaurinae) from the eastern Andes of Peru. Salamandra, 55(1), 1–13.
Lehr, E., and Rodríguez, D. (2017). Two new species of Andes Frogs(Craugastoridae: Phrynopus) from the Cordillera de Carpish in central Peru.
Salamandra, 53(3), 327–338.
Lehr, E., and von May, R. (2017). A new species of terrestrial-breeding frog
(Amphibia, Craugastoridae, Pristimantis) from high elevations of the Pui Pui
Protected Forest in central Peru. ZooKeys, (660), 17–42.
Lehr, E., von May, R., Moravec, J., and Cusi, J.C. (2017a). A new species ofPhrynopus (Amphibia, Anura, Craugastoridae) from upper montane forestsand high Andean grasslands of the Pui Pui Protected Forest in central Peru.
ZooKeys, 713, 131–157.
Lehr, E., von May, R., Moravec, J., and Cusi, J.C. (2017b). Three new species of
Pristimantis (Amphibia, Anura, Craugastoridae) from upper montane forestsand high Andean grasslands of the Pui Pui Protected Forest in central Peru.
Zootaxa, 4299(3), 301–336.
Lenzen M, Li M, Malik A, Pomponi F, Sun YY, T. Wiedmann. (2020) Pérdidas
socioeconómicas globales y ganancias ambientales de la pandemia deCoronavirus. PLoS ONE 15 (7): e0235654.

374

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235654
Lizcano, D. J., Amanzo, J., Castellanos, A., Tapia, A., and Lopez-Malaga, C. M.
(2016). Tapirus pinchaque. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2016: e.
T21473A45173922.
Llambí, L. D., Becerra, M. T., Peralvo, M., Avella, A., Barufol, M., Díaz, L.D. (2019).
Construcción de una Estrategia para el Monitoreo Integrado de los
Ecosistemas de Alta Montaña en Colombia. Biodiversidad en la Práctica 4:
Llambí, L. D., M. T. Becerra, M. Peralvo, A. Avella, M. Baruffol, and L. J. Flores(2020). Monitoring Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Colombia's High
Andean Ecosystems: Toward an Integrated Strategy. Mountain Research andDevelopment 39 (3): A8-A20.
López- Feldman, C. Chávez, M.A. Vélez, H. Bejarano, A. Chimeli, J. Féres, J.
Robalino, R. Salcedo and C. Viteri (2020). COVID- 19: Impactos en el medio
ambiente y en el cumplimiento de los ODS en América Latina. Revista
Desarrollo y Sociedad 104. Pp.: 104-132 86 Tercer Cuatrimestre.
Loza, A., and Mendoza, W. (2017). Evaluación poblacional y estado de conservaciónde Telmatobius macrostomus Peters, 1873 (Anura: Telmatobiidae) en
humedales altoandinos, Región Pasco–Perú. Revista de Investigaciones
Altoandinas, 19(2), 145–156.
Lutz, D.A., Powell, R.L., and Silman, M.R. (2013). Four decades of Andean
timberline migration and implications for biodiversity loss with climatechange. PLoS One, 8(9), e74496.
Málaga J, Avila-Santamaría J., and Carpio C. (2019). The Andean Region: An
Important and Growing U.S. Agricultural Trade Partner. 1 CHOICES 3rd
Quarter 2019, 34(3).
Magalhães, N., Evangelista, H., Condom, T. (2019). Amazonian Biomass Burning
Enhances Tropical Andean Glaciers Melting. Sci Rep 9, 16914.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53284Maldonado, M., Maldonado–Ocampo, J.A., Ortega, H., Encalada, A.C., Carvajal–
Vallejos, F.M., Rivadeneira, J.F., Acosta, F., Jacobsen, D., Crespo, A. andRivera–Rondón, C.A. (2012). Diversidad en los sistemas acuaticos. En: S.K.
Herzog, R. Martínez, P. Jorgensen, and H. Tiessen (Eds.). Cambio climático ybiodiversidad en los Andes Tropicales. (pp. 325–347). Paris: IAI and SCOPE.
Mamani, L., Catenazzi, A., Ttito, A., Mallqui, S., and Chaparro, J.C. (2017). A new
species of Bryophryne (Anura: Strabomantidae) from the Cordillera de
Vilcabamba, southeastern Peruvian Andes. Phyllomedusa 16(2), 129–141.
Mamani, L., Chaparro, J.C., Correa, C., Alarcón, C., Salas, C.Y., and Catenazzi, A.
(2020). A new species of andean Gymnophthalmid lizard (Squamata:Gymnophthalmidae) from the peruvian Andes, and resolution of sometaxonomic problems. Diversity, 12, 361.
Mamani, L., Goicoechea, N., and Chaparro, J.C. (2015). A new species of Andean
lizard Proctoporus (Squamata: Gymnophthalmidae) from montane forest of
the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, Peru. Amphibian and Reptile
Conservation, 9(1), 1–11.
Marangunic, C. (2016). Glaciares y los ecosistemas de montaña: Las importantes
tareas pendientes. Revista de Glaciares y Ecosistemas de Montaña 1(1), 11–19.
Marcillo–Lara, A., Coloma, L.A., Álvarez–Solas, S., and Terneus, E. (2020). The
gastromyzophorous tadpoles of Atelopus elegans and A. palmatus (Anura:
Bufonidae), with comments on oral and suction structures. Neotropical
Biodiversity, 6(1), 1–13.
Marengo, J.A., Pabón, J.D., Díaz, A., Rosas, G., Ávalos, G., Montealegre, E., Villacis,
M., Solman, S., and Rojas, M. (2012). Diversidad en los sistemas acuáticos.
En: S.K. Herzog, R. Martínez, P. Jorgensen, y H. Tiessen (Eds.). Cambio
climático y biodiversidad en los Andes Tropicales. (p. 131–149). Paris: IAI and
SCOPE.

375

Marín, E., & Millares, N. (2017). Las organizaciones de la sociedad civil
latinoamericana y su oferta de valor. Estudio de caso: México, Brasil,
Colombia y Argentina. OASIS, 25, pp. 187-221.
Marquet, P., A. Lara, A. Altamirano, A. Alaniz, C. Álvarez, M. Castillo, M.
Galleguillos, A. Grez, A. Gutiérrez, J. Hoyos-Santillán, D. Manuschevich, R. M.
Garay, A. Miranda, E. Ostria, F. Peña-Cortéz, J. Pérez-Quezada, A. Sepúlveda,
J. Simonetti and C. Smith (2019). Cambio de uso del suelo en Chile:
Oportunidades de mitigación ante la emergencia climática. Informe de lamesa Biodiversidad. Santiago: COP25 Scientific Committee; Ministry of
Science, Technology, Knowledge and Innovation.
Márquez, Y., Monroy, K.J., Martínez, E.G., Peña, V.H., Monroy, A.L. (2019).
Influencia de la temperatura ambiental en el mosquito Aedes spp. y latransmisión del virus del dengue. Revista CES Medicina, 33(1), 42–50.
Masera, O., H. Riojas- Rodriguez, R. Pérez- Padilla, M. Serrano- Medrano, A.
Shilmann, V. Ruíz- García, L. A. de la Sierra and V. Berrueta (2020).
Vulnerabilidad a COVID- 19 en poblaciones rurales y periurbanas por el uso
doméstico de leña.
https://www.insp.mx/resources/images/stories/repositorio-inspcovid19/pdfs/Vulnerabilidad_a_COVID_por_humo_de_lena.pdf
Mateus, S. (2019) La Deforestación en Colombia - Propuestas para la Mitigación desus Efectos. Universidad Militar Nueva Granada.
McCain, C.M. (2010). Global analysis of reptile elevational diversity. Global Ecology
and Biogeography 19, 541–553.
McClain, M.E., and Elsenbeer, H. (2001). Terrestrial inputs to Amazon streams andinternal biogeochemical processing. En: M.E. McClain, R.L. Victoria, and J.E.
Richey, J.E. (Eds.). The biogeochemistry of the Amazon Basin (pp. 185–208).
New York: Oxford University Press.
McClain, M.E., and Naiman, R.J. (2008). Andean influences on the biogeochemistry
and ecology of the Amazon River. BioScience, 58, 325–338.
McGeoch, M.A., and Chown, S.L. (1998). Scaling up the value of bioindicators.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13(2), 46–47.
Meehl, G.A., Stocker, T.F., Collins, W.D., Friedlingstein, P., Gaye, A.T., Gregory,
J.M., Kitoh, A., Knutti, R., Murphy, J.M., Noda, A., …, y Zhao, Z.C. (2007).
Global climate projections. En: S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (Eds.). Climate change 2007:
the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (p.
757–846). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mena, J.L., Solari, S., Carrera, J.P., Aguirre, L.F., and Gómez, H. (2012). Diversidad
de pequeños mamíferos en los Andes Tropicales: Visión General. En: S.K.
Herzog, R. Martínez, P. Jorgensen, y H. Tiessen (Eds.). Cambio climático ybiodiversidad en los Andes Tropicales. (pp. 307–324). Paris: IAI and SCOPE.
Metzger, M., Bunce, R., Jongman, R., Sayre, R., Trabucco, A., and Zomer, R.
(2013). A high-resolution bioclimate map of the world: a unifying frameworkfor global biodiversity research and monitoring. Global Ecology and
Biogeography, 22(5/6), 630–638.
Micale, V., Tonkonogy, B., and Mazza, F. (2018). Understanding and increasing
finance for climate adaptation in developing countries. London: Climate Policy
Initiative and Adelphi.
Milano, F. (Ed.) (2019). Gobiernos y sociedad civil avanzando agendas climáticas.
Monografía del BID 663. Inter–American Development Bank.
Miles, L., Newton, A. C., DeFries, R. S., Ravilious, C., May, I., Blyth, S., ... and
Gordon, J. E. (2006). A global overview of the conservation status of tropicaldry forests. Journal of biogeography, 33(3), 491-505.
Ministerio del Ambiente. (2015). Valoración Económica del Aporte del Sistema
Nacional de Áreas Protegidas a la Nueva Matriz Energética del Ecuador: Sector
Hidroeléctrico. Quito – Ecuador

376

Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador (2017). Tercera Comunicación Nacional delEcuador sobre Cambio Climático. Quito, Ecuador.
Ministry of Environment of Colombia (2019). Informe Anual sobre elcomportamiento de visitantes a áreas protegidas nacionales, con vocación
ecoturística. Accessed 10/11/2020. Available at:https://www.parquesnacionales.gov.co/portal/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/informe-visitantes-2019-final.pdf
Mittermeier, R. A., Robles G. P., Hoffmann, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier,C.
G., et al. (2004) Hotspots Revisited. Mexico City, Mexico: CEMEX.
Mittermeier, R.A., Turner, W.R., Larsen, F.W., Brooks, T.M., and Gascon, C. (2011)
Global biodiversity conservation: the critical role of hotspots. En: F.E. Zachos,and J.C. Habel (Eds.). Biodiversity hotspots: Distribution and protection ofconservation priority areas (pp. 3–22). Heidelberg: Springer–Verlag Berlin.
Mitofsky (2020). Aprobación de mandatarios América y el mundo. Retrieved from:http://consulta.mx/index.php/encuestas-e-investigaciones/el-mundo
Miyamoto, K., Sato, T., Arana, E.A., Orellana, G.C., and Rohner, C.M. (2018).
Variation in tree community composition and carbon stock under natural andhuman disturbances in Andean forests, Peru. Forests, 9(7), 390.
Mojica, J.I., C. Castellanos, S. Usma, and R. Álvarez. (2002) Libro rojo de peces
dulceacuícolas de Colombia. Bogota: Instituto de Ciencias Naturales,
Universidad de Colombia, Ministerio del Medio Ambiente.
Molina, C., Señaris, J.C., Lampo, M., and Rial, A. (2009) Anfibios de Venezuela:
Estado de Conocimiento y recomendaciones para su conservación. Caracas,
Venezuela: Ediciones Grupo TEI.
Molinari, J., Bustos, X.E., Burneo, S.F., Camacho, M.A., Moreno, S.A., and Fermin,
G. (2017). A new polytypic species of yellow-shouldered bats, genus Sturnira(Mammalia: Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae), from the Andean and coastal
mountain systems of Venezuela and Colombia. Zootaxa, 4243(1), 75–96.
Moncrieff, A.E., Johnson, O., Lane, D.F., Beck, J.R., Angulo, F., and Fagan, J.
(2018). A new species of antbird (Passeriformes: Thamnophilidae) from theCordillera Azul, San Martín, Peru. The Auk 135(1), 114–126.
Mongabay (2020). La carrera por salvar especies amenazadas en tiempos de Covid19. Descargado de https://es.mongabay.com/2020/05/la-carrera-por-salvarespecies-amenazadas-en-tiempos-de-covid-19/
Mongabay (2020). Tráfico de fauna en Perú. Imágenes impactantes del comercio
ilegal de especies. Descargado de https://es.mongabay.com/2018/11/traficofauna-peru-fotos-videos/Montoya, H., Fiestas, J.A., Cruz, R., Quispe, R., and Rodríguez, S. (2019).
Comunidades criofílicas de los glaciares del nevado de Allincapac, Andes del
sur de Perú, departamento de Puno: variabilidad fenotípica de la cianobacteria
Nostoc commune (Nostocales, Nostocaceae). Arnaldoa, 26(2), 657–674.
Moraes, M., Øllgaard, B., Kvist, L.P., Borchsenius, F. and Balslev, H. (Eds.).
Botánica económica de los Andes Centrales. La Paz: Universidad Mayor de
San Andrés. 557 p.
Moravec, J., Šmíd, J., Štundl, J., and Lehr, E. (2018). Systematics of Neotropicalmicroteiid lizards (Gymnophthalmidae, Cercosaurinae), with the description ofa new genus and species from the Andean montane forests. ZooKeys, 774,
105–139.
Moreno, J. and Ruiz, E. (2016). El vínculo entre biodiversidad-cambio climático: unelefante en la habitación. ¿Cómo podemos actuar las empresas yorganizaciones? Madrid. Downloaded from:https://foretica.org/vinculo_biodiversidad_y_cambio_climatico.pdf
Moret, P., Arauz, M.A., Gobbi, M., and Barragán, A. (2016). Climate warming
effects in the Tropical Andes: First evidence for upslope shifts of Carabidae(Coleoptera) in Ecuador. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 9(4), 342–350.

377

Morueta–Holme, N., Engemann, K., Sandoval–Acuna, P., Jonas, J.D., Segnitz, R.M.
and Svenning, J.C. (2015). Strong upslope shifts in Chimborazo’s vegetation
over two centuries since Humboldt. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 112(41), 12741–12745.
Müller, R., Pacheco, P., and Montero, J.C. (2014). El contexto de la deforestación ydegradación de los bosques en Bolivia: Causas, actores e instituciones.
Documentos Ocasionales 100. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Mulligan, M., Rubiano, J., Hyman, G., White, D., Garcia, J., Saravia, M., ... &Leonardo Saenz-Cruz, L. (2010). The Andes basins: biophysical anddevelopmental diversity in a climate of change. Water International, 35(5),472-492.
Muñoz-Gómez, F. A., Galicia- Sarmiento and Humberto-Pérez, E. (2018).
Agricultura migratoria conductor del cambio de uso de suelo de ecosistemas
Alto Andinos de Colombia. Biotecnología en el Sector Agropecuario yAgroindustrial 16(1): 15-25.
Muñoz Rojas, C. (2019). Educación técnico-profesional y autonomía económica delas mujeres jóvenes en América Latina y el Caribe. Serie Asuntos de Género,N° 155 (LC/TS.2019/26). Economic Commission for Latin America and the
Caribbean (ECLAC). Santiago de Chile.
Mutke, J., Jacobs, R., Meyers, K., Henning, T., and Weigend, M. (2014). Diversity
patterns of selected Andean plant groups correspond to topography andhabitat dynamics, not orogeny. Frontiers in genetics, 5, 351, 1–15.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A., and Kent, J.
(2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–
858.
National Parks Administration/Biodiversity Information System (2019). Data
updated to 2019. sib.gob.ar
National Institute of Human Rights (INDH). 2015. Mapa de conflictos
socioambientales en Chile 2015, Santiago.
National Geographic. (2019). South America: Resources. Accesed 10/11/2020.
Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/southamerica-resources/.
Navarro, G., and Maldonado, M. (2002). Geografía ecológica de Bolivia: Vegetacióny ambientes acuáticos. Cochabamba, Bolivia: Centro de Ecología Simón I.
Patiño. 719 p.
Neukom, R., Rohrer, M., Calanca, P., Salzmann, N., Huggel, C., Acuña, D., Christie,
D.A., and Morales, M.S. (2015). Facing unprecedented drying of the Central
Andes? Precipitation variability over the period AD 1000–2100. Environmental
Resources Letter, 10, 084017.
Noguera–Urbano, E.A. and Escalante, T. (2015). Áreas de endemismo de losmamíferos (Mammalia) neotropicales. Acta Biológica Colombiana, 20(3), 47–
65.
Noh, J.K., Echeverría, C., Kleemann, J., Koo, H., Fürst, C., and Cuenca, P. (2020).
Warning about conservation status of forest ecosystems in Tropical Andes:
National assessment based on IUCN criteria. PLoS One, 15(8), e0237877.
Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC). 2019. Bananas. Accessed 10/11/2020.
Available at: https://oec.world/en/profile/hs92/0803/
Ocampo-Peñuela, N., Pimm, S.L., (2014). Setting Practical Conservation Priorities
for Birds in the Western Andes of Colombia. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1260-1270.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12312.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2020), Estudios
de la OCDE sobre políticas públicas de conducta empresarial responsable:
Perú, OCDE París.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2020).
Government at a Glance: Latin America and the Caribbean 2020. OECD
Publishing, Paris.

378

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2020).
Government at a Glance: Latin America and the Caribbean 2020. OECD
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1256b68d-es.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2019),
Government at a Glance 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/8ccf5c38-en
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) et al. (2019).
Latin American Economic Outlook 2019: Development in transition, OECD
Publishing, Paris.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2020),
Panorama of Public Administrations Latin America and the Caribbean 2020,
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1256b68d-es.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, France); SEGIB(Ibero-American General Secretariat, Spain); BBVAMF (BBVA MicrofinanceFoundation, Spain). 2019. Social Institutions and Gender Index 2019 (SIGI).
Madrid, Spain. 1 p. Accessed 10/11/2020. Available at:https://www.genderindex.org/countries/
OIM (2018). Tendencias migratorias en las Américas. Disponible en:https://robuenosaires.iom.int/sites/default/files/Informes/Tendencias_Migrato
rias_Nacionales_en_Americas__V enezuela_ES_Julio_2018_web.pdf
OIM (2017b) Informe Migratorio Sudamericano N2 año 2017. Disponible en:https://robuenosaires.iom.int/sites/default/files/Documentos%20PDFs/Recien
tes_tendencias_migratorias_extra_e_intra_regionales_y_extra_continentales_
en_america_del_sur_es.pdf
Ojala-Barbour, R., Pinto, C. M., Brito M, J., Albuja V, L., Lee Jr, T. E., andPatterson, B. D. (2013). A new species of shrew-opossum (Paucituberculata:
Caenolestidae) with a phylogeny of extant caenolestids. Journal of
Mammalogy, 94(5), 967-982.
OLADE (Organización Latinoamericana de Energía) (2019). Panorama Energético deAmérica Latina y El Caribe 2019. Quito-Ecuador.
OLADE. Organización Latinoamericana de Energía (2019). Panorama Energético deAmérica Latina y el Caribe. http://biblioteca.olade.org/opactmpl/Documentos/old0433a.pdf
Olson, D. (2010) A decade of conservation by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership
Fund 2001-2010: An independent evaluation of CEPF's global conservation
impact. Arlington, VA:Conservation Earth for the CEPF.
OMS (Organización Mundial de la Salud) (2020). Informes de situación de laenfermedad por coronavirus (COVID- 2019). Ginebra, Suiza: Organización
Mundial de la Salud.
ORAS–CONHU, Organismo Andino de Salud–Convenio Hipólito Unanue (2020). Plan
andino de salud y cambio climático 2020 – 2025. Washington, DC: Organismo
Andino de Salud–Convenio Hipólito Unanue and Organización Panamericanade la Salud.
Ordóñez-Delgado, L., Székely, P., Székely, D., Serrano, F., and Armijos-Ojeda, D.
(2020). Plan de Acción para la Conservación de los Anfibios del Abra deZamora. Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja y Naturaleza y Cultura
Internacional. Loja, Ecuador. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15950.08008
Orduz, N. (2015). Análisis de discursos de REDD+ como estrategia equitativa deconservación y uso de la biodiversidad. Ambiente y Desarrollo, 19(37), 115–
130.
OREALC/UNESCO (Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, laCiencia y la Cultura y la Oficina Regional de Educación para América Latina yel Caribe) (2019). Antecedentes para una estrategia regional de respuesta dela UNESCO a la situación de personas en contexto de movilidad en América
Latina y el Caribe. Chile. Descargado de:379

http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Santiago/pdf/UNE
SDOC-Documento-de-trabajo-Antecedentes-para-una-estra.pdf
Ortega, H., and Hidalgo, M. (2008) Freshwater fishes and aquatic habitats in Peru:
current knowledge and conservation. Aquatic Ecosystem Health &Management, 11, 257–271.
Ortega, H., Hidalgo, M., Correa, E., Espino, J., Chocano, L., Trevejo, G., Meza, V.,
Cortijo, A.M. and Quispe, R. (2011) Lista anotada de los peces de aguas
continentales del Perú: Estado actual del conocimiento, distribución, usos yaspectos de conservación. Lima: Ministerio del Ambiente, and Museo deHistoria Natural–UNMSM.
Ortega–Andrade, H.M., Rojas–Soto, O.R., Valencia, J.H., Espinosa de los Monteros,A., Morrone, J.J., Ron, S.R., and Cannatella, D.C. (2015). Insights from
integrative systematics reveal cryptic diversity in Pristimantis frogs (Anura:
Craugastoridae) from the Upper Amazon Basin. PLoS one, 10(11), e0143392.
Pabón–Caicedo, J.D., Arias, P.A., Carril, A.F., Espinoza, J.C., Borrel, L.F.,
Goubanova, K., Lavado–Casimiro, W., Masiokas, M., Solman, S., and Villalba,
R. (2020). Observed and projected hydroclimate changes in the Andes.
Frontiers in Earth Science, 8, 61.
Pacha, M.J. (Ed.) (2020). Infraestructura natural en la cuenca del río Lurín en Perúpara prevenir desastres. Hacia el diseño de políticas públicas con visión
territorial que incorporen inversión en infraestructura natural en cuencas
medias y altas, para la prevención de desastres. Lima: Climate andDevelopment Knowledge Network (CDKN).
Pacheco, V., Sánchez–Vendizú, P., and Solari, S. (2018). A new species of Anoura
Gray, 1838 (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) from Peru, with taxonomic andbiogeographic comments on species of the Anoura caudifer complex. Acta
Chiropterológica, 20(1), 31–50.
Páez, N.B., and Ron, S.R. (2019) Systematics of Huicundomantis, a new subgenus
of Pristimantis (Anura, Strabomantidae) with extraordinary cryptic diversity
and eleven new species. ZooKeys, 868, 1–112.
Painter, L., T.M., Siles, A. Reinaga & R. Wallace. (2013). Escenarios dedeforestación en el Gran Paisaje Madidi-Tambopata. Consejo Indígena delPueblo Tacana y Wildlife Conservation Society. La Paz, Bolivia.
Parra, V., Nunes, P.M., and Torres–Carvajal, O. (2020) Systematics of Pholidobolus
lizards (Squamata, Gymnophthalmidae) from southern Ecuador, withdescriptions of four new species. ZooKeys, 954, 109–156.
Pastor C. (2019). Atlas. Los Grupos Económicos Agroalimentarios ¿Quién decide loque producimos, exportamos y consumimos? Carlos Pastor (coord.) Ediciones
La Tierra. Quito
Patterson, B.D., Solari, S., and Velazco, P.M. (2012). The role of the Andes in thediversification and biogeography of Neotropical mammals. En: B.D. Pattersonand L.P. Costa (Eds.). Bones, Clones, and Biomes: The history and geographyof recent Neotropical mammals. (pp. 351–378). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Paz Jorge, M. de J., Kelman, R., S. Navas, L. Okamura, E. Feliu (2019).
Vulnerabilidad al cambio climático y medidas de adaptación de los sistemas
hidroeléctricos en los países andinos. Inter-American Development Bank IDB.
Pazmiño-Otamendi, G. 2019. Emmochliophis miops En: Torres-Carvajal, O.,
Pazmiño-Otamendi, G. and Salazar-Valenzuela, D. 2019. Reptiles del Ecuador.
Versión 2019.0. Museo de Zoología, Pontificia Universidad Católica delEcuador. Retrieved fromhttps://bioweb.bio/faunaweb/reptiliaweb/FichaEspecie/Emmochliophis%20mio
ps
Pastor C. Pazmiño, (2019). Atlas. Los Grupos Económicos Agroalimentarios ¿Quién
decide lo que producimos, exportamos y consumimos? Ediciones La Tierra.
Quito

380

Paz y Miño, J.J. (2020) Dependencia e industrialización. Historia y Presente.
Accessed 15/11/2020. Available at:
http://www.historiaypresente.com/dependencia-e-industrializacion/Peña, P. (2014). El marco legal peruano para implementar REDD. Lima: Sociedad
Peruana de Derecho Ambiental, SPDA. 36 p.
Pereira, J., Labiak, P. H., Stützel, T., and Schulz, C. (2017). Origin andbiogeography of the ancient genus Isoëtes with focus on the Neotropics.
Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 185(2), 253-271.
Pérez-Rincón, M. (2014). Conflictos ambientales en Colombia: inventario,
caracterización y análisis. Documento de Trabajo, N° IV, Cali, Universidad delValle (UNIVALLE)/Instituto Cinara/Environmental Justice Organisations,
Liabilities and Trade (EJOLT).
Peyre, G., Balslev, H., Font, X., and Tello, J.S. (2019). Fine–scale plant richness
mapping of the Andean páramo according to macroclimate. Frontiers in
Ecology and Evolution, 7, 377.
Pickersgill, B. (2007). Domestication of plants in the Americas: Insights frommendelian and molecular genetics. Annals of Botany 100, 925–940
Piana, R.P. (2019). Human–caused and Yawar Fiesta–derived mortality of Andean
Condors (Vultur gryphus) in Peru. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 131(4),
833–838.
PNUMA (Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente) (2016a). Perfil depaís – Bolivia. Marco regulatorio y financiamiento para cambio climático.
Panamá: Regatta, UN Environment.
PNUMA (Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente) (2016b). Perfil depaís – Venezuela. Marco regulatorio y financiamiento para cambio climático.
Panamá: Regatta, UN Environment.
Poe, S., Latella, I., Ayala–Varela, F., Yañez–Miranda, C., and Torres–Carvajal, O.
(2015). A new species of Phenacosaur Anolis (Squamata; Iguanidae) from
Peru and a comprehensive phylogeny of Dactyloa-clade Anolis based on new
DNA sequences and morphology. Copeia, 103(3), 639–650.
Pouilly, M., Lazzaro, X., Point, D., and Aguirre, M. (2014). Línea base deconocimientos sobre los recursos hidrológicos en el sistema TDPS con enfoqueen la cuenca del Lago Titicaca. Quito: IRD – UICN. 320 p.
Pounds, J. A., Bustamante, M. R., Coloma, L. A., Consuegra, J. A., Fogden, M. P.,
Foster, P. N., ... and Ron, S. R. (2006). Widespread amphibian extinctions
from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature, 439(7073), 161167.
Pyron, R.A., and Wiens, J.J. (2013) Large–scale phylogenetic analyses reveal thecauses of high tropical amphibian diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences, 280, 20131622.
Quiroga–Carmona, M., and Woodman, N. (2015). A new species of Cryptotis(Mammalia, Eulipotyphla, Soricidae) from the Sierra de Perijá, Venezuelan–
Colombian Andes. Journal of Mammalogy, 96(4), 800–809.
Ramírez, N., Melfo, A., Resler, L.M., and Llambí, L.D. (2020). The end of the eternal
snows: Integrative mapping of 100 years of glacier retreat in the Venezuelan
Andes. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 52(1), 563–581.
Ramírez–Villegas, J., Cuesta, F., Devenish, C., Peralvo, M., Jarvis, A., and Arnillas,
C.A. (2014). Using species distributions models for designing conservation
strategies of Tropical Andean biodiversity under climate change. Journal for
Nature Conservation, 22(5), 391–404.
Ramos, V.E., Quispe, J.A., and Elías, R.K. (2019). Evaluación de la abundancia
relativa de Telmatobius culeus en la zona litoral del lago Titicaca, Perú.
Revista Peruana de Biología, 26(4), 475–480.
Rangecroft, S., Harrison, S., and Anderson, K. (2015). Rock glaciers as water
stores in the Bolivian Andes: an assessment of their hydrological importance.
Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research, 47(1), 89–98.

381

Raven, P. (2012). Prólogo. En: S.K. Herzog, R. Martínez, P. Jorgensen, and H.
Tiessen (Eds.). Cambio climático y biodiversidad en los Andes Tropicales. (pp.
vii–ix). Paris: IAI and SCOPE.
Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T172740470A172861187. Retrieved fromhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20202.RLTS.T172740470A172861187.en.
Redacción Medio Ambiente. (2020). El agua comienza a cotizar en el mercado defuturos de Wall Street. El Espectador. Retrieved fromhttps://www.elespectador.com/noticias/medio-ambiente/agua-comienza-acotizar-en-el-mercado-de-wall-street/
Reid, W., Mooney, H., Cropper, A., Capistrano, D., Carpenter, S., Chopra, K.,
Dasgupta, P., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A., Hassan, R., Kasperson, R., Leemans,
R., May, R., McMichael, A., Pingali, P., Samper, C., Scholes, R., Watson, R.,
Zakri, A., Shidong, Z., …, and Zurek, M. (2005). Evaluación de los
ecosistemas del milenio. Informe de Síntesis. Washington, D.C.: Secretariado
de la Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio, Convenio de Diversidad
Biológica. 43 p.
República Argentina (2016). Primera revisión de su contribución determinada anivel nacional. Buenos Aires.
República Argentina (2017). Plan de acción nacional de bosques y cambio climático.
Buenos Aires: Gabinete Nacional de Cambio Climático, Ministerio de Ambientey Desarrollo Sustentable.
República Argentina (2019). Plan nacional de adaptación y mitigación al cambio
climático. Buenos Aires: Gabinete Nacional de Cambio Climático, Ministerio deAmbiente y Desarrollo Sustentable.
República Argentina (2020). Segunda contribución determinada a nivel nacional dela República Argentina. Buenos Aires: Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo
Sostenible.
República Bolivariana de Venezuela (2017a). Primera contribución nacionalmente
determinada de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela para la lucha contra elcambio climático y sus efectos. Caracas.
República Bolivariana de Venezuela (2017b). Segunda comunicación nacional antela Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático. Caracas.
República de Chile (2015). Plan nacional de adaptación al cambio climático.
Santiago de Chile: Departamento de Cambio Climático, Ministerio del Medio
Ambiente.
República de Chile (2020). Contribución determinada a nivel nacional (NDC) de
Chile. Actualización 2020. Santiago de Chile: COP25 Scientific Committee.
República de Colombia (2016a). Contribución prevista y determinada a nivel
nacional NDC. Bogotá: Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible.
República de Colombia (2016b). Plan nacional de adaptación al cambio climático.
Líneas de acción prioritarias para la adaptación al cambio climático en
Colombia. Bogotá: Departamento Nacional de Planeación, Ministerio deAmbiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, IDEAM and UNGRD.
República de Colombia (2020). NDC de Colombia – actualización 2020, versión para
consulta pública octubre de 2020. Bogotá: Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo
Sostenible.
República de Ecuador (2016). Bosques para el buen vivir – Plan de acción REDD+
Ecuador (2016–2025). Quito: Ministerio del Ambiente.
República de Ecuador (2019). Primera contribución determinada a nivel nacionalpara el acuerdo de París bajo la Convención Marco de Naciones Unidas Sobre
Cambio Climático. Quito: Ministerio del Ambiente.
República del Perú (2016). La contribución nacional del Perú – NDC: agenda para
un desarrollo climáticamente responsable. Lima: Ministerio del Ambiente.
Dirección General de Cambio Climático, Desertificación y Recursos Hídricos.

382

República del Perú (2019). Indicadores de brecha de infraestructura o acceso aservicios públicos del sector ambiental 2019–2021. Lima: Ministerio delAmbiente.
República del Perú (2020a). Contribuciones determinadas a nivel nacional del Perú.
Reporte de actualización periodo 2021 – 2030. Lima: Ministerio del Ambiente.
República del Perú (2020b). Lineamientos para la identificación y clasificación de lasacciones REDD+. Lima: Ministerio del Ambiente.
Retamal, C., and Gutiérrez, E. (2020). Análisis del estado de situación de la
implementación de la Contribución Nacionalmente Determinada (NDC) de
Bolivia y recomendaciones para su actualización. La Paz: Ministerio dePlanificación del Desarrollo, MPD and Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua,
MMAyA.
Reyes J. H. and Gomez C. (2018). Mitigación de emisiones provenientes de laganadería en la región andina. Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación parala Agricultura, Universidad Nacional Agraria la Molina. Lima: IICA, 2018.
Reynel, C., Pennington, R.T., and Särkinen, T. (2013). Cómo se formó la diversidad
ecológica del Perú. Lima, Imprenta Bellido. 472 p.
Ricketts, T.H., Dinerstein, E., Boucher, T., Brooks, T.M., Butchart, S.H.M.,
Hoffmann, M., …. and Wikramanayake, E. (2005) Pinpointing and preventing
imminent extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102,
18497-18501.
Ricklefs, R. E. (2004). A comprehensive framework for global patterns in
biodiversity. Ecology Letters 7, 1-15.
Rivas-Ortega, H. 2018. Ecoturismo en Chile: Desafíos de una década de crecimientoen las áreas protegidas del Estado. CONAF.
http://journals.openedition.org/etudescaribeennes/13161
Roberts, N. (2009). Culture and landslide risk in the Central Andes of Bolivia andPeru. Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai, Geologia 54: 55-59.
Rodríguez, L.O., and Catenazzi, A. (2017). Four new species of terrestrial-breeding
frogs of the genus Phrynopus (Anura: Terrarana: Craugastoridae) from Río
Abiseo National Park, Peru. Zootaxa, 4273(3), 381–406.
Rodríguez–Pacheco, F.L., Jiménez–Villamizar, M.P., and Pedraza–Álvarez, L.P.
(2019). Efectos del cambio climático en la salud de la población colombiana.
Duazary, 16(2), 319–331.
Rojas, B.G. (2018). Efecto de la pérdida de especies en redes de interacción‘planta–colibrí’ en el bosque alto andino Yanacocha, faldas del volcán
Pichincha, Ecuador. Disertación para obtener el título de Licenciado en
Ciencias Biológicas. Quito: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Ecuador.
Rolando, J.L., Dubeux, J.C., Jr, Pérez, W., Ramírez, D.A., Turin, C., Ruiz–Moreno,
M., Comerford, N.B., Mares, V., Garcia, G. and Quiroz, R. (2017). Soil organiccarbon stocks and fractionation under different land uses in the Peruvian
high–Andean Puna. Geoderma, 307, 65–72.
Ron, S.R. (2000) Biogeographic area relationships of lowland Neotropical rainforest
based on raw distributions of vertebrate groups. Biological Journal of theLinnean Society, 71(3), 379–402.
Ron, S.R., Carrión, J., Caminer, M.A., Sagredo, Y., Navarrete, M.J., Ortega, J.A.,
Varela–Jaramillo, A., Maldonado–Castro, G., and Terán, C. (2020). Three new
species of frogs of the genus Pristimantis (Anura, Strabomantidae) with aredefinition of the P. lacrimosus species group. ZooKeys, 993, 121–155.
Roskov, Y., Abucay, L., Orrell, T., Nicolson, D., Bailly, N., Kirk, P.M., Bourgoin, T.,
DeWalt, R.E., Decock, W., De Wever, A., Nieukerken, E. van, Zarucchi, J., andPenev, L. (Eds.). (2019). Catalogue of Life, 2019 Annual Checklist. Leiden,
The Netherlands: Species 2000 & ITIS.
Rostworowski, M. (1993). Ensayos de historia andina: elites, etnias, recursos.
Lima: IEP. 132 p.
Rozas–Dávila, A., Valencia, B.G., and Bush, M.B. (2016). The functional extinctionof Andean megafauna. Ecology, 97(10), 2533–2539.

383

Rubio, M.C., C. Rubio, M. Salomón and E. Abraham. (2017). Conservation of
ecosystem services in high-altitude Andean wetlands: social participation in
the creation of a natural protected area. Ecol Austral 27:177-192.
Ruiz, D., Moreno, H.A., Gutiérrez, M.E., and Zapata, P.A. (2008). Changing climate
and endangered high mountain ecosystems in Colombia. Science of the Total
Environment, 398(1–3), 122–132.
Ruíz, M., García, C., and Sayer, J.A. (2007). Los servicios ambientales de losbosques. Ecosistemas, 16(3), 81–90.
Saavedra, C., and Freese, C. (1986). Prioridades biológicas de conservación en losAndes tropicales. Parks/Parques/Parcs 11: 8-11.
Saatchi, S.S., Harris, N.L., Brown, S., Lefsky, M., Mitchard, E., Salas, W., Zutta, B.,
Buermann, W., Lewis, S., Hagen, S., Petrova, S., White, L., Silman, M. andMorel A. (2011). Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions
across three continents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
108(24): 9899–9904.
Salazar, L., Homeier, J., Kessler, M., Abrahamczyk, S., Lehnert, M., Krömer, T., andKluge, J. (2015). Diversity patterns of ferns along elevational gradients in
Andean tropical forests. Plant Ecology & Diversity, 8(1), 13-24,
DOI:10.1080/17550874.2013.843036
Salo, J. (1993). Notas en la historia de la exploración científica y teorías en la selva
baja de la Amazonia peruana. En: R. Kalliola, M. Puhakka, and W. Danjoy(eds.). Amazonia peruana. Vegetacíon húmeda tropical en el llano subandino(pp. 23–31). Lima: Proyecto Amazonia, Univesidad de Turku and ONERN.
Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A., and Jenkins, M. (2018). The
global status and trends of payments for ecosystem services. Natural
Sustainability 1(3), 136–144.
Samaniego, J., Alatorre, J.E., Reyes, O., Ferrer, J., Muñoz, L., and Arpaia, L.
(2019). Panorama de las contribuciones determinadas a nivel nacional en
América Latina y el Caribe, 2019: avances para el cumplimiento del Acuerdo
de París. Santiago de Chile: CEPAL.
Sánchez, L., and Reyes, O. (2015). Medidas de adaptación y mitigación frente alcambio climático en América Latina y el Caribe: Una revisión general. Estudios
del cambio climático en América Latina. Santiago de Chile: CEPAL.
Sánchez–Nivicela, J.C., Urgiles, V.L., Navarrete, M.J., Yanez–Munoz, M.H., and Ron,
S. (2019). A bizarre new species of Lynchius (Amphibia, Anura,
Strabomantidae) from the Andes of Ecuador and first report of Lynchiusparkeri in Ecuador. Zootaxa, 4567(1), 1–24.
Sánchez, V.H. Zambrano J.L. Iglesias C. (eds) (2019). La cadena de valor del cacao
en América Latina y El Caribe. Fontagro, Espol, INIAP. Quito, Ecuador.
Sarmiento, J., Bigorne, R., and Carvajal–Vallejos, F.M. (Eds.). (2018). Peces deBolivia. Bolivian fishes. La Paz: IRD Éditions.
Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., Venter,
M., Boedhihartono, A.K., Day, M., García, C., van Oosten, C., and Buck, L.E.
(2013). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture,conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceeding of the National
Academy of Sciences, 110(21), 8349-8356.
Scheele, B. C., Pasmans, F., Skerratt, L. F., Berger, L., Martel, A. N., Beukema, W.,... and De la Riva, I. (2019). Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic
and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science, 363(6434), 1459-1463.
Schipper, J., Chanson, J.S., Chiozza, F., Cox, N.A., Hoffmann, M., Katariya, V.,
Lamoreux, J., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Stuart, S.N., Temple, H.J., Baillie, J., Boitani,
L., Lacher, T.E., Jr, Mittermeier, R.A., Smith, A.T., Absolon, D., Aguiar, J.M.,
Amori, G., Bakkour, N., Baldi, …, and Young, B.E. (2008) The status of theWorld’s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science,
322, 225–230.

384

Schneider, A. (2011). Eruptive processes, mineralization and isotopic evolution of
the Los Frailes Karikari region, Bolivia. Andean Geology, (30), 27–33.
Schoolmeester, T., Saravia, M., Andresen, M., Postigo, J., Valverde, A., Jurek, M.,
Alfthan, B., and Giada, S. (2016) Outlook on climate change adaptation in the
Tropical Andes mountains. Mountain Adaptation Outlook Series. Nairobi:
United Nations Environment Program.
Schorr, B. Valencia, D., Hector, G., and Velásquez-Castellanos, I., (eds) (2018).
Crecimiento, desigualdad y los retos para la sostenibilidad: En un escenario
post-boom en la región andina. La Paz: Konrad Adenauer Foundation /trAndeS.
Schumacher, Cazcarro, Duarte, Sarasa, Serrano, Xepapadeas, Freire-Gonzalez,
Vivanco, Pena-Levano, Escalante, Shehabi, Koundouri, Pittis, Samartzis, Ing,
Nicola, Laude, Brule-Gapihan, Cohen, Schwarz, Li, Lu, Jani. (2020)
Perspectives on the Economics of the Environment in the Shadow ofCoronavirus 76 . 447 - 517 DOI: 10.1007/s10640-020-00462-9
Scott, D.A., and Carbonell, M. (1986). A directory of Neotropical wetlands. Glandand Cambridge: lUCN. 684 p.
Seimon, T.A., Seimon, A., Yager, K., Reider, K., Delgado, A., Sowell, P., Tupayachi,A., Konecky, B., McAloose, D., and Halloy, S. (2017). Long–term monitoringof tropical alpine habitat change, Andean anurans, and chytrid fungus in the
Cordillera Vilcanota, Peru: Results from a decade of study. Ecology and
Evolution, 7(5), 1527–1540.
SERNANP (Servicio Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado) (2018)
Estrategia de Lucha contra la Minería Ilegal en Áreas Naturales Protegidas deAdministración Nacional (2017-2021)
Serrano-Villavicencio, J. E., and Silveira, L. F. (2019). Notes on Lagothrix flavicauda(Primates: Atelidae): oldest known specimen and the importance of therevisions of museum specimens. Zoologia (Curitiba), 36.
Shepack, A., von May, R., Ttito, A., and Catenazzi, A. (2016). A new species of
Pristimantis (Amphibia, Anura, Craugastoridae) from the foothills of the Andesin Manu National Park, southeastern Peru. ZooKeys, 594, 143–164.
Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Calvo, E., Masson–Delmotte, V., Portner, H.O., Roberts,
D.C., Zhai, P., Slade, R., Connors, S., van Diemen, R., Ferrat, M., Haughey,E., …, and Malley, J. (Eds.) (2020). Climate change and land. An IPCC special
report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land
management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial
ecosystems. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC.
Sichra, I. (2009). "Andes". En: Atlas sociolingüístico de pueblos indígenas en
América Latina. Inge Sichra (ed.)., 513-644. Cochabamba: unicef, funproeib.
Sierra, R., O. Calva y A. Guevara (2020). Zonas de Procesos Homogéneos deDeforestación del Ecuador. Factores promotores y tendencias regionales.
PROAmazonia y Ministerio del Ambiente y Agua. Quito, Ecuador.
Smith, B. T., McCormack, J. E., Cuervo, A. M., Hickerson, M. J., Aleixo, A., Cadena,
C. D., ... and Faircloth, B. C. (2014). The drivers of tropical speciation. Nature,515(7527), 406-409.
Solari, S. (2016). Saccopteryx antioquensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2016: e.T136420A21985022. Retrieved fromhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T136420A21985022.en.
Soruco, A., Vincent, C., Francou, B., and González, J.F. (2009). Glacier decline
between 1963 and 2006 in the Cordillera Real, Bolivia. Geophysical Research
Letters, 36(3).
Stefoni, C. (2018) Panorama de la migración internacional en América del Sur.
CEPAL-Naciones Unidas. Available at:https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/43584/1/S1800356_es.
pdf
Stern, C. (2004) Active andean volcanism: its geologic and tectonic setting. Revista
Geológica de Chile, 31, 161–206.

385

Stiles, F.G., Laverde–R., O., and Cadena, C.D. (2017). A new species of tapaculo(Rhinocryptidae: Scytalopus) from the Western Andes of Colombia. The Auk,134(2), 377–392.
Stuart, S. N., Chanson, J. S., Cox, N. A., Young, B. E., Rodrigues, A. S., Fischman,
D. L., and Waller, R. W. (2004). Status and trends of amphibian declines andextinctions worldwide. Science, 306(5702), 1783-1786.
Sthioul, A.E. (2015). Aportes de la minería a Chile y Perú: Interacción con lasociedad (Tesis magíster). Universidad de Chile, Santiago. 73 p.
Ströbele–Gregor, J. (2013). El proyecto estatal del litio en Bolivia: Expectativas,
desafíos y dilemas. Nueva Sociedad, 244, 74–83.
Suárez, D., Acurio, C., Chimbolema, S., and Aguirre, X. (2016). Análisis delcarbono secuestrado en humedales altoandinos de dos áreas protegidas delEcuador. Ecología Aplicada, 15(2), 171–177.
SZF (2020) Diagnóstico que evalúa la presencia de actividad minera aurífera y sus
impactos a nivel de tres corredores, así ́como áreas naturales protegidas
vinculadas, en el hotspot andes tropicales del Perú. Final Report.
Székely, P., Eguiguren, J. S., Ordóñez-Delgado, L., Armijos-Ojeda, D., Székely, D.
(2020). Fifty years after: A taxonomic revision of the amphibian species fromthe Ecuadorian biodiversity hotspot Abra de Zamora, with description of two
new Pristimantis species. PLOS ONE, 15(9), e0238306. Retrieved from:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238306
Tapia, E. (2020) Agroecología de los cultivos andinos subexplotados. Downloadedfrom:
http://www.fao.org/tempref/GI/Reserved/FTP_FaoRlc/old/prior/segalim/proda
lim/prodveg/cdrom/contenido/libro10/cap02.htm
Tejedor, N., Álvarez, E., Arango, S., Araujo, A., Blundo, C., Boza, T.E., La Torre,
M.A., Gaviria, J., Gutiérrez, N., Jørgensen, P.M., León, B., López, R., Malizia,
L., Millán, B., Moraes, M., Pacheco, S., Rey, J.M., Reynel, C., Timaná, M.,
Ulloa, C., Vacas, O. and Newton, A.C. (2012) Evaluación del estado deconservación de los bosques montanos en los Andes Tropicales. Ecosistemas21(1–2), 148–166.
Tejedor, N., Newton, A.C., Golicher, D., and Oldfield, S. (2015). The relative impact
of climate change on the extinction risk of tree species in the montane
Tropical Andes. PLoS One, 10(7), e0131388.
The best way to solve the world’s water woes is to use less of it. (2019). The
Economist. Retrieved from: https://www.economist.com/specialreport/2019/02/28/the-best-way-to-solve-the-worlds-water-woes-is-to-useless-of-it
Tierra Digna, Melo, D. (2015), La Minería en Chocó, en Clave de Derechos.
Investigación y propuestas para convertir la crisis socio-ambiental en paz yjusticia territorial. 20-21. Available at:https://tierradigna.org/pdfs/LA%20MINERIA%20EN%20CHOCO_web.pdf
Tiessen, H. (2012). Notas sobre el paleoclima. En: S.K. Herzog, R. Martínez, P.
Jorgensen, and H. Tiessen (Eds.). Cambio climático y biodiversidad en losAndes Tropicales. (p. 113–116). Paris: IAI and SCOPE.
Timm, R.M., Pine, R.H., and Hanson, J D. (2018). A new species of Tanyuromys
Pine, Timm, and Weksler, 2012 (Cricetidae: Oryzomyini), with comments on
relationships within the Oryzomyini. Journal of Mammalogy, 99(3), 608–623.
Timms, J., Chaparro, J.C., Venegas, P.J., Salazar–Valenzuela, D., Scrocchi, G.,
Cuevas, J., Leynaud, G. and Carrasco, P.A. (2019). A new species of pitviperof the genus Bothrops (Serpentes: Viperidae: Crotalinae) from the Central
Andes of South America. Zootaxa, 4656(1), 99–120.
Tirira, D. (2013). Tráfico de primates nativos en el Ecuador. Boletín Técnico 11.
Serie Zoológica 8-9: 36-57.
Tito, R., Vasconcelos, H.L., and Feeley, K.J. (2018). Global climate change
increases risk of crop yield losses and food insecurity in the Tropical Andes.
Global Change Biology, 24(2), e592-e602.

386

Tognelli, M.F., Anderson, E.P., Jiménez–Segura, L. F., Chuctaya, J., Chocano, L.,
Maldonado–Ocampo, J.A., Mesa–Salazar, L., Mojica, J., Carvajal–Vallejos,
F.M., Correa, V., Ortega, H., …, and Villa–Navarro, F.A. (2018). Assessing
conservation priorities of endemic freshwater fishes in the Tropical Andesregion. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 29(7),1123–1132.
Tognelli, M.F., Lasso, C.A., Bota–Sierra, C.A., Jiménez-Segura, L.F., and Cox, N.A.
(Eds.). (2016). Estado de conservación y distribución de la biodiversidad deagua dulce en los Andes Tropicales. Gland, Suiza: UICN. 199 p.
Torres–Carvajal, O., Echevarría, L.Y., Venegas, P.J., Chávez, G., and Camper, J.D.
(2015). Description and phylogeny of three new species of Synophis(Colubridae, Dipsadinae) from the tropical Andes in Ecuador and Peru.
ZooKeys, (546), 153–179.
Torres-Carvajal, O., Lobos, S. E., Venegas, P. J., Chávez, G., Aguirre-Peñafiel, V.,
Zurita, D., and Echevarría, L. Y. (2016). Phylogeny and biogeography of themost diverse clade of South American gymnophthalmid lizards (Squamata,Gymnophthalmidae, Cercosaurinae). Molecular phylogenetics and evolution,
99, 63-75.
Torres–Carvajal, O., Venegas, P.J., and De Queiroz, K. (2015). Three new species
of woodlizards (Hoplocercinae, Enyalioides) from northwestern South America.
ZooKeys, 494, 107–132.
Torres–Carvajal, O., Venegas, P.J., and Nunes, P.M.S. (2020). Description andPhylogeny of a new species of andean lizard (Gymnophthalmidae:
Cercosaurinae) from the Huancabamba Depression. South American Journalof Herpetology, 18(1), 13–23.
Tosi, J.A. (1960). Zonas de vida natural en el Perú. Lima: Instituto Interamericano
de Ciencias Agrícolas. Boletín Técnico No 5, 1–271.
Tovar, C., Arnillas, C.A., Cuesta, F., and Buytaert, W. (2013). Diverging responsesof tropical Andean biomes under future climate conditions. PLoS One, 8(5),e63634.
Tovar, C., Duivenvoorden, J.F., Sánchez–Vega, I., and Seijmonsbergen, A.C.
(2012). Recent changes in patch characteristics and plant communities in thejalca grasslands of the Peruvian Andes. Biotropica, 44, 321–330.
Tovar, A., Tovar, C., Saito, J., Soto, A., Regal, F., Cruz, Z., Véliz, C., Vásquez, P.,
and Rivera, G. (2010). Yungas Peruanas–bosques montanos de la vertiente
oriental de los Andes del Perú. Una perspectiva ecorregional de laconservación. Lima: Punto Impreso S.A.
Trivelli, C., and Berdegué, J.A.. (2019). Transformación rural. Pensando en el futurode América Latina y el Caribe. 2030 - Alimentación, agricultura y desarrollo
rural en América Latina y el Caribe, No. 1. FAO. Santiago de Chile.
Turetsky, M. R., Benscoter, B., Page, S., Rein, G., Van Der Werf, G. R., and Watts,
A. (2015). Global vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss. Nature
Geoscience, 8(1), 11-14.
Tyler, S., and Keller, M. (2013). Resiliencia climática y seguridad alimentaria: Unmarco para la planificación y el monitoreo. Manitoba, Canadá: International
Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)UICN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2020) Declaración de la
UICN sobre la pandemia del Covid- 19. Descargado dehttps://www.iucn.org/es/news/secretaria/202004/declaracion-de-la-uicnsobre-la-pandemia-de-covid-19.
UNASUR (Unión de Naciones Suramericanas) (2017). Consejo Suramericano de
Infraestructura y Planeamiento (COSIPLAN), Cartera de Proyectos 2017.
Unión de Naciones Suramericanas. Quito.
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) (2020). World
investment report 2020, international production beyond the pandemic: key
messages and overview. United Nations. 2020
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2019). Human development387

report 2019. United Nations Development Programme. New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (UN Environment Programme World Conservation
Monitoring Centre) (2016). Protected Planet Report 2016. UNEP-WCMC andIUCN: Cambridge UK and Gland, Switzerland.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2019).
Informe de seguimiento de la educación en el mundo: Migración,
desplazamientos y educación: construyendo puentes, no muros.
UNWTO (World Tourism Organization). 2019. Panorama of international tourism,2019 edition. ISBN: 978-92-844-2122-0. https://www.eunwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284421237
UNWTO (World Tourism Organization). 2019. Global Report on Women in Tourism Second Edition. Madrid. (2020). World Tourism Barometer, vol. 18, N° 2, May
Urbina–Cardona, J.N. (2011). Gradientes andinos en la diversidad y patrones deendemismo en anfibios y reptiles de Colombia: Posibles respuestas al cambio
climático. Revista Facultad de Ciencias Básicas, 7(1), 74–91.
Uribe, E. (2015). El cambio climático y sus efectos en la biodiversidad en América
Latina. Santiago de Chile: Comisión Económica para América Latina y el
Caribe (CEPAL).
Urquijo S. A. (2017) Una pequeña joya en peligro. Retrieved from Recuperado de
http://www.udea.edu.co/wps/portal/udea/web/inicio/udea-noticias/udeanoticia/?page=udea.inicio.udea.noticias.noticia&urile=wcm%3Apath%3A%2FP
ortalUdeA%2FasPortalUdeA%2FasHomeUdeA%2FUdeA%2BNoticias%2FConte
nido%2FasNoticias%2FCiencia%2Funa-pequena-joya-peligro
Vanhulst, J. (2015). El laberinto de los discursos del buen vivir: entre sumak
kawsay y socialismo del siglo XXI. Polis. Revista Latinoamericana, vol. 14, No.
40.
Vargas, O., and Ávila, L.A. (2017). Riesgos y efectos del cambio climático en laregión altoandina. En: A.L. González (Ed.). Biodiversidad y cambio climático
en Colombia: Avances, perspectivas y reflexiones. (p. 65–75). Bogotá:
Botanical Garden of Bogotá José Celestino Mutis.
Velez-Liendo, X. and García-Rangel, S. 2017. Tremarctos ornatus (versión deerratas publicada en 2018). La Lista Roja de Especies Amenazadas de la UICN
2017: e.T22066A123792952. Retrieved fromhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-3.RLTS.T22066A45034047.en
Venegas, P.J., Echevarría, L.Y., García–Ayachi, L.A., and Landauro, C.Z. (2020).
Two new sympatric species of Stenocercus (Squamata: Iguania) from theinter–Andean valley of the Mantaro River, Peru. Zootaxa, 4858(4), 555–575.
Venegas, P.J., Echevarría, L.Y., García–Burneo, K., and Koch, C. (2016). A new
species of iguanid lizard, genus Stenocercus (Squamata, Iguania), from theCentral Andes in Peru. Zootaxa, 4205(1), 52–64.
Venegas, P.J., Echevarría, L.Y., Lobos, S.E., Nunes, P.S., and Torres–Carvajal, O.
(2016). A new species of Andean microteiid lizard (Gymnophthalmidae:
Cercosaurinae: Pholidobolus) from Peru, with comments on P. vertebralis.
Amphibian & Reptile Conservation, 10(1), 21–33.
Venegas, P.J., García–Ayachi, L.A., Chávez–Arribasplata, J.C., Chávez, G., Wong,I., and García–Bravo, A. (2020). Four new species of Stenocercus Duméril andBibron, 1837 (Squamata, Iguania) from the Department of Amazonas innortheastern Peru. Evolutionary Systematics, 4, 79–108.
Verified Carbon Standard (2020). Project and Credit Summary. Downloaded from:https://registry.verra.org/app/search/VCS.
Vilela, T., A. Malky Harb, A. Bruner, V. Laísa da Silva Arruda, V. Ribeiro, A A. Costa
Alencar, A. J. Escobedo Grandez, A. Rojas, A. Laina, and R. Botero, (2020). A
better Amazon road network for people and the environment. Magazine
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
Villamizar, A., Buroz, E., Lairet, R., and Gómez, J. (Eds.) (2018). Lineamientos y
estrategias transversales y sectoriales para enfrentar el cambio climático en

388

Venezuela (LETS). Caracas: Secretaría Académica de Cambio ClimáticoACFIMAN, Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales deVenezuela.
Villwock, W. (1994). Consecuencias de la introducción de peces exóticos sobre las
especies nativas del lago Titicaca. Ecología en Bolivia, 23, 49–56.
Vuille, M., Carey, M., Huggel, C., Buytaert, W., Rabatel, A., Jacobsen, D., Soruco,
A., Villacis, M., Yarlequé, C., Timm, O.E., Condom, T., Salzmann, N. andSicart, J.E. (2018). Rapid decline of snow and ice in the Tropical Andes –Impacts, uncertainties and challenges ahead. Earth–Science Reviews, 176,
195–213.
Waddell, E. H., Crotti, M., Lougheed, S. C., Cannatella, D. C., and Elmer, K. R.
(2018). Hierarchies of evolutionary radiation in the world’s most species richvertebrate group, the Neotropical Pristimantis leaf litter frogs. Systematics
and biodiversity, 16(8), 807-819.
Wallace, R.B., Reinaga, A., Piland, N., Piana, R., Vargas, H., Zegarra, R.E., Alarcón,P., Alvarado, S., Álvarez, J., Angulo, F., Astore, V., Ciri, F., Cisneros, J.,
Cóndor, C., Escobar, V., Funes, M., Gálvez–Durand, J., Gargiulo, C., Gordillo,
S., Heredia, J., …, and Zurita. L. (2019). Protegiendo el símbolo de los Andes:
Un ejercicio de priorización a lo largo del rango del Cóndor Andino (Vultur
gryphus). La Paz: Wildlife Conservation Society. 196 p.
Walsh, J. (2004). Fair trade in the fields: outcomes for Peruvian coffee producers.
Master's thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Wassenaar, T., Gerber, P., Verburg, P. H., Rosales, M., Ibrahim, M., and Steinfeld,
H. (2007). Projecting land use changes in the Neotropics: The geography of
pasture expansion into forest. Global Environmental Change, 17(1), 86-104.
WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society) (2020) https://peru.wcs.org/eses/WCSPeru/Noticias/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/14016/La-relacionentre-el-comercio-ilegal-de-fauna-silvestre-y-la-salud-humana.aspx
WCS, FZS & FCDS, (2020). Estrategia regional para enfrentar la presencia deactividad minera aurífera ilegal en el hotspot Andes Tropicales: Bolivia Colombia - Ecuador - Peru. Lima, Peru. 33 p.
Weigend, M. (2002) Observations on the biogeography of the Amotape–
Huancabamba zone in northern Peru. Botanical Review, 68, 38–54.
Weigend, M. (2004). Observaciones adicionales sobre la biogeografía de la zona de
Amotape–Huancabamba en el norte del Perú. Revista Peruana de Biología,
11(2), 127–134.
Weigend, M., Cano, A. and Rodríguez, E.F. (2005). New species and new records ofthe flora in Amotape–Huancabamba zone: endemics and biogeographic limits.
Revista Peruana de Biología, 12(2), 249–274.
White, C. (2020). Why Regenerative Agriculture? American Journal of Economics
and Sociology, 79(3), 799-812.
Wilsey, C., Wu, J., Taylor, L., Voskamp, A., Willis, S., Linares–Romero, L.G.,
Avellaneda, F., Abril, I., Ochoa, D., and Butchart, S. (2019). Proyectando el
impacto del cambio climático sobre la avifauna de áreas protegidas: el casodel Parque Nacional Natural Chingaza, Colombia. Revista Yu’am, 3(6), 4–21.
World Bank. (2020). The economy in the time of COVID-19. Semiannual report for
the Latin America and the Caribbean region. World Bank, April 2020.
World Bank. (2019). World Development Indicators. Available online:
https://databank.worldbank.org/source/worlddevelopment-indicators.
WWF (World Wildlife Fund) (2020) Living Planet Report 2020 - Bending the curve of
biodiversity loss. Almond, R.E.A., Grooten M. and Petersen, T. (Eds). WWF,
Gland, Switzerland.
Yacobaccio, H.D., and Morales, M.R. (2011). Ambientes pleistocénicos y ocupación
humana temprana en la Puna argentina. Boletín de arqueología PUCP, (15),337–356.
Yánez–Muñoz, M.H., Reyes–Puig, C., Reyes–Puig, J.P., Velasco, J.A., Ayala Varela,F., and Torres–Carvajal, O. (2018). A new cryptic species of Anolis lizard from389

northwestern South America (Iguanidae, Dactyloinae). ZooKeys, 794, 135–
163.
Yaranga, R.M., and Custodio, M. (2013). Almacenamiento de carbono en pastos
naturales altoandinos. Scientia Agropecuaria, 4(4), 313–319.
Yépez-García, A.l; J. Yi, M. Carvalho, M. Hallack, and D.D. López Soto (2018). The
Energy Path of Latin America and the Caribbean. IDB.
Young, K. (2012). Introducción a la geografía andina. En: S.K. Herzog, R. Martínez,P. Jorgensen, and H. Tiessen (Eds.). Cambio climático y biodiversidad en losAndes Tropicales. (pp. 151–154). Paris: IAI and SCOPE.
Young, B., Young, K. R., and Josse, C. (2011). Vulnerability of tropical Andean
ecosystems to climate change. Climate Change and Biodiversity in the
Tropical Andes. Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) and
Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), 170-181.
Young, B., Young, K., and Josse, C. (2012). Vulnerabilidad de los ecosistemas delos Andes Tropicales al cambio climático. En: S.K. Herzog, R. Martínez, P.
Jorgensen, y H. Tiessen (Eds.). Cambio climático y biodiversidad en los Andes
Tropicales. (p. 195–208). Paris: IAI and SCOPE.
Young, K., and Valencia, N. (1992). Introducción: Los bosques montanos del Perú.
Memorias del Museo de Historia Natural UNMSM 21, 5–9.
Zavaleta, E. H. Z. (2017). Puya raimondii Harms del Santuario Nacional de Calipuy.
Revista de Glaciares y Ecosistemas de Montaña, (3), 7-7.
Zevallos, S., Elías, R.K., Berenguel, R.A., Weaver, T.J., and Reading, R.P. (2016).
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in confiscated Telmatobius in Lima, Peru.
Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 52(4), 949–952.
Zeballos, H., Pino, K., Medina, C.E., Pari, A., Chávez, D., Tinoco, N., and Ceballos,
G. (2018). A new species of small-eared shrew of the genus Cryptotis(Mammalia, Eulipotyphla, Soricidae) from the northernmost Peruvian Andes.
Zootaxa, 4377(1), 51–73.

390

17.

APPENDICES

Appendix 5.1. Species Outcomes for the Tropical Andes
Hotspot
This appendix provides a list of all globally threatened species in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot that were used for the relative biodiversity value (RBV) analysis presented
in Chapter 5. The methodology used to calculate the RBV is described in Appendix
5.4.

Allobates ignotus

EN

Allobates juanii
Allobates kingsburyi
Allobates mandelorum
Allobates picachos
Ameerega bassleri
Ameerega pepperi
Ameerega planipaleae
Ameerega pongoensis
Ameerega rubriventris
Ameerega shihuemoy
Ameerega silverstonei
Andinobates bombetes
Andinobates
daleswansoni
Andinobates
dorisswansonae
Andinobates
opisthomelas
Andinobates tolimensis
Andinobates victimatus
Andinobates
virolinensis
Aromobates
alboguttatus
Aromobates duranti
Aromobates haydeeae
Aromobates leopardalis
Aromobates mayorgai
Aromobates meridensis
Aromobates molinarii
Aromobates nocturnus
Aromobates orostoma
Aromobates saltuensis
Aromobates serranus

EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
CR
VU
EN
EN
EN
VU

Atelopus arsyecue

CR

Atelopus arthuriCR

Pink-sided Treefrog
Rocket Frog
Coastal Rocket Frog

X
X
X
X
X

Nurse Frog of Serranía de
Perijá

X
X
X

Oriental Toad Nanny

X
X

Pleasing Poison Frog
Oxapampa Poison Frog
Poison Frog
Silverstone's Poison Frog
Cauca Poison Frog

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

EN

X

VU

X

VU

Venezuela

Colombia

Ecuador

VU
EN
VU
VU
VU

Peru

Agalychnis litodryas
Allobates alessandroi
Allobates bromelicola
Allobates cepedai
Allobates humilis

English name
(if available)

Chile

Globalthreat
IUCN

Bolivia

ScientificnameArgentina

Table 5.1.1. Amphibians

Andean Poison Frog

X

VU
EN

X
X

VU

Santander Poison FrogENWhitebelly Rocket Frog

X

EN
EN
CR
EN
CR
EN
CR
EN
EN
EN

Durant's Rocket FrogEl Vivero Rocket Frog
Leopard Rocket Frog
Mayorga Rocket Frog
Merida Rocket Frog
Las Playitas Rocket Frog
Skunk Frog
Tachira Rocket Frog
Salty Rocket Frog
Pefaur's Rocket Frog
Starry Night Harlequin
Toad
Arthur's Stubfoot Toad

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

391

X

X
X

Atelopus baliosCR

Atelopus bomolochos
Atelopus boulengeri

CR
CR

Atelopus carbonerensis

CR

Atelopus carrikeri
Atelopus chrysocorallus

EN
CR

X
X
X
X
X

Atelopus cruciger
Atelopus elegans
Atelopus epikeisthos
Atelopus eusebianus
Atelopus exiguus
Atelopus famelicus
Atelopus ignescens
Atelopus laetissimus
Atelopus longibrachius
Atelopus lozanoi
Atelopus marinkellei
Atelopus mittermeieri
Atelopus mucubajiensis
Atelopus muisca
Atelopus nahumae
Atelopus nanay
Atelopus nepiozomus
Atelopus nocturnus
Atelopus oxapampae
Atelopus oxyrhynchus
Atelopus palmatus
Atelopus
pedimarmoratus
Atelopus petersi
Atelopus pinangoi
Atelopus podocarpus

CR
EN
EN
CR
EN
CR
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
CR
EN
CR
EN
CR
EN
CR
CR

CR
CR
CR

Pinango Stubfoot Toad

Atelopus pulcher

VU

Arlequin Camuflado
PeruanoAtelopus pyrodactylus
Atelopus sanjosei

CR
CR

Atelopus seminiferus

EN

Atelopus simulatus

CR

X
X
X
X

Malvasa Stubfoot Toad

X
X
X
X

Quito Stubfoot Toad

X
X
X
X
X

El Tambo Stubfoot Toad
Lynch's Stubfoot Toad

Mucubaji Stubfoot Toad

X
X
X
X
X

Gualecenita Stubfoot Toad
Nocturnal Harlequin Toad

X
X

Rednose Stubfoot Toad

X
X

San Isidro Stubfoot Toad

X
X
X
X
X
X

Anori Stubfoot Toad
Upper Amazon Stubfoot
Toad

X
X
X

Atelopus sorianoi

CR

Atelopus spumarius

VU

Atelopus tamaense

CR

Atelopus tricolor
Atopophrynus
syntomopus
Boana gladiator
Boana palaestes
Bolitoglossa capitana
Bolitoglossa chica
Bolitoglossa guaneae
Bolitoglossa
guaramacalensis
Bolitoglossa hiemalis

VU

Cloud Forest StubfootToadPebas Stubfoot Toad
Tama's Harlequin Toad
Venezuela Stubfoot Toad
Bolivian Stubfoot Toad

CR

Sonson Frog

X
X

X

X
X

X

X

X
X
X
X

Orphan Salamander
Hotel Zaracay Salamander

X
X
X

VU
VU

Venezuela

Colombia

EcuadorX

Faisanes River StubfootToadVeragua Stubfoot Toad
Elegant Stubfoot Toad

CR

VU
EN
CR
VU
VU

Peru

Pescado River Stubfoot
Toad
Azuay Stubfoot Toad
Boulenger's Stubfoot Toad
La Carbonera StubfootToadGuajira Stubfoot Toad

Atelopus coynei

CR

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientificname

X
Salamandro de Páramo

392

X

Bolitoglossa hypacraEN

Bolitoglossa medemi

VU

Bolitoglossa orestes

VU

Bolitoglossa pandi

EN

Bolitoglossa tatamae
Bolitoglossa
yariguiensis
Bryophryne cophites
Callimedusa
ecuatoriana
Callimedusa perinesos
Celsiella revocata
Centrolene ballux
Centrolene buckleyi
Centrolene daidalea
Centrolene gemmatum
Centrolene heloderma

EN
EN
EN
VU
EN
VU
EN
VU
VU
CR
VU

Centrolene hesperium

EN

Centrolene huilense
Centrolene lynchi
Centrolene medemi
Centrolene petrophilum
Centrolene pipilata
Centrolene quindianum
Centrolene sabini

EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
VU
VU

Centrolene scirtetes

EN

Centrolene solitaria
Ceratophrys stolzmanni
Cochranella euhystrix
Cochranella litoralis
Cochranella megistra
Cochranella
xanthocheridia
Colostethus agilis
Colostethus
jacobuspetersi
Colostethus mertensi
Colostethus thorntoni
Colostethus ucumari
Cryptobatrachus
boulengeri
Cryptobatrachus
pedroruizi
Cryptobatrachus
ruthveni
Ctenophryne barbatula
Ctenophryne carpish
Dendropsophus
meridensis
Diasporus anthrax
Ectopoglossus confusus
Epicrionops
columbianus
Epicrionops parkeri
Epipedobates tricolor
Excidobates captivus

EN
VU
CR
VU
EN

Paramo Frontino
Salamander
Finca Chibigui Salamander
Culata Mushroomtongue
Salamander
Pandi Mushroomtongue
Salamander

X
X
X
X

Yariguies Salamander
Cuzco Andes Frog
Agua Rica Leaf Frog
Orange-spotted Leaf FrogEl Tovar Glass Frog
Burrowes' Giant Glass Frog
Buckley's Giant Glass Frog
Alban Cochran Frog
Pichincha Giant Glass Frog
Basecamp Giant Glass
Frog
Huila Glass Frog
Lynch's Giant Glass Frog

X
X
X

X
X

X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

VU

X

X
X
X

Boyaca Giant Glass Frog
Amazon Giant Glass Frog

X
X
X

X
X

Sabin's Glass Frog
Tandayapa Giant Glass
Frog
Lonely Cochran Frog
Pacific Horned Frog
Ridge Cochran Frog

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

Urrao Cochran Frog

X
X
X
X

Cauca Rocket Frog
X

X
X
X

Mertens' Rocket Frog
Thornton's Rocket FrogX

Boulenger's Backpack Frog

EN

X

EN

X

EN
EN
EN
VU
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU

X

X

CR
VU
VU
EN

Venezuela

X

VU
EN

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X

X
X
Merida Treefrog

X
X
X

Confusing Rocket FrogEl Tambo Caecilian
Parker's Caecilian
Phantasmal Poison Frog
Santiago River Poison Frog

393

X
X
X

X
X

EN
EN
VU
EN
VU
CR
EN
EN
EN

Gastrotheca espeletia

EN

Gastrotheca excubitor

VU

Gastrotheca gracilis

EN

Gastrotheca lateonota
Gastrotheca lauzuricae
Gastrotheca litonedis
Gastrotheca lojana
Gastrothecanebulanastes
Gastrotheca ochoai
Gastrotheca oresbios
Gastrotheca orophylax
Gastrotheca ovifera
Gastrothecapacchamama
Gastrothecapachachacae
Gastrothecaphelloderma
Gastrotheca plumbea
Gastrotheca
psychrophila
Gastrotheca rebeccae
Gastrotheca riobambae
Gastrotheca splendens
Gastrotheca
stictopleura

VU
CR
EN
VU

Gastrotheca trachyceps

EN

Geobatrachus walkeri

EN

Hemiphractus johnsoni

EN

Hyalinobatrachiumanachoretus
Hyalinobatrachium
esmeralda
Hyalinobatrachium
fragileHyalinobatrachium
guairarepanense
Hyalinobatrachium
ibama
Hyalinobatrachiumorientale

EN

X
X

Gold-spotted Marsupial
Frog
Antioquia Marsupial Frog
Calilegua's Marsupial Frog
Baritu's Marsupial Frog
Horned Marsupial Frog
Calima River Marsupial
Frog
North Shore Marsupial
Frog
Abra Acanacu Marsupial
Frog
La Banderita Marsupial
Frog
El Tambo Marsupial Frog
La Siberia Marsupial Frog

X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X

Chilca Marsupial Frog

X
X
X

Papallacta Marsupial Frog
Common marsupial frog

X

Ayacucho Marsupial Frog

X

VU

X

VU

X

EN

X
X
Riobamba Marsupial Frog
Schmidt's Marsupial FrogEN
Cerro Munchique Marsupial
Frog
Walker's Sierra Frog
Johnson's Horned
Treefrogs

X
X

X
X

Fragile Glass Frog
El Avila Glass Frog

VU
VU

X

X

EN

EN

X
X
X

EN

VU

X

X

VU

EN
EN
EN

Venezuela

X

Colombia

X
X

Marañon Poison Frog
Fitzgerald's Marsupial Frog

EN
EN
EN
VU
EN

Chile

Bolivia

Condor Poison Frog

EcuadorEN

English name
(if available)

Peru

Excidobates condor
Excidobates
mysteriosus
Flectonotus fitzgeraldi
Gastrotheca atympana
Gastrothecaaureomaculata
Gastrotheca bufona
Gastrotheca christiani
Gastrothecachrysosticta
Gastrotheca cornuta
Gastrotheca
dendronastes

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X
X

Eastern Glass Frog

394

X

Hyalinobatrachium
pallidum
Hyloscirtus antioquia
Hyloscirtus callipeza
Hyloscirtus caucanus
Hyloscirtus charazani
Hyloscirtus chlorosteus
Hyloscirtus criptico
Hyloscirtus
denticulentus
Hyloscirtus diabolus
Hyloscirtus japreria
Hyloscirtus lynchi
Hyloscirtus
pantostictus
Hyloscirtus piceigularis
Hyloscirtus
platydactylus
Hyloscirtus
psarolaimus
Hyloscirtus
ptychodactylus
Hyloscirtus sarampiona
Hyloscirtus simmonsi
Hyloscirtus
staufferorum
Hyloscirtus tigrinus
Hyloscirtus torrenticola

EN
VU
VU
EN
EN
CR
EN
VU
VU
EN
CR
CR
EN
VU
VU

EN
VU

CR

Hyloxalus azureiventris
Hyloxalus cevallosi
Hyloxalus chocoensis
Hyloxalus delatorreae

EN
EN
EN
CR

Hyloxalus fascianigrus

VU

Hyloxalus insulatus
Hyloxalus pinguis
Hyloxalus ramosi
Hyloxalus ruizi
Hyloxalus sylvaticus
Hyloxalus toachi
Hyloxalus vergeli
Hyloxalus vertebralis

VU
EN
EN
CR
EN
EN
VU
CR

Ikakogi tayrona

VU
VU
EN
EN
EN
VU
EN
CR
EN
CR
EN

Parjacti Treefrog
Cryptic Torrenteer

Venezuela

Colombia

X
X
X

Sardinata Treefrog
Cauca Treefrog
X
X
X

X

Charta Treefrog
X

X

Perija's Stream Frog
Lynch's Colombian
Treefrog
Chingual River Valley
Treefrog
Luisito River Treefrog

X

X
X

X
X
X

Merida Andes Treefrog
X

Papallacta Treefrog

X

X

X
X
X

Western Andes Treefrog
Simmons' Treefrog

EN
EN
VU

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

X

Guacharaquita Glass FrogEN

Hyloxalus anthracinus

Leptodactylus
peritoaktites
Leucostethus ramirezi
Lynchius nebulanastes
Lynchius parkeri
Lynchius simmonsi
Mannophryne collaris
Mannophryne
cordilleriana
Mannophryne leonardoi
Mannophryne neblina
Mannophryne riveroi

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientificname

X
El Pepino Treefrog
South American Rocket
Frog
Sky Blue Poison Dart Frog

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X

Choco Rocket Frog

X
X

Rana Saltarina deBrazalete

X
X

Malvasa Rocket Frog
Ramos' Rocket Frog
Ruiz's Rocket Frog
Forest Rocket Frog

X
X
X
X
X
X

Hellmich's Rocket Frog
Boulenger's Rocket Frog
Magdalena Giant Glass
Frog
Coastal Ecuador Smoky
Jungle Frog

X
X
X
X

Canchaque Andes Frog
Parker's Andes Frog
Simmons' Big-headed Frog
Merida's collared frog
Andean collared frog
Aragua Poison Frog
Rivero's collared frog

395

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

Mannophrynetrujillensis
Mannophryne yustizi
Microkayla adenopleura
Microkayla ankohuma
Microkayla boettgeri
Microkayla chacaltaya
Microkayla guillei
Microkayla illampu
Microkayla illimani
Microkayla kallawaya
Microkayla kempffi
Microkayla pinguis
Microkayla
quimsacruzis
Microkayla saltator
Microkayla wettsteini
Nannophryne
corynetes
Niceforonia
adenobrachia
Niceforonia
araiodactyla
Niceforonia brunnea
Niceforonia dolops
Niceforonia latens
Niceforonia lucida
Niceforonia nana
Noblella lynchi
Noblella madreselva
Noblella personina
Nymphargus anomalus
Nymphargus armatus
Nymphargus balionota
Nymphargus caucanus
Nymphargus cochranae
Nymphargus cristinae
Nymphargus garciae
Nymphargus luminosus
Nymphargus
luteopunctatus
Nymphargus
megacheirus
Nymphargus
mixomaculatus
Nymphargus phenax
Nymphargus prasinus
Nymphargus rosada
Nymphargus ruizi
Nymphargus siren
Oophaga anchicayensis
Oophaga andresi
Oreobates amarakaeri
Oreobates ayacucho
Oreobates berdemenos
Oreobates lehri
Oreobates lundbergi
Oreobates pereger
Oreobates zongoensis

EN
EN
VU
VU
CR
VU
CR
VU
CR
CR
VU
VU

X
Yacambú Collared Frog

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

VU
CR
VU
EN

X
X
X

Wettstein's Andes Frog

X

Abra Malaga Toad

EN

X

EN
EN
VU
VU
EN
VU
EN
CR
EN
CR
CR
VU
EN
VU
EN
VU
EN

X
X
X

Carchi Andes Frog
Putumayo Robber Frog
Boqueron Robber Frog
Cannatella's Andes Frog
Santander Andes Frog

X
X
X
X

Napo Cochran Frog

X
X

Mindo Cochran FrogX

Cochran Frog

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

Santa Rosa Cochran Frog

CR
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
EN
VU
EN
VU
EN
EN
EN
CR

X
X
X

X

EN
EN

Venezuela

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X

X
X

Tutumbaro Cochran Frog
Calima River Cochran Frog
Ruiz's Cochran Frog
Coca River Cochran Frog

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

Ayacucho Andes Frog
X

396

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

Osornophryne antisana
Osornophryne
guacamayo
Osornophryne
percrassa
Osornophryne
puruanta
Osornophryne
sumacoensis
Osornophryne talipes
Phrynopus barthlenae
Phrynopus daemon
Phrynopus dagmarae
Phrynopus heimorum
Phrynopus horstpauliPhrynopus inti
Phrynopus juninensis
Phrynopus kauneorum
Phrynopus montium
Phrynopus peruanus
Phrynopus vestigiatus

EN
VU

VU
EN
EN
EN
CR
EN
EN
CR
EN
EN
CR
EN

X

Guacamayo Plump Toad

X

Cannatella's Plump Toad

X

Inti Andes Frog
Junin Andes Frog
Cascas Andes FrogPeters' Andes Frog

VU
EN
EN

Sharpsnout Robber Frog

Pristimantis affinisEN

Cundinamarca Robber
Frog

X
X

EN

X
X
X
X
X
X

Quindio Robber Frog

VU

X

EN

X
La Planada Robber Frog
Cerranayacu River Rain
Frog

X

X

EN

VU
EN
VU
CR
VU

X
X

Wine Robber Frog
X
X

X
X
X

Murri Robber Frog
Two-colored Robber Frog

X
Bocono Robber Frog
Hill Dweller Rubber Frog

X
X
X
X
X

Cacao Robber Frog
San Antonio Robber Frog

VU
EN
CR

X

X

EN

EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Black-legged Poison Dart
Frog

EN

EN

Venezuela

X

Pristimantis acerus
Pristimantis
actinolaimus
Pristimantis actites
Pristimantis acutirostris
Pristimantis aemulatus

EN

X
X

Herveo Plump Toad

EN

EN

Colombia

X

EN
VU

EcuadorPeru

EN

Phyllobates bicolor

Pristimantis
alalocophus
Pristimantis albertus
Pristimantis
angustilineatus
Pristimantis apiculatus
Pristimantis
ardalonychus
Pristimantis atratus
Pristimantis
aurantiguttatus
Pristimantis bacchus
Pristimantis balionotus
Pristimantis baryecuus
Pristimantis batrachites
Pristimantis bellona
Pristimantis bicolor
Pristimantis bicumulus
Pristimantis
boconoensis
Pristimantis bounides
Pristimantis briceni
Pristimantis cacao
Pristimantis calcaratus
Pristimantis
calcarulatus
Pristimantis capitonis
Pristimantis caprifer
Pristimantis
carlossanchezi

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientificname

X
La Palma Robber Frog

EN

X
X
X
X

397

Pristimantis carmelitae
Pristimantis
carranguerorum
Pristimantis celator
Pristimantis
ceuthospilus
Pristimantis chrysops
Pristimantis colomai
Pristimantis colonensis
Pristimantis colostichos
Pristimantis cordovae
Pristimantis corniger
Pristimantis cosnipatae
Pristimantis
cremnobates
Pristimantis crenunguis
Pristimantis cristinae
Pristimantis crucifer
Pristimantis cryophilius
Pristimantis cuentasi
Pristimantis degener
Pristimantis deinops
Pristimantis delicatus
Pristimantis devillei
Pristimantis diaphonus
Pristimantis diogenes
Pristimantis
dissimulatus
Pristimantis dorado
Pristimantis
dorsopictus
Pristimantis duellmani
Pristimantis duende
Pristimantis elegans
Pristimantis eremitus
Pristimantis eriphus
Pristimantis ernesti
Pristimantis eugeniae
Pristimantis fallax
Pristimantis fasciatus
Pristimantis festae
Pristimantis floridus
Pristimantis gentryi
Pristimantis ginesi
Pristimantis gladiator
Pristimantis
glandulosus
Pristimantis gracilis
Pristimantis grandiceps
Pristimantis hamiotae
Pristimantis hectus
Pristimantis helvolus
Pristimantis hernandezi
Pristimantis hybotragus
Pristimantis ignicolor
Pristimantis incanus
Pristimantis inusitatus

EN

VU

X
La Delicia Robber Frog
Wild's Robber Frog

CR
VU
VU
VU
EN
EN
CR

X

X

X
X

X
X
X

X

X
X
X
Cosnipata River Robber
Frog

EN
EN
EN
VU
EN
EN
EN
CR
EN
EN
CR
CR

X
X
X
X

Cristina's Robber Frog
X
X
Orange Robber FrogX

Delicate Robber Frog

X
X
Serna's Robber Frog
Duellman's Robber Frog

X
X

Elegant Robber Frog
Moss Robber Frog

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
Pejia's striped rain frog

X
X
X
X
X

Rangel Robber Frog
X

EN
VU
EN
CR
VU
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU

X

X
X

EN

VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
VU
EN
EN
VU
EN
EN
VU

X
X
X
X

X
Calima River Robber FrogEN

VU

Venezuela

X

Carmelita's Robber FrogEN
VU

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X

X
X
X

Pichinde Robber Frog
Giant Robber Frog
Dwarf Robber Frog

X
X

Hernandez's Robber Frog
Agua Bonita Robber Frog
X
X
X

398

X
X
X
X

Pristimantis jaimei
Pristimantis
johannesdei
Pristimantis
jorgevelosai
Pristimantis juanchoi
Pristimantis kelephus
Pristimantis lancinii
Pristimantis
lasalleorum
Pristimantis laticlavius
Pristimantis lemur
Pristimantis leopardus
Pristimantis leucopus
Pristimantis lichenoides
Pristimantis lividus
Pristimantis loustes
Pristimantis lutitus
Pristimantis maculosus
Pristimantis mars
Pristimantis
merostictus
Pristimantis metabates
Pristimantis
mnionaetes
Pristimantis
modipeplus
Pristimantis
molybrignus
Pristimantis muricatus
Pristimantis mutabilis
Pristimantis myops
Pristimantis
nigrogriseus
Pristimantis
nyctophylax
Pristimantis ocellatus
Pristimantis ocreatus
Pristimantis orestes
Pristimantis
ornatissimus
Pristimantis ornatus
Pristimantis paramerus
Pristimantis pardalinus
Pristimantis parectatus
Pristimantis
pastazensis
Pristimantis percultus
Pristimantis
petrobardus
Pristimantis phalarus
Pristimantis pinguis
Pristimantis platychilus
Pristimantis polemistes
Pristimantis polychrus
Pristimantis prolatus
Pristimantis proserpens
Pristimantis
pteridophilus
Pristimantis ptochus

CR

Jaime's Robber Frog

X

EN

X
Juancho Elf Frog

X
X
X

Lancini's Robber Frog

EN
VU
VU
VU
EN
CR
EN
EN
EN
VU
CR
VU

X
X

Burrowes' Robber FrogX
Camouflaged Frog
X
X

Maldonado Robber Frog
Luisito River Robber Frog
Spotted Robber Frog

X

X

EN

X
X

Uribe Robber Frog
X
X

Mutable Rainfrog

X

VU

X

VU

X

EN
EN
EN

X
X
X

VU
X

X
X
X

EN

X

EN

X

EN
EN
VU
CR
VU
EN
VU

X

X

EN
EN
EN
EN

EN

X
X
X
X

X

EN

VU
EN
EN

X
X
X
X
X

X

Bogotacito Robber FrogEN

CR

Venezuela

X

VU

VU
CR
EN

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientificname

Huambos Robber Frog

X
X
X
X
X
X

Sapote Robber Frog

EN

X

X
X
X

EN

X

399

Cutín del Salto de AguaEN

Sleeping Beauty Rain Frog

Pristimantis viridicans

EN

X

X

X

EN

X

EN

X

EN
VU
VU
CR
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
EN
VU
VU
EN
EN
VU
EN
VU

X
X

Zapadores Robber Frog
Las Hermosas Robber Frog

Canchaque Robber Frog

X
X
X
X
X

Galeras Robber Frog
X

X
X

X

X
X

X
X
X

Ruthven's Robber Frog
Schulte's Robber FrogX
X

Los Patos Robber Frog
Ricuarte Robber Frog

X

X

X

CR

X

VU

X

EN

X
Andes Paramo Frog

X

EN
VU
EN
CR
VU
VU
VU
EN
EN
VU
EN

X

X
X
X

Rosado's Robber FrogEN

VU

Venezuela

Peru

Colombia

CR

EcuadorPristimantis pugnax
Pristimantis
pulchridormientes
Pristimantis
pycnodermis
Pristimantis
pyrrhomerus
Pristimantis quantus
Pristimantis
quinquagesimus
Pristimantis racemus
Pristimantis reclusas
Pristimantis renjiforum
Pristimantis repens
Pristimantis
rhodoplichus
Pristimantis rivasi
Pristimantis rosadoi
Pristimantis rubicundus
Pristimantis ruedai
Pristimantis rufioculis
Pristimantis ruthveni
Pristimantis satagius
Pristimantis schultei
Pristimantis
scoloblepharus
Pristimantis scolodiscus
Pristimantis
serendipitus
Pristimantis signifer
Pristimantis
silverstonei
Pristimantis
simonbolivari
Pristimantis simonsii
Pristimantis
simoteriscus
Pristimantis siopelus
Pristimantis sobetes
Pristimantis spilogasterPristimantis suetus
Pristimantis sulculus
Pristimantis supernatis
Pristimantis surdus
Pristimantis susaguae
Pristimantis tamsitti
Pristimantis tenebrionis
Pristimantis
thymalopsoides
Pristimantis
torrenticola
Pristimantis tribulosus
Pristimantis truebae
Pristimantis
turumiquirensis
Pristimantis uisae
Pristimantis veletis
Pristimantis vertebralis
Pristimantis vidua

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X
Reserve Robber Frog

X
X

Gambita Robber Frog
Channel Robber FrogEl Carmelo Robber Frog

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

San Adolfo Robber Frog
X

EN

X

CR

X

CR
EN

X
X

EN

X

VU
CR
VU
EN

X
X
X
X
Cerro Munchique Robber
Frog

400

X

Pristimantis viridis
Pristimantis wagteri
Pristimantis xeniolum
Pristimantis xestus
Pristimantis
xylochobates
Pristimantis zoilae
Psychrophrynellabagrecito
Ranitomeya fantastica
Ranitomeya summersi
Rhaeboandinophrynoides
Rhaebo atelopoides
Rhaebo caeruleostictus
Rhaebo colomai
Rhaebo olallai
Rhinella amabilis
Rhinellaarborescandens
Rhinella chavin
Rhinella cristinae
Rhinella gallardoi
Rhinella justinianoi
Rhinella lindae
Rhinella macrorhina
Rhinella nicefori
Rhinella quechua
Rhinella ruizi
Rhinella rumbolli
Rhinella tenrec
Rhinella vellardi
Rhinella yanachaga
Rhinella yunga
Rulyrana adiazeta
Rulyrana saxiscandens
Sachatamia electrops
Sachatamia punctulata
Silverstoneia erasmios
Strabomantis anatipes
Strabomantis
biporcatus
Strabomantis cadenai
Strabomantis
cheiroplethus
Strabomantis cornutus
Strabomantis
helonotus
Strabomantis ingeri
Strabomantis
necopinus
Strabomantis ruizi
Tachiramantis douglasi
Tachiramantis
lassoalcalai
Telmatobius
atacamensis
Telmatobius atahualpai
Telmatobius
brachydactylus

EN
EN
VU
VU

X
X
X
X

CR

X

EN

X

CR

Bagrecito Andes Frog

X

VU
EN

Fantastic Poison Frog
Summers' Poison Frog

X
X

VU
CR
EN
EN
CR
CR

X

X
X

Western Andes Toad
Blue-spotted Toad
Carchi Andes Toad
Tandayapa Andes Toad

X
X
X
X

EN

X

EN
EN
EN
VU
EN
VU
EN
VU
VU
VU
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
EN
EN
VU
EN
VU

X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

Murri Beaked Toad
Santa Rita Beaked Toad
Colombian Beaked Toad
X

X
Salta Toad
Antioquia Beaked Toad
Alto Marañon Toad

X
X
X
X
X

Western Cochran Frog
Tarapoto Cochran Frog

X
X

X

Anatipes Robber Frog

X
X
X
X

VU
CR
EN
VU

X
X

Nutibara Robber Frog

X

Calles River Robber Frog
Suno River Robber Frog

X

CR
VU

X

X
Inger's Robber Frog

X

VU

X

EN
VU

X
X

VU
CR
VU
EN

Venezuela

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

ScientificnameX

Lasso-Alcala's Rain Frog
Atacama Water Frog
Amazonas Water Frog
Junin Riparian Frog

401

X
X
X

Telmatobius brevipes
Telmatobius
brevirostris
Telmatobius carrillae
Telmatobius
chusmisensis
Telmatobius cirrhacelis
Telmatobius culeus
Telmatobius
edaphonastes
Telmatobius espadai
Telmatobius
fronteriensis
Telmatobius gigas
Telmatobius hauthali
Telmatobius hintoni
Telmatobius huayra
Telmatobius
hypselocephalus
Telmatobius ignavus
Telmatobiusintermedius
Telmatobius latirostris
Telmatobius
macrostomus
Telmatobius
marmoratus
Telmatobius mayoloi
Telmatobius niger
Telmatobius
oxycephalus
Telmatobius pefauri
Telmatobius
peruvianus
Telmatobius philippii
Telmatobius
pinguiculus
Telmatobius pisanoi
Telmatobius
platycephalus
Telmatobius punctatus
Telmatobius rimac

VU

Telmatobius rubigo

VU

Telmatobius sanborni
Telmatobius scrocchii
Telmatobius sibiricus
Telmatobius stephani
Telmatobius timens
Telmatobius truebae
Telmatobius vellardi
Telmatobius
ventriflavum
Telmatobius
verrucosus
Telmatobius vilamensis
Telmatobius yuracare
Telmatobius
zapahuirensis
Truebella tothastes
Vitreorana antisthenesi

VU
CR
EN
EN
CR
VU
CR

EN
VU

X

Loja Water Frog
Titicaca Water Frog

X

X

CR

X

CR
EN
VU
VU

X

VU
EN
CR

VU

X
X

Piura Water Frog

X

Allipaca Water Frog
Cajamarca Water Frog

X
X

Lake Junin Frog
X

Marbled Water Frog

X
X
X

Arico Water Frog
X

Peru Water Frog

EN

X

EN

X
Huanaco Water Frog
Rimac Water Frog
Laguna de los Pozuelos'
Rusted Frog
Sanborn's Water Frog
Andalgala Water Frog

X

X
X
X

X
X

X

X
X
X

Tojologue Water Frog
Trueb's Water Frog
Vellard's Water Frog

X

X
X
X
X

Andean Water Frog

VU

X

CR
VU

X

EN
VU

X
X

X

EN

X
X

EN

CR

X

Black Water Frog

CR

EN
VU

X

X
X

EN
CR

X

X

EN

EN

Venezuela

X

CR

EN

Colombia

X

X

EN

EcuadorX

Shortsnout Water Frog
Ancash Water Frog

EN

EN

Peru

X

Huahachuco Water Frog

EN
CR
EN

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientificname

X

Zapahuira Water Frog

X
X

Aragua Glass Frog

402

X

Ecuador

Colombia

Venezuela

Colombia

Venezuela

X

Ecuador

EN

Peru

X

Peru

VU

Chile

Bolivia

English name
(if available)

Chile

Yunganastes
ashkapara
Yunganastes bisignatus

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

ScientificnameAcanthagrion
williamsoni
Agriogomphus jessei
Ateuchus ambiguus
Bromeliagrion
fernandezianum
Canthonella gomezi

Globalthreat
IUCN
EN

X

EN
EN

X

VU

VU

Cryptocanthon altus
Cryptocanthon
nebulinus
Cryptocanthon
punctatus
Drepanoneura
donnellyi

EN

Gomphomachromia
nodisticta
Heteragrion
calendulum
Heteragrion
peregrinum
Heteropodagrion
nigripes
Heteropodagrion
varipes
Hypolobocera
barbacensis
Jivarus ochraceus
Leptobasis buchholzi
Mesamphiagrion
demarmelsi
Mesamphiagrion
gaudiimontanum
Mesamphiagrion
nataliae
Mesamphiagrion
ovigerum
Mesamphiagrion
rosseri
Mesamphiagrion
santainense
Mesamphiagrion
tamaense
Metalloeptobasis
gibbosa

X

X
X
X

EN

Chibchacris sturmi

Dysonia alipes

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

ScientificnameArgentina

Table 5.1.2. Arthropods (Insects and crustaceans)X
El Cocuy Mountain
Grasshopper

X
X

EN

X

EN

X

EN
VU

X
Central Cordillera Lichen
Katydid

EN

X
X

EN

X

CR

X

VU

X

EN

X

VU
EN
EN

X
Inga Grasshopper

X
X

EN

X

EN

X

EN

X

VU

X

VU

X

EN

X

VU

X

CR

X

403

X

X

Venezuela

VU
VU
VU

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

Bolivia

English name
(if available)

Colombia

Miocora lugubris
Oligoclada heliophila
Ontherus hadros
Palaemnema
croceicauda
Palaemnema edmondi
Palaemnema orientalis
Parides phalaecus
Perissolestes remus
Peruphasma schultei
Crystalline phylogeny
Philogenia monotis
Rhionaeschna caligo
Rhionaeschna haarupi
Sciotropis lattkei
Scybalocanthon
arcabuquensis
Sympetrum
evanescens
Teinopodagrion
temporale
Telebasis farcimentum
Telebasis flammeola
Telebasis garrisoni

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X
X

X

X

CR

X

CR
EN
VU
CR
CR
VU
EN
EN
VU
EN

X
X
X
Golden-Eyed Stick Insect

X
X

X
X
X
X
X

Paria Wood Elf

X

EN

X

CR

X

VU

X

VU
EN
VU

X
X
X

X

VU
VU
EN
VU
CR
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
VU
CR
EN

Tolima BlossomcrownSanta Marta Blossomcrown
Great Green Macaw
Military Macaw
Red-fronted Macaw
Brown Wood-rail
Perija Brush-finch
Paria Brush-finch
Puna Thistletail
Perija ThistletailWhite-tailed Canastero
Antioquia Brush-Finch
Olive-headed Brush-Finch

404

Venezuela

X

Colombia

Agami Heron
Purple-backed Sunbeam
Venezuelan Sylph
White-tailed Shrike-tyrant
Cock-tailed Tyrant
Yellow-shouldered Amazon
Lilacine Amazon
Tucuman Amazon
Grey-headed Antbird
Ash-breasted Tit-tyrant

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

Peru

VU
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
EN
VU
VU
EN

Chile

English name
(if available)

EcuadorAgamia agami
Aglaeactis aliciae
Aglaiocercus berlepschi
Agriornis albicauda
Alectrurus tricolor
Amazona barbadensis
Amazona lilacina
Amazona tucumana
Ampelornis griseiceps
Anairetes alpinus
Anthocephalaberlepschi
Anthocephala floriceps
Ara ambiguus
Ara militaris
Ara rubrogenys
Aramides wolfi
Arremon perijanus
Arremon phygas
Asthenes helleri
Asthenes perijana
Asthenes usheri
Atlapetes blancae
Atlapetes flaviceps

Globalthreat
IUCN

Bolivia

ScientificnameArgentina

Table 5.1.3. Birds

X
X

X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X
X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X

EN
EN
VU
VU
EN
VU
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
CR
CR
VU
EN
VU
EN
EN
VU
VU
CR
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
CR
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
VU

X
X

X

X

X
X

X
X
X

Yellow-browed Toucanet
Gold-ringed Tanager
Yellow-green Tanager

X

Black-and-gold Tanager
Grey-headed Warbler
Rufous-fronted Parakeet
Grey-cheeked Parakeet
Crowned Solitary Eagle
Selva Cacique

X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X

Santa Marta Sabrewing
White-mantled Barbet
Long-wattled Umbrellabird
Little Woodstar
Chimney Swift
Yellow-headed ManakinRoyal Cinclodes
White-bellied Cinclodes
Rufous-throated Dipper
Apolinar's Wren
Henna-hooded Foliagegleaner
Recurve-billed Bushbird
Golden-backed Mountaintanager
Rufous Twistwing
Perija Starfrontlet
Glittering Starfrontlet
Black Inca

X

X

Marcapata SpinetailBlue-billed Curassow
Black Curassow
Bare-faced Curassow
Great Curassow
Plumbeous Hawk
Sharp-tailed Tyrant
Scarlet-breasted Dacnis
Turquoise Dacnis
Eastern Barred
Woodcreeper
Venezuelan Flowerpiercer
Chestnut-bellied Cotinga

405

X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X

X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

Tamarugo Conebill
Lemon-browed Flycatcher
Black-masked Finch
Russet-mantled Softtail
Ash-browed Spinetail
Bolivian Spinetail

Venezuela

Colombia

EN
VU

EcuadorAtlapetes pallidiceps
Attila torridus
Aulacorhynchus
huallagae
Bangsia aureocincta
Bangsia flavovirens
Bangsiamelanochlamys
Basileuterus griseiceps
Bolborhynchus
ferrugineifrons
Brotogeris pyrrhoptera
Buteogallus coronatus
Cacicus koepckeae
Campylopterus
phainopeplus
Capito hypoleucus
Cephalopterus
penduliger
Chaetocercus bombus
Chaetura pelagica
Chloropipo flavicapilla
Cinclodes aricomae
Cinclodes palliatus
Cinclus schulzii
Cistothorus apolinari
Clibanornis
erythrocephalus
Clytoctantes alixii
Cnemathraupis
aureodorsalis
Cnipodectes superrufus
Coeligena consita
Coeligena orina
Coeligena prunellei
Conirostrum
tamarugense
Conopias cinchoneti
Coryphaspiza
melanotis
Cranioleuca berlepschi
Cranioleuca curtata
Cranioleuca henricae
Cranioleuca
marcapatae
Crax alberti
Crax alector
Crax fasciolata
Crax rubra
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbea
Culicivora caudacuta
Dacnis berlepschi
Dacnis hartlaubi
Dendrocolaptes
punctipectus
Diglossa venezuelensis
Doliornis remseni

Black-spectacled Brush
Finch
Pale-headed Brush Finch
Ochraceous Attila

Peru

EN

Chile

Atlapetes melanopsis

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X
X

X

X

Doliornis sclateri

VU

Dubusia carrikeri

EN

Dysithamnus
leucostictus
Dysithamnus
occidentalis
Eriocnemis isabellae
Eriocnemis mirabilis
Eriocnemis nigrivestis
Euchrepomis sharpei
Eulidia yarrellii
Forpus xanthops
Galbula pastazae
Geotrygon purpurata
Glaucidium nubicola
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria bangsi
Grallaria chthonia
Grallaria excelsa
Grallaria fenwickorum
Grallaria gigantea
Grallaria kaestneri
Grallaria milleri
Grallaria przewalskii
Grallaria ridgelyi
Grallaria rufocinerea
Grallaria saltuensis
Grallaricula cucullata
Grallaricula
cumanensis
Grallaricula
ochraceifrons
Gubernatrix cristata
Hapalopsittaca
amazonina
Hapalopsittaca fuertesi
Hapalopsittaca
pyrrhops
Heliangelus regalis
Heliodoxa gularis
Henicorhina negreti
Herpsilochmus axillaris
Herpsilochmus parkeri
Hylonympha
macrocerca
Hypopyrrhus
pyrohypogaster
Laterallus jamaicensis
Laterallus levraudi
Laterallus tuerosi
Lathrotriccus
griseipectus
Leptasthenura
xenothorax
Leptosittaca branickii
Leptotila conoveri
Leptotila
ochraceiventris
Lipaugus uropygialis

VU
VU
CR
EN
CR
EN
CR
VU
VU
EN
VU
VU
VU
CR
VU
CR
VU
EN
VU
VU
EN
VU
EN
VU
VU
EN
EN
VU
CR
VU
EN
VU
VU
VU
EN
EN
VU
EN
VU
EN
VU
EN
VU
EN
VU
VU

X

Bay-vented Cotinga
Carriker's Mountaintanager

X

White-streaked Antvireo
Bicolored Antvireo
Gorgeted Puffleg
Colorful Puffleg
Black-breasted Puffleg
Yellow-rumped Antwren
Chilean Woodstar
Yellow-faced Parrotlet
Coppery-chested Jacamar
Purple Quail-dove
Cloudforest Pygmy-owl
Moustached Antpitta
Santa Marta Antpitta
Tachira Antpitta
Great Antpitta
Urrao Antpitta
Giant Antpitta
Cundinamarca Antpitta
Brown-banded Antpitta
Rusty-tinged Antpitta
Jocotoco Antpitta
Bicolored Antpitta
Perija Antpitta
Hooded Antpitta

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X

X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X
X
X
X

Grey-breasted Flycatcher

X

X

White-browed Tit-spinetailGolden-plumed Parakeet
Tolima Dove

406

X
X

X

Red-faced Parrot
Royal Sunangel
Pink-throated Brilliant
Munchique Wood-wren
Yellow-breasted Antwren
Ash-throated Antwren
Scissor-tailed
Hummingbird

Ochre-bellied Dove
Scimitar-winged Piha

X
X

X

Rusty-faced Parrot
Indigo-winged Parrot

Red-bellied Grackle
Black Rail
Rusty-flanked Crake
Junin RailX

X
X

Sucre Antpitta
Ochre-fronted Antpitta
Yellow Cardinal

Venezuela

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

Lipaugus weberi
Loddigesia mirabilis
Macroagelaius
subalaris
Megascops gilesi
Metallura baroni
Metallura iracunda
Micrastur plumbeus
Microspingus alticola
Myiarchus semirufus
Myioborus pariae
Myiotheretes pernix
Myiothlypis basilica

CR
EN

Neomorphus geoffroyi

VU

Neomorphus radiolosus
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Nothoprocta
taczanowskii
Odontophorus atrifrons
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Odontophorus
strophium
Ognorhynchus icterotis
Onychorhynchus
occidentalis
Ortalis erythroptera
Oxypogoncyanolaemus
Oxypogon stuebelii
Pachyramphus
spodiurus
Patagioenas oenops
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Pauxi pauxi
Pauxi unicornis
Penelope albipennis
Penelope ortoni
Penelope perspicax

EN

EN
VU
EN
EN
VU
EN
VU
EN
EN
VU

VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
VU
VU
CR
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
CR
EN
EN
EN

Phacellodomus dorsalis

VU

Phibalura boliviana
Phlogophilus
hemileucurus
Phoenicoparrus
andinus
Phyllomyias urichi
Phyllomyias weedeni
Phytotoma raimondii
Picumnus steindachneri
Podiceps taczanowskii
Poecilotriccus luluae
Pogonotriccus lanyoni
Poospiza baeri

EN
VU
VU
EN
VU
VU
EN
CR
EN
EN
VU

Poospiza garleppi

EN

Poospiza goeringi

VU

X
X

Mountain Grackle
Santa Marta Screech-owl
Violet-throated Metaltail
Perija Metaltail
Plumbeous Forest-falcon
Plain-tailed Warbling-finch
Rufous Flycatcher
Paria WhitestartSanta Marta Bush-tyrant
Santa Marta Warbler
Rufous-vented Groundcuckoo
Banded Ground Cuckoo

X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X

X
X
X
X

X

Hooded Tinamou
Taczanowski's Tinamou
Black-fronted Wood-quail

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

Dark-backed Wood-quailX

X
X

Gorgeted Wood-quail
Yellow-eared Parrot

X

Pacific Royal Flycatcher
Rufous-headed Chachalaca

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

Blue-bearded Helmetcrest
Buffy Helmetcrest

X

Slaty Becard
Peruvian Pigeon
X

Ruddy Pigeon
Helmeted Curassow
Horned Curassow
White-winged Guan
Baudo Guan
Cauca Guan
Chestnut-backed
Thornbird
Apolo Cotinga

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

Ecuadorian Piedtail

407

Venezuela

X

Chestnut-capped Piha
Marvelous SpatuletailAndean Flamingo
Urich's Tyrannulet
Yungas Tyrannulet
Peruvian Plantcutter
Speckle-chested Piculet
Junin Grebe
Lulu's Tody-flycatcher
Antioquia Bristle-tyrant
Tucuman Mountain-finch
Cochabamba Mountainfinch
Slaty-backed Hemispingus

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X

Poospiza rubeculaEN

Premnoplex pariae
Premnoplex tatei
Primolius couloni
Progne murphyi
Psarocolius cassini
Pseudastur occidentalis
Pyrrhura albipectus
Pyrrhura caeruleiceps
Pyrrhura calliptera
Pyrrhura chapmani
Pyrrhura orcesi
Pyrrhura viridicata
Rallus semiplumbeus
Ramphastos
culminatus
Ramphastos tucanus
Ramphastos vitellinus
Ramphomicron dorsale
Rollandia microptera
Scytalopus canus
Scytalopus perijanus
Scytalopus robbinsi
Scytalopus rodriguezi
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spinus cucullatus
Spinus siemiradzkii
Spizaetus isidori
Sporophila maximiliani
Synallaxis courseni
Synallaxis fuscorufa
Synallaxis
hypochondriaca
Synallaxis maranonica
Synallaxis tithys

EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
EN
VU
EN
VU
VU
EN
EN
EN

Syndactyla ruficollis

VU

Tangara argyrofenges
Taphrolesbia
griseiventris
Tephrophilus wetmorei
Thamnophilus
tenuepunctatus
Thryophilus nicefori
Thryophilus sernai
Tinamus osgoodi
Tinamus tao

VU

Touit huetii

VU

Touit stictopterus
Troglodytes monticola
Wetmorethraupis
sterrhopteron
Xenoglaux loweryi
Zaratornis stresemanni
Zimmeriuscinereicapilla
Zimmerius villarejoi

VU
CR

VU
VU
VU
EN
EN
EN
VU
EN
EN
VU
EN
VU
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
CR
VU

EN
VU
VU
CR
EN
VU
VU

VU
EN
VU
VU
VU

Rufous-breasted Warblingfinch
Paria Barbtail
White-throated Barbtail
Blue-headed Macaw
Peruvian Martin
Baudo Oropendola
Grey-backed Hawk
White-necked Parakeet
Perija Parakeet
Brown-breasted Parakeet
Upper Magdalena Parakeet
El Oro Parakeet
Santa Marta Parakeet
Bogota RailGreat Spinetail
Maranon SpinetailBlackish-headed Spinetail
Rufous-necked Foliagegleaner
Straw-backed Tanager

X
X

408

Venezuela

Colombia

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X
X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X

X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

Orange-throated Tanager
Long-whiskered Owlet
White-cheeked Cotinga
Red-billed Tyrannulet
Mishana Tyrannulet

EcuadorX
X

Grey-bellied Comet
Masked Mountain-tanager
Lined Antshrike
Niceforo's Wren
Antioquia Wren
Black Tinamou
Grey Tinamou
Scarlet-shouldered
Parrotlet
Spot-winged Parrotlet
Santa Marta Wren

Peru

X

Yellow-ridged Toucan
Red-billed Toucan
Channel-billed Toucan
Black-backed Thornbill
Titicaca Grebe
Paramillo Tapaculo
Perija Tapaculo
Ecuadorian Tapaculo
Magdalena Tapaculo
White-capped Tanager
Red Siskin
Saffron SiskinBlack-and-chestnut Eagle
Great-billed Seed-finch
Apurimac Spinetail
Rusty-headed Spinetail

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X
X
X

X
X

X

ChilePeru

EcuadorColombia

Venezuela

Chile

Peru

EcuadorColombia

Venezuela

CR

Bolivia

Stilbohypoxylon
macrosporum

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Scientific
name

Glob
al
threa
t
IUCN

Argentina

Table 5.1.4. Fungi

X

GlobalthreatIUCNEnglish name
(if available)

Abrocoma boliviensis
Aepeomys reigi
Akodon surdus
Alouatta palliata
Amorphochilus
schnablii
Anotomys leander
Aotus brumbacki

CR
VU
VU
VU

Bolivian Chinchilla Rat
Reig's Aepeomys
Silent Grass Mouse
Mantled Howling Monkey

Aotus griseimembra

VU

Aotus lemurinus
Aotus nancymaae

VU
VU

Ateles belzebuth

EN

Ateles chamek

EN

Ateles fusciceps

EN

Ateles hybridus

CR

Balantiopteryx infusca

VU

Cacajao calvus
Caenolestes
condorensis
Caenolestes convelatus
Caenolestes sangay
Callimico goeldii

VU

Cebus aequatorialis

CR

Cebus leucocephalus

VU

Chinchilla chinchilla
Choeroniscus periosus
Cryptotis aroensis
Cryptotis meridensis
Ctenomys latro
Ctenomys occultus
Heteromys teleus
Hippocamelus
antisensis

EN
VU
EN
VU
EN
EN
VU

Lagothrix flavicauda

CR

Scientific
name

VU
EN
VU

VU
VU
VU
VU

VU

Argentina

Table 5.1.5. Mammals

X
X

X

Smoky Bat
Ecuadoran Ichthyomyine
Brumback's Night Monkey
Grey-handed Night
MonkeyColombian Night Monkey
Nancy Ma's Night Monkey
White-bellied Spider
MonkeyBlack-faced Black Spider
MonkeyBrown-headed Spider
MonkeyBrown Spider Monkey
Ecuadorian Sac-winged
Bat
Bald-headed Uacari

Merida Small-eared Shrew
Mottled Tuco-tuco
Furtive Tuco-tuco

X

X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

409

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X

X

X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

TarucaPeruvian Yellow-tailed
Woolly Monkey

X

X
X

X

Andean Caenolestid
Blackish Shrew Opossum
Goeldi's Monkey
Ecuadorian White-fronted
Capuchin
Sierra de Perija Whitefronted Capuchin
Short-tailed ChinchillaGreater Long-tailed Bat

X
X

X

X

X

X
X

CR

Marmosops juninensis
Mazama bricenii
Mazama chunyi
Mazama rufina
Mindomys hammondi
Mormopterus phrudus
Mustela felipei
Myotis atacamensis
Myrmecophaga
tridactyla
Nasuella meridensis
Neomicroxus
latebricola
Neusticomys mussoi
Neusticomysvenezuelae
Oryzomys gorgasi
Oxymycterus hucucha
Oxymycterus wayku

VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
VU
VU
EN
VU
EN
EN
VU
VU
EN
EN
VU

Phyllotis definitus

EN

Pithecia milleri
Plecturocebus
modestus
Plecturocebus
oenanthePlecturocebus ornatus
Priodontes maximus
Pteronura brasiliensis
Punomys kofordi
Punomys lemminus
Rhogeessa minutilla
Saccopteryx
antioquensis
Saguinus leucopus
Saguinus oedipus
Santamartamys
rufodorsalis
Sigmodon inopinatus

VU

Sturnira nana

EN

Tapirus bairdii
Tapirus pinchaqueTapirus terrestris
Tayassu pecariThomasomys apeco
Thomasomys
bombycinus
Thomasomys eleusis
Thomasomys hudsoni
Thomasomys
hylophilus

EN
EN
VU
VU
VU

EN
CR
VU
VU
EN
VU
VU
VU
EN
EN
CR
CR
VU

VU
VU
VU
VU

Giant Anteater
Eastern Mountain Coati

Venezuela

Marmosops handleyi

Colombia

VU

X
X

EcuadorMarmosa phaea

Common Woolly Monkey
Andean Cat
Northern Tiger Cat
Curaçaoan Long-nosed Bat
Little Woolly Mouse
Opossum
Handley's Slender Mouse
OpossumJunin Slender Opossum
Merida Brocket
Peruvian Dwarf Brocket
Dwarf Red Brocket
Hammond's Rice Rat
Incan Little Mastiff Bat
Colombian Weasel
Atacama Myotis

X

X

X

X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

Peru

VU
EN
VU
VU

Chile

Lagothrix lagothricha
Leopardus jacobita
Leopardus tigrinus
Leptonycteris curasoae

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X
X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X

Ecuadorean Grass Mouse
Musso's Fish-eating Rat
Venezuelan Fish-eating
Rat

X
X
X

X

X

X

X

Quechuan Hocicudo
X
Definitive Leaf-eared
Mouse
Miller's Saki

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X

X

X

Beni Titi Monkey
San Martin Titi Monkey
Ornate Titi Monkey
Giant Armadillo
Giant Otter

X

X
X

X
X
X

Puna Mouse
Tiny Yellow Bat

X

X
X
X
X

X

Antioquian Sac-winged Bat
Silvery-brown Tamarin
Cotton-headed Tamarin
Red Crested Tree Rat
Unexpected Cotton Rat
Lesser Yellow-shouldered
Bat
Baird's Tapir
Mountain Tapir
Lowland Tapir
White-lipped PeccarySilky Oldfield Mouse
Peruvian Oldfield Mouse

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

Woodland Oldfield Mouse

410

X

X

VU

Venezuela

X
X

Thomas's Oldfield Mouse
Rosalinda's Oldfield Mouse

X

X

Blunt-eared Bat
Spectacled Bear
American Manatee
Melissa's Yellow-eared Bat

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X
X
X

Colombia

EN
VU
EN
VU
VU
VU

Colombia

X

Unicolored Oldfield Mouse

VU
VU

EcuadorX

Ecuador

VU

Peru

Chile

Bolivia

English name
(if available)

Peru

Thomasomys macrotis
Thomasomys
monochromos
Thomasomys onkiroThomasomys
pyrrhonotus
Thomasomys rosalinda
Thomasomys ucucha
Tomopeas ravus
Tremarctos ornatus
Trichechus manatus
Vampyressa melissa

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X
X
X

Acostaea rivolii
Diplodontites olssoni
Heleobia andecola
Heleobia aperta
Heleobia ortoni
Pomacea ocanensis
Pomacea palmeri
Pomacea quinindensis
Rhamphopoma
magnum

CR
VU
VU
VU
VU
CR
VU
VU

Venezuela

English name
(if available)

Chile

Globalthreat
IUCN

Bolivia

ScientificnameArgentina

Table 5.1.6. Bivalve mollusks and gastropods

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

VU

X

X

Anablepsoides
lineasoppilatae
Anablepsoides parlettei

VU

Venezuela

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

English name
(if available)

Chile

Globalthreat
IUCN

Bolivia

ScientificnameArgentina

Table 5.1.7. Fish

X

VU

X

Ancistrus bolivianus

VU

X

Ancistrus marcapatae

EN

Ancistrus tolima

EN

X

Ancistrus vericaucanus

EN

X

Andinoacara biseriatus

VU

Anguilla rostrata
Aposturisoma
myriodonApteronotus spurrellii

ENCR

Astroblepus formosus

CR

X

X
American Eel

X
X

VU

X
X

411

X

VU

X

Astroblepus ventralis

VU

Astyanax daguae

EN

Attonitus bounites

VU

Brycon fowleri

VU

X

Brycon labiatus

EN

X

Brycon moorei
Bryconamericus
tolimaeCallichthys fabricioi

VU

X

VU

X

Chaetostoma branickii

VU

X

Chaetostoma changae
Chaetostoma
daidalmatos
Chaetostoma
loborhynchos
Chaetostoma
marmorescens
Chaetostoma palmeri

EN

X

EN

X

EN

X

VU

X

Chaetostoma stannii
Chaetostoma
stroumpoulos
Chaetostoma
yurubiense
Cichlasoma gephyrum
Cordylancistrus
torbesensis
Creagrutus gyrospilus
Cynopotamus
atratoensis
Farlowellavenezuelensis
Genycharax tarpon

VU
CR

Peru

VU

Astroblepus latidens
Astroblepus
supramollis
Astroblepus ubidiai

Chile

Astroblepus heterodon

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

GlobalthreatIUCN

X
Andean Catfish

Venezuela

Colombia

EcuadorArgentina

Scientific
name

X
X
X
X

X

VU

X

EN

X

EN

X

EN

X

EN

X

EN

X

EN

X

VU

X

VU

X

EN

X

VU

X

Gymnotus ardilai

EN

X

Gymnotus henni
Hyphessobrycon
nigricinctus
Hyphessobrycon
paucilepis
Hyphessobrycon
tuyensis
Hypostomus annectens

VU

X

Hypostomus wilsoni
Ichthyoelephas
longirostris
Imparfinis spurrellii

VU

X

VU

X

Knodus longus

VU

X

Knodus shinahota

CR

X

Leporinus muyscorum

VU

Oligosarcus schindleri

EN

Orestias ctenolepis

VU

Orestias gymnota

EN

VU

X

X

EN

X

EN

X

VU

X

EN

X
X

X

X
X
X
Andean Killfish

412

X
X

X

X

X

VU

X

X

Orestias polonorum

EN

Orestias silustani

VU

Panaqolus albivermis

EN

Parodon alfonsoi
Phenacorhamdia
taphorni
Pimelodellamacrocephala
Pimelodus grosskopfii

EN

Poecilia dauli
Pseudochalceus
longianalis
Pseudocurimata patiae

Venezuela

VU

Orestias pentlandii

Colombia

Orestias olivaceus

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X

X

X
X

X
X

EN

X

VU

X

CR

X

VU

X

VU

X

X

EN

X

Pseudoplatystoma
magdaleniatum

EN

X

Rhamdella montana

CR

Rhamdia guasarensis

CR

Rhamdia xetequepequeCR

Rhizosomichthys totae

CR

Sciades parkeri
Sturisomatichthys
frenatus
Tahuantinsuyoa chipi

VU

Trichomycterus regani
Trichomycterus
taeniops
Trichomycterustransandianus
Trichomycterus
unicolor
Trichomycterus
venulosus
Trichomycterus
weyrauchi

VU

X
X
X
X
Gillbacker Sea Catfish

X

CR

X

VU

X
X

EN

X

VU

X

EN

X

CR

X

EN

X

Acaulimalva oriastrum
Acaulimalva steinbachii
Agave pax
Anthopterus
ecuadorensis
Anthopterus
verticillatus
Apinagia boliviana
Apinagia peruviana

VU
EN
CR

X
X
X

EN

X

EN

X

VU
CR

X
X

413

Venezuela

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

English name
(if available)

Chile

Globalthreat
IUCN

Bolivia

ScientificnameArgentina

Table 5.1.8. Plants (Monocotyledons, Dicotyledons and aquatic or semi-aquaticplants)

X

VU

X

CR
VU
EN

X

Venezuela

EN

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

Bolivia

English name
(if available)

Colombia

Aschersoniodoxa
peruviana
Austrocylindropuntia
lagopus
Baccharis davidsonii
Baccharis hieronymi
Bejaria nana
Brachyotum
angustifolium
Brayopsis
diapensioides
Brayopsis monimocalyx
Browningia altissima
Buddleja cardenasii
Cavendishia
dendrophila
Cavendishia jardinensis
Cavendishia lebroniae
Cavendishia longirachis
Cavendishia
macrocephalaCavendishia nuda
Cavendishia
orthosepala
Cavendishia parviflora
Cavendishia sessiliflora
Cavendishia
sophoclesioides
Cedrela odorata
Centropogon gloriosus
Ceratostema
bracteolatum
Ceratostema glans
Ceratostema
lanceolatum
Ceratostema lanigerum
Ceratostema
macbrydeorum
Ceratostema
megabracteatum
Ceratostema
megalobum
Ceratostema nodosum
Ceratostema nubigena
Ceratostema pendens
Ceratostema pensile
Ceratostema
pubescens
Ceratostema silvicola
Ceratostema
ventricosum
Cereus fricii
Cereus vargasianus
Coespeletia laxiflora
Corryocactus erectus
Costus geothyrsus
Costus zamoranus
Dactylocardamum
polyspermum
Dendrophorbium
acuminatissimum

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X

X

X

VU

X

EN

X

VU
VU
EN

X

X

X

X
X

X

CR

X

CR
EN
EN

X
X
X

VU

X

CR

X

EN

X

EN
EN

X
X

CR
VU
EN

X
Spanish Cedar

X

X
X

X

X

EN

X

CR

X

EN

X

EN

X

CR

X

EN

X

CR

X

VU
EN
EN
CR

X
X
X
X

EN

X

EN

X

EN

X

VU
VU
CR
VU
CR
EN

X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

EN

X

VU

X

414

Digitaria cardenasiana
Diogenesia amplectens
Diogenesia gracilipes
Diogenesia oligantha
Diplostephium
cinereum
Disterigma bracteatum
Disterigma campii
Disterigma micranthum
Draba matthioloides
Draba ochropetala
Echinopsis albispinosa
Echinopsis
ancistrophora
Echinopsis backebergii
Echinopsis chrysantha
Echinopsis
famatinensis
Echinopsis terscheckii
Echinopsis thelegona
Echinopsis
thelegonoides
Englerocharisancashensis
Espeletia annemariana
Espeletia arbelaezii
Espeletia ariana
Espeletia azucarina
Espeletia
brachyaxiantha
Espeletia brassicoidea
Espeletia cachaluensis
Espeletia canescens
Espeletia cayetana
Espeletia chocontana
Espeletia cleefii
Espeletia conglomerata
Espeletia discoidea
Espeletia dugandii
Espeletia episcopalis
Espeletia estanislana
Espeletia formosa
Espeletia idroboi
Espeletia incana
Espeletia jaramilloi
Espeletia mirabilis
Espeletia miradorensis
Espeletia nemekenei
Espeletia oswaldiana
Espeletia paipana
Espeletia perijaensis
Espeletia pescana
Espeletia pulcherrima
Espeletia raquirensis
Espeletia roberti
Espeletia rositae
Espeletia schultesiana
Espeletia soroca
Espeletia standleyana

EN
EN
CR
EN

Venezuela

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X
X
X
X

EN

X

CR
EN
CR
VU
VU
VU

X

VU

X

VU
VU

X

VU

X

VU
VU

X
X

VU

X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

EN

X

X

X

EN
VU
VU
CR

X
X
X
X

EN

X

VU
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
EN
CR
VU
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
CR
CR
EN
CR
CR
EN
VU
EN
CR
EN
EN
VU
CR
VU

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

415

X

Venezuela

VU

X

EN

X

EN

X

EN

X

EN

X

EN

X

CR

X

CR
EN

Ecuador

X

Peru

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Chile

CR
EN
CR
EN
CR
CR
CR
EN
VU
EN

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Colombia

Espeletia steyermarkii
Espeletia summapacis
Espeletia tibamoensis
Espeletia tunjana
Espeletiopsis betancurii
Espeletiopsis caldasii
Espeletiopsis diazii
Espeletiopsis funckii
Espeletiopsis garciae
Espeletiopsis insignis
Espeletiopsis jimenezquesadae
Espeletiopsis
purpurascens
Espeletiopsis
rabanalensis
Espeletiopsis sanchezii
Espeletiopsis
sclerophylla
Fabiana squamata
Freziera
apolobambensis
Gaultheria stereophylla
Gentianella alborosea
Gentianella
armerioides
Gentianella bockii
Gentianella boliviana
Gentianella chrysantha
Gentianella
formosissima
Gentianella palcana
Gentianellaraimondiana
Gentianella sagasteguii
Gentianella vargasii
Gentianella weigendii
Gentianella zaratei
Greigia collina
Greigia danielii
Greigia kessleri
Greigia nubigena
Greigia ocellata
Guzmania goudotiana
Guzmania palustris
Gymnocalycium
marianae
Gynoxyscompressissima
Gynoxys neovelutina
Hedyosmum maximum
Hypericum
callacallanum
Isoetes dispora
Isoetes ecuadoriensis
Isoetes herzogii
Isoetes hewitsonii
Isoetes parvula
Isoetes saracochensis
Krapfia gigas

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X

X

X
X

EN

X

VU
VU
VU

X
X
X

VU

X

X

EN

X

EN

X

VU
VU
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
CR
CR
VU
EN

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

VU

X

VU

X

EN
VU

X
X

X

VU

X

CR
VU
VU
CR
VU
VU
EN

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

416

X

X

Venezuela

VU

X

X

Ecuador

X

Peru

X

CR
VU
EN
EN

Chile

EN

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Colombia

Krapfia grace-servatiae
Krapfia haemantha
Krapfia macropetala
Krapfia weberbaueri
Laccopetalum
giganteum
Libanothamnus
divisoriensis
Libanothamnus
tamanus
Loricaria unduaviensis
Macleania alata
Macleania
coccoloboides
Macleania crassa
Macleania dodsonii
Macleania ericae
Macleania
maldonadensis
Macleania mollis
Macleania pubiflora
Macleania subsessilis
Magnolia calimaensis
Magnolia cararensis
Magnolia colombiana
Magnolia gilbertoi
Magnolia henaoi
Magnolia jardinensis
Magnolia katiorum
Magnolia mahechae
Magnolia
polyhypsophylla
Magnolia silvioi
Magnolia urraoensis
Magnolia virolinensis
Magnolia wolfii
Matucana krahnii
Matucana oreodoxa
Matucana paucicostata
Melocactus schatzlii
Miconia recondita
Mila caespitosa
Monnina autraniana
Nototriche lanata
Nototriche lopezii
Nototriche peruviana
Nototriche sajamensis
Nototriche tovari
Nototriche turritella
Nymphoides herzogii
Ocotea comata
Opuntia schumannii
Oreanthesecuadorensis
Oreanthes fragilis
Oreanthes
glanduliferus
Oreanthes hypogaeus
Oreopanax
thaumasiophyllus

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X
X
X
X

X

VU

X

EN
EN

X
X

VU

X

VU
EN
VU

X
X

X

EN

X

VU
VU
VU
CR
CR
CR
EN
EN
CR
CR
EN

X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

CR

X

EN
EN
CR
CR
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
EN
EN
VU
EN
VU
EN
VU
VU

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

EN

X

VU

X

EN

X

EN

X

EN

X

417

Orthaea caudata
Orthaea ecuadorensis
Orthaea oriens
Ourisia cotapatensis
Parastrephia
teretiuscula
Pentacalia lewisii
Pernettya hirta
Pitcairnia lindae
Pitcairnia petraea
Plutarchia coronaria
Plutarchia dasyphylla
Plutarchia dichogama
Plutarchia ecuadorensis
Plutarchia guascensis
Plutarchia minor
Plutarchia miranda
Plutarchia monantha
Plutarchia pubiflora
Plutarchia rigida
Psammisia aurantiaca
Psammisia flaviflora
Psammisia incana
Psammisia orientalis
Puya aequatorialis
Puya angelensis
Puya angulonis
Puya araneosa
Puya aristeguietae
Puya barkleyana
Puya boyacana
Puya brackeana
Puya cleefii
Puya cochabambensis
Puya compacta
Puya coriacea
Puya cuatrecasasii
Puya dichroa
Puya exigua
Puya exuta
Puya fastuosa
Puya fosteriana
Puya furfuracea
Puya gargantae
Puya grantii
Puya grubbii
Puya hirtzii
Puya ibischii
Puya joergensenii
Puya killipii
Puya loca
Puya longispina
Puya maculata
Puya medica
Puya navarroana
Puya nigrescens
Puya nutans
Puya obconica

CR
EN
VU
VU

X

VU

X

VU
EN
CR
EN
VU
EN
EN
EN
VU
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
EN
VU
EN
VU
EN
CR
CR
CR
VU
EN
EN
VU
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
EN
CR
EN
CR
EN
EN
VU
EN
EN
VU
VU
EN
CR
EN
EN

X

Venezuela

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

418

X

Puya ochroleuca
Puya parviflora
Puya pratensis
Puya ramonii
Puya rauhii
Puya roldanii
Puya roseana
Puya sanctae-martae
Puya santanderensis
Puya simulans
Puya sodiroana
Puya tillii
Puya vestita
Pycnophyllopsis
cryptantha
Pycnophyllopsis
keraiopetala
Pycnophyllum
aristatum
Pycnophyllum
holleanum
Pycnophyllum
spathulatum
Ruilopezia cardonae
Semiramisia
pulcherrima
Seneciosanmarcosensis
Siphocampylus
siberiensis
Sphyrospermum
flaviflorum
Sphyrospermum
haughtii
Sphyrospermum
microphyllum
Sphyrospermum
muscicola
Sphyrospermum
sodiroi
Stangea erikae
Stangea paulae
Stangea rhizantha
Symplocos robusta
Tamania chardonii
Themistoclesia campii
Themistoclesia inflata
Themistoclesia
mucronata
Themistoclesia
peruviana
Themistoclesia recurva
Themistoclesia rostrata
Themistoclesia
unduavensis
Thibaudia fallax
Thibaudia gunnarii
Thibaudia inflata
Thibaudia joergensenii
Thibaudia lateriflora
Thibaudia litensis

EN
EN
EN
CR
EN
EN
CR
EN
CR
CR
EN
EN
VU

Venezuela

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X

EN

X

X

EN

X

EN

X

EN

X

VU

X

X

VU

X

EN

X

VU

X

VU

X

CR

X

CR

X

CR

X

CR

X

VU

X

EN
VU
VU
EN
EN
CR
CR

X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X

VU

X

VU

X

X

VU
VU

X
X

VU

X

CR
VU
VU
EN
EN
VU

X
X
X
X
X
X

419

X

Thibaudia sessiliflora
Thibaudia steyermarkii
Tillandsia breviturneri
Tillandsia chartacea
Tillandsia cuatrecasasii
Tillandsia fusiformis
Tillandsia pallescens
Tillandsia reversa
Tillandsia romeroi
Tillandsia sigmoidea
Tillandsia suescana
Tillandsia truxillana
Tripsacum peruvianum
Vaccinium distichum
Valeriana johannae
Viola kermesina
Weberbauera
ayacuchoensis
Weberbauera rosulans
Weinmannia
yungasensis
Werneria glaberrima
Werneria staticifolia
Xanthosoma guttatum
Xanthosoma
narinoense
Xanthosoma
tarapotense

VU
VU
EN
CR
CR
EN
VU
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN

Venezuela

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

EN

X

EN

X

VU

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

VU
VU
EN

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

CR

X

EN

X

420

X
X

Ameiva provitaae
Anadia antioquensis
Anadia blakei
Anadia brevifrontalis
Anadia pamplonensis
Anadia pariaensis
Andinosaura aurea
Andinosaura vespertina
Anolis maculigula
Anolis otongae
Anolis parilis
Anolis podocarpus
Anolis proboscis
Anolis ruizii
Anolis vanzolini
Aspronemacochabambae
Atractus carrioni
Atractus duboisi
Atractus
microrhynchus
Atractus modestus
Atractus multidentatus
Atractus nicefori
Atractus occidentalis
Atractus paucidens
Atractus roulei
Bothrocophias
campbelli
Bothrops lojanus
Bothrops medusa
Bothrops osbornei
Caretta caretta
Chelonia mydas
Coniophanes
dromiciformis
Contomastix vittata
Corallus blombergi
Dendrophidion boshelliDermochelys coriacea
Dipsas elegans
Dipsas ellipsifera
Dipsas oligozonata

EN
VU
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
EN
CR

Dipsas williamsi

VU

Drymoluber
apurimacensis

CR

Echinosaura
brachycephala
Echinosaura keyi
Emmochliophis miops
Enyalioides
oshaughnessyi
Enyalioides rubrigularis
Enyalioides touzeti
Epictia striatula

Blake's Anadia
Shorthead Anadia
Pamplona Anadia

X
X
X
Rueda's Anole

X
X
X
X
X

Proboscis Anole

X
X
X
Parker's Ground Snake

X

X
X

X

X

Modest Ground Snake

X
X

Northern Ground Snake
Western Ground Snake
Despax's Ground Snake
Roule's Ground Snake

X
X
X
X
X

VU
EN
VU
VU
EN

Lojan Lancehead
Venezuela Forest Pit Viper

VU

Peters' Running Snake

X

X

X

X

X

X

VU
VU
VU
VU

X
X

Loggerhead Turtle
Green Turtle

X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X

X
X

Blomber's Tree Boa
Hoshell's Forest Racer
Leatherback

X

X
X
X
X

Williams' Tree Snake
Brazilian Woodland
Racer

X

EN
VU
CR

Venezuela

X

VU

VU
EN
CR
VU
VU
EN
VU

Colombia

X
X

VU
VU
CR
VU
EN
VU
VU

Ecuador

X
X

VU
EN
EN

Peru

English name
(if available)

Chile

Globalthreat
IUCN

Bolivia

ScientificnameArgentina

Table 5.1.9. Reptiles

X
Key Tegu

X
X

Red-eyed Woodlizard

X

Red-throated Woodlizard
Touzet's Woodlizard

X
X
X

421

X

X
X

X

Colombia

Venezuela

BoliviaX

EcuadorHawksbill Turtle

Peru

CR

English name
(if available)

Chile

Eretmochelys imbricata
Euspondylus
monsfumus
Gonatodes
purpurogularis
Gonatodes seigliei
Holcosus orcesi
Lepidoblepharis
conolepis
Lepidoblepharis grandis
Lepidochelys olivacea
Liolaemus aparicioi
Liolaemus
audituvelatus
Liolaemus fabiani
Liolaemus fittkaui
Liolaemus forsteri
Liolaemus halonastes
Liolaemus isabelae
Liolaemus
poconchilensis
Liolaemus scapularis
Liolaemus variegatus
Macropholidus
annectens
Mastigodryas amarali
Micrurus catamayensis
Micrurus medemi
Micrurus meridensis
Micrurus sangilensis
Morunasaurus
annularis
Morunasaurus groi
Panopa croizati
Petracola
ventrimaculatus
Phyllodactylus delsolari
Phyllodactylus
johnwrighti
Phyllodactylus leoni
Phyllodactylus
lepidopygus
Phyllodactylus
thompsoni
Podocnemis lewyana
Polychrus peruvianus
Potamites ocellatus
Proctoporus
cephalolineatus
Ptychoglossus danieli
Riama anatoloros
Riama aurea
Riama balneator
Riama cashcaensis
Riama colomaromani
Riama columbiana
Riama crypta
Riama kiziriani
Riama labionis
Riama laevis

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X

X

X

X

X

CR

X

EN
EN
CR

X
Estados Sucre Gecko
Peters' Ameiva

X
X

EN
VU
VU
CR

X
Olive Ridley

X

EN
VU
EN
CR
EN
VU
VU
EN
CR
VU

Yanez's Tree Iguana

X

Forster's Tree Iguana
X

X
X
Shoulder Tree Iguana
Variegated Tree Iguana
Parker's Pholidobolus

X

X
X
X

Amaral's Tropical Racer
Catamayo Coral Snake

X
X
X

Merida Coral Snake
Santander Coral Snake
Ringed Spinytail Iguana

X
X
X

Dunn's Spinytail Iguana
Horton's Mabuya
Spotted Lightbulb Lizard

X
X
X

Huancabamba River Leaftoed Gecko

X
X

Western Leaf-toed Gecko

X

EN
CR
VU
VU

X
X

VU
VU

X
Magdalena River Turtle

X
X

X

X

EN
CR
VU
VU
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU

X

X
X

EN
EN

X

X

EN
EN
VU

X
X

X

VU
EN
VU
EN
VU
EN

X

X
X

Kizorian's Lightbulb Lizard

X
X
X
X
X

Colombian Lightbulb Lizard

X
X
X
X

Shiny Lightbulb Lizard

422

XRiama oculata
Riama orcesi
Riama petrorum
Riama raneyi
Riama rhodogaster

EN
VU
EN
VU
CR

Riama simotera

EN

Riama stigmatoral
Riama unicolor
Riama vespertina
Saphenophis sneiderni
Sphaerodactylus
scapularis
Stenocercus arndti
Stenocercus carrioni
Stenocercus
chinchaoensis
Stenocercus festae

VU
VU
VU
EN

Stenocercus haenschi

CR

Stenocercus limitaris
Stenocercus ornatus
Stenocercus
rhodomelas
Stenocercus simonsii
Stenocercus stigmosus
Stenocercus torquatus
Stenocercus varius
Synophis bicolor
Synophis
plectovertebralis
Taeniophallus nebularis
Tantilla insulamontana

VU
VU

Tantilla petersi

CR

Trilepida anthracina

VU

EN
EN
EN
VU
VU

VU
EN
VU
VU
EN
EN

Tropical Lightbulb Lizard

Venezuela

X
X
X
X
X

O'Shaughnessy's Lightbulb
LizardX

X

Drab Lightbulb Lizard

X
X
X

X

Saphenophis Snake
Boulenger's Least Gecko

X
X
X

Parker's Whorltail Iguana
Chinchao Whorltail Lizard

X
X

Peracca's Whorltail Iguana
Haensch's Whorltail
IguanaX
X
X

Girard's Whorltail Iguana
Red-black Whorltail Iguana

X
X
X

Simons' Whorltail Iguana

X
X
X

Keeled Whorltail Iguana

X
X

CR
CR
CR

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Chile

English name
(if available)

Bolivia

Globalthreat
IUCN

Argentina

Scientific
name

X
X
Mountain Centipede Snake
Peters' Black-headed
Snake
Bailey's Blind Snake

423

X
X
X

Appendix 5.2. Characteristics of the KBAs in the Tropical Andes Hotspot*Index of anthropogenic impacts. Scale from 0 to 1 (1=high).
Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusPartially
protected
Partially
protected

Corridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cationIIA*

Tarija-Jujuy

0.06

IBA

133,461Low

22,098Low

0.33

Tarija-Jujuy

0.07

IBA

191,653Low

61,184Low

0.23

Argentina

Abra Grande

ARG132,429Argentina

Acambuco

ARG223,475

Argentina

Alto Calilegua

ARG3

774

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.12

IBA

4,229

Low

940

Low

0.00

Argentina

Caspalá-Santa Ana

ARG4

14,612

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.06

IBA

8,133

Low

334

Low

0.06

Argentina

Cerro Negro de San
Antonio

ARG5

9,934

Unprotected

-----

0.08

IBA

13,892

Low

8,673

Low

0.07

Argentina

Chaco de Tartagal

ARG66

50,125

Unprotected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.03

IBA

119,528

Low

69,859Low

0.26

Argentina

Cuesta de lasHiguerillas

ARG6

7,157

Unprotected

-----

0.08

IBA

7,446

Low

525

Low

0.14

Argentina

Cuesta del Clavillo

ARG7

9,144

Partially
protected

Yungas deTucumán

0.08

IBA

19,633Low

28,059Low

0.11

Argentina

Cuesta del Obispo

ARG825,434

Unprotected

-----

0.05

IBA

12,767Low

30,636

Low

0.13

Argentina

Cuesta del Totoral

ARG9

7,733

Unprotected

-----

0.06

IBA

29,115

Low

2,378

Low

0.28

Argentina

El Fuerte y Santa
Clara

ARG10

17,891

Unprotected

-----

0.06

IBA

121,114Low

49,263

Low

0.17

0.09

IBA

953

Low

0

Low

0.18

Argentina

El Infiernillo

ARG11

707

Unprotected

Yungas deTucumán

Argentina

Fincas Santiago y
San Andrés

ARG1232,942

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.10

IBA

248,505

Low

93,515Low

0.14

Tarija-Jujuy

0.05

IBA

148,471Low

57,785Low

0.07

Argentina

Itiyuro-Tuyunti

ARG1320,947

Partially
protected

Argentina

La Cornisa

ARG1419,444

Protected

-----

0.09

IBA

114,281Low

27,474Low

0.37

Argentina

La Porcelana

ARG15

13,276

Partially
protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.05

IBA

48,556Low

30,553Low

0.14

Argentina

Laguna El Peinado

ARG67

7,803

Protected

-----

0.01

IBA

-14,590

Low

92

Low

0.00

424

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA*

Argentina

Laguna Grande

ARG16

7,671

Protected

-----

0.00

IBA

-12,981

Low

387

Low

0.00

Argentina

Laguna Guayatayoc

ARG17108,520

Unprotected

-----

0.02

IBA

-316,025

Low

1,833

Low

0.14

Argentina

Laguna La Alumbrera

ARG18

10,796

Unprotected

-----

0.01

IBA

-24,784

Low

236

Low

0.15

Argentina

Laguna Purulla

ARG19

7,796

Protected

-----

0.01

IBA

-9,013

Low

103

Low

0.00

ARG20

2,493

Unprotected

-----

0.02

IBA

-8,434

Low

326

Low

0.29

ARG21

2,213

Unprotected

-----

0.09

IBA

13,739

Low

6,056

Low

0.26

Argentina
Argentina

Lagunas RuntuyocLos Enamorados
Lagunas San Miguel y
El Sauce

Argentina

Lagunillas

ARG22

550

Protected

-----

0.02

IBA

-1,427

Low

16

Low

0.08

Argentina

Llanos de Jagüé

ARG68

45,842

Unprotected

-----

0.00

IBA

-23,425

Low

6,617

Low

0.00

ARG23

23,031

Partially
protected

-----

0.03

IBA

25,138Low

25,704

Low

0.24

ARG24

267,288

Unprotected

-----

0.02

IBA

-246,250

Low

41,500

Low

0.09

ARG25

15,870Protected

-----

0.03

IBA

-55,936

Low

167

Low

0.14

ARG26

1,827

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.10

IBA

14,910

Low

4,169

Low

0.20

Low

0.06

Low

0.05

Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina

Lotes 32 y 33, Maíz
Gordo
Luracatao y Valles
Calchaquíes
Monumento Natural
Laguna de Los
PozuelosPampichuela
Parque Nacional
BaritúParque Nacional
CalileguaParque Nacional
Campo de los Alisos
Parque Nacional El
ReyParque Nacional Los
Cardones
Parque Provincial
Cumbres Calchaquíes
Parque Provincial La
Florida223,610
235,066

ARG27

65,123

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.12

IBA

636,564

Low

ARG28

68,333

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.12

IBA

403,696

Low

0.07

IBA

8,955

Low

18,404

Low

0.06

ARG29

9,043

Protected

Yungas deTucumán

ARG30

35,915

Protected

-----

0.06

IBA

187,725

Low

138,62
3

Low

0.03

ARG69

58,579Protected

-----

0.03

IBA

-95,538

Low

5,812

Low

0.14

ARG31

61,224

Protected

0.06

IBA

-149,600

Low

18,052

Low

0.05

ARG32

8,392

Protected

0.10

IBA

7,141

Low

11,220Low

0.00

Yungas deTucumán
Yungas deTucumán

425

Country

Argentina
Argentina

KBA name
Parque Provincial
Laguna Pintascayoc
Parque Provincial LosÑuñorcos y Reserva
Natural Quebrada delPortugués

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

ARG33

14,227

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.09

IBA

151,164

Low

40,734

Low

0.10

ARG34

6,760

Protected

Yungas deTucumán

0.11

IBA

15,838Low

16,413Low

0.06

Argentina

Pueblo Nuevo

ARG35

1,750

Protected

-----

0.01

AZE

-6,151

Low

331

Low

0.33

Argentina

Quebrada de Escoipe

ARG70

637

Unprotected

-----

0.03

AZE

-519

Low

0

Low

0.24

Argentina

Quebrada de las
ConchasARG71

54,564

Partially
protected

Yungas deTucumán

0.08

IBA

11,383

Low

8,351

Low

0.05

Argentina

Quebrada del Toro

ARG37

54,938

Unprotected

-----

0.04

IBA AZE

29,795

Low

9,335

Low

0.12

ARG36

9,729

Protected

-----

0.02

IBA

-48,035

Low

62

Low

0.35

ARG72

848,373

Protected

-----

0.01

IBA

-792,446

Low

69,673

Low

0.06

ARG41

1,507

Protected

Yungas deTucumán

0.12

IBA

7,337

Low

0

Low

0.29

ARG42

12,008

Partially
protected

-----

0.06

IBA

56,220Low

35,128

Low

0.20

ARG43

369

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.06

IBA

992

Low

40

Low

0.08

ARG73

389,369

Protected

-----

0.00

IBA

-589,583

Low

34,586

Low

0.02

0.01

IBA

-637,044

Low

8,772

Low

0.14

0.05

IBA

40,737

Low

55,779Low

0.04

Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina

Queñoales de Santa
Catalina
Reserva de laBiósfera ParqueNacional San
Guillermo
Reserva Natural de
La Angostura
Reserva Natural Las
Lancitas
Reserva Provincial de
Uso Múltiple Laguna
LeandroReserva Provincial
Laguna Brava
Reserva Provincial
Olaroz-Cauchari
Reserva Provincial
Santa Ana
Reserva Provincial yde la Biósfera Laguna
BlancaRío Los Sosa

Puna
Trinacional
Yungas deTucumán

ARG44

190,097

Protected

ARG45

15,586

Protected

ARG46522,754

Protected

-----

0.01

IBA

-722,044

Low

17,082

Low

0.02

ARG38

2,436

Protected

Yungas deTucumán

0.06

IBA

15,477

Low

6,311

Low

0.36

426

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA*

Argentina

Río Santa María

ARG39

9,339

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.08

IBA

67,519Low

26,945Low

0.05

Argentina

Río Seco

ARG40

30,654

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.07

IBA

200,042Low

85,177

Low

0.05

ARG47

58,810

Unprotected

-----

0.01

IBA

-161,903

Low

393

Low

0.07

ARG48

9,894

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.12

IBA

91,876

Low

25,297Low

0.09

Tarija-Jujuy

0.05

IBA

11,390

Low

8,642

Low

0.00

Tarija-Jujuy

0.07

IBA

49,892Low

18,029

Low

0.07

-----

0.06

IBA

-76,095

Low

1,780

Low

0.00

0.08

IBA

177,559

Low

65,384

Low

0.10

0.11

IBA

126,474

Low

20,266

Low

0.01

0.07

IBA

107,975

Low

27,505Low

0.32

Argentina
Argentina

Salar del Hombre
MuertoSan Francisco-Río
JordánArgentina

San Lucas

ARG49

25,925

Argentina

Santa Victoria,
Cañani y Cayotal

ARG50

25,542

Argentina

Sierra de Ambato

ARG51

76,195

Partially
protected
Partially
protected
Unprotected

Yungas deTucumán
Yungas deTucumán
Yungas deTucumán

Argentina

Sierra de Medina

ARG52

38,389

Unprotected

Argentina

Sierra de Metán

ARG74

61,707

Unprotected

Argentina

Sierra de San Javier

ARG53

11,792

Protected

Argentina

Sierra de Santa
Victoria

ARG54

38,982

Unprotected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.02

IBA

-9,006

Low

2,591

Low

0.21

Argentina

Sierra de Zenta

ARG55

37,688

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.09

IBA

86,856

Low

41,366

Low

0.04

Argentina

Sierra Rosario de la
Frontera

ARG75

26,563

Unprotected

0.06

IBA

-13,556Low

35,305Low

0.07

Argentina

Sierras de Carahuasi

ARG56

102,694

Partially
protected

Yungas deTucumán
Yungas deTucumán

0.05

IBA-57,202Low

26,266

Low

0.01

ARG57

9,075

Unprotected

-----

0.08

IBA

38,785Low

20,060

Low

0.24

ARG58

303,783

Protected

Puna
Trinacional

0.01

IBA

-940,282

Low

4,270

Low

0.05

ARG59

87,293

Protected

-----

0.01

IBA

-184,889

Low

4,293

Low

0.05

ARG60

13,008

Protected

-----

0.11

IBA

82,480Low

38,972Low

0.20

Unprotected

Yungas deTucumán

0.10

IBA

13,739Low

18,154Low

0.24

Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina

Sierras de Puesto
Viejo
Sistema de lagunas
de Vilama-Pululos
Socompa y
Llullaillaco
Tiraxi y Las Capillas
TrancasARG61

32,091427

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA*

Argentina

Valle Colorado y Valle
Grande

ARG62

9,743

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.10

IBA

46,976

Low

11,703

Low

0.22

0.10

AZE

55,499

Low

7,808

Low

0.18

Argentina

Valle de Tafi

ARG63

33,550

Unprotected

Yungas deTucumán

Argentina

Yala

ARG64

4,089

Protected

-----

0.06

IBA

18,171Low

10,789Low

0.35

Argentina

Yavi y Yavi Chico

ARG65

4,569

Unprotected

-----

0.02

IBA

-15,996

Low

85

Low

0.29

Argentina

Yuto y Vinalito

ARG76

31,277

Unprotected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.08

IBA

58,340Low

58,453Low

0.35

124,243

Low

1,119

Low

0.27

Bolivia

Anexo TuniCondoriri†

BOL57

19,462

Unprotected

Bolivia

Apolo

BOL3

177,302

Partially
protected

Bolivia

Azurduy

BOL4

133,353

Unprotected

Bolivia

Bosque de Polylepis
de Madidi

BOL5

94,613

Protected

Bolivia

Bosque de Polylepis
de Taquesi

BOL8

3,455

Unprotected

Bolivia

Candelaria-Corani†

BOL44

5,663

Unprotected

Bolivia

Cerro Azanaques†

BOL58

15,249

Unprotected

Bolivia

Cerro Q'ueñwa
SandoraBOL9

57,875

Unprotected

Bolivia

Choquecamiri†

BOL47

8,585

Bolivia

Cochabamba

BOL48

10,268Bolivia

Comarapa

BOL11

5,888

Unprotected
Partially
protected
Partially
protected

Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata
Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata

0.14
0.14

IBA AZE

2,864,344

Medium

226,53
9

Low

0.16

0.03

IBA

1,021,377

Low

159,71
5

Low

0.17

0.21

IBA

1,272,454

Low

164,43
7

Low

0.16

0.29

IBA

18,314

Low

1,214

Low

0.30

0.24

75,345

Low

8,382

Low

0.29

-----

0.07

-30,962

Low

338

Low

0.35

-----

0.07

264,309

Low

1,824

Low

0.43

59,133Low

11,680Low

0.34----Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata
Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata
IsiboroAmboró

Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata
IsiboroAmboró
IsiboroAmboró

428

IBA

0.13
0.09

AZE

50,445

Low

555

Low

0.79

0.13

AZE

31,810

Low

1,714

Low

0.26

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusRBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

0.16

AZE

2,124,267

Low

492,98
0

Mediu
m

0.22

0.22

IBA

808,436

Low

98,012

Low

0.24

0.10

IBA AZE

1,813,149

Low

55,852

Low

0.36

-----

0.05

IBA

1,262,127

Low

26,479Low

0.21

Corridor
Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata
IsiboroAmboró
IsiboroAmboró

Bolivia

Cotapata

BOL13

227,549

Unprotected

Bolivia

Cristal Mayu yalrededores

BOL14

29,440

Unprotected

Bolivia

Cuenca Cotacajes

BOL15

143,104

Unprotected

Bolivia

Cuencas de Ríos
Caine y Mizque

BOL16

339,205

Partially
protected

Bolivia

Culpina

BOL49

5,494

Unprotected

-----

0.05

AZE

16,891

Low

492

Low

0.20

0.06

IBA

1,063,456

Low

2,922

Low

0.14

Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia

Lago Poopó y Río
Laka Jahuira
Lago Titicaca (Sector
Boliviano)
Lagunas de Agua
Dulce del Sureste dePotosí
Lagunas Salinas delSuroeste de Potosí

BOL19

239,129

Protected

Lagos Salinosdel Altiplano
Chileno/Bolivia
no

BOL20

368,971

Protected

-----

0.15

IBA AZE

366,089

Low

4,706

Low

0.13

BOL21

310,647

Protected

Puna
Trinacional

0.02

IBA

-992,072

Low

9,696

Low

0.09

BOL22

611,736

Protected

Puna
Trinacional

0.04

IBA

1,809,550

Low

20,463

Low

0.14

-----

0.10

67,665

Low

689

Low

0.51

Bolivia

Mallasa-Taypichullo

BOL51

13,498

Unprotected

Bolivia

Pampa Redonda

BOL52

10,163

Unprotected

-----

0.09

AZE

44,512

Low

7,036

Low

0.13

0.07

IBA

61,749

Low

5,074

Low

0.15

0.07

14,791

Low

164

Low

0.24

0.23

47,978

Low

505

Low

0.36

0.35

490,452

Low

105,74
0

Low

0.32

Bolivia

Parque Nacional
SajamaBOL23

97,237

Partially
protected

Lagos Salinosdel Altiplano
Chileno/Bolivia
noBolivia

Parque Nacional
Torotoro†

BOL53

15,271

Protected-----

Bolivia

Parque Nacional Tuni
Condoriri†

BOL46

8,345

Protected

Bolivia

Parque Nacional yÁrea Natural de

BOL45

57,238

Protected

Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata
Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata429

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

BOL24

40,426

Unprotected

IsiboroAmboró

0.12

IBA

220,151

Low

454

Low

0.17

BOL26

96,224

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.03

IBA

59,931

Low

1,787

Low

0.25

BOL27

222,760

Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.08

IBA

1,964,018

Low

665,65
4

Mediu
m

0.10

-----

0.10

AZE

4,174

Low

16

Low

0.45

Manejo Integrado
Cotapata†
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia

Quebrada Mojón
Reserva Biológica
Cordillera de Sama
Reserva Nacional deFlora y Fauna
Tariquía

Bolivia

Río Caballuni

BOL54

697

Unprotected

Bolivia

Río Guadalquivir

BOL50

31,836

Unprotected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.06

AZE

163,003

Low

1,193

Low

0.42

0.07

AZE

-15,783

Low

795

Low

0.38

Bolivia

Río Huayllamarca

BOL25

5,209

Unprotected

Lagos Salinosdel Altiplano
Chileno/Bolivia
noBolivia

Río San Juan
tributario oeste áreapre puna

BOL55

16, 283

Partially
protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.01

AZE

8,142

Low

653

Low

0.16

Bolivia

Serranía Bella Vista

BOL29

33,391

Unprotected

Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata

0.08

IBA

569,674

Low

98,183Low

0.23

Bolivia

Serranía deAguaragüe

BOL56

99,979Protected

Tarija-Jujuy

0.05

IBA

461,305Low

224,82
7

Low

0.28

Bolivia

Tacacoma-Quiabaya
y Valle de Sorata

BOL30

87,333

Unprotected

Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata

0.13

IBA

705,856

Low

23,746

Low

0.38

BOL32

128,147

Protected

IsiboroAmboró

0.13

IBA

803,549

Low

4,271

Low

0.34

BOL33

299,926

Protected

0.08

IBA

3,957,440

Medium

Mediu
m

0.12

BOL34

425,537

Protected

0.15

IBA

11,769,79
7

High

925,170
1,355,9
00

High

0.14

BOL35

193,812

Protected

0.09

IBA

5,725,714

Medium622,47
0

Mediu
m

0.02

Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia

Vertiente Sur delParque Nacional
Tunari
Yungas Inferiores deAmboró
Yungas Inferiores deCarrasco
Yungas Inferiores deIsiboroSécure/Altamachi

IsiboroAmboró
IsiboroAmboró
IsiboroAmboró

430

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

0.14

IBA

8,236,296

High

1,177,0
59

High

0.12

0.12

IBA

3,973,546

Medium785,27
7

Mediu
m

0.14

0.09

IBA

1,865,588

Low

732,76
5

Mediu
m

0.09

0.15

IBA AZE

4,218,395

Medium498,17
0

Mediu
m

0.24

0.19

IBA AZE

1,820,565

Low

354,65
7

Mediu
m

0.16

0.14

IBA

4,670,758

Medium706,21
7

Mediu
m

0.14

IsiboroAmboró

0.12

IBA

7,758,772

High

1,105,3
45

Mediu
m

0.05

-----

0.029

IBA

-127,035

Low

380

Low

0.13

Unprotected

-----

0.011

IBA

-1,542

Low

0

Low

0.03

Lagos Salinosdel Altiplano
Chileno/Bolivia
no

0.021

IBA

960

Low

242

Low

0.42

-----

0.046

AZE

-52,436

Low

1,604

Low

0.17

0.027

IBA

3,620

Low

6,116

Low

0.19

0.033

IBA

-322,902

Low

4,173

Low

0.15

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusBolivia

Yungas Inferiores deMadidi

BOL36

372,951

Protected

Bolivia

Yungas Inferiores dePilón Lajas

BOL37

249,857

Protected

Bolivia

Yungas Superiores deAmboró

BOL38

245,394

Protected

Bolivia

Yungas Superiores deApolobamba

BOL39436,794

Protected

Bolivia

Yungas Superiores deCarrasco

BOL40

205,748

Protected

Bolivia

Yungas Superiores deMadidi

BOL41

240,426

Protected

BOL42337,229

Partially
protected

CHI1254,693

Partially
protected

CHI1

804

Country

Bolivia
Chile
Chile

Yungas Superiores deMosetenes y
Cocapata
Laguna del Negro
Francisco y Laguna
Santa Rosa
Lagunas Bravas

Chile

Monumento Natural
Salar de Surire

CHI2

15,814

Protected

Chile

Murmuntani

CHI13

13,539

Unprotected

Chile

Parque Nacional
Lauca

CHI3

127,977

Protected

Chile

Parque Nacional Salarde Huasco

CHI4

108,221

Unprotected

Corridor
Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata
Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata
IsiboroAmboró
Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata
IsiboroAmboró
Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata

Lagos Salinosdel Altiplano
Chileno/Bolivia
noLagos Salinosdel Altiplano
Chileno/Bolivia
no431

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridorLagos Salinosdel Altiplano
Chileno/Bolivia
noLagos Salinosdel Altiplano
Chileno/Boliviano
Puna
Trinacional
Puna
Trinacional

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

0.024

IBA

-244,037

Low

9,632

Low

0.30

0.026

IBA

-4,363

Low

354

Low

0.46

0.024

IBA

-234,431

Low

1,162

Low

0.11

0.06

AZE

-114,789

Low

1,689

Low

0.11

Chile

Parque Nacional
Volcán Isluga

CHI5

153,662

Protected

Chile

Precordillera
Socoroma-Putre

CHI6

5,848

Unprotected

Chile

Reserva Nacional Los
Flamencos-Soncor

CHI10

66,430Protected

Chile

Río Vilama

CHI14

27,808

Unprotected

Chile

Salar de Piedra
Parada

CHI11

2,715

Unprotected

-----

0.013

IBA

-2,405

Low

110

Low

0.03

0.08

AZE

-36,963

Low

632

Low

0.11

Chile

Zapahuira

CHI15

9,482

Unprotected

Lagos Salinosdel Altiplano
Chileno/Bolivia
noColombia

9 km sur de Valdivia

COL1

8,175

Partially
protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.28

AZE

265,028

Low

12,965Low

0.36

Colombia

Agua de la Virgen

COL2

122

Unprotected

-----

0.24

IBA

1,227

Low

70

Low

0.45

0.44

IBA

31,388

Low

4,649

Low

0.10

0.53

IBA

73,187

Low

7,513

Low

0.25

0.42

IBA

87,956

Low

5,235

Low

0.49

0.31

IBA

112,117

Low

5,447

Low

0.52

Colombia

Alto de Pisones

COL5

1,380

Not
protected

Colombia

Alto Quindío

COL6

4,582

Protected

Colombia

Bosque de San
Antonio/Km 18

COL7

5,993

Partially
protected

Colombia

Bosques de la Falla
del Tequendama

COL8

12,598

Protected

ParaguasMunchiqueBosquesMontanos delSur deAntioquia
Noreste deQuindío
ParaguasMunchiqueBosquesMontanos delSur deAntioquia
-----

432

Country

Colombia
Colombia

KBA name
Bosques deTolemaida, Piscilagoy alrededores
Bosques del Orientede Risaralda

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

COL9

22,758

Unprotected

-----

0.19

IBA

326,976

Low

14,388

Low

0.54

COL10

27,610Protected

0.46

IBA

572,623

Low

27,693

Low

0.11

0.24

IBA

5,574,189

Medium381,08
1

Mediu
m

0.25

0.23

IBA

5,318,568

Medium

165,55
3

Low

0.41

0.22

IBA

4,751

Low

400

Low

0.37

0.29

IBA

67,597

Low

5,766

Low

0.27

0.42

IBA

282,620Low

17,399

Low

0.49

0.45

IBA

148,604Low

10,836

Low

0.45

0.29

IBA AZE

1,479,064

Low

50,380Low

0.23

101,224

Low

4,658

Low

0.55

Colombia

Bosques Montanosdel Sur de Antioquia

COL11

200,574

Partially
protected

Colombia

Bosques Secos delValle del Río
Chicamocha

COL12395,012

Partially
protected

Colombia

Cafetales de Támesis

COL18

263

Unprotected

COL13

3,271

Partially
protected

COL14

11,193

Protected

COL15

7,588

Unprotected

Colombia
Colombia
Colombia

Cañón del Río
Alicante
Cañón del Río Barbas
y Bremen
Cañón del Río
Combeima

Noreste deQuindío
ParaguasMunchiqueBosquesMontanos delSur deAntioquia
Norte de laCordillera
Oriental
ParaguasMunchiqueBosquesMontanos delSur deAntioquia
Sonsón-Nechi
Noreste deQuindío
Noreste deQuindío
Cordillera
OrientalBogotá

Colombia

Cañón del Río
Guatiquía

COL16

34,913

Partially
protected

Colombia

Caparrapi†

COL123

4,117

Unprotected

-----

0.15

COL19

10,433

Partially
protected

-----

0.23

AZE

87,629

Low

7,497

Low

0.46

COL20

33,010Protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.29

AZE

600,847Low

50,987Low

0.43

Partially
protected

Norte de laCordillera
Oriental

0.38

IBA

96,789Low

17,754Low

0.44

Colombia
Colombia
Colombia

Carretera RamiriquiZetaquira
Cerro de Pan de
Azúcar
Cerro La Judía

COL21

10,221433

Country

Colombia
Colombia
Colombia

KBA name
Cerro Pintado(Serranía de Perijá)
Cerros Occidentalesde Tabio y Tenjo
Complejo Lacustre deFúquene, Cucunubá yPalacio

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

COL22

11,878

Protected

Cordillera de
Perijá

0.41

IBA AZE

180,691Low

30,354

Low

0.18

COL23

472

Unprotected

-----

0.27

IBA

3,450

Low

432

Low

0.63

COL25

22,248

Protected

-----

0.21

IBA

172,159

Low

10,982

Low

0.46

187,061Low

23,346Low

0.28

Norte de laCordillera
Oriental
Sierra Nevadade Santa
Marta yalrededores
Cordillera
CentralNoreste deQuindío
Cordillera
CentralNoreste deQuindíoColombia

Corredor PisbaCocuy†

COL124

17,700

Unprotected

Colombia

Cuchilla de San
Lorenzo

COL28

71,600Protected

COL29

8,258

Protected

COL30

10,465

Unprotected

COL31

8,882

Protected

COL32

24,477

Partially
protected

COL33

5,560

Partially
protected

-----

0.23

COL34

5,068

Protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.27

COL35

6,033

Protected

Sonsón-Nechi

Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia

Cuenca del Río
HerejeCuenca del Río
Jiménez
Cuenca del Río San
MiguelCuenca del Río Toche
Cuenca Hidrográfica
del Río San Francisco
y sus alrededores
Embalse de Punchináy su zona deprotección
Embalse de San
Lorenzo y Jaguas

Colombia

Enclave Seco del Río
Dagua

COL36

8,509

Partially
protected

Colombia

Finca la Betulia
Reserva la Patasola

COL37

1,481

Protected

ParaguasMunchiqueBosquesMontanos delSur deAntioquia
Noreste deQuindío

434

0.24

0.37

IBA

1,344,055

Low

143,99
0

Low

0.15

0.20

IBA

164,732

Low

10,330

Low

0.03

0.20

IBA

205,671Low

11,007

Low

0.62

0.18

IBA

195,638

Low

19,289

Low

0.24

0.50

IBA

443,070

Low

28,905Low

0.34

113,212

Low

6,777

Low

0.66

IBA

123,073Low

12,007

Low

0.20

0.28

IBA

166,788

Low

10,891

Low

0.24

0.38

IBA AZE

109,212

Low

3,235

Low

0.62

0.53

IBA

28,976

Low

3,834

Low

0.18

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cationIIA*

Colombia

Finca Paraguay

COL38

12,876

Partially
protected

Noreste deQuindío

0.37

IBA

257,613

Low

1,453

Low

0.09

Colombia

Fusagasuga

COL39

9,198

Unprotected

-----

0.31

AZE

73,197

Low

757

Low

0.44

COL41

2,274

Unprotected

-----

0.26

IBA

17,150

Low

90

Low

0.64

COL12557,326

Protected

-----

0.25

518,869

Low

23,639

Low

0.40

COL42

13,266

Unprotected

-----

0.25

AZE

242,163

Low

12,719

Low

0.50

COL43

1,394

Unprotected

-----

0.10

IBA

26,661

Low

644

Low

0.43

COL44

20,682

Unprotected

-----

0.28

IBA

99,073

Low

6,029

Low

0.39

0.31

AZE

225,651

Low

21,284

Low

0.34

IBA

112,625

Low

11,845Low

0.20

328,541

Low

19,677Low

0.06

Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia

Gravilleras del Valledel Río Siecha
Guerrero, Guargua yLaguna Verde†Hacienda La Victoria,
Cordillera Oriental
Haciendas Ganaderas
del Norte del Cauca
Humedales de la
Sabana de Bogotá

Colombia

La Empalada

COL45

10,560Partially
protected

ParaguasMunchiqueBosquesMontanos delSur deAntioquia

Colombia

La Forzosa-Santa
Gertrudis

COL46

4,106

Partially
protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.34
0.19

Colombia

La Salina

COL47

8,956

Unprotected

Norte de laCordillera
Oriental

Colombia

La Victoria (Caldas)

COL48

767

Partially
protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.34

IBA

25,723

Low

1,535

Low

0.37

Colombia

La Victoria (Nariño)

COL122

1,111

Unprotected

La Victoria-La
CochaSibundoy

0.40

AZE

13,330

Low

1,025

Low

0.62

Colombia

Lago Cumbal

COL49

371

Unprotected

-----

0.13

IBA

3,559

Low

26

Low

0.29

Colombia

Laguna de la Cocha

COL50

63,270Partially
protected

La Victoria-La
CochaSibundoy

0.34

IBA

1,199,958

Low

91,565Low

0.28

Colombia

Laguna de Tota

COL51

6,263

Unprotected

-----

0.25

IBA

44,280

Low

34

Low

0.32

435

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusColombia

Lagunas Bombona y
Vancouver

COL52

7,308

Partially
protected

Colombia

Mejue†

COL126

12,805

Protected

Colombia

Municipio de Pandi

COL55

3,289

Unprotected

COL56

94,396

COL12792,356

COL12850,480Colombia
Colombia
Colombia

Orquídeas-MusingaCarauta
Paraíso de Aves delTabor y Magdalena
Páramo de BelmiraSanta Inés y bosques
asociados†

Corridor
Noreste deQuindío
Andes
Venezolanos

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

0.35

IBA

125,410

Low

3,146

Low

0.36

99,288Low

23,528

Low

0.38

0.37

-----

0.25

AZE

45,150

Low

4,452

Low

0.51

-----

0.32

AZE

2,400,568

Medium190,28
1

Low

0.22

-----

0.21

IBA

1,148,082

Low

86,125Low

0.48

Protected

-----

0.23

1,161,978

Low

72,669Low

0.22

1,597,912

Low

91,216Low

0.30

Partially
protected
Partially
protected

Colombia

Páramo de Sonsón

COL57

73,041

Partially
protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.32

Colombia

Páramo delAlmorzadero†

COL12954,079

Unprotected

Norte de laCordillera
Oriental

0.28

664,341

Low

9,668

Low

0.35

Colombia

Páramo Tierra
Negra†COL1306,060

Unprotected

-----

0.38

50,605

Low

6,847

Low

0.45

Colombia

Páramo Urrao

COL58

35,295

Protected

-----

0.32

AZE

866,658

Low

77,474

Low

0.16

COL59

14,093

Protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.37

IBA

258,849

Low

38,673

Low

0.23

COL60

12,549Partially
protected

Noreste deQuindío

0.36

IBA

175,864

Low

13,479

Low

0.19

COL61

88,443

Protected

Cordillera
OrientalBogotá

0.30

IBA AZE

2,074,183

Low

105,90
4

Low

0.07

COL26

319,864

Protected

-----

0.19

AZE

6,098,825

Medium

778,87
5

Mediu
m

0.02

COL62

7,773

Protected

-----

0.39

IBA

197,809Low

12,134Low

0.02

Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia

Páramos del Sur deAntioquia
Páramos y Bosques
Altoandinos deGénovaParque Nacional
Natural Chingaza yalrededores
Parque Nacional
Natural Cordillera delos Picachos
Parque Nacional
Natural Cueva de los
Guácharos

436

AZE

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusColombia

Parque Nacional
Natural de Pisba

COL63

58,139Partially
protected

Colombia

Parque Nacional
Natural El Cocuy

COL64

362,163

Protected

Colombia

Parque Nacional
Natural Farallones de
Cali

COL65

220,153

Protected

Colombia

Parque Nacional
Natural Las
Orquídeas

COL66

35,070Protected

Colombia

Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia

Parque Nacional
Natural Munchique yextensión sur
Parque Nacional
Natural Nevado delHuila
Parque Nacional
Natural Paramillo
Parque Nacional
Natural Puracé
Parque Nacional
Natural Sierra de laMacarena
Parque Nacional
Natural Sumapaz
Parque Nacional
Natural TamáParque Nacional
Natural Tatamá

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

0.25

IBA

792,244Low

51,378

Low

0.22

0.17

IBA

6,840,749

Medium365,00
2

Mediu
m

0.04

0.35

IBA AZE

6,170,737

Medium

337,80
2

Mediu
m

0.14

-----

0.34

IBA

17,886

Low

2,687

Low

0.17

0.38

IBA AZE

2,039,214

Low

123,52
2

Low

0.12

Corridor
Norte de laCordillera
Oriental
Norte de laCordillera
Oriental
ParaguasMunchiqueBosquesMontanos delSur deAntioquia

COL67

52,490Protected

ParaguasMunchiqueBosquesMontanos delSur deAntioquia

COL68

182,382

Protected

Cordillera
Central

0.22

IBA

3,387,359

Medium252,45
8

Low

0.06

COL69

607,205

Protected

-----

0.20

IBA

14,952,29
6

High

1,547,7
40

High

0.10

0.30

IBA AZE

1,514,802

Low

99,854

Low

0.13

0.21

IBA

15,653,12
5

High

1,567,1
47

High

0.05

0.20

IBA

4,647,111

Medium246,26
7

Low

0.05

0.28

IBA

1,553,202

Low

Low

0.08

0.34

IBA

1,538,914

Low

Low

0.07

COL70

82,653

Protected

Cordillera
CentralCOL71

687,470

Protected

-----

COL72

250,646

Protected

COL73

61,128

Protected

COL74

59,414

Partially
protected

Cordillera
OrientalBogotá
Andes
Venezolanos
ParaguasMunchique-437

102,494
104,03
6

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusRBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cationIIA*

Sierra Nevadade Santa
Marta yalrededores

0.30

AZE

8,788,988

High

554,76
0

Mediu
m

0.08

152,907

Low

7,262

Low

0.31

504,728Low

22,779Low

0.06

CorridorBosquesMontanos delSur deAntioquia

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

Parque Natural
Nacional Sierra
Nevada de Santa
Marta y sus
alrededores
Parque Natural
Regional Cortadera†
Parque Natural
Regional Páramo delDuendeParque Natural
Regional SanturbánSalazar de lasPalmas†Parque Natural
Regional Serranía delPerijá†Parque Natural
Regional y Reserva
Forestal Protectora
Regional Páramo de
Rabanal†COL110517,667

Protected

COL131

19,169Protected

-----

0.20

0.28

COL75

32,136

Partially
protected

ParaguasMunchiqueBosquesMontanos delSur deAntioquia

COL132

23,082

Protected

-----

0.26

221,446Low

44,950Low

0.12

COL13329,471

Protected

Cordillera de
Perijá

0.44

424,956

Low

21,222Low

0.12

COL134

8,249

Protected

-----

0.25

69,021

Low

2,054

Low

0.47

Sierra Nevadade Santa
Marta yalrededores

0.22

IBA

21,064

Low

1,753

Low

0.33

IBA

Colombia

Pueblo Bello

COL76

1,269

Protected

Colombia

Refugio Río Claro

COL79

526

Partially
protected

-----

0.22

IBA

11,362

Low

722

Low

0.36

Partially
protected

ParaguasMunchiqueBosques

0.35

IBA

378,225

Low

19,309Low

0.13

Colombia

Región del Alto
CalimaCOL80

21,917438

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridorMontanos delSur deAntioquia
Norte de laCordillera
Oriental
Cordillera
CentralRBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

0.44

IBA

17,803

Low

4,083

Low

0.09

0.30

IBA

80,727

Low

8,745

Low

0.02

100,896

Low

9,048

Low

0.20

Colombia

Reserva Biológica
Cachalú

COL81

1,195

Protected

Colombia

Reserva El Oso

COL82

4,997

Protected

Colombia

Reserva Forestal
Protectora Nacional
Río Algodonal†

COL135

9,717

Protected

-----

0.30

0.30

IBA

6,354

Low

433

Low

0.78

Colombia

Colombia
Colombia

Reserva Forestal
YotocoReserva Hidrográfica,
Forestal y ParqueEcológico de Río
BlancoReserva Natural
Cajibío

COL83

508

Protected

ParaguasMunchiqueBosquesMontanos delSur deAntioquia

COL84

4,347

Protected

Noreste deQuindío

0.45

IBA

85,877

Low

2,654

Low

0.36

COL85

347

Unprotected

-----

0.14

IBA

6,193

Low

133

Low

0.37

0.34

IBA

295,445

Low

7,037

Low

0.18

0.50

IBA

49,547

Low

2,421

Low

0.15

0.42

IBA AZE

84,715Low

11,153

Low

0.21

0.14

IBA

7,898

Low

330

Low

0.72

0.30

IBA

45,364

Low

2,318

Low

0.36

0.37

IBA

382,349

Low

11,284Low

0.28

Colombia

Reserva Natural El
Pangán

COL86

7,726

Not
protected

Colombia

Reserva Natural
Ibanasca

COL87

2,393

Protected

Colombia

Reserva Natural La
Planada

COL88

4,519

Protected

COL89

926

Protected

COL90

2,167

Protected

COL91

8,595

Partially
protected

Colombia
Colombia
Colombia

Reserva Natural
Laguna de Sonso
Reserva Natural
Meremberg
Reserva Natural Río
Ñambí

AwáCotacachiIllinizas
Noreste deQuindío
AwáCotacachiIllinizas----Cordillera
CentralAwáCotacachiIllinizas

439

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

0.41

IBA

16,563

Low

493

Low

0.31

0.33

IBA

2,786

Low

242

Low

0.25

Sonsón-Nechi

0.19

IBA

5,130,382

Medium351,18
6

Mediu
m

0.27

Partially
protected

Noreste deQuindío

0.33

IBA

506,651Low

35,297

Low

0.12

5,649

Low

0

Low

0.79

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusColombia

Reserva Natural
Semillas de Agua

COL92

1,270

Protected

Colombia

Reserva Natural
Tambito

COL93

124

Not
protected

COL94

142,495

Unprotected

COL95

41,373

Colombia
Colombia

Reserva Regional
Bajo Cauca NechíReservas
Comunitarias deRoncesvalles

Corridor
Noreste deQuindío
ParaguasMunchiqueBosquesMontanos delSur deAntioquia

Colombia

Rocas de Suesca†

COL136885

Unprotected

-----

0.28

Colombia

San Sebastián

COL97

6,674

Protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.38

IBA

126,317Low

15,291

Low

0.21

COL99

9,020

Protected

-----

0.22

IBA AZE

147,831

Low

9,612

Low

0.34

COL13839,737

Protected

-----

0.35

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

63,069

Low

0.40

Low

0.28

Colombia
Colombia

Santuario de Fauna y
Flora Galeras
Santurbán-SisavitaMutiscua†‡

Colombia

Selva de Florencia

COL101

29,506

Partially
protected

Sonsón-Nechi

0.43

IBA AZE

1,012,843

Low

Colombia

Serranía de las Minas

COL103109,935

Protected

Cordillera
Central

0.28

IBA

1,970,778

Low

COL104

100,785

Partially
protected

-----

0.15

IBA

2,408,221

MediumCOL105

105,496

Protected

-----

0.29

IBA

3,336,614

Medium0.29

IBA

7,906,966

0.22

IBA AZE

5,074,726

Colombia
Colombia

Serranía de las
Quinchas
Serranía de los
Churumbelos

Colombia

Serranía de losParaguas

COL106

259,592

Partially
protected

Colombia

Serranía de los
Yariguíes

COL102

288,265

Protected

ParaguasMunchiqueBosquesMontanos delSur deAntioquia
Norte de laCordillera
Oriental

440

196,309
225,955
317,55
4

Low

0.27

Mediu
m

0.02

High

431,16
0

Mediu
m

0.13

Medium476,73
3

Mediu
m

0.23

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cationIIA*

Colombia

Serranía de San
Lucas

COL108816,648Not
protected

-----

0.18

IBA

20,696,45
3

High

2,060,1
62

High

0.26

0.27

IBA AZE

124,185Low

12,447

Low

0.12

0.25

IBA

12,484

Low

1,113

Low

0.38

672,391Low

11,620Low

0.28

1,331,046

Low

126,69
6

Low

0.14

4,018,480

Medium

233,22
8

Low

0.08

584,785

Low

76,809Low

0.18

76,201

Low

5,391

Low

0.62

Colombia

Serranía del Pinche

COL1094,870

Partially
protected

Colombia

Soatá

COL111

1,173

Unprotected

Colombia

Unidad Biogeográfica
de Siscunci Oceta†

COL13757, 912

Protected

Colombia

Valle de San Salvador

COL11376,833

Protected

Colombia

Valle de Sibundoy y
Laguna de la Cocha

COL115

165,094

Partially
protected

Colombia

Valle del Río Frío

COL11647,995

Partially
protected

Colombia

Vereda el Llano

COL1173,306

Unprotected

Colombia

Vereda Las Minas yalrededores

COL119165,046

Protected

Colombia

Villavicencio

COL1203,770

Unprotected

Ecuador

1 km oeste de Loja

ECU1

672

Protected

EcuadorAbra de Zamora†

ECU2

7,833

Protected

ParaguasMunchiqueBosquesMontanos delSur deAntioquia
Norte de laCordillera
Oriental
Norte de laCordillera
Oriental
Sierra Nevadade Santa
Marta yalrededores
La Victoria-La
CochaSibundoy
Sierra Nevadade Santa
Marta yalrededores
Noreste deQuindío
Norte de laCordillera
Oriental
Cordillera
OrientalBogotá
SangayPodocarpus
SangayPodocarpus

441

0.25

0.30

IBA

0.32

0.32

IBA

0.36
0.31

IBA AZE

2,145,372

Low

279,82
0

Low

0.18

0.19

AZE

143,787

Low

4,431

Low

0.82

0.33

AZE

7,442

Low

24

Low

0.71

94,641

Low

16,526

Low

0.40

0.38

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cationIIA*

SangayPodocarpus

0.26

IBA

11,559

Low

566

Low

0.62

-----

0.445

AZE

25,588

Low

1,776

Low

0.87

0.256

IBA

102,820

Low

3,341

Low

0.38

1,633,594

Low

176,30
4

Low

0.25

EcuadorAcanamáGuashapambaAguirre

ECU3

1,994

Partially
protected

EcuadorAgua Rica

ECU4

806

Unprotected

Ecuador

Alamor-Celica

ECU5

6,529

Protected

Ecuador

Alrededores deAmaluza

ECU6109,051

Partially
protected

EcuadorBosque Protector Alto
Nangaritza

ECU9113,295

Protected

EcuadorBosque Protector
Cashca Totoras

ECU10

6,623

Unprotected

EcuadorBosque Protector
Colambo-Yacuri

ECU1163,755

Protected

EcuadorBosque Protector
Dudas-Mazar

ECU1254,357

Partially
protected

EcuadorBosque Protector
Jatumpamba-Jorupe

ECU13

8,111

Protected

EcuadorBosque Protector Los
Cedros

ECU14

5,619

Unprotected

ECU15

99,963

Protected

ECU16

12,376

Unprotected

EcuadorEcuadorBosque Protector
Molleturo Mullopungo
Bosque Protector
Moya-Molón

EcuadorBosque Protector
Puyango

ECU17

2,713

Protected

EcuadorBosque y Vegetación
Protector El Chorro†

ECU80

4,913

Protected

EcuadorCajas-Mazán

ECU20

31,681

Protected

Bosques Secosde TumbesLoja
SangayPodocarpus
CóndorKutukúPalanda----CóndorKutukúPalanda
CotopaxiAmaluza
Bosques Secosde TumbesLoja
AwáCotacachiIllinizas
Oeste deAzuay
SangayPodocarpus
Bosques Secosde TumbesLoja
Oeste deAzuay
Oeste de
Azuay

442

0.30
0.261

IBA

2,393,873

Medium353,33
9

Mediu
m

0.29

0.156

IBA AZE

48,801

Low

4,891

Low

0.22

0.159

IBA

543,607Low

84,549

Low

0.22

0.211

IBA

500,087Low

25,373

Low

0.46

0.207

IBA

75,586

Low

8,102

Low

0.59

0.457

IBA

155,920Low

13,177

Low

0.29

0.228

IBA

1,012,990

Low

98,398

Low

0.38

0.25

IBA

134,005

Low

10,663

Low

0.31

0.24

IBA

29,888

Low

1,234

Low

0.26

34,522

Low

2,136

Low

0.44

259,867

Low

7,013

Low

0.27

0.211
0.193

IBA

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridorBosques Secosde TumbesLoja
Bosques Secosde TumbesLoja
AwáCotacachiIllinizas
Bosques Secosde TumbesLoja
Oeste de
Azuay

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

0.192

IBA

200,749

Low

26,314

Low

0.42

0.229

IBA

43,542

Low

956

Low

0.59

0.37

IBA

1,750,211

Low

150,56
4

Low

0.09

0.165

IBA

209,730Low

39,990

Low

0.14

0.257

IBA

30,576

Low

2,388

Low

0.24

EcuadorCañón del río
Catamayo

ECU18

27,634

Protected

EcuadorCatacocha

ECU21

3,737

Protected

EcuadorCayapas-SantiagoWimbí

ECU81

66,584

Partially
protected

EcuadorCazaderosMangaurquillo

ECU23

51,005

Protected

Ecuador

Cerro de HayasNaranjal

ECU24

2,655

Protected

Ecuador

Chilla†ECU82

28,591

Partially
protected

-----

0.221

237,493Low

17,698Low

0.41

EcuadorConchay†

ECU83

32,055

Unprotected

CóndorKutukúPalanda

0.331

967,801Low

88,696Low

0.47

Ecuador

Cordillera de
Huacamayos-San
Isidro-Sierra Azul

ECU25

69,671

Protected

Corredor
Nororiental

0.51

IBA

2,223,776

Medium

156,12
5

Low

0.11

Ecuador

Cordillera de Kutukú

ECU26

191,035

Unprotected

0.273

IBA AZE

6,581,504

Medium

601,58
7

Mediu
m

0.29

Ecuador

Cordillera del Cóndor

ECU27

257,017

Partially
protected

0.251

IBA

43,908,61
7

Very
High

5,601,3
84

Very
High

0.35

EcuadorCorredor Awacachi

ECU28

16,668

Partially
protected

0.487

IBA

494,821Low

22,390Low

0.41

EcuadorCorredor Ecológico
Llanganates-Sangay

ECU29

46,364Not
protected

0.35

IBA

1,349,595

Low

134,10
3

Low

0.37

Ecuador

Daucay

ECU84

1,345

Unprotected

-----

0.228

IBA

9,120

Low

1,894

Low

0.39

EcuadorEl Ángel-Cerro
Golondrinas yalrededores

Protected

AwáCotacachiIllinizas

0.25

IBA AZE

540,386Low

64,447

Low

0.29

ECU31

49,227

CóndorKutukúPalanda
CóndorKutukúPalanda
AwáCotacachiIllinizas
CotopaxiAmaluza

443

Country

EcuadorEcuadorEcuador

KBA name

El Sauce†
Estación Biológica
Guandera-Cerro
MongusGualaceo-Limón
Indanza†

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cationIIA*32,223

Low

2,467

Low

0.26

146,998

Low

14,566

Low

0.21

0.27

208,103

Low

9,270

Low

0.35

101,980

Low

4,239

Low

0.46

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

ECU85

3,679

Protected

Bosques Secosde TumbesLoja

0.235

ECU32

13,094

Protected

-----

0.255

ECU86

20,315

Partially
protected

SangayPodocarpus

Another

IBA

Ecuador

Guanujo†

ECU87

11,558

Unprotected

-----

0.186

Ecuador

Guaranda, Gallo
Rumi

ECU33

1,866

Unprotected

-----

0.196

AZE

16,789

Low

28

Low

0.82

EcuadorIntag-Toisán

ECU34

63,884

Unprotected

AwáCotacachiIllinizas

0.417

IBA

986,053

Low

117,39
8

Low

0.32

Ecuador

La Bonita-Santa
BárbaraECU35

13,060Protected

-----

0.317

IBA AZE

178,697Low

26,484Low

0.47

Ecuador

La Tagua

ECU36

6,624

Protected

Bosques Secosde TumbesLoja

0.232

IBA

59,473

Low

8,105

Low

0.15

Ecuador

Lago de Colta

ECU37

288

Unprotected

-----

0.108

IBA

2,978

Low

0

Low

0.78

Ecuador

Las Guardias

ECU39

6,065

Unprotected

-----

0.191

60,279

Low

8,869

Low

0.20

EcuadorLos Bancos-Milpe

ECU41

3,316

Protected

EcuadorManteles-El TriunfoSucre

ECU88

10,735

Unprotected

Ecuador

Maquipucuna-Río
Guayllabamba

ECU43

21,069Protected

EcuadorMashpi-Pachijal

ECU89

39,525

Protected

Ecuador

Mindo y estribaciones
occidentales delvolcán Pichincha

ECU44

94,710Protected

AwáCotacachiIllinizas
CotopaxiAmaluza
AwáCotacachiIllinizas
AwáCotacachiIllinizas
AwáCotacachiIllinizas

444

0.478

IBA

101,470

Low

6,284

Low

0.50

0.205

IBA

98,972

Low

15,333

Low

0.34

0.577

IBA

338,057Low

57,054

Low

0.40

0.524

IBA

1,018,918

Low

82,137

Low

0.47

0.645

IBA AZE

1,638,325

Low

247,57
5

Low

0.33

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusEcuadorMitad del Mundo†

ECU45

1,289

Protected

EcuadorMontañas de ZapoteNajda

ECU47

9,699

Partially
protected

Ecuador

Oeste del Páramo deApagua

ECU76

1,859

Unprotected

Ecuador

Palanda

ECU90

9,456

Protected

ECU59433,412

Protected

ECU48

34,437

Protected

ECU49

230,225

Protected

ECU50

142,945

Protected

ECU51523,632

Protected

ECU52

217,629

Protected

ECU53

335

ECU55
ECU56

Country

EcuadorEcuadorEcuadorEcuadorEcuadorEcuadorEcuadorEcuadorEcuadorEcuadorEcuador

Parque Nacional
Cayambe-Coca
Parque Nacional
Cotopaxi
Parque Nacional
Llanganates
Parque Nacional
Podocarpus
Parque Nacional
SangayParque Nacional
Sumaco-Napo
GalerasPilaló
Refugio de Vida
Silvestre Pasochoa
Reserva
Buenaventura
Reserva Comunal
Bosque deAngashcola
Reserva Ecológica
Antisana (oeste) yalrededores

Corridor
AwáCotacachiIllinizas
SangayPodocarpus
AwáCotacachiIllinizas
CóndorKutukúPalanda
Corredor
Nororiental
CotopaxiAmaluza
CotopaxiAmaluza
SangayPodocarpus
CotopaxiAmaluza

RBV

Another

0.348

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

9,867

Low

100

Low

0.62

0.28

IBA

114,663

Low

11,419

Low

0.14

0.229

AZE

12,252

Low

133

Low

0.63

0.199

IBA

161,497Low

22,067

Low

0.57

0.32

IBA AZE

7,566,883

High705,54
4

Mediu
m

0.16

0.169

IBA

308,660

Low

3,290

Low

0.09

0.277

IBA

3,341,403

Medium

Low

0.08

0.3

IBA AZE

1,934,293

Low

0.25

IBA

8,906,284

High

Corredor
Nororiental

0.40

IBA AZE

7,554,637

Unprotected

AwáCotacachiIllinizas

0.354

AZE

701

Partially
protected

-----

0.254

2,209

Unprotected

-----

ECU57

1,944

Protected

CóndorKutukúPalanda

ECU7

113,908

Protected

Corredor
Nororiental

445

271,497
338,885693,31
7

Mediu
m
Mediu
m

High

532,10
6

Mediu
m

0.06

4,818

Low

365

Low

0.75

IBA

7,684

Low

1,345

Low

0.26

0.329

IBA

36,634

Low

3,590

Low

0.56

0.191

IBA

20,931

Low

3,686

Low

0.15

0.33

IBA AZE

1,513,550

Low

101,15
0

Low

0.15

0.15
0.11

Country

EcuadorEcuadorEcuadorEcuador

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cationIIA*

Reserva Ecológica
Cofán-Bermejo

ECU60

56,091

Protected

-----

0.26

IBA

1,582,204

Low

151,97
5

Low

0.17

0.401

IBA

8,238,629

High562,10
6

Mediu
m

0.18

0.318

IBA AZE

2,922,539

Medium

317,46
8

Mediu
m

0.27

0.113

IBA

-24,827

Low

9,619

Low

0.16

0.262

IBA

41,030

Low

7,936

Low

0.27

0.229

IBA AZE

986

Low

105

Low

0.68

0.346

IBA

375,529Low

12,066

Low

0.41

0.244

209,597

Low

3,137

Low

0.61

0.30

39,875

Low

1,171

Low

0.63

1,306,149

Low

182,13
7

Low

0.43

0.363

96,905

Low

5,747

Low

0.63

0.197

42,666

Low

2,076

Low

0.35

0.30

14,736

Low

2,245

Low

0.51

71,743

Low

3,181

Low

0.37

90,159

Low

2,233

Low

0.55

Reserva Ecológica
Cotacachi-Cayapas
Reserva Ecológica
Los Illinizas yalrededores
Reserva NaturalTumbesia-La CeibaZapotillo

ECU61361,614

Partially
protected

ECU42

169,316

Protected

ECU63

19,377

Protected

EcuadorReserva Tapichalaca

ECU64

3,925

Protected

EcuadorReserva Yunguilla

ECU65

182

Protected

EcuadorRío Caoní

ECU54

9,101

Unprotected

EcuadorRío Jubones†

ECU91

23,614

Partially
protected

Ecuador

Río León†

ECU92

6,564

Unprotected

EcuadorRío Toachi-Chiriboga

ECU66

71,187

Unprotected

EcuadorSalinas de Ibarra†

ECU93

10,064

Unprotected

EcuadorSamama Mumbes†

ECU94

2,251

Protected

EcuadorSaraguro Las
Antenas†

ECU95

1,876

Protected

EcuadorSelva Alegre

ECU67

11,474

Protected

EcuadorSur de Alamor†

ECU96

5,799

Protected

AwáCotacachiIllinizas
AwáCotacachiIllinizas
Bosques Secosde TumbesLoja
CóndorKutukúPalanda
Oeste deAzuay
AwáCotacachiIllinizas----Sangay
Podocarpus
AwáCotacachiIllinizas
AwáCotacachiIllinizas----Sangay
Podocarpus
SangayPodocarpus
Bosques Secosde TumbesLoja

446

0.579

0.20
0.269

IBA AZE

IBACountry

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridorBosques Secosde TumbesLoja
AwáCotacachiIllinizas

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

0.179

IBA

17,051

Low

2,026

Low

0.59

0.38

IBA

6,221,010

Medium

400,87
1

Mediu
m

0.36

IBA

38,184

Low

2,439

Low

0.44

152,176

Low

5,380

Low

0.62

EcuadorTambo Negro

ECU69

1,945

Protected

EcuadorTerritorio Étnico Awá
y alrededores

ECU70

204,930

Unprotected

EcuadorTiquibuzo

ECU71

4,965

Unprotected

-----

0.156

Ecuador

Uritusinga Cerro
Ventanas yVillonaco†

ECU97

14,532

Partially
protected

-----

0.31

EcuadorUtuana-Bosque de
Hanne

ECU73

63

Unprotected

EcuadorValle deGuayllabamba

ECU74

24,363

Partially
protected

EcuadorValle del Chota†

ECU98

11,104

Unprotected

Ecuador

Verde-ÓnzoleCayapas-Canandé

ECU99

222,977

Unprotected

EcuadorVolcán Atacazo

ECU75

9,316

Partially
protected

Ecuador

Yanuncay-Yanasacha

ECU77

39,679Protected

EcuadorYungilla

ECU78

995

Unprotected

Ecuador

Zumba-Chito

ECU79

13,967

Protected

PER376,568

Unprotected

Peru
Peru
Peru

6 km sur deOcobamba
Abra MálagaVilcanota
Abra Pardo de Miguel

PER5

31,083

PER6

4,194

Partially
protected
Partially
protected

Bosques Secosde TumbesLoja
AwáCotacachiIllinizas----AwáCotacachiIllinizas
AwáCotacachiIllinizas
Oeste deAzuay
CotopaxiAmaluza
CóndorKutukúPalanda
Cordillera de
Vilcanota
Cordillera de
Vilcanota
Noreste de
Peru

447

0.149

IBA

0

Low

170

Low

0.84

0.315

IBA

170,522

Low

1,010

Low

0.56

67,623

Low

209

Low

0.58

0.22
0.282

IBA

5,120,188

Medium507,96
1

Mediu
m

0.29

0.374

IBA

94,909

Low

7,975

Low

0.31

0.164

IBA

308,921Low

12,460

Low

0.26

0.248

AZE

12,982

Low

751

Low

0.63

0.189

IBA

236,168Low

31,309

Low

0.54

0.194

AZE

583,817Low

38,751

Low

0.18

0.192

IBA

278,773Low

11,877Low

0.18

43,369

Low

4,258

Low

0.16

0.24

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Peru

Abra Patricia-Alto
Mayo

PER7

353,410Peru

Alto Valle del Saña

PER10

48,027

Peru

Alto Valle Santa
Eulalia-Milloc

PER11

19,698Peru

Apacheta-Pilpichaca†

PER98

Peru

Área de Conservación
Regional
Huaytapallana†PeruÁrea del Río Mantaro

Country

Protection
statusPartially
protected
Partially
protected

Corridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cationIIA*

Noreste de
Peru

0.19

IBA

4,946,135

Medium1,004,2
72

Mediu
m

0.17

-----

0.065

IBA

328,820Low

38,234Low

0.19

Unprotected

Tierras altasde Lima-Junín

0.123

IBA

179,416

Low

1,290

Low

0.26

14,875

Unprotected

-----

0.081

103,152

Low

945

Low

0.33

PER99

21,064

Protected

-----

0.104

203,926

Low

1,446

Low

0.21

PER11584,323

Unprotected

-----

0.029

AZE

520,639

Low

2,215

Low

0.37

-----

0.078

IBA

15,112

Low

1,270

Low

0.19

Peru

AypatePER12

973

Partially
protected

Peru

Bagua

PER13

5,160

Unprotected

-----

0.119

IBA

48,906

Low

254

Low

0.40

Peru

Bahuaja-Sonene

PER1001,016,488

Protected

Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata

0.175

IBA

30,238,01
2

Very
High

3,211,3
01

Very
High

0.09

Peru

Bosque de Cuyas

PER15

2,164

Unprotected

-----

0.134

IBA

22,857

Low

3,709

Low

0.18

Peru

Cajabamba†

PER101

4,058

Unprotected

-----

0.169

51,909

Low

215

Low

0.17

Peru

Calendín

PER16

7,628

Unprotected

-----

0.123

71,846

Low

477

Low

0.24

Partially
protected
Partially
protected

CarpishYanachaga

0.16

IBA AZE

1,867,138

Low

291,80
8

Low

0.31

-----

0.113

IBA

129,282

Low

18,923

Low

0.26

Peru

Carpish

PER18

211,339

Peru

Cerro Chinguela

PER20

13,522

Peru

Cerro HuanzaláHuallanca

PER21

6,324

Protected

-----

0.128

IBA

37,187

Low

354

Low

0.48

Peru

Chalhuanca

PER22

1,428

Unprotected

-----

0.046

IBA

12,657

Low

20

Low

0.41

Peru

ChamparáPER23

31,195

Partially
protected

-----

0.115

IBA

208,408

Low

3,372

Low

0.21

Peru

Chiguata

PER24

30,501

Unprotected

-----

0.053

IBA

-7,562

Low

716

Low

0.12

Peru

Chiñama

PER102

7,966

Unprotected

-----

0.086

IBA

64,288

Low

5,867

Low

0.16

448

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cationIIA*IBA AZE

366,950

Low

6,711

Low

0.23

14,720

Low

64

Low

0.14

Low

0.50

Peru

Chinchipe

PER25

34,555

Unprotected

-----

0.139

Peru

Chungui-Rumichaca†

PER103

1,476

Unprotected

-----

0.086

Peru

Conchamarca, Ambo

PER26

3,660

Unprotected

-----

0.12

AZE

32,447

Low

23

0.135

AZE

215,545

Low

16,200

Low

0.28

Mediu
m

0.24

Peru

Cordillera Carabaya

PER27

24,612

Unprotected

Peru

Cordillera de ColánPER28

134,874

Partially
protected

Peru

Cordillera deHuancabamba

PER30

50,734

Unprotected
Partially
protected

Cordillera de
Vilcanota
Noreste de
Peru

0.20

IBA

1,756,866

Low

311,91
7

-----

0.191

AZE

396,535Low

15,787Low

0.29

CóndorKutukúPalanda

0.251

IBA

43,908,61
7

Very
High

5,601,3
84

Very
High

0.35

-----

0.119

IBA

575,732

Low

2,373

Low

0.21

-----

0.089

IBA

34,613,43
4

Very
High

6,739,821
240,36
6

Very
High

0.16

Low

0.16

Peru

Cordillera del Cóndor

PER31

1,664,005

Peru

Cordillera Huayhuashy Nor-Oyón

PER32

74,497

Peru

Cordillera Vilcabamba

PER33

2,184,233

Peru

Cordillera Yanachaga

PER34

105,016

Protected

CarpishYanachaga

0.15

IBA AZE

1,837,943

Low

Peru

Cotahuasi

PER36

451,538

Protected

-----

0.025

IBA

2,509,466

Medium34,662

Low

0.08

-----

0.043

IBA

139,820

Low

8,810

Low

0.15

Partially
protected
Partially
protected

Peru

CovirePER37

61,344

Partially
protected

Peru

Cullcui

PER38

1,619

Unprotected

-----

0.081

IBA

17,899

Low

111

Low

0.36

Peru

Daniel Alomía Robles

PER40

6,324

Unprotected

CarpishYanachaga

0.14

AZE

118,952

Low

20,491

Low

0.37

Peru

El Molino

PER41

116,437

Unprotected

-----

0.158

IBA

1,101,834

Low

5,672

Low

0.34

Peru

Entre Puerto Balsa y
Moyobamba

PER14

224,396

Unprotected

Noreste de
Peru

0.14

AZE

3,650,515

Medium733,39
6

Mediu
m

0.22

Peru

Huamba

PER42

2,550

Partially
protected

-----

0.14

IBA AZE

31,100

Low

2,709

Low

0.18

Peru

Huasahuasi

PER104912

Unprotected

-----

0.123

AZE

5,963

Low

135

Low

0.62

Peru

Jaén-Bellavista†

PER105

6,404

Unprotected

-----

0.159

48,154

Low

398

Low

0.34

449

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

Peru

Jesús del Monte

PER43

4,966

Protected

-----

0.178

IBA

68,053Low

15,849

Low

0.18

Peru

Kosñipata-Carabaya

PER44

96,492

Partially
protected

Cordillera de
Vilcanota

0.177

1,129,535

Low

243,04
9

Low

0.23

Peru

La CochaPER45

18,185

Unprotected

-----

0.07

IBA

150,014Low

27,311

Low

0.32

Peru

La Esperanza

PER46

1,558

Unprotected

-----

0.09

IBA

15,254

Low

203

Low

0.55

Peru

La Granja†

PER106534

Unprotected

-----

0.093

6,248

Low

343

Low

0.24

Peru

Lago de Junín

PER48

49,713

Protected

Tierras altasde Lima-Junín

0.092

IBA AZE

342,950

Low

9,020

Low

0.17

Peru

Lago Lagunillas

PER49

4,514

Unprotected

-----

0.048

IBA

24,626

Low

49

Low

0.24

Cordillera de
Vilcanota

0.165

IBA

20,801

Low

130

Low

0.00

CountryPeru

Lagos Yanacocha

PER50

2,439

Partially
protected

Peru

Laguna de Chacas

PER51

848

Unprotected

-----

0.042

IBA

5,392

Low

43

Low

0.22

Peru

Laguna de losCóndoresPER52

261,647

Protected

-----

0.168

IBA

2,897,375

Medium682,36
4

Mediu
m

0.16

Peru

Laguna Gwengway

PER53

14,678

Unprotected

CarpishYanachaga

0.17

AZE

160,471

Low

1,174

Low

0.09

Peru

Laguna Maquera

PER54

120

Unprotected

-----

0.031

IBA

432

Low

16

Low

0.26

Peru

Laguna Umayo

PER55

25,340

Unprotected

-----

0.051

IBA

34,905

Low

1,212

Low

0.26

Peru

Lagunas de
Huacarpay

PER56

3,373

Unprotected

-----

0.092

IBA

22,127

Low

66

Low

0.65

Peru

Mandorcasa

PER59

62,444

Partially
protected

0.117

IBA

563,040Low

22,575

Low

0.12

Peru

Manu

PER60

1,593,485Protected

Cordillera de
Vilcanota
Cordillera de
Vilcanota

0.146

IBA AZE

32,067,54
2

Very
High

4,972,6
00

Very
High

0.13

Peru

Maraynioc puna

PER107925

Unprotected

0.162

AZE

4,583

Low

48

Low

0.26

Peru

Marcapomacocha

PER61

20,636

Unprotected

0.101

IBA

196,556

Low

460

Low

0.36

Peru

Maruncunca

PER62

49,712

Unprotected

0.143

IBA

1,205,948

Low

139,58
4

Low

0.53

----Tierras altasde Lima-Junín
Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata

450

Country

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

Peru

Milpo

PER63

4,849

Unprotected

CarpishYanachaga

0.17

IBA

49,558

Low

5,201

Low

0.50

Peru

Mina Inca

PER64

2,265

Unprotected

-----

0.181

IBA

87,005

Low

6,811

Low

0.36

Peru

Moyobamba

PER65

91,527

Unprotected

Noreste de
Peru

0.18

IBA

1,251,126

Low

204,34
5

Low

0.44

Peru

Nevado Bolívar†PER108

3,897

Protected

-----

0.213

56,634

Low

901

Low

0.17

Peru

Occopalca†

PER1092,041

Unprotected

-----

0.058

9,515

Low

142

Low

0.33

Peru

Paltashaco

PER67

3,350

Unprotected

-----

0.119

IBA

18,298

Low

2,850

Low

0.13

Peru

Pampas Pucacocha y
Curicocha

PER68

21,581

Unprotected

0.131

IBA

214,695

Low

1,432

Low

0.40

Peru

Parque Nacional
Cerros de Amotape

PER110

153,428

Protected

0.214

IBA

133,786Low

182,94
5

Low

0.03

PER39

5,713

Partially
protected

-----

0.062

AZE

55,095

Low

7,623

Low

0.14

PER70

325,360

Protected

-----

0.14

IBA

2,439,602

Medium30,390

Low

0.07

PER71

4,579

Protected

CarpishYanachaga

0.18

IBA

90,283Low

16,735Low

0.66

PER111

14,520

Unprotected

-----

0.201

153,952

Low

751

Low

0.26

Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru

Parque Nacional
Cutervo y sus
alrededores
Parque Nacional
HuascaránParque Nacional
Tingo María
Pelagatos†

Tierras altasde Lima-Junín
Bosques Secosde TumbesLoja

CarpishYanachaga
CarpishYanachaga

Peru

Playa Pampa

PER73

1,175

Unprotected

Peru

Previsto

PER74

6,474

Unprotected

Peru

Pucara†PER112

3,413

Unprotected

-----

PER75

58,324

Partially
protected

Cordillera de
Vilcanota

0.191

IBA

PER76

438,804

Unprotected

-----

0.166

PER81

1,634,693

Partially
protected

-----

0.093

Peru
Peru
Peru

Quincemil
Ramis y Arapa (Lake
Titicaca, sector
Peruano)Reserva Comunal El
Sira

451

0.15

IBA

10,617

Low

4,566

Low

0.41

0.15

AZE

135,236

Low

19,373Low

0.38

18,167

Low

691

Low

0.63

2,013,009

Low

135,61
0

Low

0.33

IBA AZE

312,644

Low

5,421

Low

0.06

IBA AZE

32,116,56
3

Very
High

5,525,2
02

Very
High

0.08

0.073

Country

Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru

KBA name
Reserva Nacional
Pampa Galeras
Reserva Nacional
Salinas y Aguada
BlancaReserva Paisajística
Nor Yauyos Cochas
and buffer zone†
Río Abiseo y
Tayabamba

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

PER82

7,395

Protected

-----

0.051

IBA

28,778

Low

179

Low

0.14

PER83

337,737

Protected

-----

0.032

IBA

610,071Low

16,438Low

0.10

PER113

310,377

Partially
protected

-----

0.081

2,550,260

Medium

15,869

Low

0.17

PER77

309,651

Protected

-----

0.13

3,504,966

Medium

682,56
9

Mediu
m

0.20

335,516Low

27,753

Low

0.41

IBA

Peru

Río Araza†

PER97

33,956

Unprotected

Cordillera de
Vilcanota

0.184

Peru

Río Cajamarca

PER78

37,871

Unprotected

-----

0.072

IBA

389,366

Low

774

Low

0.39

Peru

Río MantaroCordillera Central

PER79

13,427

Unprotected

-----

0.093

IBA

130,643

Low

15,840Low

0.31

106,115

Partially
protected

-----

0.195

IBA AZE

887,765

Low

16,444Low

0.23

Noreste de
Peru

0.24

IBA

397,863

Low

48,213

Low

0.58

Peru

Río Marañón

PER80

Peru

Río Utcubamba

PER84

35,534

Unprotected

Peru

RuntacochaMorococha

PER85

33,477

Unprotected

-----

0.079

IBA

217,988

Low

1,102

Low

0.19

0.19

IBA

96,946

Low

4,995

Low

0.53

Peru

San José de Lourdes

PER86

5,005

Unprotected

CóndorKutukúPalanda

Peru

San Juan Cajamarca

PER117

3,676

Unprotected

-----

0.099

AZE

28,293

Low

171

Low

0.57

Peru

San Marcos

PER88

4,477

Unprotected

-----

0.059

IBA

31,983

Low

29

Low

0.38

Peru

SandiaPER89

33,077

Unprotected

0.125

IBA

590,293Low

45,193

Low

0.46

PER90

34,689Protected

0.143

IBA

366,427Low

35,000Low

0.11

PER118

6,447

Protected

42,031

Low

330

Low

0.29

PER91

3,577

Protected

23,090

Low

2,202

Low

0.26

Peru
Peru
Peru

Santuario Histórico
Machu Picchu
Santuario Nacional de
Huayllay†Santuario Nacionaldel Ampay

Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata
Cordillera de
Vilcanota
Tierras altasde Lima-Junín
-----

452

0.062
0.091

IBA

KBA name

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

Peru

Santuario Nacional
Tabaconas-Namballe

PER92

33,674

Protected

-----

0.12

IBA

319,082

Low

69,609

Low

0.18

Peru

Sihuas†PER119294

Unprotected

-----

0.117

1,994

Low

1

Low

0.61

Peru

Suyo-La Tina

PER12048,896

Unprotected

Bosques Secosde TumbesLoja

0.145

IBA

112,252

Low

36,904

Low

0.34

Peru

Tarapoto

PER93

184,513

-----

0.181

AZE

2,927,401

Medium493,45
7

Mediu
m

0.28

Peru

Toldo

PER94

2,864

-----

0.151

IBA

29,439

Low

2,780

Low

0.16

Peru

Valcón

PER95

1,881

Unprotected

Madidi-Pilón
LajasCotapata

0.124

IBA

23,695

Low

1,191

Low

0.23

PER11635,889

Unprotected

-----

0.052

AZE

66,417

Low

2,072

Low

0.21

PER121

3,263

Unprotected

-----

0.118

AZE

22,756

Low

108

Low

0.46

-----

0.056

IBA

12,983

Low

659

Low

0.17

Country

Peru
Peru

Valle del Río Santa(Provincia de Santa)
Valle Urubamba áreacerca de Taray

Partially
protected
Partially
protected

Peru

Volcán Yucamani

PER122

6,185

Partially
protected

Peru

Yauli

PER96

3,665

Unprotected

-----

0.048

IBA

23,693

Low

50

Low

0.34

Peru

Zona deamortiguamiento delParque Nacional Río
AbiseoPER114627,281

Protected

-----

0.126

AZE

8,316,453

High

1,415,2
19

High

0.23

Venezuela

Monumento Natural
Pico Codazzi

VEN3

15,343

Protected

0.35

IBA

154,347

Low

33,748Low

0.31

Venezuela

Palmichal

VEN28

15,649

Unprotected

0.25

IBA

133,028Low

27,345Low

0.05

Venezuela

Parque Nacional ElÁvila y alrededores

VEN2

115,129

Partially
protected

0.28

IBA AZE

695,459

Low

190,82
4

Low

0.24

Venezuela

Parque Nacional El
Guácharo

VEN546,190Partially
protected

0.28

IBA

457,391

Low

79,394Low

0.14

Cordillera dela Costa
CentralCordillera dela Costa
CentralCordillera dela Costa
Central-----453

Country

Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela

KBA name
Parque Nacional El
Tamá
Parque Nacional
Guaramacal
Parque Nacional
Guatopo

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusVEN6

160,881

Partially
protected

VEN7

21,313

Protected

VEN8

156,405

Partially
protected

Corridor
Andes
Venezolanos
Andes
Venezolanos----Cordillera dela Costa
CentralCordillera dela Costa
CentralRBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

0.23

IBA AZE

3,515,677

Medium292,38
2

Low

0.12

0.29

IBA

163,437

Low

51,182

Low

0.20

Low

0.14

0.15

IBA

1,499,336

Low

287,104

0.31

IBA AZE

1,091,800

Low

242,45
8

Low

0.23

0.34

IBA

146,631Low

31,175Low

0.41

Venezuela

Parque Nacional
Henri Pittier

VEN9137,246

Protected

Venezuela

Parque Nacional
MacaraoVEN10

21,830Protected

VEN29

124,455

Protected

-----

0.20

IBA

291,466

Low

57,046

Low

0.03

VEN21

169,596

Partially
protected

Andes
Venezolanos

0.23

IBA AZE

1,378,959

Low

165,76
0

Low

0.22

VEN20

50,489Partially
protected

-----

0.36

IBA AZE

465,528

Low

86,587

Low

0.05

VEN12

374,807

Protected

0.31

IBA AZE

8,030,311

High826,47
6

Mediu
m

0.05

VEN13

55,570Protected

0.27

IBA

357,562Low

78,255

Low

0.25

VEN14

244,428

Protected

0.25

IBA

1,861,157

Low

248,22
5475,189385,52
4

Low

0.16

Mediu
m
Mediu
m

Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela

Parque Nacional
MochimaParque Nacional
Páramos Batallón y
La Negra yalrededores
Parque Nacional
Península de Paria
Parque Nacional
PerijáParque Nacional San
EstebanParque Nacional
Sierra La Culata
Parque Nacional
Sierra Nevada
Parque Nacional
Tapo-Caparo
Parque Nacional
Terepaima
Parque Nacional
Tirgua (General
Manuel Manrique)
Parque Nacional
YacambúVEN15

337,605

Protected

VEN16

226,536

Protected

VEN17

22,377

Partially
protected

Cordillera de
Perijá
Cordillera dela Costa
CentralAndes
Venezolanos
Andes
Venezolanos
Andes
Venezolanos
Andes
Venezolanos

VEN30

113,662

Protected

VEN18

39,692

Partially
protected

0.22

IBA

3,653,590

Medium0.19

IBA

3,030,214

Medium0.12

IBA

161,474

Low

31,521

Low

0.20

-----

0.18

IBA

979,857

Low

165,36
0

Low

0.18

Andes
Venezolanos

0.17

IBA

420,761Low

59,242

Low

0.22

454

0.15
0.14

Country

Venezuela
Venezuela

Venezuela
Venezuela

KBA name
Parque Nacional
YurubíParques Nacionales
Sierra La Culata andSierra Nevada yalrededores
Refugio de Fauna
Silvestre and Reserva
de Pesca ParqueNacional Dinira
Tostós

CEPF
Code

Area
(hectares)

Protection
statusCorridor

RBV

Another

Sum ofwaterbalance(mm/year)Waterbalanceclassific
ation

Total
carbonstored(t C)

Carbonstockclassifi
cation

IIA
*

VEN19

29,690Protected

-----

0.20

IBA

225,249

Low

68,768

Low

0.24

VEN23

725,740

Partially
protected

Andes
Venezolanos

0.24

AZE

1,344,893

Low

95,033

Low

0.17

VEN22

57,534

Protected

Andes
Venezolanos

0.17

IBA AZE

330,100

Low

112,88
6

Low

0.19

VEN25

8,201

Unprotected

Andes
Venezolanos

0.24

AZE

82,211

Low

8,017

Low

0.28

IBA AZE

5,312,950

Medium

596,14
5

Mediu
m

0.10

IBA

3,733,825

Medium628,29
9

Mediu
m

0.10

Zona Protectora
Macizo Montañoso delVEN26604,645
Unprotected----0.27
Turimiquire
Zona Protectora San
Cordillera deVenezuela
VEN27474,581
Unprotected
0.26
Rafael de Guasare
Perijá
†KBAs nominated/proposed.
‡KBAs nominated between August and December, 2020. Have not been included in the profile analysis.
Venezuela

455

Appendix 5.3 Changes in KBAs Between 2015 and 2020
Table A5.3.1 KBAs Removed from List Since Publication of Previous Ecosystem
Profile (CEPF 2015)
2015 KBAs
CEPF
code

KBA name2020 KBAs
CEPF
code

KBA name

Reason for Removal

BOL1

Alto Amboró

Overlap with Yungas
Inferiores/Superiores deAmboró (BOL33 and BOL38).

BOL2

Alto Carrasco andsurrounding areas

Overlap with Yungas
Inferiores/Superiores deCarrasco (BOL34 and BOL40).

BOL6

Bosque de Polylepis
de Mina Elba

BOL7

Bosque de Polylepis
de Sanja Pampa

BOL10

Chulumani-Cajuata

Candidate site in 2015, but
not formally confirmed as a
KBA.

BOL12

CoroicoSpecies distribution error,
overlap with Cotapata(BOL13).

BOL17

Huayllamarka

Candidate site in 2015, but
not formally confirmed as a
KBA.

BOL18

Lake Coipasa

Candidate site in 2015, but
not formally confirmed as a
KBA.

BOL28

Salar de Uyuni

Candidate site in 2015, but
not formally confirmed as
KBA.

BOL31

Valle La Paz

Candidate site in 2015, but
not formally confirmed as a
KBA.

BOL43

Zongo Valley

Overlap with Cotapata(BOL13).

COL3

Albania

Overlap of AZE site with the
KBA Bosques del Oriente deRisaralda (COL10).

COL4

Alto de Oso

AZE site overlap with the KBA
Serranía de los Paraguas(COL106).

COL16,
COL17

Cañon del Rio
Guatiqua andsurroundings, Cañóndel Río Guatiquía

COL16

Cañón del Río
Guatiquía

Duplicate, name error.

COL24,
COL61

Chingaza National
Natural Park andsurrounding areas,
Parque Nacional
Natural Chingaza

COL61

Chingaza National
Natural Park andsurrounding areas

Duplicate, name error.

COL27

Coromoro

COL40

Granjas del Padre
Luna

Overlap with Cotapata
National Park and Integrated
Management Natural Area
(BOL45).
Overlap with Cotapata
National Park and Integrated
Management Natural Area
(BOL45).

AZE site deleted.
COL42

Hacienda La Victoria,
Cordillera Oriental

456

Location and name error.

2015 KBAs

2020 KBAs
CEPF
code

Reason for Removal

CEPF
code

KBA name

COL53

Reserva Natural
Loros Andinos

Site proposed but notconfirmed as a KBA.

COL54

Munchique Sur

Candidate site in 2015, but
not officially proposed as a
KBA.

COL77

Pueblo Viejo de Ura

Has not been formally
proposed as a KBA.

COL78

PuraceHas not been formally
proposed as a KBA

COL96

San Isidro

Species distribution error

COL98

Santo Domingo

Species distribution error

COL100
COL101

Selva de Florencia

COL101

Selva de Florencia

Duplicate

COL102
COL107

Serranía de los
Yarigues, Serranía delos Yariguíes

COL102

Serranía de los
Yariguíes

Duplicate, name error

COL112

Tatama-Paraguas

COL114

Valle de Sibundoy

COL115

Valle de Sibundoy &Laguna de la Cocha

Site expansion, name update

COL118Las Minas

COL119

Vereda Las Minas andsurrounding area

Site expansion, name update

COL133

Serranía del Perijá
Regional Natural ParkHas not been formally
proposed as a KBA, overlaps
with the KBA nominatedSerranía del Perijá Regional
Natural Park.

KBA name

Site proposed but notconfirmed as KBA, overlaps
with the KBA Serranía de losParaguas (COL106).

COL121

Serranía de Perijá

CHI7

Puquios

Candidate site in 2015, but
not formally confirmed as a
KBA

CHI8

Reserva Nacional Altodel Loa

Candidate site in 2015, but
not formally confirmed as a
KBA.

CHI9

Reserva Nacional Las
VicuñasCandidate site in 2015, but
not formally confirmed as a
KBA.

ECU7,
ECU58

Antisana EcologicalReserve andsurrounding areas,
Reserva Ecológica
Antisana

ECU8

Cuenca del Azuay

Species distribution error

ECU19

Cabecera del Río
BabosoPossibly extinct trigger
species in Ecuador, overlap
with Territorio Étnico Awá yalrededores (ECU70).

ECU22,
ECU59

Cayambe-Coca
Ecological Reserveand surrounding
areas, ParqueNacional CayambeCoca

ECU7

ECU59

Antisana EcologicalReserve (West) andsurrounding areas

Parque Nacional
Cayambe-Coca457

Duplicate, name update

Duplicate2015 KBAs

2020 KBAs
Reason for Removal

CEPF
code

KBA name

CEPF
code

KBA name

ECU30,
ECU31

El Ángel-Cerro
Golondrinas, El Ángel
- Cerro Golondrinas
and surroundings

ECU31

El Ángel-Cerro
Golondrinas andsurroundings

ECU38

Laguna Toreadora

Error in AZE site location andoverlap with Cajas-Mazán(ECU20)

ECU40

Los Bancos-Caoni

Candidate site in 2015, but
not formally confirmed as a
KBA.

ECU42,
ECU62

ECU46

Los Illinizas
Ecological Reserveand surroundings
Region between
Parque Nacional
Sumaco NapoGaleras and Baeza
LumbaquiECU42

Los Illinizas EcologicalReserve andsurroundings

Duplicate, limits extended in2018 in the AZE upgrade
process.

Duplicate
Candidate site in 2015, but
not officially proposed as a
KBA.

ECU68

Sumaco Napo
Galeras andsurroundings

ECU72

Toachi

Candidate site in 2015, but
not formally confirmed as a
KBA.

PER1

17 km southeast of
Aucayacu

Hotspot boundary error

PER2

20 km NW of Boca
Apua

Hotspot boundary error

PER4

7 km East of
Chachapoyas

Error in species distribution,
should be removed as a KBA

PER8Abra Tangarana

Species taxonomic changes
prevent it from triggering an
AZE site due to change inthreat status, thus the siterequires re-evaluation as KBA
as well.

PER9Abra Tapuna

Species distribution error

PER17,
PER18

CarpishPER19

Carretera OtuzcoHuamachuco 2

PER28,PER29
PER35,
PER44

ECU52

PER18

Parque Nacional
Sumaco-Napo Galeras

CarpishCandidate site in 2015, but
not formally confirmed as a
KBA.

DuplicateSpecies distribution error,
species threat status updated
to Data Deficient, overlap withother KBAs

Cordillera de ColánPER28

Cordillera de ColánDuplicate

Cosñipata Valley,
Kosñipata Carabaya

PER44

Kosñipata Carabaya

Duplicate, error in location

PER47

Lacco-YaveroMegantoni

Candidate site in 2015, but
not formally confirmed as a
KBA.

PER57

Llamaquizú stream

Species distribution error

PER58

Los Chilchos to
Leymebamba Trail

Species distribution error

PER66

Ocobamba-Cordillera
de Vilcanota

Candidate site in 2015, but
not formally confirmed as a
KBA.

458

2015 KBAs

2020 KBAs
CEPF
code

Reason for Removal

CEPF
code

KBA name

PER69

Parque Nacional
Cordillera Azul

Hotspot boundary error

PER72

Phara

Species distribution error

PER87

San José de Secce

Species distribution error

VEN1

Cordillera de Caripe

VEN26

Zona Protectora
Macizo Montañoso delTurimiquire

Polygon overlap

VEN4

Parque Nacional El
Ávila

VEN2

El Avila National Parkand surrounding areas

Name change during site
update as AZE

VEN6,
VEN24

Parque Nacional El
Tamá, Tamá

VEN6

Duplicate, overlapping ofpolygons

VEN11

Parque Nacional
Páramos Batallón y
La Negra

VEN21

Parque Nacional El
Tamá
Páramos Batallón and
La Negra National
Parks and surroundingareas

KBA name

459

Name change during site
update as AZETable A5.3.2 KBAs Added Since Publication of the Previous Ecosystem
Profile (CEPF 2015)
KBAs 2020
CEPF
code

Reason for inclusion

KBA name

ARG66

Chaco de Tartagal

IBA confirmed in 2008, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

ARG67

El Peinado Lagoon

IBA confirmed in 2008, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

ARG68

Jagüé Plains

IBA confirmed in 2008, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

ARG69

Parque Nacional Los Cardones

IBA confirmed in 2008, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

ARG70

Quebrada de Escoipe

AZE site confirmed in 2018.

ARG71

Quebrada de las Conchas

IBA confirmed in 2008, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

ARG72

Reserva de la Biosfera ParqueNacional San Guillermo

IBA confirmed in 2008, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

ARG73

Reserva Provincial Laguna
Brava

IBA confirmed in 2008, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

ARG74

Sierra de Metán

IBA confirmed in 2008, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

ARG75

Sierra Rosario de la Frontera

IBA confirmed in 2008, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

ARG76

Yuto y Vinalito

IBA confirmed in 2008, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

BOL44

Candelaria-Corani

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

BOL45

Parque Nacional y Área Naturalde Manejo Integrado Cotapata

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

BOL46

Parque Nacional Tuni Condoriri

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

BOL47

Choquecamiri

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

BOL48
BOL49
BOL50

Cochabamba
CulpinaRío Guadalquivir

AZE site confirmed in 2018.
AZE site confirmed in 2018.
AZE site confirmed in 2018.

BOL51

Mallasa-Taypichullo

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

BOL52

Pampa Redonda

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

BOL53

Parque Nacional Torotoro

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

BOL54

Río Caballuni

AZE site confirmed in 2018.

BOL55

Río San Juan tributario oesteárea prepuna

AZE site confirmed in 2018.

BOL56

Serranía de Aguaragüe

BOL57

Anexo Tuni-Condoriri

IBA confirmed in 2008, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.
KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

460

KBAs 2020
CEPF
code

Reason for inclusion

KBA name

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.
AZE site proposed in 2018 and confirmed as KBA.

BOL58

Cerro Azanaques

COL122

La Victoria (Nariño)

COL123

Caparrapi

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

COL124

Corredor Pisba-Cocuy

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

COL125

Guerrero, Guargua y Laguna
Verde

Site proposed in 2020 as part of the CEPF-funded IUCNDC process.

COL126Mejue

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

COL127Paraíso de Aves del Tabor y
Magdalena

IBA identified in 2017.

COL128

Páramo de Belmira-Santa Inésy bosques asociados

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

COL129Páramo del Almorzadero

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

COL130Páramo Tierra Negra

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

COL131Parque Natural Regional
Cortadera

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

COL132Parque Natural Regional
Santurbán-Salazar de lasPalmasSite proposed in 2020 as part of the CEPF-funded IUCNDC process.

COL133Parque Natural Regional
Serranía del Perijá

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

COL134

Parque Natural Regional y
Reserva Forestal Protectora
Regional Páramo de Rabanal

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

COL135Reserva Forestal Protectora
Nacional Río Algodonal

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

COL136

Rocas de Suesca

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

COL137

Unidad Biogeográfica deSiscunci Oceta

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

CHI12

Laguna del Negro Francisco y
Laguna Santa Rosa

IBA proposed in 2010, confirmed in 2020, partiallyoverlaps with the hotspot and hosts several typically highAndean species, such as flamingos.

CHI13
CHI14
CHI15

Murmuntani
Río Vilama
ZapahuiraAZE site confirmed in 2018
AZE site confirmed in 2018
AZE site confirmed in 2018

ECU45

Mitad del mundo

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

461

KBAs 2020
CEPF
code

Reason for inclusion

KBA name

ECU80

Bosque y Vegetación Protector
El Chorro

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

ECU81

Cayapas-Santiago-Wimbí

IBA confirmed in 2013, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

ECU82

ChillaKBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

ECU83

Conchay

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

ECU84

Daucay

IBA confirmed in 2008, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

ECU85

El Sauce

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

ECU86

Gualaceo-Limón Indanza

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

ECU87

Guanujo

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

ECU88
ECU89

Manteles-El Triunfo-Sucre
Mashpi-Pachijal

IBA confirmed in 2014
IBA confirmed in 2014

ECU91

Río Jubones

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

ECU92

Río León

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

ECU93

Salinas de Ibarra

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

ECU94

Samama Mumbes

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

ECU95

Saraguro Las Antenas

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

ECU96

Sur de Alamor

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

ECU97

Uritusinga Cerro Ventanas yVillonaco

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

ECU98

Valle del Chota

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

ECU99

Verde-Ónzole-CayapasCanandé

IBA confirmed in 2005, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

PER97

Río Azara

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

PER98

Apacheta-Pilpichaca

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

462

KBAs 2020
CEPF
code

Reason for inclusion

KBA name

PER99Área de Conservación Regional
Huaytapallana

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

PER100Bahuaja-Sonene

IBA confirmed in 2005, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

PER101

Cajabamba

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

PER102Chiñama

IBA confirmed in 2005, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

PER103

Chungui-Rumichaca

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

PER104

Huasahuasi

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

PER105Jaén-Bellavista

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

PER106

La Granja

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

PER107

Maraynioc puna

AZE site confirmed in 2018,

PER108

Nevado Bolívar

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

PER109Occopalca

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

PER110Parque Nacional Cerros de
Amotape

IBA confirmed in 2008, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

PER111

Pelagatos

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

PER112

PucaraKBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

PER113

Reserva Paisajística Nor Yauyos
Cochas y zona deamortiguamiento

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

PER114

Zona de amortiguamiento delParque Nacional Río Abiseo

AZE site confirmed in 2018,

PER115Área Río Mantaro

AZE site confirmed in 2018,

PER116

Valle del Río Santa (Provincia
de Santa)

AZE site confirmed in 2018,

PER117San Juan Cajamarca

AZE site confirmed in 2018,

PER118

Santuario Nacional de Huayllay

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

PER119Sihuas

KBA nominated site for plants and reptiles in 2020 aspart of the process coordinated by IUCN-DC and fundedby CEPF.

PER120Suyo-La Tina

IBA confirmed in 2005, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

PER121

Valle Urubamba área cerca deTaray

AZE site confirmed in 2018

463

KBAs 2020
CEPF
code

Reason for inclusion

KBA name

PER122Volcán Yucamani

IBA confirmed in 2005, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

VEN28

Palmichal

IBA confirmed in 2005, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

VEN29

Parque Nacional Mochima

IBA confirmed in 2005, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

VEN30

Parque Nacional Tirgua(General Manuel Manrique)

IBA confirmed in 2005, partially overlaps with thehotspot and was found to harbor Andean species.

464

Appendix 5.4 Methods for Calculating the Relative Biodiversity
Value
The Relative Biodiversity Value (RBV) was calculated based on two components: 1)
the threat status of species on the IUCN Red List and 2) the extent of the mapped
range of threatened species, available from IUCN as of July 2020, as well as themost recent assessment data for plants and reptiles as of August 2020.
Ten categories were established for the species' range size component and three
categories (Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable) were used for the
species' threat status according to the IUCN Red List. Based on the combination of
the categories of both components, an irreplaceability index was used to rate eachspecies, on a scale of 21 to 50. The highest rating (50) of species irreplaceability
refers to Critically Endangered species with a distribution area of less than 2000
km2; and the lowest (21) refers to Vulnerable species with a distribution area
greater than 50 000 km2 (Table A5.4.1). This method is similar to that used in theprevious ecosystem profile (CEPF 2015), which was based on the methodology ofLanghammer et al. (2007) for the identification of KBA trigger species. In our casethe difference is that it is based only on threatened species and does not include
restricted distribution species outside the three main global threat categories.
Table A5.4.1 Species Irreplaceability Index for in the Tropical Andes
Hotspot
Irreplaceability index
Range size category (km2)

CriticallyEndangered

Endangered

Vulnerable< 2,000

50

40

30

2,000 - 5,000

49

39

29

5,000 - 10,000

48

38

28

10,000 - 15,000

47

37

27

15,000 - 20,000

46

36

26

20,000 - 26,000

45

35

25

26,000 - 32,000

44

34

24

32,000 - 40,000

43

33

23

40,000 - 50,000

42

32

22

> 50,000

41

31

21

A hexagon grid of 13 km2 for the entire hotspot, used in the previous profile (CEPF
2015), was used in order to establish the RBV in each minimum unit of analysis, inthis case, in each hexagon of the hotspot. Table A5.4.2 shows an example of how
species irreplaceability index values are scored to subsequently calculate the RBV
for each hotspot hexagon.

465

Table A5.4.2 Example of Irreplaceability Index Value Calculation for One
Hotspot Hexagon
Species

IUCN Red List
threat status

Area ofdistribution of
the species(km2)

Irreplaceability
value of thespeciesSpecies 1

Criticallyendangered

450

50

Species 2

Criticallyendangered

42 00042Species 3

Endangered

8 700

38

Species 4

Endangered

9 200

38

Species 5

Vulnerable

88 30021

Rating (sum of the values of thespecies irreplaceability index)

189

The RBV was calculated based on the sum of the irreplaceability values of all the
species intersecting each hexagon. This calculation was initially performed for eachtaxonomic group (Table A5.4.3), over the entire length of the hotspot hexagon plot.
Finally, the values of the nine groups were integrated as a sum of total values foreach hexagon of the hotspot.
Table A5.4.3 Taxonomic Groups Considered in the Relative Biodiversity
Value Analysis
Taxonomic group

Group

Animalia
Actinopterygii

Fish

Amphibia

Amphibians

Birds

Birds

Mammalia

Mammals

Reptilia

ReptilesBivalvia
Gastropoda

Molluscs

Insecta
Malacostraca

Arthropods

Plantae
Liliopsida
lycopodiopsida
Magnoliopsida

PlantsFungi
Sordariomycetes

Fungi

466

As a result of the analysis, a grid of hexagons covering the entire hotspot was
obtained, with a RBV assigned to each hexagon, ranging from 0 to 2009. The RBVof each hexagon was normalized, obtaining values on a scale from 0 to 1. For thenormalization, each VRB was divided by the highest value of the hexagons of thehotspot (2009, Figure A5.4.1).

467

Figure A5.4.1 The Relative Biodiversity Value for the Tropical Andes
Hotspot468

To represent the RBV ranges for the hotspot, the numerical data classification
method of numerical data, Natural Breaks or Jenks, was used. This classification isbased on the natural groupings inherent to the data, the classes are defined upongrouping of similar values while seeking to maximize the differences between
classes. That is, the entities are divided into classes whose limits are establishedwhere there are considerable differences between data values. 78 Based on the
Natural Breaks classification method, five categories were defined to represent the
RBV for the hotspot and assign the RBV category corresponding to the each KBA(Table A5.4.4).
Table A5.4.4 Classification for the RBV in the Tropical Andes Hotspot
Classes

RBV

5

Very high1 - 0.3608

4

High

<0.3608 - 0.2353

3

Medium

<0.2353 - 0.1451

2

Under

<0.1451 - 0.0667

1

Very low

0.0667 - 0

To assign the RBV to the hotspot KBAs, the average VRB of hexagons intersecting
each of the hotspot KBAs was calculated (Figure A5.4.3).

78

https://desktop.arcgis.com/es/arcmap/10.7/map/working-with-layers/classifying-numerical-fields-forgraduatedsymbols.htm#:~:text=Rupturas%20naturales%20(Jenks)&text=Los%20cortes%20de%20clase%20se%
20caracterizan%20porque%20agrupan%20mejor%20los,los%20valores%20de%20los%20datos.

469

Figure A5.4.2 Relative Biodiversity Value of the Hotspot, Represented as a
Function of the Natural Cuts Method

470

Figure A5.4.3 Relative Biodiversity Value for the KBAs in the Tropical
Andes Hotspot KBAs

471

Appendix 5.5 Methodology for Calculating Water Availability
To calculate water availability in the hotspot, we used the water balance
information, calculated from the 1 km2 spatial resolution data generated based on
the model developed b Mulligan (2010)79, available with updated data on the
AguaAndes information platform 80, for the entire hotspot area.
To assign water availability values to each KBA, the sum of the 1 km 2 pixel valuesof the water availability layer that intersect with the KBA polygons was calculated.
To represent the ecosystem service water availability, the data were classified using
the natural breaks method, defining four classes:
Water Availability Classification, mm:
Very High: 20,696,453.44 – 43,908,617.34
High: 6,840,749.50 - 20,696,453.44
Average: 2,145,372.68 – 6,840,749.50
Low: -1,809,550.06 - 2,145,372.68

79

Mark Mulligan, Jorge Rubianoa, Glenn Hymanb, Douglas Whiteb, James Garciab, Miguel Saraviac, Juan
Gabriel Leond, John J. Selvarajd, Tatiana Guttiereze and Luis Leonardo Saenz-Cruz. The Andes basins:
biophysical and developmental diversity in a climate of change. Water International Vol. 35, No. 5,
September 2010, 472-492
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02508060.2010.516330
80

http://www.policysupport.org/waterworld472

Figure A5.5.1 Water Availability in the KBAs

473

Appendix 5.6
Methodology for Calculating Carbon Storage in
the Tropical Andes Hotspot
To calculate carbon storage in the hotspot, information corresponding toaboveground biomass carbon storage, calculated from 1 km 2 spatial resolution data
generated by Avitabile et al. (2016)81, was used for the entire hotspot area.
To assign carbon storage values to each KBA, the sum of the 1 km 2 pixel values of
the carbon storage layer intersecting the KBA polygons was calculated.
To represent the ecosystem service carbon storage, the data were classified using
the natural breaks method, defining four classes:
Carbon Storage Classification, Metric tonnes:
Very high: 3,211,301.33 – 6,739,821.23
High: 1,177,059.12 – 3,211,301.33
Medium: 311,917.19 – 1,177,059.12
Low: 0 – 311,917.19

81

Avitabile, V., Herold, M., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Lewis, S. L., Phillips, O. L., Asner, G. P., Armston, J.,
Ashton, P. S., Banin, L., Bayol, N., Berry, N. J., Boeckx, P., de Jong, B. H. J., DeVries, B., Girardin, C. A.
J., Kearsley, E., Lindsell, J. A., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Lucas, R., Malhi, Y., Morel, A., Mitchard, E. T. A.,
Nagy, L., Qie, L., Quinones, M. J., Ryan, C. M., Ferry, S. J. W., Sunderland, T., Laurin, G. V., Gatti, R.
C., Valentini, R., Verbeeck, H., Wijaya, A. and Willcock, S. (2016), An integrated pan-tropical biomass
map using multiple reference datasets. Glob Change Biol, 22: 1406-1420. doi:10.1111/gcb.13139.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13139/abstract474

Figure A5.6.1 Carbon Storage in the KBAs of the Tropical Andes Hotspot

475

Appendix 6.1. Methodology for Vulnerability Analysis of a KBA
To quantify the threats to the hotspot, the threat level of each site was defined
based on the Cumulative Index of Current Anthropogenic Impacts, derived from theLandscape Condition Model (Comer and Faber-Langendoen 2013)82 .
The purpose of this model is to evaluate the potential impact of anthropogenic
activities on ecosystem integrity, spatially representing the impact of such activities
on the hotspot. This model is based on the presence and intensity of activities thatare considered incompatible with biodiversity conservation, such as extractive andinfrastructure industries, developed during the period 2008 - 2020.
Eight factors have been considered to develop the model: livestock, agriculture,main roads, urban areas, hydrography, mining concessions, airports andhydrocarbon concessions. The model takes into account the current distribution offactors, depending mainly on the availability of information for each country in a
specific time period, as shown in Table A6.1.1
Following the spatial representation of each factor, corresponding to the sevenhotspot countries, an intensity rating was assigned to the site reflecting the degree
to which that type of land use is compatible or not with biodiversity conservation.
The intensity ratings of the factors considered in the model were adapted from thestudy developed by Jarvis et al. (2010)83 for South America.
Table A6.1.1 Factors used for the development of the Cumulative Index of
Current Anthropic Impacts
Factors
Change of land use to
livestock/grasslands
Change of land use toagriculture

Intensity

ARG

Medium

BOL

CHI

COL

2010

2018

2017

ECU

PER

VEN

2016

High

2017

2010

2018

2017

2018

2016

Primary road network

Very High

2017

2016

2018

2018

2015

2019

2010

Urban areas

Very High

2017

2010

2018

2020

2018

2017

2010

Hydrography

Low

2017

2016

2018

2008

2011

2016

2016

Very High

2017

2012

2017

2019

2020

Airports

Low

2017

2018

2008

2016

2020

Hydrocarbon concessions

Low

2017

2017

Mining concessions

2018

2020

2019

It is important to note that currently the cartographic information of the open data
portals of most of the hotspot countries contains updated available and accessible
information. However, in the case of Venezuela, the availability of cartographic data
to prepare the Cumulative Index of Current Anthropic Impacts has been very
limited, due to the fact that its information download portals are deactivated or the
information is not available.
The model results are presented using the 13 km2 hexagon plot covering the entire
hotspot, which was used to represent the Relative Biodiversity Value (Figure
A6.1.1).

Comer PJ and Faber-Langendoen D. 2013. Assessing Ecological Integrity of Wetlands from National to
Local Scales: Exploring the Predictive Power, and Limitations, of Spatial Models. National Wetlands
Newsletter 35 (3): 20-22. https://www.natureserve.org/es/biodiversity-science/publications/assessingecological-integrity-wetlands-national-local-scales
83
Jarvis A, Touval JL, Castro M, Sotomayor L, Hyman G. 2010. Assessment of threats to ecosystems inSouth America. Journal for Nature Conservation 18 (3): 180-188.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1617138109000685
82

476

Figure A6.1.1 Threat Level of the Tropical Andes Hotspot

From the results of the Cumulative Index of Current Anthropogenic Impacts, theaverage value of the hexagons intersecting the hotspot KBAs was assigned (Figure
A6.1.2).

477

Figure A6.1.2 Threat level of KBAs in the Tropical Andes Hotspot

478

Appendix 7.1 Population Statistics by
Department/Province/State/Region and Approximation for
the Tropical Andes Hotspot
Country(Censusyear)

Argentina

770,881

Population
density(people/km2)
13

Population
adjusted for
hotspot
area
678,375421,424,397

8598,24744

1,694,656

64745,649

Department/
Province/State/
RegionPercentage
area (%) in
hotspot

Population*

Jujuy

88

Salta
TucumanAverage population density

28

Population in hotspot

Bolivia

Chuquisaca

82

637,000

11522,340

Cochabamba

79

2,029,000

32

1,602,910

La Paz75

2,927,000

20

2,195,250

Oruro

100

551,000

9551,000

Potosi100

902,000

7902,000

Tarija55

583,000

13

320,650

Average population density

15

Population in hotspot
Antofagasta
Chile

40

423,531

Average population density

5

6,094,150
169,412

5

Population in hotspot

Colombia

2,022,271

169,412

Antioquia

70

6,677,930

84

4,674,551

Boyaca94

1,242,731

47

1,168,167

Caldas93

1,018,453

107

947,161

Cauca

80

1,491,937

43

1,193,550

Cundinamarca

93

3,242,999

100

3,015,989

Bogota100

7,743,955

526

7,743,955

Huila

100

1,122,622

51

1,122,622

Nariño59

1,627,589

49

960,278

Norte de Santander

67

1,620,318

50

1,085,613

Quindío

100

555,401

298

555,401

Risaralda

99

961,055

198

951,444

Santander

71

2,280,908

64

1,619,445

Tolima100

1,339,998

54

1,339,998

479

Country(Censusyear)

Department/
Province/State/
RegionPercentage
area (%) in
hotspot

Population*

Valle del Cauca

76

4,532,152

Average population density

Population
density(people
/km2)
182
132

Population in hotspot

Ecuador

29,822,609

Azuay

96

881,39476

846,138

Bolivar97

209,93344

203,635

Cañar

87

281,39649

244,815

Carchi98

186,86940

183,132

Chimborazo

100

524,00472

524,004

Cotopaxi

92

488,71652

449,619

El Oro53

715,751

51

379,348

Imbabura

98

476,25777

466,732

Loja

93

521,15437

484,673

Morona-Santiago

72

196,535

4

141,505

Pichincha

84

3,228,233

144

2,711,716

Tungurahua

100

590,600

158

590,600

Zamora-Chinchipe

100

120,416

10

120,416

Average population density

63

Population in hotspot

Peru

Population
adjusted for
hotspot
area
3,444,436

7,346,332

Amazon70

426,806

10

298,764

Ancash45

1,180,638

30

531,287

Apurimac

99

430,73619

426,429

Ayacucho

63

668,21314

420,974

Cajamarca

87

1,453,711

42

1,264,729

Cusco

89

1,357,075

16

1,207,797

Huancavelica

74

365,31721

270,335

Huanuco81760,26721

615,816Junin

93

1,361,467

28

1,266,164

La Libertad

43

2,016,771

63

867,212

Pasco

79

271,904

11

214,804

Puno

90

1,237,997

19

1,114,197

San Martin

76899,648

14

683,732480

Country(Censusyear)

Department/
Province/State/
RegionPercentage
area (%) in
hotspot

Population
density(people/km2)
24

Population
adjusted for
hotspot
area

Population in hotspot

9,182,240

Population*

Average population density

Venezuela

Distrito Capital

54

2,090,479

530

1,128,859

Merida86

1,059,925

53

911,536

Miranda46

3,323,073

107

1,528,614

Tachira74

1,279,248

71

946,644

Trujillo

66

880,81542581,338

Average population density

161

Population in hotspot
Approximate Total Population in the Tropical Andes Hotspot

5,096,989
59,734,004

Source: Ecosystem Profile 2015; websites of statistical agencies of hotspot countries.
*Note: Population projected to 2020, based on information taken from the websites of national statisticalagencies.

481

Appendix 11.1. Methodology for Evaluation of Current
Conservation Investment in the Hotspot
11.1 General
For the preparation of Chapter 11, a methodology was defined based on that used in
the study "Environmental Financing in Peru", prepared for the Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) in 2015.
The main task was the construction of a database (BBDD for its acronym in Spanish)in Excel format, with the main information (type and financial source, validity, scope,
budget, etc.) of the projects that had influence on the hotspot territory during theperiod from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019.

11.2. Sources used
The sources of information used were mainly secondary. However, when theinformation was not available on the donors' web pages, they were contacted via email to receive the information.

11.2.1. Secondary sources
Projects were located on the official websites of the following donors:
Multilaterals
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

GEF
EU
IDB
World BankGEF Small Grants Program
CEPF
UN-REDD

Bilateral• USFWS• USDoS• USFS• USAID• KfW• GIZ• BMZ-BMU (Germany)• International Climate Initiative(IKI, Germany)• JICA• Swiss Agency for Development
and Cooperation (SDC)• The Belgian Development Agency(BTC)• Danish International Development
Agency (DANIDA)• UK Department for International
Development (DFID)• Government of the Netherlands• Government of Canada• Australian Government

•
•
•
•
•
•

UNDP
Nordic Development Fund (NDF)
ITTO
FAO
UNEP
Green Climate Fund•

Norwegian Agency for
Development Cooperation(NORAD)
Spanish Agency for International
Cooperation and Development(AECID)
French Development Agency (AFD)

•
•

482

Public Sources•••

Government of Peru, through the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF). Userfriendly website84.
Government of Colombia, DNP-National Planning Department 85 .
Government of Ecuador. Ministry of Environment. Transparency (chapters K)86 .

Foundations• MacArthur Foundation• Blue Moon Fund
• Moore Foundation• Mohamed bin Zayed
Conservation Fund
• Overbrook Foundation• JRS Biodiversity Foundation• Tinker Foundation• Jhon Fell Fund

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Wallace Global Fund
Save Our Species
Swift Foundation
Rainforest Trust
Rainforest Alliance
Global Wildlife Conservation
Andes Amazon FundInter-American Foundation (IAF)
TNC

Other donors• EcoFondo• Forest Trends• Odebrecht• Pluspetrol• RedLAc• Walt Disney
In addition to this information, we reviewed key literature on public investment
policies, programs, plans and projects, as well as the websites of major climate funds,
water funds and other international financing.

11.3. Data Capture and Processing. General Aspects
For each project, the official amount, as indicated in the sources described above, wasrecorded and subsequently adjusted for a series of spatial and temporal factors, sothat the amount adjusted for these factors was taken into account in the final
accounting.

11.3.1. Projects/Investments at the National Level
Country-level investments that were not specifically targeted to the Tropical Andesregion were adjusted for the proportion of the country located within the hotspot. Thisis a representative value that assumes that country-level investments were evenly
distributed throughout the country, which could over or underestimate actual
expenditures directed to hotspot conservation.

https://apps5.mineco.gob.pe/transparencia/Navegador/default.aspx
https://www.dnp.gov.co/programas/inversiones-y-finanzas-publicas/Datos-y
Statistics/Budget%20of%20Investment%20Pages/Tracking.aspx
86
https://www.ambiente.gob.ec/transparencia/
84
85

Table 11.1. Percentage of Hotspot area within each Country and Adjustment
made for each ProjectCountry% of Hotspot

Adjustment toeach project

Argentina

5.60%

x 0.056

Bolivia37.20%

x 0.372

Chile

10.00%

x 0.1

Colombia

27.20%

x 0.272

Ecuador44.20%

x 0.442Peru

31.10%

x 0.311

Venezuela

6.40%

x 0.064

It should be noted that investments affecting at least 20 percent of the hotspot area
were included (thus excluding country-level investments in Argentina, Chile andVenezuela).

11.3.2. Themes Used
The general objective of the initiative was taken into account for the inclusion of the
projects in a given theme. In cases where this information was not obtained, the nameof the project, components or activities (among others) were taken as a reference.
Likewise, there were some duly justified exceptions. The themes identified are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Management of protected areas.
Sustainable management of forests and other natural resources.
Climate change: adaptation and mitigation.
Landscape conservation and biological corridors.
Planning, policy and institutional strengthening.
Climate change REDD+.
Watershed conservation.
Community development and local governance.
Species conservation.
Economic incentives for conservation.
Biodiversity research and environmental monitoring.
Capacity building.

11.3.3. Location and Spatial Adjustment
For each project, the most exact location possible was included, taking into accountinformation at the district, municipal or canton level (in the case of Ecuador). In thisway, the amount of each project was adjusted by the number of districts of theinitiative located within the hotspot, divided by the total number of districts covered by
the project.
To establish whether or not a given administrative unit belongs to the hotspot, thelayer of municipalities/cantons/districts/departments etc. was crossed with the hotspot
polygon. In case such administrative unit was included or intersected with the hotspot,
the investment was considered to favor the hotspot, even if the municipality inquestion was not entirely within the hotspot (Figure 11.1).

484

For example, for a project that covered 11 municipalities in Colombia, five districts
were taken that occupied an area of approximately 50 percent or more within the
hotspot. Figure 11.1 shows the adjustment, which for this example was 5 / 11 = x
0.45.
In the case of projects where the location was not obtained at the cantonal, district ormunicipal level, the location was investigated in greater detail at the watershed level orthrough other jurisdictions. In the case of not obtaining any spatial information
through secondary sources, information should be sought through primary sources,
taking into account that there could be an acceptable level of subjectivity.
Figure 11.1. Example of District/Municipal/Cantonal Adjustments

Municipalities in Colombia

Municipalities included in
the project
Hotspot area

11.3.4. Time Adjustment
The time adjustment was made taking into account that the accounting period is from2015 to 2019. For each project, the start and end years of the period were recorded.
Thus, the time adjustment was made by dividing the number of years of execution in
the period 2015 to 2019 by the total number of years of the project. For example, in a
project executed between the years 2017 to 2022 the adjustment was: "Number ofyears between 2015 to 2019 = 3" / "Total number of years of project execution = 6" =Adjustment x 0.50.

11.3.5. Regional Adjustment, when the Project is Implemented in two or
more Countries.

485

For projects with binational, tri-national or greater scope (for example, a US$1.5
million project executed in Ecuador and Peru), the regional adjustment was madetaking into account the percentage of execution in each country. When precise
information on the scope of the project was not available, the project was considered
to be executed equally in each location. This was included in the BBDD in a row (withthe same project name) for each country and multiplied by the corresponding
adjustment, in this case x 0.50.
Note: "Yes" was recorded in the "Regional" column of the BBDD.

11.3.6. Additional Adjustments
For projects with budgets over US$10 million, some additional adjustments were madeand are presented below.
Additional Adjustment for High Investment by Co-financiers
When the value of the co-financing was greater than the amount financed by the donor
and/or consists of several co-financiers (public and/or private), the project was divided
into as many rows as there were co-financiers in the project. This ensures a correct
distribution of the amount invested among the donors who have contributed. An
example is shown below:
The project "Conservation of the diversity of Ecuadorian amphibians and sustainable
use of their genetic resources" (Conservación de la diversidad de anfibios ecuatorianos
y uso sostenible de sus recursos genéticos) (link) has a total amount (without filters)of US$12.9 million, which has been financed as follows: US$2.7 million by GEF, US$5.4
million by the Ecuadorian State, US$2.9 million by local governments, US$54,538 by
UNDP, US$1.7 million by Centro Jambatu and US$108,350 by Fundación Amaru.87
If the general methodology were followed without applying the additional adjustment,
the project would be fully awarded to GEF (US$2.7 million + US$10.2 million
counterpart), but in this way the investment of the other donors could not be specified
in detail and the GEF's investment would be greatly overestimated. See figure below.
Figure 11.2. Example of Adjustment for High Co-Financier Investment

Additional Adjustment for Projects with a Very High Amount of Investment fora Single Theme87

It should be noted that only monetary counterparts are considered, and not in kind .

486

Although it is true, most of the projects have several components and many initiatives
include a specific component or objective on monitoring or capacity building (in searchof their sustainability), in accordance with what is indicated in point 11.3.2. Otherwise,
the systematization of approximately 1,300 projects would have been very complex 88
and unfeasible.
However, it is necessary to perform the exercise in the case of projects with budgets
over US$10 million, in order to avoid distorting the figures (and therefore thepercentages) assigned to each theme. See the following example:
The EU-funded project "Integrated water and natural resources management" (Gestión
Integral del agua y recursos naturales) in Bolivia invested US$13.5 million (adjusted
amount) in the 2015 to 2019 period in the hotspot. If the entire budget had been
allocated to the watershed conservation theme, it would have increased by US$13.5
million with only one project, which would detract from the overall budget allocated tothis theme. After reviewing the project, it was noted that this initiative also fit into theclimate change and landscape conservation and biological corridor themes. Thus, theUS$13.5 million was divided into three items (of US$4.5 million), one for eachtheme.89 As in the previous case, a row (with the same name of the project) is
included for each of the themes.

11.4. Data Capture and Processing, Creation of the Database
The following is an explanation of each of the variables in the database in Excel
format:One project is recorded in each row (or one project is recorded in several rows
according to the exceptions described above). The following variables are recorded ineach column:
Table 11.2. Database Variables

A
B
C
D

ColumnName
Number (#)
Project
Start Year
Year End

E

Regional

F

SourceG

Type of
SourceColumnH
I

88
89

Public orPrivateCountry

Description
Project ID
Project namee.g. 2017e.g. 2021
Is it a project that covers two or more countries?
Possible answers: Yes, No.
See paragraph 11.3.5. Regional adjustment
Name of the financial source.
It is necessary to always use the same name for each source. For example: inthe case of GEF, the Spanish alternative (FMAM) or GEF should not be usedinterchangeably.
Options: Bilateral, multilateral, foundations, other donors, national public:
nation, national public: region, national public: others.
In the case of public sources, a distinction is made between levels ofgovernment because it allows for a more detailed analysis.
Options: Public and private.
Options: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela.

More resources are needed to make the budget calculations for each theme for more than 1,300 projects.
Note that column AD (Additional adjustment in blue) has X 0.33 for each row.

487

J-S

LocationT

Hotspot or
National

U

Prioritized
Corridors

V

Corridor
Name

W

Theme

X

SpeciesY

Species TypeZ

Donation
AmountAACounterpart
AmountAB
ACAD

Cofinancing
in Kind
Total Project
AmountAdditional
Adjustment

AE

Regional
Adjustment

AF

National
Adjustment

AG

Local
Adjustment

AH

Temporary
Adjustment

AI

Adjusted
AmountName of the district(s)/municipality(ies)/canton(s). If further details are notavailable, include the available detail and use alternative primary or secondary
sources for the location of the project.
Options:
Yes: For projects developed within the hotspot area.
No: For projects of national scope (indirectly impacting the hotspot). In thiscase, the adjustment shall be made according to the provisions of paragraph11.3.1.
Options: Yes, No.
The GIS methodology is used to verify if the districts are part of the hotspot, in
this case it is verified if the districts/municipalities/cantons of a project are partof a prioritized corridor.
If the previous option is Yes, the name of the prioritized corridor is recorded.
If the previous option chosen is No, N/A is recorded.
Selected theme
See 11.3.2. Themes used.
If the selected theme is Species Conservation, the type of species is recorded.
Otherwise, N/A is recorded.
If the selected theme is Species Conservation, the type of species is recorded.
Options: Amphibian, reptile, insect, mammal, bird, fish, flora.
It is recommended that only one type of species be recorded for better
analysis. If the project addresses more than one type of species, the one withthe most funding should be chosen.
Total amount invested by the financial source as it appears on the website,
official source, email received, etc.
Amount of monetary counterpart. The counterpart in kind is not recorded.
Applies to matching projects with an average or moderate amount or less than
the amount of the grant (column Z).
Options: Yes, No.
In case of co-financing in kind.
Total amount of the financial source and the counterpart.
This corresponds to the total amount of the project (sum of Z + AA).
See 11.3.6. Additional adjustments.
Corresponds to:= number of hotspot countries where the project is implemented / number ofcountries where the project is implemented).
If only implemented in one country this number = 1.
If the option in column T is No, an adjustment is applied as follows:
Adjustment toCountryeach project
Argentina x 0.056
Boliviax 0.372
Chile
x 0.1
Colombia x 0.272
Ecuadorx 0.442Perux 0.311
Venezuela x 0.064
If the option in column T is Yes, a 1 is entered in this box.
For more information, see paragraph 11.3.1. National projects/investments.
= number of cantons or districts or municipalities of the project within the
hotspot) / number of cantons or districts or municipalities of the project.
Note: If the project is national scale (i.e. column T = No), then 1 is recorded.
= (No. of years from 2015 to 2019) / (No. of total years of the project)This is the amount that is accounted for all analyses in Chapter 11(investments).
This column is calculated as follows: AI = AC *AD * AE * AF * AG * AH
0 < AD ≤ 1
0 < AE ≤ 1
0 < AF ≤ 1
0 < AG ≤ 1488

0 < AH ≤ 1
AL

Executor

AM

CSO?

AN

International
CSO?

AO
AP
AQ

Reference
Objective or
Description
Observations(Always AI ≤ AC)
Name of the executing organization.
Is the executing agency a Civil Society Organization?
Answers: Yes, No.
If the answer in column AM is Yes, is the CSO headquartered outside thehotspot countries?
Options:
Yes for international CSOs. For example: WWF, CI, WCS, etc.
No for national CSOs. For example: Pronaturaleza, Panthera, etc.
If the answer in column AM is No, N/A is recorded.
Direct link to the project (if the information is from a website).
Objective of the project on which the choice of theme is based.
Additional detail that is not possible to put in previous columns.

489

Appendix 13.1. KBA and Corridor Prioritization Methodology
This appendix describes the methodology for prioritizing KBAs and corridors for
eligibility for CEPF investment. The Pronaturaleza profiling team led the KBA andcorridor prioritization process in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, while Ecociencia led thisprioritization process in Ecuador.

KBA Prioritization steps
Step 1. Evaluate KBAs against nine criteria. The profiling team used the natural
cut-off classification methodology for relative biodiversity value as presented in
Chapter 5 to select those KBAs to be evaluated against the nine criteria described
below. Because no KBAs from Argentina or Chile fell within the medium, high or very
high range for relative biodiversity value, KBAs from these two countries did notproceed further in the prioritization process.
Criterion 1. Biological priority. Determined directly by the relative biodiversity value
presented in Chapter 5, based on the following scoring:
For Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, the following categories were used:
1 = very low: relative biodiversity value of 0-0.0667
2 = low: relative biodiversity value of 0.0667-0.1451
3 = medium: relative biodiversity value of 0.1451-0.2353
4 = high: relative biodiversity value of 0.2353-0.3608
5 = very high: relative biodiversity value of 0.3608-0.5307
The following categories were used for Ecuador:
1 = low: relative biodiversity value of 0.382-0.42
2 = medium: relative biodiversity value of 0.424-0.459
3 = high: relative biodiversity value of 0.470-0.531
4 = very high: relative biodiversity value of 0.538-0.661
Criterion 2. Degree of threat. Determined by experts in the consultation workshops
based on the risk of affecting the fundamental ecological integrity of the KBA over agiven period of time.
0 = unknown.
1 = low: the fundamental ecological integrity of the site does not pose a risk
within the next 10 years.
2 = medium: fundamental ecological integrity of the site at risk within 5 to 10
years.
3 = high: fundamental ecological integrity of the site at serious risk within thenext 3 to 5 years.
4 = very high: fundamental ecological integrity of the site at serious risk within
1 to 3 years.
Criterion 3. Funding Need. Determined directly for each KBA by the experts in thenational consultation workshops based on the level of investment in conservation bynational and international donors or public entities.
0 = unknown.
2 = low: no need for funding.

490

3 = medium: there is a need for funding, but it is not critical.
4 = high: there is a significant need for funding.
Criterion 4. Management Need. Determined by the legal protection and the capacityof the management unit of the KBA as defined in the consultations with experts in thenational workshops.
Colombia, Peru and Bolivia were determined as follows:
1 = low need: the KBA has strong legal protection and the existing
management unit(s) has/have high management capacity.
2 = fair need: the KBA has medium legal protection and the existing
management unit(s) has/have medium management capacity.
3 = high need: the KBA has medium legal protection and the existing
management unit(s) has/have a low management capacity.
4 = very high need: no part of the KBA has legal protection and/or no
management exists in the KBA.
Ecuador was scored as follows:
0 = unknown.
2 = low: improved management is not the main problem for conservation.
3 = medium: improved management is important but not critical.
4 = high: improved management is critical for conservation.
Criterion 5. Civil Society Capacity. Obtained in the national consultations based on
the organizational capacity of civil society organizations (CSO) working in the area andtheir coordinated work around a common agenda.
Colombia, Peru and Bolivia were determined as follows:
0 = unknown.
1 = low: CSO in the area do not have sufficient organizational capacity, and thework of individual organizations prevails. There is no common agenda for the
benefit of conservation, nor do they coordinated efforts to generate advocacy
and conservation impacts.
2 = medium: CSO working in the area have acceptable organizational capacity;
the work of individual organizations prevails. There is no common agenda forthe benefit of conservation, nor do they coordinated efforts to generate
advocacy and conservation impacts.
3 = high: the CSO working in the area have organizational capacity and are in
the process of building a common agenda for the benefit of conservation,
articulating the individual efforts of the organizations to generate advocacy andconservation impacts.
4 = very high: CSO working in the area have organizational capacity and areworking on a common agenda for the benefit of conservation, articulating theirefforts to generate advocacy and conservation impacts.
Ecuador was assessed as follows:
0 = unknown.
1 = low: low CSO capacity or little CSO interest in the area.
2 = medium: the CSOs working in the area have moderate capacity or interestin conservation.
3 = high: there is at least one CSO working in the area that has very good
capacity and high interest and at least one other group has good or moderatecapacity and interest.

491

4 = very high: there are two or more CSOs working in the area that have a highinterest and very good capacity to carry out conservation work.
Criterion 6. Operational Feasibility. Established by the experts in the national
consultations, it measures the feasibility of civil society working in a KBA in compliancewith CEPF policies.
0 = unknown.
2 = low: potential obstacles cannot be managed and CEPF investment policies
cannot be met.
3 = medium: there are some potential obstacles, but most of them can be
managed/avoided.
4 = high: there are no potential obstacles to working at the site.
Criterion 7. Alignment with national priorities. Colombia, Peru and Bolivia have aportfolio of priority areas for conservation that are not protected under any
conservation category. This cartographic information is crossed with the polygons of
the selected KBAs as follows:
0 = low: no overlap with national priority.
1 = regular: 1-49 percent overlap with national priority.
2 = high: 50-80 percent overlap with national priority.
3 = very high: >80 percent overlap with national priority.
For Ecuador, we analyzed whether the work in the KBA is aligned with national
priorities, rating it as follows:
0 = unknown.
2 = low: work in this area is not compatible with current policy priorities.
3 = medium: work in this area is not aligned with national priorities, but it is not
in opposition.
4 = high: work in this area is closely aligned with national priorities.
Criterion 8. Opportunity for landscape-scale conservation. It represents theconservation opportunities of the large landscapes present in the Tropical Andes andwas scored directly.
Colombia, Peru and Bolivia were scored as follows:
1 = low: When another KBA is more than 10 km away.
2 = fair: When another KBA is less than 10 km away but is not contiguous.
3 = high: Contiguous to another KBA or contiguous to a protected area
recognized by the country that connects it to another KBA.
For Ecuador it was rated as follows:
0 = unknown.
2 = low: the site is isolated, or there is no opportunity to influence management.
3 = medium: site part of a larger ecosystem, need/potential to influencelandscape-level processes is uncertain.
4 = high: site is part of a larger landscape/ecosystem with opportunities toinfluence management.
Criterion 9. Consolidate results achieved by CEPF. To ensure that theinvestments and results achieved in the projects supported during Phase II are492

sustained and consolidated over the long term. It was scored directly by the CEPF
Secretariat.
0 = no investment: CEPF has not invested in this area.
1 = low: work in this area has been marginal or is at an early stage, a major
long-term effort is required for consolidation.
3 = medium: work in this area has advanced but consolidation of theconservation vision for the area still requires a medium investment at a mediumterm, (three to five years).
4 = high: work in this area has had good results and the opportunities toconsolidate conservation of the area require an additional low investment effort
in the short-term (no more than two years).
Step 2. Eliminate KBAs where CEPF investment is not feasibile. Low scoring
KBAs under criterion 6 for operational feasibility were eliminated from further
consideration because these sites lack the basic pre-conditions for performance
success. For this reason, no KBAs in Venezuela proceeded further in the prioritization
process.
Step 3. Identification of priority KBAs and corridors. The profiling teamaggregated scores from the nine criteria for remaining KBAs, with the score forbiological importance given double weight. Based on strong recommendations from theconsultation process and from the long-term vision for the Tropical Andes, the profilingteam made several adjustments to the scoring methodology to arrive at the final list ofpriority KBAs. These adjustments sought to ensure priority KBAs were located in eachof the four countries funded in Phase II, as a means to consolidate and replicate
results and best practices obtained to date by CEPF projects, and to ensure that CEPF’s
investments achieved hotspot-wide results and impacts. In addition, the profiling teamsought to focus priority KBAs within a priority conservation corridor, to avoid thedispersal of CEPF funding across a large geographic area, to facilitate an economy ofscales and synergies between grants implemented in relative close proximity of eachother, to achieve connectivity between KBAs, and ultimately, to achieve durable,
resilient corridor-level results and impacts.
Based on these considerations and to adjust for the uneven distribution of KBAs withthe highest biodiversity values, the profiling team developed relative thresholds forprioritizing KBAs for each of the four countries as follows: 25 for KBAs in Colombia, 26
for Peru, 27 for Bolivia, and 28 for Ecuador. As a result of these considerations, theprofiling team identified 52 KBAs as final priorities located in seven conservation
corridors. Following this methodology, several high ranking KBAs were not selected aspriorities because they fell outside of a priority corridor.

493

#

Country

Site
Code

KBA name

Criterion 1.
Biological Priority

Criterion 2.
Degree of Threat

Criterion 3. Need for Funding

Criterion 4.
Management Need

Criterion 5. CSO Capacity

Criterion 6. Operational
Feasibility

Criterion 7. Alignment withnational priorities

Criterion 8. Opportunity forlandscape-scale conservation

Criterion 9. Consolidate CEPF
results achieved

Final Quantification1

Appendix 13.2. KBA Ratings for Investment Prioritization

1

Bolivia

BOL8

Bosque de Polylepis
de Taquesi

4

2

3

4

2

3

0

3

2

27

2

Bolivia

BOL13

Cotapata

3

3

4

3

3

3

1

3

3

29

3

Bolivia

BOL45

4

3

4

2

3

3

1

3

3

30

4

Bolivia

BOL37

2

2

3

3

3

4

3

3

3

28

5

Bolivia

BOL39

3

3

4

3

3

4

1

3

0

27

6

Colombia

COL5

5

3

4

3

3

3

0

3

0

29

7

Colombia

COL7

5

3

4

3

3

3

1

3

3

33

8

Colombia

COL11

Bosques Montanosdel Sur de Antioquia

4

3

4

3

3

4

1

2

0

28

9

Colombia

COL36

Enclave Seco delRío Dagua

5

3

4

2

1

4

1

3

0

28

10

Colombia

COL45

La Empalada

4

4

4

2

3

4

0

3

0

28

4

2

4

3

3

3

1

3

3

30

4

2

4

3

3

3

1

3

3

30

4

3

4

3

3

3

1

3

0

28

5

2

3

2

3

3

1

2

2

28

5

2

4

3

3

3

1

3

3

32

4

3

3

3

4

3

1

2

3

30

4

4

4

3

3

3

1

1

3

30

4

3

4

2

2

3

1

3

0

26

4

3

4

2

2

3

1

2

0

25

3

4

4

4

3

3

3

2

0

29

11

Colombia

COL75

12

Colombia

COL80

13

Colombia

COL86

14

Colombia

COL88

15

Colombia

COL91

16

Colombia

COL106

17

Colombia

COL109Parque Nacional yÁrea Natural de
Manejo Integrado
Cotapata
Yungas Inferiores
de Pilón Lajas
Yungas Superiores
de Apolobamba
Alto de Pisones
Bosque de San
Antonio/Km 18

Parque Natural
Regional Páramo
del Duende
Región del Alto
CalimaReserva Natural El
PangánReserva Natural La
PlanadaReserva Natural RíoÑambí
Serranía de losParaguas
Serranía del Pinche
Parque Nacional
Natural Farallones
de CaliParque Nacional
Natural Tatamá
1 km al oeste de
Loja

18

Colombia

COL65

19

Colombia

COL74

20

Ecuador

ECU1

21

Ecuador

ECU2Abra de Zamora

4

3

4

4

4

3

3

4

4

37

ECU3

AcanamáGuashapambaAguirre

3

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

0

33

22

Ecuador494

23

Ecuador

ECU6

24

Ecuador

ECU14

25

Ecuador

ECU16

26

Ecuador

ECU25

27

Ecuador

ECU28

Alrededores deAmaluza
Bosque Protector
Los Cedros
Bosque Protector
Moya-Molón
Cordillera de
Huacamayos-San
Isidro-Sierra Azul

2

2

4

4

3

4

4

4

3

32

4

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

0

35

1

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

0

29

4

3

4

4

3

3

4

4

0

33

Corredor Awacachi

2

4

4

4

2

3

3

4

1

29

1

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

0

29

28

Ecuador

ECU86

Gualaceo - Limón
Indanza

29

Ecuador

ECU34

Intag-Toisán

1

4

4

3

3

3

3

4

3

29

30

Ecuador

ECU41

Los Bancos - Milpe

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

4

3

36

4

3

3

3

4

4

3

4

3

35

4

3

2

2

4

4

3

4

0

30

4

2

3

3

4

4

4

4

3

35

2

2

4

4

3

4

4

4

3

32

3

1

3

2

4

4

4

4

0

28

3

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

0

33

2

3

4

3

4

3

4

4

3

32

2

4

4

4

1

3

4

4

0

28

3

4

4

3

3

4

3

4

1

32

4

4

4

4

3

3

4

3

0

33

3

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

0

33

2

2

4

3

3

4

4

4

0

28

1

4

4

4

3

2

4

4

3

30

3

2

4

4

2

4

1

3

0

26

3

3

4

4

2

4

3

3

0

29

31

Ecuador

ECU43

Maquipucuna-Río
Guayllabamba

32

Ecuador

ECU80

Mashpi-Pachijal

33

Ecuador

ECU44

34

Ecuador

ECU45

35

Ecuador

ECU50

36

Ecuador

ECU52

37

Ecuador

ECU61

38

Ecuador

ECU42

39

Ecuador

ECU54

40

Ecuador

ECU66

41

Ecuador

ECU81

42

Ecuador

ECU64

Mindo yEstribaciones
Occidentales delvolcán Pichincha
Montañas deZapote-Najda
Parque Nacional
Podocarpus
Parque Nacional
Sumaco-Napo
GalerasReserva Ecológica
Cotacachi-Cayapas
Reserva Ecológica
Los Illinizas yalrededores
Río Caoní
Río ToachiChiriboga
Saraguro Las
AntenasReserva Tapichalaca
Territorio étnico
Awá y alrededores
6 km sur deOcobamba
Abra MálagaVilcanota

43

Ecuador

ECU70

44

Peru

PER3

45

Peru

PER5

46

Peru

PER28

Cordillera de Colán

3

3

4

3

3

4

0

3

2

28

47

Peru

PER44

Kosñipata Carabaya

3

3

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

31

48

Peru

PER50

Lagos Yanacocha

3

3

4

3

2

4

3

2

0

27

49

Peru

PER65

Moyobamba

3

4

4

3

3

3

0

3

0

26

50

Peru

PER75

Quincemil

3

3

4

3

2

3

3

3

0

27

51

Peru

PER97

Río Araza

3

3

4

4

1

4

1

3

0

26

52

Peru

PER84

Río Utcubamba

4

3

4

3

2

4

0

3

3

30

495

Appendix 13.3. List of Priority Species for the Tropical Andes
Hotspot
List of Critically Endangered and Endangered species whose distribution, published by
IUCN, overlaps with the KBAs prioritized by CEPF. Includes species threat category andthe date of the last assessment of its category in the IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species as of July 2020 (IUCN, 2020).
Group

Species

Amphibians

Allobates alessandroi
Atelopus coynei
Atelopus nepiozomus
Atelopus seminiferus
Bolitoglossa tatamae
Bryophryne cophites
Centrolene ballux
Centrolene scirtetes
Cochranella megistra
Colostethus agilis
Ctenophryne carpish
Excidobates mysteriosus
Gastrotheca cornuta
Gastrotheca dendronastes
Gastrotheca nebulanastes
Gastrotheca ochoai
Gastrotheca psychrophila
Gastrotheca stictopleura
Hyloscirtus charazani
Hyloscirtus staufferorum
Hyloxalus chocoensis
Hyloxalus toachi
Microkayla guillei
Microkayla kallawaya
Microkayla saltator
Nannophryne corynetes
Nymphargus armatus
Nymphargus mixomaculatus
Oreobates zongoensis
Oophaga anchicayensis
Oophaga andresi
Phrynopus daemon
Phrynopus dagmarae
Phrynopus horstpauliPhrynopus kauneorum
Phrynopus vestigiatus
Bicolor phylobates
Pristimantis angustilineatus
Pristimantis apiculatus
Pristimantis ardalonychus
Pristimantis balionotus
Pristimantis baryecuus
Pristimantis capitonis
Pristimantis caprifer

496

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
CR
CR
EN
CR
CR
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR

2018
2004
2016
2017
2017
2016
2016
2018
2016
2016
2017
2017
2008
2016
2017
2017
2016
2017
2004
2016
2019
2004
2009
2009
2009
2017
2016
2017
2004
2019
2019
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017
2016
2016
2016
2017
2004
2004
2016
2016

BirdsPristimantis chrysops
Pristimantis cosnipatae
Pristimantis degener
Pristimantis deinops
Pristimantis dissimulatus
Pristimantis eugeniae
Pristimantis hamiotae
Pristimantis hybotragus
Pristimantis kelephus
Pristimantis loustes
Pristimantis molybrignus
Pristimantis myops
Pristimantis ocellatus
Pristimantis percultus
Pristimantis phalarus
Pristimantis ptochus
Pristimantis pulchridormientes
Pristimantis pycnodermis
Pristimantis quantus
Pristimantis serendipitus
Pristimantis mean
Pristimantis sobetes
Pristimantis tenebrionis
Pristimantis viridicans
Pristimantis xylochobates
Psychrophrynella bagrecito
Rhaebo colomai
Rhinella amabilis
Rhinella arborescandens
Rhinella chavin
Silverstoneia erasmios
Strabomantis cheiroplethus
Strabomantis helonotus
Strabomantis ruizi
Telmatobius brevirostris
Telmatobius cirrhacelis
Telmatobius punctatus
Telmatobius timens
Anairetes alpinus
Ara ambiguus
Atlapetes flaviceps
Bangsia aureocincta
Cinclodes aricomae
Cnemathraupis aureodorsalis
Coeligena orina
Eriocnemis isabellae
Eriocnemis mirabilis
Eriocnemis nigrivestis
Euchrepomis sharpei
Geotrygon purpurata
Grallaria ridgelyi
Grallaricula ochraceifrons
Heliangelus regalis
Leptasthenura xenothorax
Loddigesia mirabilis
Neomorphus radiolosus
Ognorhynchus icterotis

CR
CR
EN
CR
EN
EN
CR
EN
CR
EN
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
EN
EN
EN
CR
CR
EN
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
EN
EN
CR
EN
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
EN
CR
CR
EN
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN

497

2016
2017
2016
2016
2004
2004
2004
2016
2016
2016
2016
2018
2019
2004
2016
2018
2018
2004
2016
2016
2017
2004
2004
2016
2016
2017
2016
2006
2017
2018
2018
2016
2004
2016
2017
2008
2017
2013
2016
2016
2016
2017
2016
2016
2017
2018
2017
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016

Mammals

Fish

PlantsPenelope ortoni
Penelope perspicax
Phibalura boliviana
Picumnus steindachneri
Poecilotriccus luluae
Poospiza rubecula
Rollandia microptera
Spizaetus isidori
Synallaxis maranonica
Xenoglaux loweryi
Anotomys leander
Ateles belzebuth
Chamek workshops
Fusciceps workshops
Lagothrix flavicauda
Leopardus jacobita
Mindomys hammondi
Plecturocebus oenanthe
Pteronura brasiliensis
Tapirus pinchaqueThomasomys rosalinda
Ancistrus marcapatae
Astyanax daguae
Brycon labiatus
Chaetostoma palmeri
Cichlasoma gephyrum
Pimelodus grosskopfii
Trichomycterus unicolor
Anthopterus verticillatus
Brayopsis diapensioides
Cavendishia grandifolia
Cavendishia jardinensis
Cavendishia lebroniae
Cavendishia nuda
Centropogon gloriosus
Ceratostema lanceolatum
Ceratostema nubigena
Diogenesia amplectens
Disterigma micranthum
Freziera apolobambensis
Loricaria unduaviensis
Macleania alata
Magnolia calimaensis
Magnolia jardinensis
Magnolia mahechae
Magnolia silvioi
Magnolia wolfii
Nototriche lanata
Oreanthes glanduliferus
Oreanthes hypogaeus
Oreopanax thaumasiophyllus
Plutarchia ecuadorensis
Psammisia aurantiaca
Psammisia flaviflora
Puya brackeana
Puya exigua
Puya fosteriana

EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
EN
EN
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
EN
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
CR
EN
EN
CR
CR
EN
EN
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
EN
EN

498

2018
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2018
2016
2017
2019
2015
2020
2019
2014
2016
2011
2014
2014
2016
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2007
2015
2007
2007
2007
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018

Puya navarroana
EN
2018
Puya nutans
EN2018
Puya obconica
EN
2018
Puya parvifloraEN
2018
Puya tillii
EN
2018
Pycnophyllopsis keraiopetalaEN
2018
Symplocos robusta
EN
2018
Themistoclesia campii
CR
2018
Thibaudia joergensenii
EN
2018
Vaccinium distichum
EN2018
Valeriana johannaeEN
2018
Xanthosoma tarapotenseEN
2018
Anolis proboscis
EN
2014
Atractus duboisi
EN
2014
Lepidoblepharis conolepis
EN
2016
Liolaemus forsteriEN
2014
Macropholidus annectens
EN2014
ReptilesRiama colomaromani
EN
2014
Riama labionis
EN
2014
Riama petrorumEN
2014
Stenocercus varius
EN
2014
Synophis plectovertebralis
CR
2013
We used distributions of some reptiles soon to be published in IUCN, which have been adjusted as part ofthe process coordinated by IUCN-DC and funded by CEPF (M. Tognelli, unpublished data).

499

Appendix 13.4. List of Threatened Species by Prioritized KBAs
List of globally threatened species (CR, EN and VU) whose distribution, published in
IUCN, overlaps with the KBAs prioritized by CEPF. Includes its threat category, thedate of the last assessment of its category and date of last record (year last observed)
in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species as of July 2020 (IUCN, 2020). It also
includes information on the presence of the species in each prioritized KBA according
to records from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), an international
network and data infrastructure that provides open data on biodiversity on the planet,
as of November (GBIF.org, 2020a,b,c) and December 2020 (GBIF.org, 2020d,e,f).

Country

KBA

Group

Amphibians

Birds

Bolivia

BosquedePolylepis
de Madidi

Mammals

PlantsSpeciesTelmatobius
marmoratus
Telmatobius
sanborni
Telmatobius timens
Agriornis albicauda
Anairetes alpinus
Asthenes helleri
Cinclodes aricomae
Coryphaspiza
melanotis
Cranioleuca curtata
Lipaugus
uropygialis
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Nothoprocta
taczanowskii
Primolius couloni
Ramphastos
culminatus
Spizaetus isidori
Tinamus tao
Hippocamelus
antisensis
Lagothrix
lagothricha
Leopardus jacobita
Mazama chunyi
Tayassu pecari
Tremarctos ornatus
Brachyotum
angustifolium
Brayopsis
diapensioides
Cedrela odorata
Dendrophorbium
acuminatissimum
Greigia kessleri
Gynoxyscompressissima
Ocotea comata
Symplocos robusta

500

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2015

VU

2008

CR
VU
EN
VU
CR

2013
2016
2016
2016
2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2016

EN
VU

2016
2018

VU

2016

VU

2020

EN
VU
VU
VU

2014
2016
2012
2016

VU

2018

EN

2018

VU

2017

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU
EN

2018
2018

✔
✔
✔

Country

KBA

Group

Amphibians

Birds

Mammals

Bolivia

BosquedePolylepisdeTaquesiPlantsAmphibians
Bolivia

Cotapata

Birds

Species
Themistoclesia
peruviana
Themistoclesia
unduavensis
Weinmannia
yungasensis
Werneria
staticifolia
Telmatobius
marmoratus
Telmatobius
verrucosus
Agriornis albicauda
Cinclodes aricomae
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Spizaetus isidori
Mazama chunyi
Tremarctos ornatus
Cedrela odorata
Centropogon
gloriosus
Gentianella bockii
Gentianella
chrysantha
Greigia kessleri
Hedyosmum
maximum
Loricaria
unduaviensis
Miconia recondita
Monnina
autraniana
Ocotea comata
Ourisia
cotapatensis
Stangea paulae
Themistoclesia
peruviana
Themistoclesia
unduavensis
Weinmannia
yungasensis
Werneria
staticifolia
Microkayla
ankohuma
Microkayla
chacaltaya
Microkayla illampu
Oreobates
zongoensis
Telmatobius
marmoratus
Telmatobius
verrucosus
Agriornis albicauda
Anairetes alpinus
Cinclodes aricomae

501

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2015

VU

2004

VU
CR

2016
2016

VU

2016

EN
VU
VU
VU

2016
2016
2016
2017

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2008

VU

2008

VU

2008

CR

2004

VU

2015

VU

2004

VU
EN
CR

2016
2016
2016

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

1996

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals
Fish

PlantsSpecies
Lipaugus
uropygialis
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Ramphastos
culminatus
Spizaetus isidori
Tangaraargyrofenges
Tinamus tao
Mazama chunyi
Tapirus terrestris
Tayassu pecari
Tremarctos ornatus
Knodus longus
Acaulimalva
oriastrum
Apinagia boliviana
Brayopsis
diapensioides
Brayopsismonimocalyx
Cedrela odorata
Centropogon
gloriosus
Dendrophorbium
acuminatissimum
Gentianella bockii
Gentianellaboliviana
Gentianella
chrysantha
Greigia kessleri
Gynoxyscompressissima
Hedyosmum
maximum
Isoetes herzogii
Krapfia haemantha
Loricaria
unduaviensis
Miconia recondita
Monnina
autraniana
Ocotea comata
Oreopanax
thaumasiophyllus
Ourisia
cotapatensis
Puya fosteriana
Pycnophyllopsis
keraiopetala
Stangea paulae
Symplocos robusta
Themistoclesia
peruviana
Themistoclesia
unduavensis

502

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU

2018
2016
2018
2012
2016
2014

VU

2018

VU

2014

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2017

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU
VU

2014
2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

VU
EN

2018
2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Amphibians

Birds

Mammals

Bolivia

ParqueNacional
Tuni
Condoriri
Plants

ReptilesAmphibians

Bolivia

ParqueNacionaly ÁreaNaturaldeManejoIntegrado
Cotapata

Birds

Mammals
Fish
PlantsSpeciesValeriana johannae
Weinmannia
yungasensis
Werneria
staticifolia
Telmatobius
marmoratus
Agriornis albicauda
Cinclodes aricomae
Rollandia
microptera
Spizaetus isidori
Mazama chunyi
Tremarctos ornatus
Acaulimalva
oriastrum
Brayopsismonimocalyx
Cedrela odorata
Centropogon
gloriosus
Gentianella bockii
Gentianellaboliviana
Isoetes herzogii
Krapfia haemantha
Miconia recondita
Pycnophyllopsis
keraiopetala
Stangea paulae
Valeriana johannae
Werneria
staticifolia
Liolaemus forsteri
Microkayla
chacaltaya
Telmatobius
marmoratus
Telmatobius
verrucosus
Agriornis albicauda
Anairetes alpinus
Cinclodes aricomae
Lipaugus
uropygialis
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Spizaetus isidori
Tangaraargyrofenges
Mazama chunyi
Tayassu pecari
Tremarctos ornatus
Knodus longus
Acaulimalva
oriastrum
Apinagia boliviana

503

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2015

VU
CR

2016
2016

EN

2016

EN
VU
VU

2016
2016
2016

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2017

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU
VU
VU

2014
2018
2018

EN

2018

VU
EN

2018
2018

VU

2018

EN

2014

VU

2008

VU

2015

VU

2004

VU
EN
CR

2016
2016
2016

✔
✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU
VU
VU
VU

2016
2012
2016
2014

VU

2018

VU

2014

✔

Country

KBA

Group

ReptilesAmphibians

Bolivia

YungasInferiores
de Pilón
Lajas

Birds

Species
Brayopsis
diapensioides
Brayopsismonimocalyx
Cedrela odorata
Centropogon
gloriosus
Dendrophorbium
acuminatissimum
Gentianella bockii
Gentianellaboliviana
Gentianella
chrysantha
Greigia kessleri
Gynoxyscompressissima
Hedyosmum
maximum
Isoetes herzogii
Krapfia haemantha
Loricaria
unduaviensis
Miconia recondita
Monnina
autraniana
Ocotea comata
Oreopanax
thaumasiophyllus
Ourisia
cotapatensis
Puya fosteriana
Pycnophyllopsis
keraiopetala
Stangea paulae
Symplocos robusta
Themistoclesia
peruviana
Themistoclesia
unduavensis
Weinmannia
yungasensis
Werneria
staticifolia
Liolaemus forsteri
Atelopus tricolor
Agamia agami
Alectrurus tricolor
Ara militaris
Coryphaspiza
melanotis
Culicivora
caudacuta
Neomorphus
geoffroyi
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Phyllomyias
weedeni504

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2017

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU
VU

2014
2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

VU
EN

2018
2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

EN
VU
VU
VU
VU

2014
2004
2016
2016
2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Fish
PlantsAmphibians

Bolivia

YungasSuperior
es deApolobamba

Birds

Mammals

SpeciesRamphastos
culminatus
Spizaetus isidori
Tinamus tao
Ateles chamek
Mazama chunyi
Myrmecophaga
tridactyla
Priodontes
maximus
Tapirus terrestris
Tayassu pecari
Ancistrus
bolivianus
Cedrela odorata
Hyloscirtus
charazani
Microkayla guillei
Microkayla
kallawaya
Microkayla saltator
Telmatobius
marmoratus
Telmatobius
sanborni
Telmatobius timens
Telmatobius
verrucosus
Agriornis albicauda
Anairetes alpinus
Ara militaris
Asthenes helleri
Cinclodes aricomae
Cranioleuca curtata
Euchrepomis
sharpei
Lipaugus
uropygialis
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Nothoprocta
taczanowskii
Phibalura boliviana
Primolius couloni
Ramphastos
culminatus
Spizaetus isidori
Tangaraargyrofenges
Tinamus tao
Hippocamelus
antisensis
Lagothrix
lagothricha
Leopardus jacobita
Mazama chunyi
Tapirus terrestris
Tayassu pecari

505

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

EN
VU
EN
VU

2016
2018
2015
2016

VU

2013

VU

2013

VU
VU

2018
2012

VU

2014

VU

2017

EN

2004

CR

2009

CR

2009

CR

2009

VU

2015

VU

2008

CR

2013

VU

2004

VU
EN
VU
VU
CR
VU

2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

EN
VU

2016
2018

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2020

EN
VU
VU
VU

2014
2016
2018
2012

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

✔
✔
✔
✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

PlantsAmphibians
Colombia

Alto dePisones

Birds

SpeciesTremarctos ornatus
Apinagia boliviana
Brachyotum
angustifolium
Brayopsis
diapensioides
Brayopsismonimocalyx
Cedrela odorata
Dendrophorbium
acuminatissimum
Freziera
apolobambensis
Gentianella bockii
Greigia kessleri
Gynoxyscompressissima
Loricaria
unduaviensis
Nototriche lanata
Ocotea comata
Puyacochabambensis
Pycnophyllopsis
keraiopetala
Stangea paulae
Symplocos robusta
Themistoclesia
peruviana
Themistoclesia
unduavensis
Weinmannia
yungasensis
Werneria
staticifolia
Bolitoglossa
tatamae
Cochranella
xanthocheridia
Gastrotheca
dendronastes
Hyloscirtus
simmonsi
Pristimantis
calcaratus
Pristimantis
juanchoi
Pristimantis
polychrus
Pristimantis
ptochus
Pristimantis ruedai
Silverstoneia
erasmios
Ara militaris
Atlapetes flaviceps
Bangsia
aureocincta

506

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU
VU

2016
2014

VU

2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2017

VU

2018

CR

2018

VU
VU

2018
2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

EN
VU

2018
2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

VU
EN

2018
2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

EN

2017

VU

2017

EN

2016

VU

2017

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2017

EN

2018

VU

2017

EN

2018

VU
EN

2016
2016

EN

2017

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
recordssince
2010

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Plants

ReptilesAmphibians

Colombia

Bosquede SanAntonio/
Km 18

Birds

SpeciesBangsiamelanochlamys
Chaetura pelagica
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Hypopyrrhus
pyrohypogaster
Micrasturplumbeus
Spizaetus isidori
Aotus lemurinus
Ateles fusciceps
Mustela felipei
Tayassu pecariThomasomys
bombycinus
Cavendishia
macrocephala
Cedrela odorata
Magnolia wolfii
Themistoclesia
rostrata
Riama laevis
Centrolene
heloderma
Gastrotheca
dendronastes
Nymphargus ruizi
Pristimantis
calcaratus
Pristimantis
capitonis
Pristimantis
deinops
Pristimantis gracilis
Pristimantis
juanchoi
Pristimantis
platychilus
Pristimantis
silverstonei
Pristimantis
viridicans
Strabomantis ruizi
Atlapetes flaviceps
Chaetura pelagica
Chloropipo
flavicapilla
Conopias
cinchoneti
Dacnis hartlaubi
Grallaricula
cucullata
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Patagioenas
subvinacea

507

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

VU

2018

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

EN
VU
EN
VU
VU

2016
2008
2020
2016
2012

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU
CR

2017
2007

VU

2018

VU

2013

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

2006

1996

✔

CR

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

EN
EN
VU

2016
2016
2018

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Fish

Plants
ReptilesAmphibians

Colombia

BosquesdelOrientedeRisaralda

Arthropods

Birds

SpeciesPenelope perspicax
Spizaetus isidori
Ateles fusciceps
Balantiopteryx
infusca
Leopardus tigrinus
Mustela felipei
Myrmecophaga
tridactyla
Astroblepus
ventralis
Genycharax tarpon
Ichthyoelephas
longirostris
Pimelodellamacrocephala
Pimelodus
grosskopfii
Cedrela odorata
Macleania crassa
Magnolia
calimaensis
Riama laevis
Andinobates
bombetes
Colostethus
ucumari
Niceforonia latens
Osornophryne
percrassa
Pristimantis
alalocophus
Pristimantis
dorsopictus
Pristimantis gracilis
Pristimantis
maculosus
Pristimantis
racemus
Strabomantis
necopinus
Dysonia alipes
Bolborhynchus
ferrugineifrons
Chaetura pelagica
Chloropipo
flavicapillaDacnis hartlaubi
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria milleri
Grallaria
rufocinerea
Grallaricula
cucullata
Hapalopsittaca
amazonina
Hapalopsittaca
fuertesi

508

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN
EN
EN

2016
2016
2020

VU

2014

VU
VU

2016
2016

VU

2013

VU

2014

VU

2014

VU

2014

VU

2014

CR

2014

VU
VU

2017
2018

CR

2007

VU

2013

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2017

VU

2019

VU

2016

VU

2019

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU
VU
VU

2016
2018
2016

✔
✔
✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

CR

2018

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

PlantsColombia

BosquesMontanosdel SurdeAntioquia

Amphibians

Species
Hypopyrrhus
pyrohypogaster
Leptosittaca
branickii
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Oxypogon stuebelii
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope perspicax
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Tephrophilus
wetmorei
Aotus lemurinus
Leopardus tigrinus
Leptonycteris
curasoae
Mazama rufina
Tapirus pinchaque
Tremarctos ornatus
Cavendishia
macrocephala
Cedrela odorata
Guzmania
goudotiana
Magnolia gilbertoi
Magnolia wolfii
Plutarchia
dichogama
Plutarchia minor
Plutarchia
monantha
Plutarchia pubiflora
Plutarchia rigida
Puya ochroleuca
Themistoclesia
mucronata
Themistoclesia
recurva
Bolitoglossa
tatamae
Cochranella
xanthocheridia
Colostethus
thorntoni
Gastrotheca
dendronastes
Hyloscirtus
simmonsi
Nymphargus
prasinus
Phyllobates bicolor
Pristimantis
angustilineatus
Pristimantis
calcaratus
Pristimantis ruedai

509

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2018

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔
✔

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU
VU

2008
2016

VU

2015

VU
EN
VU

2015
2014
2016

VU

2018

VU

2017

VU

2018

EN
CR

2007
2007

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN
VU
EN

2018
2018
2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

EN

2017

VU

2017

VU

2019

EN

2016

VU

2017

VU

2016

EN

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

✔

VU

2017

✔

✔

2006

Country

KBA

Group

Arthropods

Birds

Mammals

Fish

PlantsSpecies
Pristimantis suetus
Strabomantis
cheiroplethus
Dysonia alipes
Miocora lugubris
Atlapetes flaviceps
Bangsia
aureocincta
Bangsiamelanochlamys
Chaetura pelagica
Chloropipo
flavicapilla
Coeligena orina
Conopias
cinchoneti
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Henicorhina negreti
Hypopyrrhus
pyrohypogaster
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope ortoni
Psarocolius cassini
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Aotus lemurinus
Ateles fusciceps
Caenolestes
convelatus
Leopardus tigrinus
Tayassu pecariThomasomys
bombycinus
Tremarctos ornatus
Ichthyoelephas
longirostris
Leporinus
muyscorum
Pimelodus
grosskopfii
Trichomycterus
reganiCavendishia
jardinensis
Cavendishia
macrocephalaCavendishia nuda
Cedrela odorata
Magnolia
jardinensis
Magnolia silvioi
Magnolia wolfii

510

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU
VU
EN

2019
2014
2016

✔

EN

2017

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

VU

2016

✔

CR

2017

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔

VU

2018

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN
VU

2018
2019

✔
✔

VU

2018

✔

EN
VU
EN

2016
2008
2020

✔
✔

VU

2016

VU
VU

2016
2012

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2014

VU

2014

CR

2014

VU

2014

CR

2018

VU

2018

CR
VU

2018
2017

CR

2015

EN
CR

2007
2007

✔

✔

✔
2006

Country

KBA

Group

ReptilesAmphibians

Arthropods

Birds

Colombia

Cañóndel Río
Barbas y
BremenMammals

Fish

PlantsSpecies
Themistoclesia
rostrata
Anolis maculigula
Atractus nicefori
Riama laevis
Andinobates
bombetesCentrolene
quindianum
Niceforonia latens
Pristimantis
alalocophus
Pristimantis gracilis
Strabomantis
necopinus
Dysonia alipes
Chaetura pelagica
Chloropipo
flavicapillaDacnis hartlaubi
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria milleri
Grallaria
rufocinerea
Grallaricula
cucullata
Hapalopsittaca
amazonina
Hypopyrrhus
pyrohypogaster
Leptosittaca
branickii
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Oxypogon stuebelii
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope perspicax
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Aotus lemurinus
Leopardus tigrinus
Leptonycteris
curasoae
Mazama rufina
Tapirus pinchaque
Tremarctos ornatus
Ancistrus
vericaucanus
Cavendishia
macrocephala
Cedrela odorata
Guzmania
goudotiana
Magnolia gilbertoi
Magnolia wolfii
Plutarchia minor

511

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2018

VU
VU
VU

2009
2013
2013

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU
VU

2019
2018

VU

2016

✔

VU
VU
VU

2016
2018
2016

✔
✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2018

EN
VU
VU

2016
2008
2016

VU

2015

VU
EN
VU

2015
2014
2016

EN

2014

VU

2018

VU

2017

VU

2018

EN
CR
EN

2007
2007
2018

✔

✔
2006

Country

KBA

Group

Amphibians

Arthropods

Birds

Colombia

Cañóndel Río
Combeima

Mammals

Fish

Species
Plutarchia
monantha
Plutarchia pubiflora
Plutarchia rigida
Themistoclesia
mucronata
Themistoclesia
recurva
Atelopus simulatus
Centrolene
buckleyi
Hyloxalus vergeli
Nymphargus
garciae
Pristimantis
racemusDysonia alipes
Anthocephalaberlepschi
Atlapetes flaviceps
Chaetura pelagica
Chloropipo
flavicapilla
Grallaria milleri
Grallaria
rufocinerea
Hapalopsittaca
amazonina
Hapalopsittaca
fuertesi
Hypopyrrhus
pyrohypogaster
Leptosittaca
branickii
Leptotila conoveri
Oxypogon stuebelii
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Tephrophilus
wetmorei
Aotus lemurinus
Leopardus tigrinus
Leptonycteris
curasoae
Mazama rufina
Rhogeessa
minutilla
Tapirus pinchaque
Tremarctos ornatus
Bryconamericus
tolimae
Ichthyoelephas
longirostris
Leporinus
muyscorum

512

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2018

EN
VU

2018
2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

CR

2014

VU

2008

VU

2017

VU

2016

VU

2019

VU

2019

VU

2019

✔

EN
VU

2016
2018

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

CR

2018

VU

2018

VU

2016

✔

EN
VU

2016
2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU
VU

2008
2016

VU

2015

VU

2015

VU

2016

EN
VU

2014
2016

VU

2014

VU

2014

VU

2014

2003

Country

KBA

Group

Plants

ReptilesAmphibians

Arthropods

Colombia

Cuencadel Río
Toche

Birds

Species
Pseudoplatystoma
magdaleniatum
Trichomycterustransandianus
Cavendishia
macrocephala
Cedrela odorata
Plutarchia
dichogama
Plutarchia minor
Plutarchia
monantha
Plutarchia pubiflora
Plutarchia rigida
Puya ochroleuca
Themistoclesia
mucronata
Themistoclesia
recurva
Podocnemis
lewyana
Atelopus simulatus
Centrolene
buckleyi
Niceforonia
adenobrachia
Nymphargus
garciaeOsornophryne
percrassa
Pristimantis
racemus
Pristimantis
simoteriscus
Dysonia alipes
Anthocephalaberlepschi
Atlapetes flaviceps
Bolborhynchus
ferrugineifrons
Chaetura pelagica
Doliornis remseni
Grallaria milleri
Grallaria
rufocinerea
Hapalopsittaca
amazonina
Hapalopsittaca
fuertesi
Hypopyrrhus
pyrohypogaster
Leptosittaca
branickii
Leptotila conoveri
Oxypogon stuebelii
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Sericossypha
albocristata

513

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2014

VU

2014

VU

2018

VU

2017

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN
VU
EN

2018
2018
2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

CR

2015

CR

2014

VU

2008

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2019

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

2003

EN

2016

VU

2019

VU

2019

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

VU
VU
VU

2018
2016
2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

CR

2018

VU

2018

VU

2016

✔

EN
VU

2016
2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2018

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Fish

PlantsAmphibians

Colombia

Enclave
Seco del
Río
Dagua
Birds

Species
Spizaetus isidori
Tephrophilus
wetmorei
Aotus lemurinus
Leopardus tigrinus
Leptonycteris
curasoae
Mazama rufina
Rhogeessa
minutilla
Tapirus pinchaque
Tremarctos ornatus
Bryconamericus
tolimae
Trichomycterustransandianus
Cavendishia
macrocephala
Cedrela odorata
Guzmania
goudotiana
Magnolia gilbertoi
Plutarchia
dichogama
Plutarchia minor
Plutarchia
monantha
Plutarchia pubiflora
Plutarchia rigida
Puya ochroleuca
Themistoclesia
mucronata
Themistoclesia
recurva
Andinobates
bombetes
Gastrotheca
dendronastes
Nymphargus
prasinus
Pristimantis
caprifer
Aramides wolfi
Cephalopterus
penduliger
Chaetura pelagica
Chloropipo
flavicapilla
Conopias
cinchoneti
Crax rubra
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbeaDacnis hartlaubi
Dysithamnus
occidentalis
Geotrygon
purpurata

514

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU
VU

2008
2016

VU

2015

VU

2015

VU

2016

EN
VU

2014
2016

VU

2014

VU

2014

VU

2018

VU

2017

VU

2018

EN

2007

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN
VU
EN

2018
2018
2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

CR

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Fish

Plants

ReptilesAmphibians

Arthropods

Colombia

Finca laBetulia
ReservalaPatasola

Birds

SpeciesGlaucidium
nubicola
Herpsilochmus
axillaris
Micrasturplumbeus
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope perspicax
Spizaetus isidori
Ateles fusciceps
Balantiopteryx
infusca
Leopardus tigrinus
Mustela felipei
Myrmecophaga
tridactyla
Astroblepus
ventralis
Cedrela odorata
Magnolia
calimaensis
Magnolia
mahechae
Riama laevis
Synophis
plectovertebralis
Colostethus
ucumari
Niceforonia latens
Pristimantis
alalocophus
Pristimantis gracilis
Pristimantis
racemus
Strabomantis
necopinus
Dysonia alipes
Chaetura pelagica
Chloropipo
flavicapillaDacnis hartlaubi
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria milleri
Grallaria
rufocinerea
Grallaricula
cucullata
Hapalopsittaca
amazonina
Hapalopsittaca
fuertesi
Hypopyrrhus
pyrohypogaster
Leptosittaca
branickii

515

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN
EN
EN

2016
2016
2020

VU

2014

VU
VU

2016
2016

VU

2013

VU

2014

VU

2017

CR

2007

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

✔

EN

2007

VU

2013

CR

2013

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2019

VU

2016

VU
VU

2019
2018

VU

2016

✔

VU
VU
VU

2016
2018
2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

CR

2018

VU

2018

VU

2016

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

PlantsColombia

La
EmpaladaAmphibians

Birds

Species
Oxypogon stuebelii
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope perspicax
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Tephrophilus
wetmorei
Aotus lemurinus
Leopardus tigrinus
Leptonycteris
curasoae
Mazama rufina
Tapirus pinchaque
Tremarctos ornatus
Cavendishia
macrocephala
Cedrela odorata
Guzmania
goudotiana
Magnolia gilbertoi
Magnolia wolfii
Plutarchia
dichogama
Plutarchia minor
Plutarchia
monantha
Plutarchia pubiflora
Plutarchia rigida
Puya ochroleuca
Themistoclesia
mucronata
Themistoclesia
recurva
Bolitoglossa
tatamae
Cochranella
xanthocheridia
Gastrotheca
dendronastes
Hyloscirtus
simmonsi
Pristimantis
angustilineatus
Pristimantis
calcaratus
Pristimantis
juanchoi
Pristimantis
polychrus
Pristimantis
ptochus
Pristimantis ruedai
Silverstoneia
erasmios
Ara militaris
Atlapetes flaviceps

516

Last IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU
VU

2008
2016

VU

2015

VU
EN
VU

2015
2014
2016

VU

2018

VU

2017

VU

2018

EN
CR

2007
2007

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN
VU
EN

2018
2018
2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

EN

2017

VU

2017

EN

2016

VU

2017

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2017

EN

2018

VU

2017

EN

2018

VU
EN

2016
2016

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreat2006✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Fish

Plants

ReptilesAmphibians

Colombia

PáramosyBosques
Altoandinos deGénovaBirds

SpeciesBangsia
aureocincta
Bangsiamelanochlamys
Chaetura pelagica
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Hypopyrrhus
pyrohypogaster
Micrasturplumbeus
Spizaetus isidori
Aotus lemurinus
Ateles fusciceps
Leopardus tigrinus
Mustela felipei
Tayassu pecariThomasomys
bombycinus
Ichthyoelephas
longirostris
Leporinus
muyscorum
Pimelodus
grosskopfii
Cavendishia
macrocephala
Cedrela odorata
Magnolia wolfii
Themistoclesia
rostrata
Riama laevis
Centrolene
buckleyi
Osornophryne
percrassa
Pristimantis
racemusBolborhynchus
ferrugineifrons
Chaetura pelagica
Chloropipo
flavicapilla
Doliornis remseni
Grallaria milleri
Grallaria
rufocinerea
Grallaricula
cucullata
Hapalopsittaca
fuertesi
Leptosittaca
branickii
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Patagioenas
subvinacea

517

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2017

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

EN
VU
EN
VU
VU
VU

2016
2008
2020
2016
2016
2012

VU

2016

VU

2014

VU

2014

CR

2014

VU

2018

VU
CR

2017
2007

VU

2018

VU

2013

VU

2008

VU

2016

VU

2019

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU
VU

2016
2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

CR

2018

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

✔

2006

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

PlantsAmphibians

Colombia

ParqueNaturalRegional
PáramodelDuendeBirds

SpeciesPenelope perspicax
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Tephrophilus
wetmorei
Aotus lemurinus
Leopardus tigrinus
Leptonycteris
curasoae
Mazama rufina
Tapirus pinchaque
Tremarctos ornatus
Cavendishia
macrocephala
Cedrela odorata
Magnolia gilbertoi
Plutarchia
dichogama
Plutarchia minor
Plutarchia
monantha
Plutarchia rigida
Themistoclesia
mucronata
Andinobates
bombetes
Bolitoglossa
hiemalis
Hyloscirtus
simmonsi
Nymphargus
prasinus
Pristimantis
calcaratus
Pristimantis
duendePristimantis
juanchoi
Pristimantis
silverstonei
Pristimantis
xeniolumAra militaris
Bangsiamelanochlamys
Chaetura pelagica
Chloropipo
flavicapilla
Conopias
cinchoneti
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbeaDacnis hartlaubi
Dysithamnus
occidentalis
Geotrygon
purpurata

518

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2016

VU

2018

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU
VU

2008
2016

VU

2015

VU
EN
VU

2015
2014
2016

VU

2018

VU
EN

2017
2007

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2017

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Fish

Plants
ReptilesAmphibians

Colombia

Regióndel Alto
CalimaBirds

SpeciesGlaucidium
nubicola
Herpsilochmus
axillaris
Micrasturplumbeus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope perspicax
Spizaetus isidori
Aotus lemurinus
Ateles fusciceps
Leopardus tigrinus
Mustela felipei
Myrmecophaga
tridactyla
Tayassu pecari
Tremarctos ornatus
Genycharax tarpon
Ichthyoelephas
longirostris
Cedrela odorata
Magnolia
calimaensis
Riama laevis
Andinobates
bombetes
Gastrothecacornuta
Gastrotheca
dendronastes
Hyloxalus
chocoensis
Nymphargus
prasinus
Pristimantis
caprifer
Aramides wolfi
Cephalopterus
penduliger
Chaetura pelagica
Chloropipo
flavicapilla
Conopias
cinchoneti
Crax rubra
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbeaDacnis hartlaubi
Dysithamnus
occidentalis
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Herpsilochmus
axillaris
Micrasturplumbeus

519

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN
EN
VU
EN
VU
VU

2016
2016
2008
2020
2016
2016

VU

2013

✔

VU
VU
VU

2012
2016
2014

✔
✔

VU

2014

VU

2017

CR

2007

VU

2013

VU

2016

EN

2008

EN

2016

EN

2019

VU

2016

CR

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔
✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Fish

Plants
ReptilesAmphibians

Colombia

Reserva
Hidrográf
ica,
Forestaly Parque
Ecológicode RíoBlancoArthropods

Birds

Species
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope ortoni
Penelope perspicax
Spizaetus isidori
Ateles fusciceps
Balantiopteryx
infusca
Choeroniscus
periosus
Leopardus tigrinus
Myrmecophaga
tridactyla
Tremarctos ornatus
Astroblepus
heterodon
Astroblepus
ventralisGymnotus henni
Cedrela odorata
Magnolia
calimaensis
Riama laevis
Centrolene
quindianum
Colostethus
mertensi
Niceforonia
adenobrachia
Niceforonia latens
Osornophryne
percrassa
Pristimantis
alalocophus
Pristimantis
dorsopictus
Pristimantis gracilis
Pristimantis
maculosus
Dysonia alipes
Atlapetes flaviceps
Bolborhynchus
ferrugineifrons
Chaetura pelagica
Dacnis hartlaubi
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria milleri
Grallaria
rufocinerea
Hapalopsittaca
amazonina
Hapalopsittaca
fuertesi
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Oxypogon stuebelii

520

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN
EN
EN
EN

2018
2016
2016
2020

VU

2014

VU

2014

VU

2016

VU

2013

VU

2016

VU

2014

VU

2014

VU
VU

2014
2017

CR

2007

VU

2013

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2017

VU
EN

2019
2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU
VU
VU
VU

2018
2016
2018
2016

✔
✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

CR

2018

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

PlantsAmphibians

Colombia

Reserva
NaturalEl
PangánBirds

SpeciesPatagioenas
subvinacea
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Aotus lemurinus
Leopardus tigrinus
Leptonycteris
curasoae
Tremarctos ornatus
Cavendishia
macrocephala
Cedrela odorata
Plutarchia minor
Plutarchia
monantha
Plutarchia pubiflora
Plutarchia rigida
Puya ochroleuca
Themistoclesia
mucronata
Themistoclesia
recurva
GastrothecacornutaNymphargus
balionota
Pristimantis
degener
Pristimantis hectus
Pristimantis
scolodiscus
Rhaeboandinophrynoides
Aramides wolfi
Attila torridus
Bangsia flavovirens
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbea
Dysithamnus
occidentalis
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Grallaria gigantea
Micrasturplumbeus
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Patagioenas
subvinacea

521

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔

EN
VU
VU

2016
2008
2016

VU

2015

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU
EN

2017
2018

EN

2018

EN
VU
EN

2018
2018
2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

EN

2008

VU

2004

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU
VU
VU

2016
2016
2018

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

✔

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Plants
ReptilesAmphibians

Colombia

Reserva
Natural
La
PlanadaBirds

SpeciesPenelope ortoni
Spizaetus isidori
Ateles fusciceps
Choeroniscus
periosus
Marmosa phaea
Mustela felipei
Myrmecophaga
tridactyla
Tremarctos ornatus
Cedrela odorata
Bothrocophias
campbelli
Enyalioides
oshaughnessyi
Centrolene ballux
Centrolene
scirtetes
Pristimantis
apiculatus
Pristimantis celator
Pristimantis
duellmani
Pristimantis
eremitus
Pristimantis hectus
Pristimantis
laticlavius
Pristimantis
ocellatus
Pristimantis
quinquagesimus
Pristimantis
siopelus
Pristimantis
sulculus
Rhaeboandinophrynoides
Rhaebo colomai
Strabomantis
anatipes
Attila torridus
Chaetura pelagica
Conopias
cinchoneti
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbea
Dysithamnus
occidentalis
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria gigantea
Micrasturplumbeus
Neomorphus
radiolosus

522

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN
EN
EN

2018
2016
2020

VU

2014

VU
VU

2014
2016

VU

2013

VU
VU

2016
2017

VU

2013

VU

2015

EN

2016

EN

2018

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2004

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2018

EN

2019

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU
VU

2016
2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU
VU

2018
2018

VU

2016

EN

2016

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010
✔

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

PlantsAmphibians

Colombia

Reserva
Natural
Río
Ñambí

Birds

Species
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope ortoni
Spizaetus isidori
Aotus lemurinus
Ateles fusciceps
Caenolestes
convelatus
Marmosa phaea
Mustela felipei
Tremarctos ornatus
Cedrela odorata
GastrothecacornutaNymphargus
balionota
Pristimantis
degener
Pristimantis hectus
Pristimantis loustes
Pristimantis
scolodiscus
Rhaeboandinophrynoides
Rhaebo colomai
Strabomantis
anatipes
Aramides wolfi
Attila torridus
Bangsia flavovirens
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbeaDacnis berlepschi
Dysithamnus
occidentalis
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Grallaria gigantea
Micrasturplumbeus
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope ortoni

523

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN
EN
VU
EN

2018
2016
2008
2020

VU

2016

VU
VU
VU
VU

2014
2016
2016
2017

EN

2008

VU

2004

EN

2016

VU
EN

2018
2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU
VU
VU

2016
2016
2018

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

✔

EN

2018

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Plants
ReptilesAmphibians

Birds

Colombia

Reservas
Comunita
rias deRoncesva
lles

Mammals

PlantsSpecies
Spizaetus isidori
Ateles fusciceps
Choeroniscus
periosus
Marmosa phaea
Mustela felipei
Cedrela odorata
Bothrocophias
campbelli
Enyalioides
oshaughnessyi
Centrolene
buckleyi
Nymphargus
garciaeOsornophryne
percrassa
Pristimantis
racemus
Anthocephalaberlepschi
Atlapetes flaviceps
Bolborhynchus
ferrugineifrons
Chaetura pelagica
Doliornis remseni
Grallaria milleri
Grallaria
rufocinerea
Hapalopsittaca
amazonina
Hapalopsittaca
fuertesi
Leptosittaca
branickii
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Tephrophilus
wetmorei
Aotus lemurinus
Leopardus tigrinus
Leptonycteris
curasoae
Mazama rufina
Tapirus pinchaque
Tremarctos ornatus
Cedrela odorata
Magnolia gilbertoi
Plutarchia
dichogama
Plutarchia minor
Plutarchia
monantha

524

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN
EN

2016
2020

VU

2014

VU
VU
VU

2014
2016
2017

VU

2013

VU

2015

VU

2008

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2019

VU

2019

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU
VU
VU

2018
2016
2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

CR

2018

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔

EN

2016

VU

2018

✔

VU
VU

2008
2016

✔

VU

2015

VU
EN
VU
VU
EN

2015
2014
2016
2017
2007

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

ReptilesColombia

Serraníade losParaguas

Amphibians

Species
Plutarchia pubiflora
Plutarchia rigida
Themistoclesia
mucronata
Tillandsia
cuatrecasasii
Riama columbiana
Andinobates
bombetesCentrolene
heloderma
Cochranella
megistraColostethus agilis
Gastrothecacornuta
Gastrotheca
dendronastes
Hyloscirtus
simmonsi
Hyloxalus
chocoensis
Hyloxalusfascianigrus
Nymphargus
armatus
Nymphargus
prasinus
Nymphargus ruizi
Phyllobates bicolor
Pristimantis
angustilineatus
Pristimantis
calcaratus
Pristimantis
chrysops
Pristimantis
deinops
Pristimantis
kelephus
Pristimantis
molybrignus
Pristimantis myops
Pristimantis
phalarus
Pristimantis
polychrus
Pristimantis
ptochus
Pristimantis
quantus
Pristimantis ruedai
Pristimantis
signifer
Pristimantis
silverstonei
Pristimantis
xylochobates
Strabomantis
cheiroplethus

525

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN
VU

2018
2018

VU

2018

CR

2018

EN

2013

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

EN

2016

EN

2008

EN

2016

VU

2017

EN

2019

VU

2016

CR

2016

VU

2016

VU
EN

2016
2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

CR

2016

CR

2016

CR

2016

CR

2016

EN

2018

EN

2016

VU

2017

EN

2018

EN

2016

VU

2017

CR

2017

VU

2016

CR

2016

EN

2016

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

✔
1996

✔

1999

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Birds

Mammals

Fish

Species
Ara militaris
Aramides wolfi
Bangsia
aureocincta
Bangsiamelanochlamys
Chaetura pelagica
Chloropipo
flavicapilla
Conopias
cinchoneti
Crax rubra
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbea
Dysithamnus
occidentalis
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Grallaricula
cucullata
Henicorhina negreti
Herpsilochmus
axillaris
Hypopyrrhus
pyrohypogaster
Micrasturplumbeus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Spizaetus isidori
Aotus lemurinus
Ateles fusciceps
Caenolestes
convelatus
Choeroniscus
periosus
Leopardus tigrinus
Mustela felipei
Myrmecophaga
tridactyla
Tayassu pecariThomasomys
bombycinus
Tremarctos ornatus
Apteronotus
spurrellii
Astroblepus
heterodon
Astroblepus
ventralis
Chaetostoma
palmeri
Genycharax tarpon
Ichthyoelephas
longirostris
Leporinus
muyscorum

526

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU
VU

2016
2016

EN

2017

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

EN
VU
EN

2016
2008
2020

✔

VU

2016

VU

2014

VU
VU

2016
2016

VU

2013

VU

2012

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2014

VU

2014

VU

2014

EN

2014

VU

2014

VU

2014

VU

2014

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Plants
ReptilesAmphibians

Colombia

SerraníadelPincheBirds

Mammals

PlantsAmphibians

Ecuador

1 km
west of
Loja

Arthropods
Birds
PlantsSpecies
Pimelodellamacrocephala
Pimelodus
grosskopfii
Cedrela odorata
Riama laevis
Centrolene
buckleyi
Nymphargus
balionota
Pristimantis
duellmani
Chaetura pelagica
Conopias
cinchoneti
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbea
Dysithamnus
occidentalis
Eriocnemis
isabellae
Eriocnemis
mirabilis
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Micrasturplumbeus
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope ortoni
Spizaetus isidori
Alouatta palliata
Ateles fusciceps
Choeroniscus
periosus
Mustela felipei
Myrmecophaga
tridactyla
Cedrela odorata
Atelopus
podocarpus
Centrolene
buckleyi
Gastrotheca lojana
Rhinella amabilis
Telmatobius
vellardi
Parides phalaecus
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Spizaetus isidori
Cedrela odorata

527

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2014

CR

2014

VU
VU

2017
2013

VU

2008

VU

2004

VU

2004

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

CR

2018

EN

2017

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN
EN
VU
EN

2018
2016
2015
2020

VU

2014

VU

2016

VU

2013

VU

2017

CR

2018

VU

2008

VU
CR

2016
2006

CR

2008

VU

2019

VU

2016

VU
EN
VU

2018
2016
2017

Last
IUCN
record

1994

1987

GBIF
recordssince
2010

Country

KBA

Group

ReptilesAmphibians

EcuadorAbra deZamoraArthropods

Birds

Mammals

PlantsSpeciesCeratostema
lanceolatum
Isoetes
ecuadoriensis
Oreanthes fragilis
Puya aequatorialis
Puya parviflora
Atractus carrioni
Micrurus
catamayensis
Riama vespertina
Stenocercus festae
Stenocercus
ornatus
Atelopus
nepiozomus
Atelopus
podocarpus
Centrolene
buckleyi
Gastrotheca lojana
Gastrotheca
psychrophila
Hyloxalus
anthracinus
Pristimantis atratus
Pristimantis
balionotus
Pristimantis
orestes
Pristimantis
percultus
Pristimantis
proserpens
Pristimantis vidua
Telmatobius
cirrhacelis
Parides phalaecus
Agriornis albicauda
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Galbula pastazae
Hapalopsittaca
pyrrhops
Pyrrhura albipectus
Spizaetus isidori
Tephrophilus
wetmorei
Touit stictopterus
Aotus lemurinus
Caenolestes
sangayMazama rufina
Tapirus pinchaque
Tremarctos ornatus
Cedrela odorata

528

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2018

VU

2014

VU
VU
EN
EN

2018
2018
2018
2014

EN

2014

VU
VU

2018
2014

VU

2014

EN

2016

CR

2018

VU

2008

VU

2016

EN

2016

CR

2004

EN

2004

EN

2004

EN

2004

EN

2004

VU

2017

EN

2004

CR

2008

VU
VU

2019
2016

VU

2016

VU
VU

2018
2016

VU

2016

VU
EN

2016
2016

VU

2018

VU
VU

2016
2008

VU

2016

VU
EN
VU
VU

2015
2014
2016
2017

Last
IUCN
record

1994

1981

GBIF
recordssince
2010

Country

KBA

Group

ReptilesAmphibians

Birds

EcuadorAcanamá
Guashap
ambaAguirre

Mammals

Plants

ReptilesEcuador

Alrededor
es deAmaluza

Amphibians

SpeciesCeratostema
lanceolatum
Isoetes
ecuadoriensis
Macleania mollis
Oreanthesecuadorensis
Oreanthes fragilis
Oreanthes
glanduliferus
Oreanthes
hypogaeus
Orthaea oriens
Puya aequatorialis
Puya exigua
Puya maculata
Puya obconica
Atractus carrioni
Bothrops lojanus
Macropholidus
annectens
Stenocercus festae
Stenocercus
ornatus
Gastrotheca lojana
Hyloxalusvertebralis
Pristimantis
orestes
Agriornis albicauda
Atlapetes
pallidiceps
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Hapalopsittaca
pyrrhops
Spizaetus isidoriThomasomys
hudsoniThomasomys
pyrrhonotus
Cedrela odorata
Oreanthes fragilis
Puya aequatorialis
Puya roseana
Bothrops lojanus
Dipsas oligozonata
Riama vespertina
Stenocercus festae
Stenocercus
rhodomelas
Atelopusboulengeri
Atelopus
nepiozomus
Nymphargus
cochranae

529

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2018

VU

2014

VU

2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

VU
VU
EN
VU
EN
EN
VU

2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2014
2019

EN

2014

VU

2014

VU

2014

VU

2016

CR

2004

EN

2004

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2008

VU
VU
VU
CR
VU
VU
VU
VU

2017
2018
2018
2018
2019
2018
2018
2014

VU

2014

CR

2004

EN

2016

VU

2008

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
recordssince
2010

Country

KBA

Group

Arthropods

Birds

Mammals

PlantsSpecies
Pristimantis atratus
Pristimantis
baryecuus
Pristimantis
cryophilius
Pristimantis
nigrogriseus
Pristimantis
proserpens
Pristimantis
pycnodermis
Telmatobius niger
Heteropodagrion
nigripes
Agriornis albicauda
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Conopias
cinchoneti
Cranioleuca curtata
Doliornis remseni
Dysithamnus
leucostictus
Galbula pastazae
Hapalopsittaca
pyrrhops
Herpsilochmus
axillaris
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Phlogophilus
hemileucurus
Ramphastos
culminatus
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Tephrophilus
wetmoreiThamnophilus
tenuepunctatus
Tinamus tao
Touit huetii
Touit stictopterus
Aotus lemurinus
Mazama rufina
Tapirus pinchaqueTapirus terrestris
Thomasomys
hudsoni
Tremarctos ornatus
Baccharis
hieronymi
Cavendishia
orthosepala
Cedrela odorata
Ceratostema
nubigena

530

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2004

EN

2004

EN

2004

VU

2004

VU

2017

EN

2004

CR

2008

VU

2017

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU
VU

2016
2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
VU

2018
2016
2016
2008
2015
2014
2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2014

EN

2018

VU

2017

EN

2018

1994

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

ReptilesAmphibians

EcuadorBosqueProtector
Los
Cedros

Birds

Species
Costus zamoranus
Diogenesia
gracilipes
Orthaea oriens
Puya brackeana
Puya maculata
Puya navarroana
Themistoclesia
campii
Enyalioides
rubrigularis
Riama anatoloros
Riama petrorum
Riama stigmatoral
Stenocercus festae
Trilepida
anthracina
Atelopus coynei
Gastrothecacornuta
Hyloxalus toachi
Pristimantis
crucifer
Pristimantis
floridusPristimantis hectus
Pristimantis
laticlavius
Pristimantis
muricatus
Pristimantis
mutabilis
Pristimantis
ornatissimus
Pristimantis
scolodiscus
Rhaebocaeruleostictus
Aramides wolfi
Attila torridus
Bangsia flavovirens
Cephalopterus
penduliger
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbeaDacnis berlepschi
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria gigantea
Micrasturplumbeus531

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2015

CR

2018

VU
CR
VU
EN

2018
2018
2018
2018

CR

2018

VU

2014

VU
EN
VU
VU

2014
2009
2014
2014

VU

2018

CR

2004

EN

2008

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

EN

2004

VU

2004

VU

2004

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2004

EN

2015

VU

2004

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU
VU
VU

2016
2016
2018

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU
VU

2018
2018

VU

2016

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Plants

ReptilesAmphibians

EcuadorBosqueProtector
MoyaMolón

Birds

Mammals

PlantsSpecies
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Pachyramphus
spodiurus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope ortoni
Spizaetus isidori
Alouatta palliata
Ateles fusciceps
Marmosa phaea
Mindomys
hammondi
Cedrela odorata
Macleania ericae
Atractus
occidentalis
Atractus paucidens
Bothrocophias
campbelliEchinosaura keyi
Enyalioides
oshaughnessyi
Lepidoblepharis
conolepis
Atelopus
bomolochos
Atelopus
nepiozomus
Hyloxalus
anthracinus
Hyloxalusvertebralis
Agriornis albicauda
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Doliornis remseni
Hapalopsittaca
pyrrhops
Spizaetus isidori
Tephrophilus
wetmorei
Aotus lemurinus
Mazama rufina
Thomasomys
hudsoni
Tremarctos ornatus
Baccharis
hieronymi
Cedrela odorata
Orthaea oriens
Plutarchia
ecuadorensis

532

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

VU

2019

VU

2016

✔

EN
EN
VU
EN
VU

2018
2016
2015
2020
2014

✔
✔
✔

EN

2016

VU
VU

2017
2018

EN

2014

VU

2014

VU

2013

VU

2016

VU

2015

EN

2016

CR

2016

EN

2016

CR

2004

CR

2004

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU
VU

2018
2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU
VU

2008
2015

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2014

VU
VU

2017
2018

EN

2018

✔

2002

Country

KBA

Group

ReptilesAmphibians

Ecuador

CordilleradeHuacamayos-SanIsidroSierra
Azul

Arthropods

Birds

SpeciesPuya brackeana
Puya maculata
Puya navarroana
Puya nutans
Stenocercus festae
Allobates
kingsburyi
Atelopus petersi
Atelopus
spumarius
Centrolene
buckleyiCentrolene
huilense
Hyloscirtus
psarolaimus
Hyloscirtus
staufferorum
Hyloscirtus
torrenticola
Nymphargus
cochranae
Nymphargus siren
Osornophryne
antisana
Osornophryne
guacamayo
Pristimantis
colonensis
Pristimantis
eriphus
Pristimantis festae
Pristimantis
gladiator
Pristimantis
inusitatus
Pristimantis
leucopus
Pristimantis
nigrogriseus
Pristimantis
prolatus
Pristimantis
pugnaxPristimantis
rubicundus
Ontherus hadros
Agamia agami
Agriornis albicauda
Ara militaris
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Chloropipo
flavicapilla
Conopias
cinchoneti
Cranioleuca curtata

533

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

CR
VU
EN
EN
VU

2018
2018
2018
2018
2014

EN

2004

CR

2008

VU

2008

VU

2008

EN

2018

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2008

VU

2008

EN

2004

EN

2008

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU

2017

VU

2004

EN

2018

VU

2004

EN

2004

CR

2016

EN

2004

VU
VU
VU
VU

2013
2016
2016
2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

1996

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Plants

ReptilesEcuadorCorredor
Awacachi

Amphibians

Species
Dysithamnus
leucostictus
Dysithamnus
occidentalis
Galbula pastazae
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria gigantea
Heliodoxa gularis
Herpsilochmus
axillaris
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Phlogophilus
hemileucurus
Ramphastos
culminatus
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Thamnophilus
tenuepunctatus
Tinamus osgoodi
Tinamus tao
Touit huetii
Touit stictopterus
Zimmeriuscinereicapilla
Aotus lemurinus
Mazama rufina
Mustela felipei
Neomicroxus
latebricola
Pteronurabrasiliensis
Tapirus pinchaqueTapirus terrestris
Tayassu pecariThomasomys
ucuchaTremarctos ornatus
Cedrela odorata
Ceratostema
megabracteatum
Ceratostema
nodosum
Ceratostema
silvicola
Thibaudia
lateriflora
Atractus duboisi
Morunasaurus
annularis
Riama anatoloros
Riama orcesi
Riama raneyi
Agalychnis
litodryas
Atelopus coynei

534

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU
VU
VU
VU

2016
2018
2018
2016

✔
✔
✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU
VU
VU
VU

2018
2018
2016
2016

VU

2016

VU
VU
VU

2008
2015
2016

EN

2016

EN

2014

EN
VU
VU

2014
2018
2012

VU

2016

VU
VU

2016
2017

EN

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN

2014

VU

2014

VU
VU
VU

2014
2014
2014

VU

2004

CR

2004

✔

✔
✔
✔

Country

KBA

Group

Birds

Mammals

Fish

SpeciesAtelopus elegans
Gastrothecacornuta
Hyloxalus toachi
Pristimantis
colomai
Pristimantis
crucifer
Pristimantis
degener
Pristimantis hectus
Pristimantis
ornatissimus
Pristimantis
rosadoi
Pristimantis
scolodiscus
Pristimantis
tenebrionis
Ara ambiguus
Aramides wolfi
Attila torridus
Bangsia flavovirens
Cephalopterus
penduliger
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Crax rubra
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbeaDacnis berlepschi
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Micrasturplumbeus
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Ortaliserythroptera
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope ortoni
Spizaetus isidori
Alouatta palliata
Ateles fusciceps
Cebus aequatorialis
Choeroniscus
periosus
Marmosa phaea
Hypostomus
annectens

535

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2019

EN

2008

EN

2004

VU

2016

VU

2004

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU

2004

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2004

EN
VU
VU
VU

2016
2016
2016
2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU
VU

2018
2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

EN
EN
VU
EN
CR

2018
2016
2015
2020
2015

VU

2014

VU

2014

VU

2014

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Plants

ReptilesAmphibians

Birds
EcuadorGualaceo-LimónIndanza

Mammals

PlantsSpecies
Pseudochalceus
longianalis
Sturisomatichthys
frenatus
Cedrela odorata
Anolis parilis
Atractus paucidens
Bothrocophias
campbelliCorallus blombergi
Echinosaura keyi
Enyalioides
oshaughnessyi
Lepidoblepharis
grandisSynophis bicolor
Centrolene
buckleyi
Gastrothecalitonedis
Hyloxalus
anthracinus
Hyloxalusvertebralis
Pristimantis
cryophilius
Pristimantis
pycnodermis
Telmatobius niger
Agriornis albicauda
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Doliornis remseni
Hapalopsittaca
pyrrhops
Spizaetus isidori
Tephrophilus
wetmorei
Touit stictopterus
Aotus lemurinus
Mazama rufina
Thomasomys
hudsoni
Tremarctos ornatus
Baccharis
hieronymi
Cavendishia
orthosepala
Cedrela odorata
Ceratostema
nubigena
Orthaea oriens
Plutarchia
ecuadorensis
Puya brackeana
Puya maculata
Puya navarroana

536

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2014

CR

2014

VU
VU
VU

2017
2014
2014

VU

2013

EN
VU

2013
2016

VU

2015

VU

2016

EN

2013

VU

2008

EN

2016

CR

2004

CR

2004

EN

2004

EN

2004

CR
VU

2008
2016

VU

2016

VU
VU

2018
2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU
VU
VU

2016
2008
2015

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2014

EN

2018

VU

2017

EN

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

CR
VU
EN

2018
2018
2018

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

1994

✔

Country

KBA

Group

ReptilesAmphibians

EcuadorIntagToisán

Birds

Species
Themistoclesia
campii
Riama stigmatoral
Stenocercus festae
Atelopus coynei
Colostethus
jacobuspetersi
Gastrothecaplumbea
Hyloscirtus criptico
Pristimantis
apiculatus
Pristimantis
calcarulatus
Pristimantis celator
Pristimantis
crucifer
Pristimantis
duellmani
Pristimantis
eremitus
Pristimantis hectus
Pristimantis
laticlavius
Pristimantis
muricatus
Pristimantis
ocellatus
Pristimantis
pteridophilus
Pristimantis
pyrrhomerus
Pristimantis
quinquagesimus
Pristimantis
rosadoi
Pristimantis surdus
Pristimantis
vertebralis
Ara ambiguus
Attila torridus
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Conopias
cinchoneti
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbea
Eriocnemis
nigrivestis
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria gigantea
Grallaria
rufocinerea

537

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

CR

2018

VU
VU
CR

2014
2014
2004

CR

2004

VU

2004

EN

2016

EN

2016

VU

2004

VU

2016

VU

2004

VU

2004

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2004

EN

2019

EN

2004

EN

2004

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU

2004

EN
VU

2016
2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

CR

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU
VU

2018
2018

VU

2016

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

1960s
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Fish

Plants

ReptilesEcuador

Los
BancosMilpe

Amphibians

Species
Micrasturplumbeus
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope ortoni
Spizaetus isidori
Alouatta palliata
Ateles fusciceps
Caenolestes
convelatus
Marmosa phaea
Mindomys
hammondi
Mustela felipei
Neomicroxus
latebricola
Astroblepus ubidiai
Pseudochalceus
longianalis
Cedrela odorata
Macleania ericae
Sphyrospermum
sodiroi
Atractus
occidentalis
Atractus paucidens
Bothrocophias
campbelliDipsas elegans
Echinosaura keyi
Enyalioides
oshaughnessyi
Lepidoblepharis
conolepis
Riama
colomaromani
Riama simotera
Riama unicolor
Stenocercus varius
Gastrothecacornuta
Hyloxalus toachi
Pristimantis
crenunguis
Pristimantis
crucifer
Pristimantis
floridusPristimantis
laticlavius
Pristimantis
muricatus

538

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN
EN
VU
EN

2018
2016
2015
2020

VU

2016

VU

2014

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

CR

2014

VU

2014

VU
VU

2017
2018

VU

2018

EN

2014

VU

2014

VU

2013

VU
VU

2014
2016

VU

2015

EN

2016

EN

2014

EN
VU
EN

2013
2018
2014

EN

2008

EN

2004

EN

2004

VU

2004

VU

2004

VU

2018

VU

2004

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Birds

Mammals

Plants

ReptilesSpecies
Pristimantis
ornatissimus
Pristimantis
rosadoi
Rhaebocaeruleostictus
Strabomantis
helonotus
Aramides wolfi
Attila torridus
Bangsia flavovirens
Cephalopterus
penduliger
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbeaDacnis berlepschi
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Grallaria gigantea
Lathrotriccus
griseipectus
Micrasturplumbeus
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Pachyramphus
spodiurus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope ortoni
Spizaetus isidori
Anotomys leander
Ateles fusciceps
Cebus aequatorialis
Heteromys teleus
Marmosa phaea
Mindomys
hammondi
Mustela felipei
Cedrela odorata
Macleania
coccoloboides
Macleania ericae
Atractus
occidentalis
Atractus paucidens
Bothrops osbornei
Echinosaura keyi

539

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2004

VU

2016

EN

2004

CR

2004

VU
VU
VU

2016
2016
2018

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

VU

2019

VU

2016

EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
VU
VU

2018
2016
2017
2020
2015
2016
2014

EN

2016

VU
VU

2016
2017

VU

2018

VU

2018

EN

2014

VU
VU
VU

2014
2016
2016

✔

✔
✔

Country

KBA

Group

Amphibians

Ecuador

Río
Maquipuc
unaGuayllab
amba

Birds

Species
Enyalioides
oshaughnessyi
Lepidoblepharis
grandisAtelopus coynei
Centrolene ballux
Gastrothecacornuta
Gastrothecaplumbea
Pristimantis
apiculatus
Pristimantis
calcarulatus
Pristimantis celator
Pristimantis
crucifer
Pristimantis
duellmani
Pristimantis
eremitus
Pristimantis
floridusPristimantis hectus
Pristimantis
laticlavius
Pristimantis
muricatus
Pristimantis
pteridophilus
Pristimantis
pyrrhomerus
Pristimantis
quinquagesimus
Pristimantis surdus
Pristimantis
vertebralis
Aramides wolfi
Attila torridus
Bangsia flavovirens
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbeaDacnis berlepschi
Eriocnemis
nigrivestis
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria gigantea
Grallaria
rufocinerea
Micrasturplumbeus

540

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2015

VU

2016

CR
EN

2004
2016

EN

2008

VU

2004

EN

2016

VU

2004

VU

2016

VU

2004

VU

2004

VU

2016

VU

2004

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2004

EN

2004

EN

2004

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU

2004

VU
VU
VU

2016
2016
2018

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

CR

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

✔

VU
VU

2018
2018

✔
✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Plants

ReptilesEcuadorMashpiPachijal

Amphibians

Species
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope ortoni
Spizaetus isidori
Anotomys leander
Caenolestes
convelatus
Marmosa phaea
Mindomys
hammondi
Mustela felipei
Neomicroxus
latebricola
Tremarctos ornatus
Cedrela odorata
Macleania
coccoloboides
Macleania ericae
Sphyrospermum
sodiroi
Atractus modestus
Atractus
occidentalis
Atractus paucidens
Bothrocophias
campbelli
Bothrops osbornei
Dipsas elegans
Echinosaura
brachycephala
Echinosaura keyi
Lepidoblepharis
conolepis
Riama
colomaromani
Riama oculata
Riama unicolor
Stenocercus varius
Atelopus coynei
Centrolene ballux
Centrolene
heloderma
Centrolene lynchi
Centrolene
scirtetes
Gastrothecacornuta
Gastrothecaplumbea
Hyloscirtus criptico
Hyloxalus toachi

541

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

✔

EN
EN
EN

2018
2016
2017

✔

VU

2016

VU

2014

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU
VU

2016
2017

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2014

EN

2014

VU

2014

VU

2013

VU
VU

2016
2014

✔
✔

EN

2014

✔

VU

2016

EN

2016

EN

2014

EN
VU
EN
CR
EN

2014
2018
2014
2004
2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

EN

2018

EN

2008

VU

2004

EN
EN

2016
2004

✔

✔

✔

1996

Country

KBA

Group

Birds

Species
Pristimantis
apiculatus
Pristimantis
calcarulatus
Pristimantis celator
Pristimantis
crenunguis
Pristimantis
crucifer
Pristimantis
eremitus
Pristimantis
floridusPristimantis hectus
Pristimantis
laticlavius
Pristimantis
muricatus
Pristimantis
mutabilis
Pristimantis
ornatissimus
Pristimantis
pteridophilus
Pristimantis
quinquagesimus
Pristimantis
rosadoi
Pristimantis
scolodiscus
Pristimantis
vertebralis
Rhaebocaeruleostictus
Strabomantis
helonotus
Aramides wolfi
Attila torridus
Bangsia flavovirens
Cephalopterus
penduliger
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbeaDacnis berlepschi
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria gigantea
Grallaria
rufocinerea
Lathrotriccus
griseipectus
Micrasturplumbeus

542

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2016

VU

2004

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU

2004

VU

2016

VU

2004

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2004

EN

2015

VU

2004

✔

EN

2004

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2004

EN

2004

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

CR

2004

VU
VU
VU

2016
2016
2018

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2018

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU
VU

2018
2018

✔
✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Plants

ReptilesSpecies
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Pachyramphus
spodiurus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope ortoni
Spizaetus isidori
Alouatta palliata
Anotomys leander
Ateles fusciceps
Caenolestes
convelatus
Cebus aequatorialis
Heteromys teleus
Marmosa phaea
Mindomys
hammondi
Mustela felipei
Tremarctos ornatus
Anthopterus
ecuadorensis
Anthopterus
verticillatus
Cavendishia
lebroniae
Cedrela odorata
Diogenesia
amplectens
Macleania
coccoloboides
Macleania ericae
Psammisia
aurantiaca
Sphyrospermum
sodiroi
Vaccinium
distichum
Atractus modestus
Atractus
occidentalis
Atractus paucidens
Bothrocophias
campbelli
Bothrops osbornei
Dipsas elegans
Echinosaura
brachycephala
Echinosaura keyi
Enyalioides
oshaughnessyi
Lepidoblepharis
conolepis
Lepidoblepharis
grandis

543

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

VU

2019

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN
EN
VU
EN
EN

2018
2016
2015
2017
2020

✔
✔

VU

2016

CR
VU
VU

2015
2016
2014

EN

2016

VU
VU

2016
2016

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

VU

2017

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

VU

2014

EN

2014

VU

2014

VU

2013

VU
VU

2016
2014

EN

2014

VU

2016

VU

2015

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

✔
✔

Country

Ecuador

KBA

Mindo
and
westernfoothillsof Volcan
Pichincha

Group

Amphibians

Species
Riama oculata
Riama unicolor
Stenocercus varius
Atelopus coynei
Atelopus ignescens
Centrolene ballux
Centrolene
heloderma
Centrolene lynchi
Centrolene
scirtetes
Ectopoglossus
confusus
Gastrothecacornuta
Gastrothecaplumbea
Hyloscirtus criptico
Nymphargus
balionota
Pristimantis
apiculatus
Pristimantis
calcarulatus
Pristimantis celator
Pristimantis
crenunguis
Pristimantis
crucifer
Pristimantis
dissimulatus
Pristimantis
duellmani
Pristimantis
eremitus
Pristimantis
eugeniae
Pristimantis
floridusPristimantis
hamiotae
Pristimantis hectus
Pristimantis
laticlavius
Pristimantis
muricatus
Pristimantis
mutabilis
Pristimantis
nyctophylax
Pristimantis
ornatissimus
Pristimantis
pteridophilus
Pristimantis
pyrrhomerus
Pristimantis
quinquagesimus

544

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN
VU
EN
CR
CR
EN

2014
2018
2014
2004
2016
2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

EN

2018

EN

2016

EN

2008

VU

2004

EN

2016

VU

2004

EN

2016

VU

2004

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU

2004

EN

2004

VU

2004

VU

2016

✔

EN

2004

✔

VU

2004

CR

2004

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2004

EN

2015

VU

2004

VU

2004

EN

2004

EN

2004

VU

2016

1988
✔
1996

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Birds

Mammals

PlantsSpecies
Pristimantis
sobetes
Pristimantis surdus
Pristimantis
vertebralis
Rhaebocaeruleostictus
Strabomantis
helonotus
Agriornis albicauda
Attila torridus
Bangsia flavovirens
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbeaDacnis berlepschi
Eriocnemis
nigrivestis
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria gigantea
Grallaria
rufocinerea
Lathrotriccus
griseipectus
Micrasturplumbeus
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope ortoni
Spizaetus isidori
Anotomys leander
Caenolestes
convelatus
Heteromys teleus
Marmosa phaea
Mindomys
hammondi
Mustela felipei
Neomicroxus
latebricola
Thomasomys
ucuchaTremarctos ornatus
Anthopterus
ecuadorensis
Anthopterus
verticillatus

545

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2004

EN

2004

VU

2004

EN

2004

CR

2004

VU
VU
VU

2016
2016
2018

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

CR

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU
VU

2018
2018

✔
✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

VU

2016

✔

EN
EN
EN

2018
2016
2017

✔
✔

VU

2016

VU
VU

2016
2014

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2018

EN

2018

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

ReptilesEcuadorMontañas
deZapoteNajda

Amphibians

Birds

Species
Cedrela odorata
Diogenesia
amplectens
Macleania alata
Macleania
coccoloboides
Macleania ericae
Psammisia
aurantiaca
Psammisia
flaviflora
Puya sodiroana
Sphyrospermum
sodiroi
Thibaudia gunnarii
Thibaudia inflata
Vaccinium
distichum
Anolis otongae
Anolis proboscis
Atractus modestus
Atractus
occidentalis
Atractus paucidens
Bothrocophias
campbelli
Bothrops osbornei
Dipsas elegans
Echinosaura
brachycephala
Echinosaura keyi
Enyalioides
oshaughnessyi
Lepidoblepharis
conolepis
Lepidoblepharis
grandisRiama
colomaromani
Riama oculata
Riama unicolor
Stenocercus varius
Atelopus
nepiozomus
Hyloxalusvertebralis
Pristimantis
baryecuus
Pristimantis
cryophilius
Pristimantis
proserpens
Pristimantis
pycnodermis
Telmatobius niger
Agriornis albicauda
Chaetocercus
bombus

546

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2017

EN

2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU
VU

2018
2018

EN

2018

VU
EN
VU

2014
2014
2014

✔

EN

2014

✔

VU

2014

VU

2013

✔

VU
VU

2016
2014

✔
✔

EN

2014

VU

2016

VU

2015

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2014

EN
VU
EN

2014
2018
2014

EN

2016

CR

2004

EN

2004

EN

2004

VU

2017

EN

2004

CR
VU

2008
2016

VU

2016

✔

✔

✔
✔

1994

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Plants

ReptilesAmphibians

Ecuador

ParqueNacional
Podocarp
us

Arthropods

Birds

Species
Chaetura pelagica
Doliornis remseni
Hapalopsittaca
pyrrhops
Spizaetus isidori
Tephrophilus
wetmorei
Aotus lemurinus
Mazama rufina
Tremarctos ornatus
Baccharis
hieronymi
Cavendishia
orthosepala
Cedrela odorata
Ceratostema
nubigena
Orthaea oriens
Plutarchia
ecuadorensis
Puya brackeana
Puya maculata
Puya navarroana
Themistoclesia
campii
Riama stigmatoral
Stenocercus festae
Atelopus
nepiozomus
Atelopus
podocarpus
Centrolene
buckleyi
Gastrotheca lojana
Gastrotheca
psychrophila
Hyloxalus
anthracinus
Nymphargus
cochranae
Pristimantis
balionotus
Pristimantis
percultus
Pristimantis
proserpens
Strabomantis
cornutus
Telmatobius
cirrhacelis
Parides phalaecus
Agriornis albicauda
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Conopias
cinchoneti
Cranioleuca curtata

547

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU
VU

2018
2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU
VU
VU

2008
2015
2016

VU

2014

EN

2018

VU

2017

EN

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

CR
VU
EN

2018
2018
2018

CR

2018

VU
VU

2014
2014

EN

2016

CR

2018

VU

2008

VU

2016

EN

2016

CR

2004

VU

2008

EN

2004

EN

2004

VU

2017

VU

2004

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

1994

CR

2008

VU
VU

2019
2016

1981

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Fish

PlantsSpecies
Doliornis remseni
Dysithamnus
leucostictus
Galbula pastazae
Grallaria ridgelyi
Hapalopsittaca
pyrrhops
Herpsilochmus
axillaris
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Phlogophilus
hemileucurus
Pyrrhura albipectus
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Tephrophilus
wetmoreiThamnophilus
tenuepunctatus
Tinamus tao
Touit stictopterus
Zimmeriuscinereicapilla
Aotus lemurinus
Caenolestes
sangayMazama rufina
Sturnira nana
Tapirus pinchaqueTapirus terrestris
Tayassu pecariThomasomys
pyrrhonotus
Tremarctos ornatus
Astroblepus
supramollis
Cedrela odorata
Ceratostema
lanceolatum
Ceratostema
nubigena
Costus zamoranus
Isoetes
ecuadoriensis
Macleania mollis
Oreanthesecuadorensis
Oreanthes fragilis
Oreanthes
glanduliferus
Oreanthes
hypogaeus
Orthaea oriens
Puya aequatorialis
Puya exigua
Puya maculata

548

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU
EN

2016
2016

✔
✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔

VU

2016

VU
VU

2018
2016

VU

2016

VU

2008

VU

2016

VU
EN
EN
VU
VU

2015
2015
2014
2018
2012

VU

2008

VU

2016

VU

2014

VU

2017

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN

2015

VU

2014

VU

2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

VU
VU
EN
VU

2018
2018
2018
2018

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

ReptilesEcuador

ParqueNacional
SumacoNapo
GalerasAmphibians

Birds

SpeciesPuya obconica
Puya parviflora
Thibaudia
joergensenii
Thibaudia
steyermarkii
Anolis podocarpus
Atractus carrioni
Bothrops lojanus
Enyalioides
rubrigularis
Riama anatoloros
Stenocercus festae
Stenocercus
ornatusAllobates
kingsburyi
Atelopus
spumarius
Centrolene
buckleyi
Hyloscirtus
staufferorum
Hyloscirtus
torrenticola
Nymphargus
cochranae
Nymphargus siren
Osornophryne
guacamayo
Osornophryne
sumacoensis
Pristimantis
colonensis
Pristimantis devillei
Pristimantis
eriphus
Pristimantis ernesti
Pristimantis festae
Pristimantis
gladiator
Pristimantis
incanus
Pristimantis
inusitatus
Pristimantis
nigrogriseus
Pristimantis
prolatus
Pristimantis
pugnaxPristimantis
rubicundus
Strabomantis
cornutus
Agamia agami
Ara militaris
Chaetocercus
bombus549

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN
EN

2018
2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU
EN
VU

2014
2014
2019

VU

2014

VU
VU

2014
2014

VU

2014

EN

2004

VU

2008

VU

2008

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2008

VU

2008

EN

2008

VU

2004

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU

2016

VU
EN

2004
2004

VU

2017

EN

2004

VU

2004

VU

2004

EN

2004

CR

2016

EN

2004

VU

2004

VU
VU

2016
2016

VU

2016

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

✔

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

PlantsSpecies
Chaetura pelagica
Chloropipo
flavicapilla
Conopias
cinchoneti
Cranioleuca curtata
Dysithamnus
leucostictus
Dysithamnus
occidentalis
Galbula pastazae
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria gigantea
Heliodoxa gularis
Herpsilochmus
axillaris
Neomorphus
geoffroyi
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Phlogophilus
hemileucurus
Ramphastos
culminatus
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Thamnophilus
tenuepunctatus
Tinamus osgoodi
Tinamus tao
Touit huetii
Touit stictopterus
Zimmeriuscinereicapilla
Aotus lemurinus
Leopardus tigrinus
Mazama rufina
Mustela felipei
Myrmecophaga
tridactyla
Neomicroxus
latebricola
Priodontes
maximus
Pteronurabrasiliensis
Tapirus pinchaqueTapirus terrestris
Tayassu pecari
Tremarctos ornatus
Vampyressa
melissa
Cedrela odorata
Ceratostema
nodosum
Orthaea oriens
Psammisia incana

550

Last IUCN
assessment

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU
VU
VU
VU

2016
2018
2018
2016

✔
✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU
VU
VU
VU

2018
2018
2016
2016

VU

2016

VU
VU
VU
VU

2008
2016
2015
2016

VU

2013

EN

2016

VU

2013

EN

2014

EN
VU
VU
VU

2014
2018
2012
2016

VU

2015

VU

2017

VU

2018

VU
EN

2018
2018

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreat

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

ReptilesEcuadorReserva
Ecológica
Cotacachi-Cayapas

Amphibians

Species
Atractus duboisi
Morunasaurus
annularis
Riama anatoloros
Riama orcesi
Riama raneyi
Agalychnis
litodryas
Atelopus coynei
Atelopus elegans
Bolitoglossa chica
Centrolene
buckleyi
Cochranella
litoralis
Gastrothecacornuta
Gastrothecaplumbea
Gastrothecariobambae
Hyloscirtus criptico
Hyloxalus toachi
Pristimantis
apiculatus
Pristimantis
calcarulatus
Pristimantis celator
Pristimantis
crucifer
Pristimantis
degener
Pristimantis
duellmani
Pristimantis
eremitus
Pristimantis
floridusPristimantis hectus
Pristimantis
laticlavius
Pristimantis
muricatus
Pristimantis
mutabilis
Pristimantis
ornatissimus
Pristimantis
pyrrhomerus
Pristimantis
quinquagesimus
Pristimantis
rosadoi
Pristimantis
scolodiscus
Pristimantis
tenebrionis
Pristimantis
vertebralis

551

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2014

VU

2014

VU
VU
VU

2014
2014
2014

VU

2004

CR
EN
VU

2004
2019
2004

VU

2008

VU

2018

EN

2008

VU

2004

✔

EN

2004

✔

EN
EN

2016
2004

EN

2016

VU

2004

VU

2016

VU

2004

EN

2016

VU

2004

VU

2016

VU

2004

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2004

EN

2015

VU

2004

EN

2004

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU

2004

✔

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Birds

Mammals

Species
Rhaebocaeruleostictus
Ara ambiguus
Aramides wolfi
Attila torridus
Bangsia flavovirens
Cephalopterus
penduliger
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Conopias
cinchoneti
Crax rubra
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbeaDacnis berlepschi
Eriocnemis
nigrivestis
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria gigantea
Grallaria
rufocinerea
Micrasturplumbeus
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Ortaliserythroptera
Pachyramphus
spodiurus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope ortoni
Spizaetus isidori
Alouatta palliata
Ateles fusciceps
Balantiopteryx
infusca
Caenolestes
convelatus
Cebus aequatorialis
Choeroniscus
periosus
Marmosa phaea
Mindomys
hammondi
Mustela felipei
Neomicroxus
latebricola
Tayassu pecari

552

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2004

EN
VU
VU
VU

2016
2016
2016
2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

CR

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU
VU

2018
2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU

2019

VU

2016

✔

EN
EN
VU
EN

2018
2016
2015
2020

✔

VU

2014

VU

2016

CR

2015

VU

2014

VU

2014

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2012

✔

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Fish

Plants

ReptilesEcuadorReserva
Ecológica
Los
Illinizas yalrededoresAmphibians

SpeciesThomasomys
ucuchaAstroblepus ubidiai
Hypostomus
annectens
Pseudochalceus
longianalis
Cavendishia
parviflora
Cedrela odorata
Macleania ericae
Macleania
subsessilis
Puya hirtzii
Thibaudia litensis
Anolis parilis
Atractus
occidentalis
Atractus paucidens
Bothrocophias
campbelliCorallus blombergi
Dipsas ellipsifera
Echinosaura keyi
Emmochliophis
miops
Enyalioides
oshaughnessyi
Lepidoblepharis
conolepis
Lepidoblepharis
grandisRiama
colomaromani
Riama simotera
Riama unicolor
Stenocercus varius
Synophis bicolor
Atelopus ignescens
Centrolene
gemmatumCentrolene lynchi
Colostethus
jacobuspetersi
Ectopoglossus
confusus
Epipedobates
tricolor
Gastrothecacornuta
Gastrothecaplumbea
Hyloscirtus
ptychodactylus
Pristimantis actites
Pristimantis
apiculatus
Pristimantis
calcarulatus

553

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

CR

2014

VU

2014

VU

2014

EN

2018

VU
VU

2017
2018

VU

2018

CR
VU
VU

2018
2018
2014

EN

2014

VU

2014

VU

2013

EN
EN
VU

2013
2014
2016

CR

2014

VU

2015

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2014

EN
VU
EN
EN
CR

2013
2018
2014
2013
2016

CR

2004

EN

2016

CR

2004

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2008

VU

2004

EN

2016

VU

2004

EN

2016

VU

2004

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

✔

✔

1988

1960s

Country

KBA

Group

Arthropods

Birds

Mammals

Species
Pristimantis celator
Pristimantis
crenunguis
Pristimantis
crucifer
Pristimantis
eremitus
Pristimantis
eugeniae
Pristimantis
floridusPristimantis
muricatus
Pristimantis
nyctophylax
Pristimantis
ornatissimus
Pristimantis
pyrrhomerus
Pristimantis
quinquagesimus
Pristimantis
truebae
Pristimantis
vertebralis
Rhaebocaeruleostictus
Perissolestes
remus
Philogenia monotis
Agriornis albicauda
Aramides wolfi
Attila torridus
Bangsia flavovirens
Cephalopterus
penduliger
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbea
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria gigantea
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Spizaetus isidori
Alouatta palliata
Anotomys leander
Ateles fusciceps
Caenolestes
convelatus
Heteromys teleus
Marmosa phaea

554

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU

2004

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU

2004

VU

2004

✔

VU

2004

✔

VU

2004

EN

2004

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU

2004

EN

2004

CR

2014

EN
VU
VU
VU
VU

2014
2016
2016
2016
2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU
VU

2018
2018

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN
VU
EN
EN

2016
2015
2017
2020

VU

2016

VU
VU

2016
2014

1941

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Plants

ReptilesAmphibians

Arthropods
EcuadorReserva
Tapichalaca
Birds

Species
Mindomys
hammondi
Neomicroxus
latebricola
Tremarctos ornatus
Cedrela odorata
Diogenesia
amplectens
Macleania
coccoloboides
Macleania ericae
Oreanthesecuadorensis
Psammisia
flaviflora
Puya vestita
Sphyrospermum
sodiroi
Thibaudia inflata
Anolis otongae
Atractus modestus
Bothrocophias
campbelli
Bothrops osbornei
Dipsas elegans
Echinosaura
brachycephala
Enyalioides
oshaughnessyi
Lepidoblepharis
conolepis
Lepidoblepharis
grandisRiama
colomaromani
Riama crypta
Riama labionis
Riama oculata
Riama unicolor
Stenocercus varius
Atelopus
nepiozomus
Centrolene
buckleyi
Pristimantis
proserpens
Parides phalaecus
Agriornis albicauda
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Cranioleuca curtata
Doliornis remseni
Grallaria ridgelyi
Hapalopsittaca
pyrrhops
Patagioenas
subvinacea

555

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2016

EN

2016

VU
VU

2016
2017

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU
VU
VU

2018
2014
2014

VU

2013

VU
VU

2016
2014

EN

2014

VU

2015

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2014

EN
EN
EN
VU
EN

2014
2014
2014
2018
2014

EN

2016

VU

2008

VU

2017

VU
VU

2019
2016

VU

2016

VU
VU
VU
EN

2018
2016
2016
2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

✔
✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

PlantsAmphibians

EcuadorRío Caoní

Birds

Species
Pyrrhura albipectus
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Thamnophilus
tenuepunctatus
Touit stictopterus
Zimmeriuscinereicapilla
Aotus lemurinus
Caenolestes
sangayMazama rufina
Tapirus pinchaqueTapirus terrestris
Thomasomys
pyrrhonotus
Cedrela odorata
Costus zamoranus
Isoetes
ecuadoriensis
Macleania mollis
Oreanthes
hypogaeus
Puya maculata
Puya obconica
Thibaudia
joergensenii
Thibaudia
steyermarkii
Agalychnis
litodryas
Bolitoglossa chica
Hyloxalus toachi
Pristimantis
crenunguis
Pristimantis
floridusPristimantis
muricatus
Pristimantis
ornatissimus
Pristimantis
rosadoi
Pristimantis
tenebrionis
Rhaebocaeruleostictus
Aramides wolfi
Attila torridus
Bangsia flavovirens
Cephalopterus
penduliger
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbea556

Last IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2008

VU

2016

VU
EN
VU

2015
2014
2018

VU

2008

VU
EN

2017
2015

VU

2014

VU

2018

EN

2018

VU
EN

2018
2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2004

VU
EN

2004
2004

EN

2004

VU

2004

VU

2004

VU

2004

VU

2016

EN

2004

EN

2004

VU
VU
VU

2016
2016
2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreat✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Plants

ReptilesEcuador

Río
ToachiChiriboga

Amphibians

SpeciesDacnis berlepschi
Geotrygon
purpurata
Micrasturplumbeus
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Ortaliserythroptera
Pachyramphus
spodiurus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Alouatta palliata
Anotomys leander
Ateles fusciceps
Cebus aequatorialis
Heteromys teleus
Marmosa phaea
Mindomys
hammondi
Tayassu pecari
Cedrela odorata
Macleania ericae
Atractus
occidentalis
Atractus paucidens
Echinosaura keyi
Enyalioides
oshaughnessyi
Atelopus coynei
Atelopus ignescens
Centrolene ballux
Centrolene
heloderma
Centrolene lynchi
Colostethus
jacobuspetersi
Ectopoglossus
confusus
Gastrothecacornuta
Gastrotheca
dendronastes
Gastrothecaplumbea
Pristimantis
apiculatus
Pristimantis
calcarulatus
Pristimantis celator
Pristimantis
crenunguis
Pristimantis
crucifer
Pristimantis
dissimulatus
Pristimantis
duellmani

557

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

Last
IUCN
record

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU

2019

VU

2016

VU
EN
EN
CR
VU
VU

2015
2017
2020
2015
2016
2014

EN

2016

VU
VU
VU

2012
2017
2018

EN

2014

VU
VU

2014
2016

VU

2015

CR
CR
EN

2004
2016
2016

1988

VU

2016

1996

EN

2016

CR

2004

EN

2016

EN

2008

EN

2016

VU

2004

EN

2016

VU

2004

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU

2004

EN

2004

VU

2004

GBIF
records
since
2010
✔

✔

✔
1960s

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Birds

Mammals

Species
Pristimantis
eremitus
Pristimantis
eugeniae
Pristimantis
floridusPristimantis
laticlavius
Pristimantis
muricatus
Pristimantis
nyctophylax
Pristimantis
ornatissimus
Pristimantis
pteridophilus
Pristimantis
pyrrhomerus
Pristimantis
quinquagesimus
Pristimantis
sobetes
Pristimantis surdus
Pristimantis
vertebralis
Rhaebocaeruleostictus
Agriornis albicauda
Aramides wolfi
Attila torridus
Bangsia flavovirens
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbea
Eriocnemis
nigrivestis
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria gigantea
Grallaria
rufocinerea
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Spizaetus isidori
Anotomys leander
Caenolestes
convelatus
Heteromys teleus
Marmosa phaea
Mindomys
hammondi
Mustela felipei

558

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU

2004

VU

2018

VU

2004

VU

2004

VU

2004

EN

2004

EN

2004

VU

2016

EN

2004

EN

2004

VU

2004

EN

2004

VU
VU
VU
VU

2016
2016
2016
2018

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

CR

2016

VU
VU

2018
2018

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN
EN

2016
2017

VU

2016

VU
VU

2016
2014

EN

2016

VU

2016

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Plants

ReptilesEcuadorSaraguro
Las
AntenasAmphibians

Species
Neomicroxus
latebricola
Thomasomys
ucuchaTremarctos ornatus
Anthopterus
ecuadorensis
Anthopterus
verticillatus
Cedrela odorata
Diogenesia
amplectens
Disterigma
micranthum
Macleania alata
Macleania
coccoloboides
Macleania ericae
Psammisia
aurantiaca
Psammisia
flaviflora
Puya sodiroana
Puya tillii
Puya vestita
Sphyrospermum
sodiroi
Thibaudia gunnarii
Thibaudia inflata
Vaccinium
distichum
Anolis otongae
Atractus modestus
Bothrocophias
campbelli
Bothrops osbornei
Dipsas elegans
Echinosaura
brachycephala
Enyalioides
oshaughnessyi
Lepidoblepharis
conolepis
Lepidoblepharis
grandisRiama
colomaromani
Riama crypta
Riama labionis
Riama oculata
Riama unicolor
Stenocercus varius
Centrolene
buckleyi
Gastrotheca lojana
Hyloxalusvertebralis

559

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2018

EN

2018

VU

2017

EN

2018

CR

2018

EN

2018

VU

2018

VU

2018

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN
EN
VU

2018
2018
2018

VU

2018

VU
VU

2018
2018

EN

2018

VU
VU

2014
2014

VU

2013

VU
VU

2016
2014

EN

2014

VU

2015

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2014

EN
EN
EN
VU
EN

2014
2014
2014
2018
2014

VU

2008

VU

2016

CR

2004

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Birds

Mammals

Plants

ReptilesEcuadorAwá
EthnicTerritory
andsurroundi
ngs

Amphibians

Species
Pristimantis
orestes
Pristimantis vidua
Telmatobius
vellardi
Agriornis albicauda
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Doliornis remseni
Hapalopsittaca
pyrrhops
Spizaetus isidori
Tephrophilus
wetmorei
Mazama rufina
Thomasomys
hudsoniThomasomys
pyrrhonotus
Cedrela odorata
Isoetes
ecuadoriensis
Oreanthes fragilis
Puya aequatorialis
Puya compacta
Puya joergensenii
Puya roseana
Bothrops lojanus
Riama vespertina
Stenocercus festae
Atelopus coynei
Atelopus elegans
Cochranella
litoralis
Gastrothecacornuta
Hyloxalus toachi
Nymphargus
balionota
Pristimantis
apiculatus
Pristimantis
calcarulatus
Pristimantis
degener
Pristimantis
duellmani
Pristimantis
eremitus
Pristimantis hectus
Pristimantis
laticlavius
Pristimantis
quinquagesimus
Pristimantis
rosadoi

560

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2004

EN

2004

CR

2008

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU
VU

2018
2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔

VU

2015

VU

2016

VU

2008

VU

2017

VU

2014

VU
VU
EN
EN
CR
VU
VU
VU
CR
EN

2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2019
2018
2014
2004
2019

VU

2018

EN

2008

EN

2004

VU

2004

EN

2016

VU

2004

EN

2016

VU

2004

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

1987
✔

✔
✔

Country

KBA

Group

Birds

Mammals

Species
Pristimantis
scolodiscus
Pristimantis
tenebrionis
Rhaeboandinophrynoides
Rhaebocaeruleostictus
Strabomantis
anatipes
Ara ambiguus
Aramides wolfi
Attila torridus
Bangsia flavovirens
Cephalopterus
penduliger
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Conopias
cinchoneti
Crax rubra
Cryptoleucopteryx
plumbeaDacnis berlepschi
Geotrygon
purpurata
Glaucidium
nubicola
Grallaria alleni
Grallaria gigantea
Micrasturplumbeus
Neomorphus
radiolosus
Odontophorus
melanonotus
Ognorhynchus
icterotis
Ortaliserythroptera
Pachyramphus
spodiurus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Penelope ortoni
Spizaetus isidori
Alouatta palliata
Ateles fusciceps
Caenolestes
convelatus
Cebus aequatorialis
Choeroniscus
periosus
Marmosa phaea
Mustela felipei
Neomicroxus
latebricola
Tayassu pecari

561

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU

2016

EN

2004

VU

2016

EN
VU
VU
VU

2016
2016
2016
2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

VU
VU

2018
2018

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU

2019

VU

2016

✔

EN
EN
VU
EN

2018
2016
2015
2020

✔
✔

VU

2016

✔

CR

2015

VU

2014

VU
VU

2014
2016

EN

2016

VU

2012

✔
✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Fish

Plants

ReptilesAmphibians

Perú

6 km
south ofOcobamba

Birds

Mammals

SpeciesTremarctos ornatus
Hypostomus
annectens
Pseudochalceus
longianalis
Sturisomatichthys
frenatus
Cedrela odorata
Macleania
maldonadensis
Puya hirtzii
Anolis parilis
Atractus
occidentalis
Atractus paucidens
Bothrocophias
campbelliCorallus blombergi
Dipsas ellipsifera
Echinosaura keyi
Enyalioides
oshaughnessyi
Lepidoblepharis
conolepis
Synophis bicolor
Gastrothecaexcubitor
Agamia agami
Agriornis albicauda
Anairetes alpinus
Asthenes helleri
Chaetura pelagica
Cinclodes aricomae
Conopias
cinchoneti
Cranioleuca curtata
Cranioleuca
marcapatae
Leptasthenura
xenothorax
Leptosittaca
branickii
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Nothoprocta
taczanowskii
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Primolius couloni
Spizaetus isidori
Tinamus tao
Zimmeriuscinereicapilla
Akodon surdus
Hippocamelus
antisensis
Lagothrix
lagothricha

562

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

VU

2014

VU

2014

CR

2014

VU

2017

EN

2018

CR
VU

2018
2014

EN

2014

VU

2014

VU

2013

EN
EN
VU

2013
2014
2016

VU

2015

EN

2016

EN

2013

VU

2017

VU
VU
EN
VU
VU
CR

2016
2016
2016
2016
2018
2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU
EN
VU

2018
2016
2018

VU

2016

VU

2017

VU

2016

VU

2020

✔

✔
✔

Country

KBA

Group

PlantsAmphibians

Birds

Peru

Abra
MálagaVilcanota

Mammals

PlantsAmphibians

Peru

Abra
Pardo deMiguelBirds

Species
Leopardus jacobita
Mazama chunyi
Mormopterus
phrudus
Tapirus terrestris
Tayassu pecari
Cedrela odorata
Gentianella
vargasii
Gastrothecaexcubitor
Gastrotheca ochoai
Nannophryne
corynetes
Agriornis albicauda
Anairetes alpinus
Asthenes helleri
Chaetura pelagica
Cinclodes aricomae
Conopias
cinchoneti
Cranioleuca
marcapatae
Leptasthenura
xenothorax
Leptosittaca
branickii
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Nothoprocta
taczanowskii
Primolius couloni
Spizaetus isidori
Zimmeriuscinereicapilla
Akodon surdus
Hippocamelus
antisensis
Lagothrix
lagothricha
Leopardus jacobita
Mazama chunyi
Mormopterus
phrudus
Cedrela odorata
Gentianella
vargasii
Pristimantis
rufioculis
Pristimantis
schultei
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Conopias
cinchoneti
Cranioleuca curtata

563

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN
VU

2014
2016

VU

2015

VU
VU
VU

2018
2012
2017

VU

2018

VU

2017

EN

2017

EN

2017

VU
EN
VU
VU
CR

2016
2016
2016
2018
2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔

VU
EN

2018
2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2017

VU

2016

VU

2020

EN
VU

2014
2016

VU

2015

VU

2017

VU

2018

VU

2017

VU

2017

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔
✔
✔
✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

PlantsAmphibians
Peru

CarpishBirds

Species
Grallaria
przewalskii
Heliangelus regalis
Herpsilochmus
axillaris
Leptosittaca
branickii
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Picumnussteindachneri
Sericossypha
albocristata
Tangaraargyrofenges
Thamnophilus
tenuepunctatus
Tinamus tao
Zimmeriuscinereicapilla
Aotus nancymaae
Lagothrix
flavicauda
Pteronurabrasiliensis
Tapirus terrestris
Tayassu pecari
Vampyressa
melissa
Brachyotum
angustifolium
Cedrela odorata
Ctenophryne
carpishGastrotheca
stictopleura
Nymphargus
mixomaculatus
Phrynopus daemon
Phrynopus
dagmaraePhrynopus
horstpauliPhrynopus
kauneorum
Phrynopus
vestigiatus
Pristimantis
pulchridormientes
Rhinella chavin
Telmatobius
brevirostris
Telmatobius
punctatus
Agriornis albicauda
Ara militaris
Chaetura pelágica

564

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2017

CR

2019

EN

2014

VU
VU

2018
2012

VU

2015

VU

2018

VU

2017

EN

2017

EN

2017

CR

2017

EN

2017

EN

2017

EN

2017

EN

2017

EN

2017

EN

2018

EN

2018

EN

2017

EN

2017

VU
VU
VU

2016
2016
2018

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Fish

Plants

ReptilesAmphibians

Peru

Cordillera
de Colán

Arthropods

Birds

Species
Cnemathraupis
aureodorsalis
Conopias
cinchoneti
Cranioleuca curtata
Doliornis sclateri
Herpsilochmus
axillaris
Leptosittaca
branickii
Neomorphus
geoffroyi
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Poospiza rubecula
Primolius couloni
Sericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Tinamus tao
Zaratornis
stresemanni
Zimmeriuscinereicapilla
Ateles chamek
Hippocamelus
antisensis
Marmosops
juninensis
Tapirus terrestres
Tayassu pecari
Vampyressa
melissa
Chaetostoma
marmorescens
Cedrela odorata
Krapfia haemantha
Themistoclesia
peruviana
Stenocercus
chinchaoensis
Stenocercus
torquatus
Excidobates
mysteriosus
Hyloxalus insulatus
Pristimantis
serendipitus
Parides phalaecus
Ara militaris
Chaetura pelagica
Cranioleuca
berlepschi
Cranioleuca curtata
Grallaria
przewalskii

565

Last IUCN
assessment

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU
VU

2016
2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

EN
VU

2016
2018

✔

VU

2018

✔

EN
VU

2016
2018

✔
✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2015

VU

2016

VU

2015

VU
VU

2018
2012

VU

2015

VU

2014

VU
VU

2017
2018

VU

2018

VU

2014

VU

2014

EN

2017

VU

2018

EN

2016

VU
VU
VU

2019
2016
2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreat✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

PlantsPeru

Kosnipata
CarabayaAmphibians

Species
Grallaricula
ochraceifrons
Heliangelus regalis
Heliodoxa gularis
Herpsilochmus
axillaris
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Patagioenas
oenopsPatagioenas
subvinacea
Phlogophilus
hemileucurus
Picumnussteindachneri
Poecilotriccus
luluaeSericossypha
albocristata
Spizaetus isidori
Tangaraargyrofenges
Thamnophilus
tenuepunctatus
Tinamus tao
Touit stictopterus
Wetmorethraupis
sterrhopteron
Xenoglaux loweryi
Zimmeriuscinereicapilla
Aotus nancymaae
Ateles belzebuth
Lagothrix
flavicauda
Tapirus terrestris
Tayassu pecariThomasomys
rosalinda
Vampyressa
melissa
Browningia
altissima
Cedrela odorata
Allobates
alessandroi
Atelopus tricolor
Boana gladiator
Bryophryne
cophitesCentrolene sabini
Gastrothecaexcubitor
Gastrothecanebulanastes
Oreobates
amarakaeri

566

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

EN

2016

EN
VU

2016
2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔

EN

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU
VU

2018
2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

VU
EN

2017
2019

CR

2019

VU
VU

2018
2012

EN

2016

VU

2015

VU

2011

VU

2017

EN

2018

VU
VU

2004
2017

EN

2016

VU

2017

VU

2017

EN

2017

VU

2017

✔

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Birds

Mammals

Fish
PlantsAmphibians

Birds
Peru

Lago
YanacochaMammals

Species
Pristimantis
cosnipatae
Telmatobius timens
Agamia agami
Agriornis albicauda
Ara militaris
Asthenes helleri
Chaetura pelagica
Cinclodes aricomae
Cranioleuca curtata
Cranioleuca
marcapatae
Euchrepomis
sharpei
Leptosittaca
branickii
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Nothoprocta
taczanowskii
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Primolius couloni
Spizaetus isidori
Tinamus osgoodi
Tinamus tao
Zimmeriuscinereicapilla
Akodon surdus
Lagothrix
lagothricha
Leopardus jacobita
Mazama chunyi
Tayassu pecari
Vampyressa
melissa
Attonitus bounites
Cedrela odorata
Gastrothecaexcubitor
Agriornis albicauda
Anairetes alpinus
Asthenes helleri
Chaetura pelagica
Cinclodes aricomae
Cranioleuca
marcapatae
Leptasthenura
xenothorax
Primolius couloni
Spizaetus isidori
Akodon surdus
Hippocamelus
antisensis
Lagothrix
lagothricha
Leopardus jacobita

567

Last IUCN
assessment

CR

2017

CR
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
CR
VU

2013
2016
2016
2016
2016
2018
2016
2016

✔
✔

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU
EN
VU
VU

2018
2016
2018
2018

✔
✔
✔
✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2017

VU

2020

EN
VU
VU

2014
2016
2012

VU

2015

VU
VU

2014
2017

VU

2017

VU
EN
VU
VU
CR

2016
2016
2016
2018
2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU
EN
VU

2018
2016
2017

VU

2016

VU

2020

EN

2014

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreat✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

PlantsAmphibians

Birds

Peru

Moyobamba

Mammals

PlantsPeru

QuincemilAmphibians

Species
Mazama chunyi
Cedrela odorata
Gentianella
vargasii
Ameerega bassleri
Atelopus pulcher
Atelopus
seminiferus
Pristimantis
ardalonychus
Pristimantis
schulteiAra militaris
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Conopias
cinchoneti
Herpsilochmus
axillaris
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Picumnussteindachneri
Tangaraargyrofenges
Thamnophilus
tenuepunctatus
Tinamus tao
Zimmeriuscinereicapilla
Zimmeriusvillarejoi
Aotus nancymaae
Ateles belzebuth
Lagothrix
flavicauda
Myrmecophaga
tridactyla
Plecturocebus
oenanthePriodontes
maximus
Pteronurabrasiliensis
Tapirus terrestris
Tayassu pecari
Vampyressa
melissa
Brachyotum
angustifolium
Cedrela odorata
Xanthosoma
tarapotense
Allobates
alessandroi
Atelopus tricolor

568

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU
VU

2016
2017

VU

2018

VU
VU

2017
2018

EN

2017

EN

2017

VU

2017

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2018

VU

2016

✔

VU

2018

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU
EN

2017
2019

CR

2019

VU

2013

CR

2011

VU

2013

EN

2014

VU
VU

2018
2012

VU

2015

VU

2018

VU

2017

EN

2018

EN

2018

VU

2004

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Birds

Mammals

Fish

PlantsAmphibians
Peru

Río Azara

Birds

Species
Boana gladiator
Oreobates
amarakaeri
Agamia agami
Agriornis albicauda
Anairetes alpinus
Ara militaris
Asthenes helleri
Chaetura pelagica
Cinclodes aricomae
Cnipodectes
superrufus
Cranioleuca curtata
Cranioleuca
marcapatae
Euchrepomis
sharpei
Herpsilochmus
axillaris
Neomorphus
geoffroyi
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Primolius couloni
Spizaetus isidori
Tinamus osgoodi
Tinamus tao
Ateles chamek
Lagothrix
lagothricha
Leopardus jacobita
Mazama chunyi
Tapirus terrestris
Tayassu pecari
Vampyressa
melissaAnablepsoides
parlettei
Ancistrus
marcapatae
Attonitus bounites
Cedrela odorata
Werneria
staticifolia
Atelopus tricolor
Boana gladiator
Gastrothecaexcubitor
Psychrophrynellabagrecito
Agriornis albicauda
Anairetes alpinus
Asthenes helleri
Chaetura pelagica
Cinclodes aricomae

569

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2017

VU

2017

VU
VU
EN
VU
VU
VU
CR

2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2018
2016

VU

2017

VU

2016

VU

2016

EN

2016

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU
EN
VU
VU
EN

2018
2016
2018
2018
2015

VU

2020

EN
VU
VU
VU

2014
2016
2018
2012

VU

2015

VU

2014

EN

2014

✔

VU
VU

2014
2017

✔

VU

2018

VU
VU

2004
2017

VU

2017

CR

2017

VU
EN
VU
VU
CR

2016
2016
2016
2018
2016

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

Country

KBA

Group

Mammals

Fish

PlantsAmphibians

Arthropods

Peru

Río
Utcubamba

Birds

Species
Cranioleuca
marcapatae
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Patagioenas
subvinacea
Primolius couloni
Spizaetus isidori
Tinamus osgoodi
Tinamus tao
Hippocamelus
antisensis
Lagothrix
lagothricha
Leopardus jacobita
Mazama chunyi
Tayassu pecari
Anablepsoides
parlettei
Ancistrus
marcapatae
Attonitus bounites
Cedrela odorata
Stangea paulae
Excidobates
mysteriosus
Hyloxalus insulatus
Pristimantis
schultei
Rhinellaarborescandens
Telmatobius
truebaeParides phalaecus
Ara militaris
Chaetocercus
bombusChaetura pelagica
Cranioleuca
berlepschi
Cranioleuca curtata
Grallaria
przewalskii
Heliangelus regalis
Heliodoxa gularis
Herpsilochmus
axillaris
Leptosittaca
branickii
Loddigesia
mirabilis
Nothocercus
nigrocapillus
Patagioenas
oenopsPatagioenas
subvinacea
Picumnussteindachneri

570

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU
EN
VU
VU

2018
2016
2018
2018

VU

2016

VU

2020

EN
VU
VU

2014
2016
2012

VU

2014

EN

2014

VU
VU
VU

2014
2017
2018

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
records
since
2010
✔

✔

EN

2017

VU

2018

VU

2017

EN

2017

VU

2017

VU
VU

2019
2016

VU

2016

VU

2018

VU

2016

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

EN
VU

2016
2016

✔

VU

2016

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

VU

2016

✔

EN

2016

✔

✔

✔

Country

KBA

Group

Species

IUCN
GlobalThreatLast IUCN
assessment

Last
IUCN
recordGBIF
recordssince
2010

Sericossypha
VU
2018
albocristataEN
2016
Spizaetus isidori
TangaraVU
2018
argyrofenges
Thamnophilus
VU
2016
tenuepunctatus
VU
2018
Tinamus tao
VU
2017
Aotus nancymaae
Lagothrix
CR
2019flavicauda
VU
2018
Tapirus terrestris
Mammals
VU
2012
Tayassu pecariThomasomys
EN2016
rosalinda
Vampyressa
VU
2015
melissa
Brachyotum
VU
2018
angustifolium
Browningia
PlantsVU
2011
altissima
VU
2017
Cedrela odorata
Arthropods
VU
2019
Parides phalaecus
VU
2016
Ara militaris
VU
2018
Chaetura pelagica
Conopias
VU
2016
cinchoneti
VU
2016
Cranioleuca curtata
EN
2016
Heliangelus regalis
VU
2016
Heliodoxa gularis
Herpsilochmus
VU
2016
axillaris
Lathrotriccus
VU
2016
griseipectus
Birds
Patagioenas
VU
2016
oenopsPatagioenas
VU
2016
subvinacea
San José
Peru
de
EN
2016
Spizaetus isidori
Lourdes
Synallaxis
CR
2018
maranonica
Thamnophilus
VU
2016
tenuepunctatus
VU
2018
Tinamus tao
VU
2016
Touit stictopterus
VU
2015
Mazama rufina
VU
2018
Tapirus terrestris
VU
2012
Tayassu pecari
Mammals
Thomasomys
VU
2008
pyrrhonotus
Thomasomys
EN2016
rosalinda
PlantsVU
2017
Cedrela odorata
Polychrus
ReptilesVU
2014peruvianus
We used distributions of some reptiles, soon to be published in IUCN, which have been adjusted as part ofthe process coordinated by IUCN-DC and financed by CEPF (M. Tognelli, unpublished data).

571

✔
✔

✔
✔

✔
✔

✔

The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is a
joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement,
Conservation International, the European Union,
the Global Environment Facility, the Government ofJapan and the World Bank.

Offices located at:
Conservation International
2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22202 USA
www.cepf.net