Proceedings of the International Mountain Biodiversity

Proceedings of the International Mountain Biodiversity ConferenceKathmandu, 16-18 November 2008

About ICIMOD

The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, ICIMOD, is a regional knowledge development and learning centre serving the eight regional member countries of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, and Pakistan – and based in Kathmandu, Nepal. Globalisation and climate change have an increasing influence on the stability of fragile mountain ecosystems and the livelihoods of mountain people. ICIMOD aims to assist mountain people to understand these changes, adapt to them, and make the most of new opportunities, while addressing upstream-downstream issues. We support regional transboundary programmes through partnership with regional partner institutions, facilitate the exchange of experience, and serve as a regional knowledge hub. We strengthen networking among regional and global centres of excellence. Overall, we are working to develop an economically and environmentally sound mountain ecosystem to improve the living standards of mountain populations and to sustain vital ecosystem services for the billions of people living downstream – now, and for the future.

Proceedings of the International Mountain Biodiversity Conference Biodiversity Conservation and Management for Enhanced Ecosystem Services: Responding to the Challenges of Global ChangeKathmandu, 16 -18 November 2008

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal

Technical editorEklabya Sharma

Copyright © 2009International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)

All rights reserved. Published 2009

Published by International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, GPO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal

ISBN 978 92 9115 117 2 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number 2009-341522

Production teamBandana Shakya (Compiler)

Isabella C. Bassignana Khadka (Consultant)

Greta M. Pennington Rana (Consultant Editor)

Susan Sellars-Shrestha (Consultant Editor)

A. Beatrice Murray (Senior Editor)

Dharma R. Maharjan (Layout and Design)

Asha Kaji Thaku (Editorial Assistance)

ReproductionThis publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. ICIMOD would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from ICIMOD.

NoteThe views and interpretations in this publication are those of the author(s). They are not attributable to ICIMOD and do not imply the expression of any opinion concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or the endorsement of any product.

This publication is also available at http://books.icimod.org.

Contents

Foreword Preface Acronyms and Abbreviations Summary

1 Introduction 1

Biodiversity, Conservation and Management for Enhanced Ecosystem Services: Responding to the Challenges of Global Change 3

2 Inaugural Session 7

Summary 9

Biodiversity, Environmental Change and Regional Cooperation in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas 13 Bruno Messerli

Conservation of Mountain Biodiversity in the Context of Climate Change 21 Christian Körner

3 Plenary Session I: Climate Change and its Implications for Mountain Biodiversity 35

Summary 37

Biodiversity in the Himalayas – Trends, Perceptions, and Impacts of Climate Change 40 Eklabya Sharma, Karma Tsering, Nakul Chettri and Arun Shrestha

Global Change and Mountain Regions – Strategies for Biosphere Reserves 54 Thomas Schaaf

4 Plenary Session II: Biodiversity Management for Economic Goods and Ecosystem Services from Mountains 67

Summary 69

Biodiversity Goods and Services – Increasing Benefits for Mountain Communities 72 Robert Zomer

Ecosystem Services Arising from Biodiversity 81 Palayanoor S. Ramakrishnan

5 Plenary Session III: Institutionalising Long-term Continuity in Mountain Research Programmes 93

Summary 95

Hindu Kush-Himalayas: Current Status, Challenges and Possible Framework for the Conservation of Biodiversity 97 Ram P. Chaudhary

Global Change and Mountain Regions: Research Strategy and its Implementation 110 Gregory B. Greenwood

A Global Long-term Observation System for Mountain Biodiversity: Lessons Learned and Upcoming Challenges 120 Harald Pauli, Michael Gottfried, Christian Klettner, Sonya Laimer and Georg Grabherr

6 Technical Working Groups: Parallel Sessions 129

Group 1: Climate Change Impacts on Bidioversity and Mountain PAs – Summary 131

The Climate Change Programme of WWF-Nepal 133 Ghana S. Gurung and Sandeep C. Rai

Impact of Climate Change and Coping Strategies in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve Central Himalayas, India 138 R.K. Maikhuri, L.S. Rawat, Vikram S. Negi, Prakash Phondani, Abhay Bahuguna, K.P. Chamoli, and Nehal Farooquee

Group 2: Land Use Change Trends and Impacts on Mountain Biodiversity – Summary 149

Trends in Land Use and Land Cover Changes and their Impacts on Biodiversity in the Himalayas 152 Xu Jianchu

Group 3: Wetland Ecosystem Functions and Services – Implications of Climate Change – Summary 165

Wetlands of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas – Ecosystem Functions, Services and Implications of Climate Change 169 Chaman Trisal

Group 4: Balancing Biodiversity Conservation with Community Livelihoods – Summary 179

Balancing Biodiversity Conservation with Community Livelihoods in the Pamir-Alai Mountains in Central Asia 181 Libor Jansky, Nevelina Pachova and Luohui Liang

Balancing Biodiversity Conservation with Community Livelihoods: A Global Perspective 191 Thomas Schaaf

Group 5: Biodiversity Transects and Transboundary Connectivity Approaches in Mountains for Long-term Monitoring and Regional Cooperation – Summary 197

Long-term Monitoring Using Transect and Landscape Approaches within the Hindu Kush-Himalayas 201 Nakul Chettri, Eklabya Sharma and Rajesh Thapa

Transboundary Connectivity Approaches for Biodiversity Management 209 Graeme L. Worboys and Bruce Jefferies

7 Plenary Session IV: Reports of Group Work 219

Summary 221

8 Plenary Session V (Part 1): Responses from the Global Programmes 225

Summary 227

The Ev-K2-CNR Contribution to Mountain Ecosystem Conservation and the Study of Climate Change 240 Beth Schommer, Chiara Belotti, Elisa Vuillermoz and Gianni Tartari

FAO and Sustainable Mountain Development 249 Douglas McGuire and Thomas Hofer

Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments 254 Harald Pauli, Michael Gottfried, Christian Klettner, Sonya Laimer and Georg Grabherr

Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment: The Mountain Biodiversity Research Network of DIVERSITAS 259 Eva Spehn and Christian Körner

Global Change and Mountain Regions: The Mountain Research Initiative 265 Claudia Drexler, Gregory B. Greenwood and Astrid Björnsen Gurung

UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme with its World network of Biosphere Reserves 270 Thomas Schaaf

Mountain Research and Development: An Adaptive Institutional Response to Evolving Knowledge and Needs 274 Libor Jansky, Nevelina Pachova and Luohui Liang

Wetlands International’s Global Programme and its Priorities in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region 284 Chris Baker, Chaman Trisal, Chen Kelin and Ward Hagemeijer

9 Plenary Session V (Part 2): Responses of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Countries 293

Summary 295

10 Plenary Session VI: The Way Forward 303

Part 1: Strategy on Development of Coordinatioin and Cooperation for the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region 305

Part 2: A Way Forward 309

Foreword

Even the most remote parts of the Himalayas are not immune to the impacts of globalisation and climate change – mountain biodiversity is under threat. Anecdotal evidence of change is abundant, but in this vast region there are little hard scientific data available. A knowledge, learning, and enabling centre like ICIMOD has a role to play in helping to gather the information that is needed so that appropriate action can be taken to mitigate the negative impacts of extreme events. The usefulness of scientific information for designing policies for poverty alleviation, reducing the menace of natural disasters, and bringing prosperity to the region has been accepted for a long time. The growing awareness that climate change is potentially leading to a loss of biological diversity has brought new conclusions that more data are needed on the status and changes in plants, wildlife, habitats and other factors linked to biodiversity. Data are needed on a regional scale in order to assess the impact of climate change and to provide a basis for developing policies and adaptation strategies in response.

The factors limiting the collection and sharing of data in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region include the vastness of the region and the difficult access, sparse population, and deficient infrastructure. ICIMOD brought together representatives from the eight countries of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region with representatives of global programmes who have decades of experience related to data collection and biodiversity conservation at the International Mountain Biodiversity Conference in November 2008. The aim was to share, network, and develop future strategies and alliances for mountain biodiversity conservation. The conference made a substantial contribution to the acquisition and sharing of long-term scientific data in the region by developing a framework for cooperation and research based on the identification of focus areas – transects across the region – where those involved can concentrate their research efforts.

The three main themes of the conference were climate change and its impact on mountain biodiversity; biodiversity management and ecosystem services from the mountains; and institutionalising the continuity in mountain research programmes. The papers presented led to animated discussions which highlighted the fact that the lack of data in the region is a manageable problem and that regional collaboration will be the key to success. These papers and discussions have been collected together in the present volume. Global programmes have the expertise and are motivated to work with ICIMOD on technical aspects of data collection and sharing. Everyone stands to benefit – data sharing is a win-win proposition. The data will benefit not only the region, but also the whole world by feeding into improved climate change models and preserving the genetic heritage. It is our sincere hope in preparing this document that the important findings of the conference will benefit a wider audience and contribute to a better understanding of climate change and its impact on biodiversity in mountain regions.

Andreas Schild, Director General, ICIMOD

Preface

Loss of biodiversity in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region (HKH) is a constant reminder of the fact that the changes taking place globally are having impacts locally and regionally. Regional governments and organisations that are attempting to improve ecosystem services and people’s livelihoods also encounter another day-to-day reality – the lack of reliable data on which to base decisions and policy. Anecdotal information abounds: reliable, verifiable data remain elusive. The difficulties of collecting and sharing data in the region are many and formidable, and we could enumerate them. It is more productive, however, to choose a ‘model’ with which to begin the process of collecting and sharing and for dealing with the difficulties as they arise. This line of reasoning prompted ICIMOD to host an International Mountain Biodiversity Conference to bring interested parties together to discuss what such a model could be and how to begin data collection.

As arrangements for the conference commenced, ICIMOD discovered that there was interest among international organisations, such as UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme (UNESCO-MAB), the International Union for Conservation of Nature - World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA), WWF-Nepal, and the Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA), who enthusiastically joined to organise the pre- and post-conference workshops.

ICIMOD would like to thank German Development Cooperation (GTZ), the MacArthur Foundation, UNESCO, IUCN-WCPA, and GMBA for their financial support, without which it would not have been possible to host the conference. We especially acknowledge the financial contributions made by all the global programmes for their participation in the conference. In addition, their constant encouragement and the ideas they shared helped to make the conference a success. A few deserve special mention. It was in discussions with long-time ICIMOD well-wisher, Professor Bruno Messerli, that the idea of ‘transects’ came about. This was to become the ‘model’ that the conference participants enthusiastically supported, and now it will be the framework for collecting and sharing data. The concept is being further developed by ICIMOD into a regional ‘Trans-Himalaya Transect’ framework. I would like to express sincere and heartfelt thanks to Professor Messerli who initially helped conceptualise this conference and its objectives and who worked with us throughout to make it a reality. His guidance over many months and his help in soliciting the participation of the global programmes have been invaluable.

Thanks also go to all those individuals from global programmes who were involved in iteratively designing and refining the programme. In particular, we would like to acknowledge the contributions of Professor Christian Körner, Dr Thomas Schaaf, Dr Martin Price, and Dr Gregory Greenwood who worked with us on an almost weekly basis and whose input and support have been noteworthy. We have also been privileged to have the full support and cooperation of ICIMOD’s regional member countries and regional partners. It is our sincere hope that the dialogue

that began with regional members at this conference will grow over the coming years and contribute in very significant ways to the preservation of biodiversity in the region.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the novel knowledge management aspects of this conference. It was our intention that this would be a real ‘working conference’ and that all of the participants should be actively engaged in discussing and sharing ideas. For this reason, we requested that all of the invited papers be submitted a few weeks early and these were made available on our conference website so that participants could read them and be prepared for active discussions. The web page also contained an advanced feature that allowed readers to post comments to the authors via the web for two weeks before the conference even began. The conference was designed to maximise the time that presenters and participants had for dialogue and discussions: it was our contention that the discussions would contain much valuable input by identifying particular concerns, whether on the part of the regional countries or the global programmes. For this reason, the discussions were carefully recorded by rapporteurs and these summaries are now available on the conference website as well as in this volume. This volume is being assembled in the hope that not only conference participants will refer to it, but also a much wider audience.

I would personally like to take this opportunity to thank Dr Andreas Schild for seeing this conference through, right from its conception to the closing ceremony and beyond with follow ups. He played a pivotal role throughout as a member of the organising team. We are grateful to him for the vision and guidance that have inspired us all. The contributions of the ICIMOD colleagues have been overwhelmingly praiseworthy. Dr Isabella Khadka deserves special gratitude for meticulously and proactively working with the organising team from the very beginning until the production of this document.

Finally, I wish to thank all the conference participants, each of whom contributed in their individual way to make this conference a success beyond our greatest expectations.

Eklabya SharmaProgramme Manager, Environmental Change and Ecosystem Services, ICIMOD

Note: The List of Participants with their contact details, and the agenda of the conference, can be found on the conference website at www.icimod.org/imbc. The reports of the accompanying workshops are included on the CD-ROM with this Conference Proceedings. Further details of ICIMOD’s activities can be found at www.icimod.org.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ABS access and benefit sharing BR biosphere reserveCAS Chinese Academy of Sciences CBD Convention on Biological DiversityCCA connectivity conservation areaCCM connectivity conservation managementCDM clean development mechanismCEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership FundCESVI Cooperation and Development (Cooperazione E Sviluppo) CKNP Central Karakoram National Park CONDESAN Consortium for Sustainable Development of the Andean EcoregionCoP Conference of PartiesDIVERSITAS International Programme of Biodiversity Science ECES Environmental Change and Ecosystem Services (ICIMOD) EEA European Environment AgencyEH Eastern HimalayasES ecosystem servicesESSP Earth System Science PartnershipEU European UnionEV-K2-CNR Everest-K2-Italian National Research Council FAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationGBIF Global Biodiversity Information FacilityGBPIHED GB Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and DevelopmentGCOS Global Climate Observing SystemGCRN Global Change Research Network GEF Global Environment FundGEOSS Global Earth Observation System of SystemsGHG greenhouse gasGIS geographical information systemGLOCHAMORE Global Change in Mountain RegionsGLOF glacial lake outburst flood GLORIA Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine EnvironmentsGMBA Global Mountain Biodiversity AssessmentGTOS Global Terrestrial Observing SystemHKH Hindu Kush-Himalayas/nHKKH Hindu Kush-Karakoram-Himalayas ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain DevelopmentICSU International Council for Science IGBP International Geosphere Biosphere ProgrammeIHDP International Human Dimensions ProgrammeIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IRBM international river basin managementIUCN International Union for the Conservation of NatureIWMI International Water Management InstituteIYM International Year of Mountains LTER Long-term Ecological Research NetworkLULCC land use and land cover changeLULUCF land use, land use change, and forestryMAIRS Monsoon Asia Integrated Regional StudyMBR mountain biosphere reserveMDG Millennium Development GoalMEA Millennium Ecosystem AssessmentMIREN Mountain Invasion Research NetworkMoEST Ministry of Environment, Science and TechnologyMP Mountain PartnershipMRI Mountain Research InitiativeNASA National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNDBR Nanda Devi Biosphere ReserveNGO non-government organisationPA protected areaPES payment for ecosystem servicesPoW Programme of WorkPoWPA Programme of Work on Protected AreasREDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RMC regional member country (of ICIMOD)SARD-M Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development in Mountain RegionsSHARE stations at high altitude for research on the environmentTAR Tibet Autonomous RegionTCP technical cooperation programmeTEK traditional ecological knowledgeUNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and DevelopmentUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural OrganizationUNESCO MAB United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s Man and the Biosphere programmeUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUNGA United Nations General AssemblyUNU United Nations UniversityUS NSF United States’ National Science FoundationWCPA World Commission on Protected Areas WI Wetlands International WISA Wetlands International South Asia WMO World Meteorological OrganizationWSSD World Summit on Sustainable DevelopmentWWF World Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund

Summary

The HKH region is one of the largest and most understudied mountain regions in the world and one where the effects of global change are becoming apparent at an ever increasing rate. While there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that strongly suggests that the mountain ecosystems and biodiversity that form the basis of local livelihoods are threatened by changing conditions, the hard data needed to substantiate what seems to be probable and plausible is sorely lacking. The mountainous regions of the eight countries that share the Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH) region share similar terrain, biological diversity, and climatic conditions, and face the same challenges from global change. They also share the fact that none has fully benefited from the experiences gained by global institutions and programmes. There is an added incentive to address these issues now as there is a growing awareness that the influence that mountain ecosystems exert on their neighbouring environments extends far beyond their geographical limits to encompass the surrounding lowlands dependent on them for goods and services. While highlands and lowlands have always been linked, globalisation has brought both new challenges and a greater awareness of the need to address them.

In recognition of the need for reliable data that will allow the region to benefit from climate change science, ICIMOD convened the International Conference on Mountain Biodiversity, which took place from 16-18 November 2008 at the ICIMOD Headquarters in Kathmandu. The objective of this meeting was to bring together global institutions involved in biodiversity conservation with regional groups familiar with the specific issues of the region. The aim was to share, network, and develop future strategies and alliances for mountain biodiversity conservation, and especially to meet the emerging challenges from climate change. It was the expressed intention of the organisers to bring together researchers from the region, who have an in-depth understanding of the region and its people, with representatives of global programmes, who have access to the latest methodologies for data collection and interpretation. Some 75 biodiversity, climate change, and conservation experts, representatives of global programmes, and representatives of the eight countries that share the Himalayan region, from more than 20 countries in all, met to discuss ways of systematically gathering and sharing the information needed, developing a reliable picture of the present situation, and formulating approaches to respond.

The Conference was accompanied by two pre-conference workshops on Mountain Transboundary Protected Areas (10-14 November 2008), and Linking Geodata with Biodiversity Information (15-16 November 2008), and a post-conference workshop on a Research Strategy on Global Change in Mountain Biosphere Reserves (19 November 2008), which provided further opportunities to discuss special aspects of this important topic.

One of the major discussion points was how to fill the gap in availability of consistent data for the HKH region. The transect (latitudinal – north south) approach at various longitudes in the HKH, which includes both transboundary biodiversity rich landscapes and their connectivity corridors, was the highlight of the conference. The transect approach was accepted as the way forward, with the understanding that the concept still needs some further development and fine-tuning. Another area of concern was the long-term continuity of research efforts for the generation of meaningful data through a coordinated effort. ICIMOD should take the lead in developing the transect approach and in implementing it with its regional and global partners.

The three main themes of the Conference were climate change and its implications for mountain biodiversity; biodiversity management for economic goods and ecosystem services from the mountains; and institutionalising long-term continuity in mountain research programmes. The papers presented on these themes provided the basis for animated discussions. These discussions helped to advance our understanding of the effects of climate change on the biodiversity and the lives and livelihoods of the people of the Himalayan region, and were recorded by the chairs and session rapporteurs. A summary conference report was published electronically in 2009, containing the sum of the reports for each of the sessions, together with the reports of the pre- and post-conference workshops (http://books.icimod.org/index.php/downloads/pd/588). The workshop reports have also been prepared as a separate document included on the CD-ROM with this report.

The present publication contains the full proceedings of the conference: the summary, together with the full text of all the invited papers and most of the presentations.

Introduction

1

1: Introduction

3

Biodiversity Conservation and Management for Enhanced Ecosystem Services: Responding to the Challenges of Global Change

Introduction

Mountains are among the most fragile environments on Earth, but, at the same time, are also rich repositories of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and the source of much of the water that sustains life on the planet. The influence that mountain ecosystems exert on their neighbouring environments extends far beyond their geographical limits to encompass the surrounding lowlands dependent on them for goods and services. The important role that mountain ecosystems play has received more international recognition and attention since Agenda 21 (Chapter 13) was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Since then, the International Year of Mountains (2002) also helped to focus attention on the need for research and development efforts directed specifically at mountain ecosystems.

Pressures on Mountain Areas

In spite of considerable international goodwill, mountain areas continue to face enormous pressures, the origins of which can be traced back to changes taking place globally. The direct drivers of environmental change in mountain areas include climate change, changes in land use and land cover and species introduction/removal; while the indirect drivers include demographic, economic, and socio-political changes. Many of these drivers adversely affect biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, and the wellbeing of the people whose lives and livelihoods derive from the mountain areas. It is well-documented that changes in land use and land cover and climate change have already contributed to substantial species range contraction and extinctions; in the future, human-induced climate change will likely endanger species persistence. While the first to be impacted will be the livelihoods of mountain people and the biodiversity of mountain species themselves, the effects will also eventually spread to the downstream river basins where they will have global ramifications.

Mountains are becoming a focus for conservation biology because of a growing recognition that the ecological conditions and rich biodiversity found there favour speciation and evolution. These fragile environments, which house some of the world’s most threatened species, also house some of the world’s poorest people, dependent on the biological resources that the mountain ecosystems

International Mountain Biodiversity Conference 2008

4

afford. Mountainous countries have acknowledged the special status of mountain areas by setting aside 11.4% of their areas for protected area networks. The rationale for creating these protected areas has evolved as the understanding of the role they play has deepened; initially the focus was on conserving wilderness and uniqueness, and now the focus has shifted to their ability to preserve biodiversity, maintain cultural landscapes, and deliver ecological services.

The CBD and Mountain Biodiversity

Today there is an increasing appreciation of the service that the rich biodiversity that mountain areas render to the survival of humankind. In 1992, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) put forth global objectives on the conservation of biological diversity, on the sustainable use of its components, and on the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from genetic resources. The Conference of Parties in 2004 adopted an ‘ecosystem approach’ to biodiversity conservation and management, which included a Programme of Work on Mountain Biodiversity. A recent advance in generating information and knowledge on mountain biodiversity complements these global agreements. The mountain biodiversity programme aims to implement the CBD to reduce significantly the loss of mountain biological diversity by 2010 at global, regional, and national levels, with a view to alleviating poverty in mountain areas and in lowland areas that are dependent on mountain ecosystems for goods and services. These programmes strive to remain relevant conservation initiatives by striking a balance between safeguarding biodiversity and encouraging development, and, in doing so, need to devise meaningful participatory approaches in both species and landscape conservation. The challenge of biodiversity conservation is especially demanding in ecosystem mosaics that cross national borders such as transboundary landscapes.

The Impact of Change in the Himalayan Region

Globalisation and climate change are threatening biodiversity in even the most remote parts of the Himalayan mountains. As rain patterns change and the temperature increases, the unique plants that grow in this harsh environment may die out, threatening the animals and insects that depend on them, and the livelihoods of the mountain people who use them. There are many stories of change, and anecdotal evidence is abundant, but in this vast region there is very little hard scientific information, information that is urgently needed so that appropriate actions can be planned to combat and limit the coming problems. A key problem is the alarming lack of systematic data for the Himalayan region, so much so that recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s foremost authority on this subject, has considered the entire Himalayan region as a data gap area, or ‘white spot’, on the global climactic map. The eight countries that share the mountainous regions of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas have attempted to tackle the issue of data scarcity, but as the response by global agencies has often been bilateral, it has been fragmented; perhaps better progress can be made by taking a regional approach. Global institutions can become better acquainted with the specific challenges shared by the mountainous regions of the

1: Introduction

5

countries of the HKH region by engaging regional institutions that have already synthesised the concerns of the member countries into an in-depth understanding of the underlying issues. Both global and regional institutions stand to benefit from interacting more closely with each other and working together to share, exchange, and develop strategies with the aim of proposing comprehensive solutions to meet the challenges of global change in mountain areas.

The Mountain Biodiversity Conference

The objective of the International Mountain Biodiversity Conference was to bring together global institutions involved in biodiversity conservation with regional groups familiar with the specific issues of the region. The aim was to share, network, and develop future strategies and alliances for mountain biodiversity conservation together, especially to meet the emerging challenges from climate change.

In the following, the summaries of each session of the conference are presented, followed by the detailed papers prepared by the invited speakers. The summaries are essentially as presented in the Conference Report published on-line in 2009.

Inaugural Session

2

2: Inaugural Session

9

Inaugural Session

Introductory Remarks

Welcome: Dr Andreas Schild, Director General, ICIMOD

Inaugural Speech: Biodiversity, Environmental Change and Regional Cooperation in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas* Professor Bruno Messerli, Department of Physical Geography, University of Berne

Inaugural Keynote Speech: Conservation of Mountain Biodiversity in the Context of Climate Change* Professor Christian Körner, Department of Botany, University of Basel

Message: Biodiversity Conservation and Management for Enhanced Ecosystem Services: Responding to the Challenges of Global Change Sent by Dr Ahmed Djohlaf, Executive Secretary to the Convention on Biological Diversity

Inaugural Remarks: Convention on Biological Diversity: Mountain Biodiversity Programme of Work and 2010 Targets Mr Krishna C. Paudel, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal; Asia-Pacific Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, Bureau Member of CBD

MC: Dr Eklabya SharmaRapporteur: Ms Greta Rana

Summary

Participants to the Conference were from most of the major global and national programmes, universities, and regional member countries involved in biodiversity conservation and management.

In his inaugural welcome and presentation, the Director General of ICIMOD, Dr Andreas Schild, focused on the ‘Himalayas–Source of Vital Resources and Growing Vulnerabilities’.

The Director General’s PowerPoint presentation commenced by drawing the participants’ attention to three crucial factors: the Himalayas are the third pole of the Earth; they form an ecological buffer between the Tibetan Plateau and South Asia; and they are a source of fresh water with 10 major river systems providing a lifeline for over a third of humanity. The features of the Himalayas are that they are the location of major river basins and a centre of rich biodiversity. Currently, there is

* Full paper follows


10

uncertainty concerning the risks to the Himalayan ecosystem and beyond from climate change. Scientific uncertainty needs to be reduced; yet, in the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH) region is singled out as an area where sufficient data is not available.

The focus of ICIMOD’s work was outlined: it is centred on water and hazard management; environmental change and ecosystem services; and sustainable livelihoods and poverty reduction. Activities include monitoring change, assessing resilience and adaptation; promoting payment for environmental services; disaster risk reduction; and capacity building.

The presentation closed with a brief on ICIMOD’s expectations from its work: reduced vulnerability; increased regional ownership of the programme; science and research leading to the use of biodiversity resources as a means of poverty reduction; and the promotion of trans-Himalayan transects for longer-term monitoring to address the issue of consistent data generation from the HKH region.

Professor Bruno Messerli, Department of Physical Geography, University of Bern, delivered the inaugural address, commencing by drawing participants’ attention to the spectrum of topics covered by the conference and the need to examine them in the context of ongoing climate and environmental changes. The HKH extends 3,500 km and has a variety of peoples and cultures, precipitation and climate patterns, and immense diversity in terms of landscapes and genetic resources. How can all the knowledge they offer be organised and improved upon, and how can mountain resources be preserved for highland-lowland benefit?

Professor Messerli presented a map containing the first draft of selected transboundary landscapes and north-south transects in the HKH. There were four transects and seven transboundary complexes open to the north. Through these, Chinese researchers could assess and fully understand monsoon regime changes from the south to the Tibetan Plateau. He stressed the importance of knowledge about the climate, water, biodiversity, and ecosystem services in order to plan conservation and development strategies: it is essential to integrate this knowledge into the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS).

Professor Messerli stated that the HKH region is perceived as a ‘white spot’ because of the paucity of data on it, making modelling and projection difficult; hence, the importance of transboundary cooperation. Exhaustive cover would not be possible, but remote sensing (RS) methods and data from well-equipped sites could help in making projections. He proposed seven sites in which all the RMCs could be involved; these would be test sites where regional-scale information could be applied at the local scale and observations at the local scale could be used to ground-truth regional-scale information.


11

A GCOS table showing six of the HKH countries with stations above 1,000 m was also presented and the hope was expressed that more stations were in the pipeline considering the importance of monitoring glaciers, snow cover, land cover, water, soil, and so forth. The speaker closed with an appeal for interaction and cooperation in the HKH by participation in global and regional programmes and downscaling experiences from them. He hoped that ICIMOD would take the lead in developing the transect approach and start monitoring soon with the active cooperation and participation of ICIMOD’s RMC partners.

Professor Christian Körner of the Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA), Institute of Botany, University of Basel, spoke on ‘Conservation of Mountain Biodiversity in the Context of Climate Change’. In his presentation, Professor Körner highlighted mountain areas from several perspectives, in terms of total land area, forest, potential forest, mountain (mountain forest: two types), area above and below the tree line, and so on. Professor Körner pointed out that mountains influence territory, especially river systems, far beyond their area and impacted on half of the terrestrial surface. He went on to say that mountain terrain is rugged, and that area decreases with altitude, but that mountain biodiversity is surprisingly far greater than the limited land area leads one to expect. He pointed out that mountains are ‘islands in the sky’ that fragment habitats into mosaics, and that their slopes and topography influence climate and vegetation.

A brief presentation was given on the work of GMBA-DIVERSITAS on geo-referenced databases. Among them were illustrations of International Sciences Institute (ISI) publications per country based on the keyword ‘alpine’, differences in land cover, and the usefulness of key species in mitigating land degradation.

The key message given by the speaker was “Plausibility is not evidence”, and “absence of facts needs to be addressed by reducing talking and increasing doing”.

At this point, a message was read out from Dr Ahmed Djohlaf, Executive Secretary for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Dr Djohlaf apologised for his absence, which was due to previous commitments.

The letter covered the importance of mountain ecosystems and the recognition of this by the Conference of Parties (CoP) of CBD in 2004, during which they promoted a Programme of Work (PoW) on Mountain Biodiversity. In the International Year of Biodiversity (2010), the next CoP will be hosted by the Government of Japan. In May that year, the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) will meet to review the progress of the PoW on Mountain Biodiversity. It was recognised that the biodiversity of mountain areas is a crucial factor in meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).


12

The final speaker was Dr Krishna C. Paudel of the Government of Nepal’s Department of Forests. His presentation was on Nepal’s CBD programme on mountain biodiversity. He reiterated the important role of mountains in the context of water supply, culture, genepools, and livelihoods. Specific examples were given of all these in his presentation: the importance of biodiversity in terms of species’ richness, upland-lowland linkages, fragility, and so forth were also well illustrated.

Nepal’s CBD programme places emphasis on the reduction of loss of biodiversity, addressing threats, and promoting sustainability and the integrity of mountain ecosystems. Mobilisation of resources and equitable sharing of benefits were also emphasised. The PoW of the CBD led to the Nepal Biodiversity Strategy in 2002, an Action Plan for 2006-2011, and plans are being made for Wetlands and Wildlife.

The speaker closed by appealing for inputs for the CoP to be held in Japan in 2010 through the Secretariat at [email protected].


13

Biodiversity, Environmental Change and Regional Cooperation in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas

Bruno Messerli, Department of Physical Geography, University of Berne, Switzerland

Introduction

It is exciting to welcome representatives from UN organisations, governments, global mountain programmes, universities, non-government organisations, development agencies, conservation specialists, and others here under the umbrella of biodiversity. The spectrum of topics for this conference extends from ‘Land Use and Biodiversity’ to ‘Protected Areas and Transboundary Parks’; and we should keep in mind that we are discussing these topics during a period of ongoing climate and environmental change. Natural and human driving forces are having impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and water resources in the mountains and, in the near future, they will, most probably, influence the livelihoods of mountain communities also.

But what does biodiversity mean in such a huge mountain system representing 8 countries, 10 big river systems, and about 200 million people in the mountains, and perhaps more than 1.3 billion people in the surrounding lowlands? Extending from west to east over a distance of about 3,500 km, the variability—from arid mountains with less than 400 mm (10.4 m) of annual precipitation in the west to 4 m in the east and more than 10 m in Cherapunjee in the Meghalaya Hills — is overwhelming and is overlapped by the south-north differences ranging from summer monsoon precipitation to a boreal winter circulation regime over Tibet and the northern mountain chains. These dimensions not only create wide-ranging diversity of genetic resources to species’ diversity and whole mountain ecosystems, but also determine natural and cultural landscapes. What does this brief description mean? Without solid knowledge about climate and water as basic elements for soil formation and vegetation growth, for land use and land cover, and especially for biodiversity, we cannot develop scenarios about potential impacts of climate change and extreme events, and we have no concrete answers in the context of mitigation and adaptation mechanisms. There is a lack of necessary basic and comparable data taken over a long period and in reliable series throughout this mountain system. How should we tackle biodiversity conservation and management in such a huge mountain system? How should we address the urgent need to improve our knowledge about biodiversity and the so-called ‘hot spots’ in order to preserve mountain resources for the benefit of highland and lowland people?


14

A proposal for a regional-scale concept

With focused studies at selected mountain test sites in several south-north transects from west to east, as shown on this map (Figure 1) of ICIMOD’s Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region (HKH), we could improve our knowledge enormously. Eklabya Sharma, Nakul Chettri, and the whole team have begun to study some especially interesting places where special and valuable ecological and environmental knowledge can be found, e.g., protected areas (International Union for the Conservation of Nature [IUCN] categories I-VI), so-called biodiversity ‘hot spots’, world heritage sites, mountain biosphere reserves, important bird areas, Ramsar sites, and others. This map presents a first draft with four well-selected transects, in colour, and there are seven especially interesting transboundary complexes. It is obvious that these transboundary complexes are quite open towards the north. We hope that our Chinese friends will help with the selection of northern most test sites, so that the change from the monsoon regime in the south to the Tibetan climate situation can be fully understood and documented. At these test sites we need thorough knowledge and long-term monitoring of all aspects of the different altitudinal belts based on essential data about climate, water, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. This knowledge will be essential for planning conservation and development strategies, as well as for integrating these stations into a global network called the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) (GCOS 2008), so that the HKH region will receive more attention than heretofore in climate change projections and in the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We should keep in mind that the Himalayas were scarcely mentioned in the last report (IPCC 2007). The maps of Asia show the changes in temperature and precipitation from South Asia to the Polar Sea, but it is difficult to identify the great barrier of the Himalayas. It was often mentioned that the HKH region is a ‘white spot’ (Messerli 2008), and this means that the data available currently are not sufficient for modelling and projecting into the future. The consequences are very clear: if the HKH countries do not improve their transboundary cooperation, then they will miss out on integration into the global science community, which is carrying out research into global climate change.

Considering this map (Figure 1), the question arises: What can be done for the big gaps between the different transects? We must clearly state that exhaustive cover with field stations and field studies all over the whole of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas is not possible, Nevertheless if we have well-studied and well-equipped test sites, then we can use remote-sensing methods and techniques for the spaces in between, and these results can be calibrated with our knowledge of the test sites. This approach will need transboundary cooperation; and therefore all the countries must be involved, as the seven transboundary complexes and four transects show (summarised in Figure 2).

A proposal for a local-scale concept

Global and regional climate change projections are highly generalised and it is very difficult to downscale the results on the level of a valley or village, especially in mountain areas. Increases in temperature and more extreme events can be assumed, however. If we want to apply these


15

Countries involved

1. Wakhan: China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, (Tajikistan)2. Karakorum: Pakistan, China3. Kailash: India, China, Nepal4. Everest: Nepal, China5. Kangchenjunga: Nepal, India, Bhutan6. Brahmaputra Salween: India, China, Myanmar7. Cherapunjee Chittagong: Bangladesh, India

Figure 2: Proposed transboundary landscapes and/or transects, and countries involved

Legend

Hindu Kush-Himalayan region boundary

Major rivers of the region

Proposed transects

Important transboundary complexes

1 Wakhan 2 Karakoram 3 Kailash 4 Everest 5 Kangchenjunga 6 Brahmaputra - Salween 7 Cherapunjee Chittagong

Figure 1: Map of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region—proposal for four south-north transects and seven transboundary complexes from

the arid mountains in the west to the humid mountains in the east (For an explanation see the text)


16

changes to a certain place or village with its population, then we have to understand the natural-human system first of all (see Figure 3). An instructive example was developed for the village of Bagrot in the Karakoram (Winiger and Börst 2003): these authors studied climate and hydrology, irrigated and non-irrigated land use systems, and the altitudinal belts with summer and winter grazing land. Based on the knowledge acquired, the potentials and limitations could be evaluated, and certain changes in the natural and human systems could be integrated and used for projection into the future, e.g., what are the consequences of melting glaciers, shorter periods of snow cover, changing precipitation and runoff, and impacts on vegetation and biodiversity. Without going into more detail about this very interesting case study (Messerli 2008) we can say that this knowledge should exist in a so-called test site, so that new information from regional knowledge centres can be reflected on a local scale and observations on a local scale can be transmitted to regional institutions. In view of the big gaps between the different transects, it is most important that observations from local places outside a test site can be calibrated and advice given back to the local communities outside.

Global support to regional and local initiatives

GCOS, as a common undertaking of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Council for Science (ICSU), has commenced work, and it is most fascinating to see that measuring stations have been designated by the countries of the HKH region also. Figure 4 lists six countries with the total number of stations and the stations above 1,000 masl. I could not give the location of all these stations precisely, but I assume that several stations are planned for the HKH region. We may be surprised to see on Figure 5 that, besides the normal climatic data, observations of glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, land cover, water, soil moisture, and biomass are also required, and this means that a substantial amount of basic data on land use and biodiversity could become available, even across political borders: a new era in research for development in the HKH region would then begin! But, let us be realistic: it will be a long process. Besides difficult political decisions, we have to bear in mind that these stations will be very expensive and their satisfactory functioning will depend on highly-qualified staff. For the moment, 13 countries have elected a coordinator and have made a certain amount of progress in planning a national network: China is one of these countries. Until now 142 countries have nominated so-called focal points only, i.e., institutions or personalities responsible for cooperating with the global programme. Of special interest is the planned cooperation between GCOS and the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) to intensify the continuous observation of the surface processes of the Earth. This could open up new possibilities for surveying the big open spaces in between the transects and test sites: let us keep in mind that both programmes, GCOS and GEOSS, place particular emphasis on the application of their results to the weather, agriculture, water, energy, biodiversity, and climate change. Is it not astonishing that biodiversity is mentioned again?

High altitudegrassland

Hum

idity

Tem

pera

ture

Forestedareas Meltwater

Humid steppe and bushland

Dry steppe

Hot desert

Cold desert

Potential vegetation (altitudinal belts)

Agricultural production(altitudinal differentiation)

Extensive grazing(summer) (S)S

W

Irrigated area(actually expanding)

Arable land

SettlementsFoddergrassOrchards

Productivity

Extensive grazing(winter) (W)

Wooded areas (actually being reduced)

Climatecold/humid

Hot/dry

Off-farm income

Social networks

External support (NGO+G)

Glaciers


17

Figure 3: Conceptual analysis of the village of Bagrot in the Karakoram, Pakistan. This basic knowledge is an important tool for observing or measuring future

environmental changes (slow trends and extreme events) in order to understand and disentangle natural and human driving forces and to prepare the

necessary adaptation measures at the right time

Source: Redrawn from Winiger and Börst 2003

PoTENTIaLS

•SuitableLandforIrrigation debris fans, glacial or fluvial terrasses)

•Meltwaterfromglaciersorsnowfields (no temporal limitations)

•Accesstograzingandforests(abundant)

•ShortdistancetoKarakorumHighway(KKH) and to central places

LIMITaTIoNS

•Hazards(rock falls, floods, debris flows, avalanches)

•Meltwater (temporarily limited)

•Grazingareas,forests(scarce)

•Longdistancetocentralplaces


18

GCoS – Global Climate observing System

Countries Total stations (whole country) Stations above 1000 masl

Afghanistan 1 1

China 33 10

India 21 4

Myanmar 3 --

Nepal 1 1

Pakistan 6 2

Thirteen countries have a coordinator (including China), the remaining 142 have only a focal point. A message is in preparation to urge all the countries to appoint a national coordinator and a national GCOS Committee.

Figure 4: Stations proposed for the GCoS programme in countries of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region (it is not yet clear how many of these stations will be in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region itself)

GCoS agreement: WMo, UNESo (IoC), UNEP, ICSU

Essential climate variables

Atmosphere Temperature, precipitation, air pressure, surface radiation budget, wind speed and direction, water vapour

Composition Carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, aerosols

Terrestrial River discharge, water use, ground water, lake levels, snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, land cover, fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation, biomass, soil moisture, fire disturbance

GEoSS – Global Earth Observation System of Systems

GCoS – Global Climate Observing SystemGCOS is recognised as the climate component of the GEOSS.Application: weather, agriculture, water, energy, biodiversity

Figure 5: Essential climate variables in the GCoS programme and the planned cooperation between GCoS and GEoSS


19

Finally, Figure 6 is an appeal for interaction and cooperation in the HKH region. Interaction means to participate in global and regional programmes (macro level) with the responsibility of downscaling observations and experiences to lower levels (meso and micro levels) to the extent possible. On the other hand, the leading persons or institutions at the local level are responsible for upscaling their observations and experiences to higher levels. Cooperation means the exchange of data and experts across borders, because mountains and the adjacent lowlands are units that cannot be separated if we want to avoid serious conflict in the future.

Figure 6: Interaction between different scales and cooperation between the highlands and lowlands across political borders


20

References

GCOS (2008) [email protected], GCOS Secr. c/o WMO, Box 2300, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

IPCC (2007) Climate change. The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Messerli, B (2008) ‘The Hindu Kush-Himalayan region: Common goods or common concerns?’ In Rasul, G (ed.) ICIMOD and the Himalayan region – responding to emerging challenges, pp65-84. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Winiger, M; Börst, U (2003) ‘Landschaftsentwicklung und Landschaftsbewertung im Hochgebirge: Bagrot (Karakorum) und Lötschental (Berner Oberland) im Vergleich‘. In Jeanneret, F; Wastl-Walter D; Wiesmann U; Schwyn M (eds) Welt der Alpen – Gebirge der Welt. 54. Deutscher Geographentag, pp45-60. Bern: Haupt Verlag


21

Conservation of Mountain Biodiversity in the Context of Climate Change

Christian Körner, Department of Botany, University of Basel, Switzerland

Mountain biota are more diverse than expected from the land area they cover

It is estimated that, globally, treeless alpine flora constitute about four per cent of global flowering plant diversity, while the vegetated area is at most three per cent of the ice-free terrestrial surface (Körner 1995). Montane species diversity is estimated to be two to three times higher than one would expect from the montane area alone. On a global scale, whole mountain systems also clearly exceed the species diversity of the lowlands (Barthlott et al. 1996), largely a result of the compression of climatic zones across elevational gradients over very short geographical distances. Within the flanks of a single tropical mountain we may find humid jungle in the foothills, montane cloud forest, alpine heathland, and a nival flora resembling life forms otherwise only found 8,000 km polewards. Nowhere else can more biological diversity per unit of protected area be found than in mountains covering a wide elevational amplitude. In addition to the merging of contrasting climatic belts, the causes of the high degree of species richness in the mountains are (1) gravity-driven diversity of the land surface, i.e., a varied topography yielding a multitude of habitats with contrasting life conditions enhanced by contrasts in exposure and steepness and (2) the spatial fragmentation of mountains leading to the separate evolution of autochthonous biota often seen as an analogy to oceanic archipelagos (Körner 2004).

How much mountain area is there, globally?

Among the initial tasks of a mountain conservation agenda, of building biological inventories of the mountains, of defining the conditions of life in the mountains, and so forth, a minimum consensus about what we call a mountain is needed. This is not a scientific issue, but a matter of pragmatism and fruitful communication. We simply must agree on some conventions and a common terminology.

The most common terminology for mountain life zones is a subdivision of mountains into a nival belt (elevations at which snow can fall and persist on the ground at any time of the year) and the alpine belt below (by definition treeless and thus ends where the climatic treeline sets a boundary, which in reality is a transition zone, often termed treeline ecotone or treeline parkland, Körner 2003a). In many parts of the world the uppermost forests have been cleared, hence the treeline is not visible,


22

but its climate-controlled, potential position is still the most useful bioclimatic boundary. The area of mountain land below the climatic treeline is the montane belt. If undisturbed, the common montane land cover in non-arid conditions is forest. This, however, is also the belt of intense human land use and, thus, montane forests have often been transformed into montane cultural landscapes in many parts of the world. The absence of trees caused by anthropogenic activities near the climatic treeline should not be confused with a biology and/or climate-driven treeline depression. According to the results of a global data collecting campaign, treelines follow a common isotherm with a mean temperature of 6.6 + 0.8°C during the growing season (defined as a continuous period with weekly mean temperatures above 0°C), i.e., at a surprisingly small variation from polar to equatorial latitudes (Körner and Paulsen 2004).

The problem with any mountain convention starts with the lower end of the montane zone. If set at a fixed elevation – e.g., 300 masl (and disregarding large continental plateaux) – a quarter of the terrestrial area would be mountains (Kapos et al. 2000). Such a low elevation threshold combined with a minimum ruggedness criterion would still include tropical lowland forests, hot desert terrain, and some upland tundra in the polar region, and yields a 22% global mountain area fraction (Table 1). A more mountain-specific definition would thus have to account for both a certain minimum ruggedness of the terrain and bioclimatic thresholds that account for the global latitudinal trends in climate. Applying such criteria, the global mountain area is ca.15 mio km2 (12% of the land area without Antarctica and the Caspian Sea) of which ca.10-11 mio km2 fall into the montane and 4-5 mio km2 into the alpine plus nival category, with the above-mentioned climatological treeline criteria providing the algorithm that separates the montane belt from the belts at higher elevations (Körner 2007). Applying this concept, 50% of the mountains so defined are below 1,200 m (Figure 1).

Table 1: The global mountain area using simple conventions and the climatic treeline to separate montane from alpine and higher life zones

Mountain area mio km2 % of total

Total terrestrial area (minus Antarctica, and Caspian Sea) 134.6 100%

Global (climatically) potential forest area 83.5 62%

Global actual forest area (FAO) 35.0 26%

Global mountain area >300 m minus plateaus (Kapos et al. 2000) 29.5 22%

Global mountain area definded by ruggedness only* 16.5 12%

Global mountain forest area Type A 12.4 9%

Global mountain forest area Type B 10.4 8%

Global area above treeline 4-5 3-4%*Definition: >300 m AND ruggedness > 200 m for 30“ pixel neighbourhoodA: mean T of all days >0 °C is >6.5 °C, P >200 mmB: in addition to A, >90 days of the above conditions (best proxy)


23

Why care for mountain biodiversity?

There are several justifications for the protection of biota. The most fundamental justification is the ethical one, which implies the right to exist for any species and, more so, the right to exist in the best conditions possible. This was and is the foundation of most conservation initiatives, and it does not need a scientific ‘aura’, but stands for itself and rests on broad public opinion. Related to this is the cultural heritage motive, which accounts for the fact that human societies have created novel biota, domesticated plants and animals, and thus added a ‘cultural’ element to biological richness.

On the other hand, science is able to add further justifications, which neither devalue nor replace the ethical and cultural motives. Among them are the motives of ecosystem functioning and the economic motive (Körner 2004). The first motive relates to the significance of biological richness for ecosystem processes, such as productivity, the nutrient, carbon and water cycle, soil protection and erosion control, and biotic interactions such as plant-animal (e.g., pollination) and any other organismic interdependency (host-parasite, prey-predator, and facilitation). Some of these factors also have economic value, such as safety from erosion, clean water supplies, and so forth, but there are also more specific economic values attributed to rich biota when it comes to specific target organisms (e.g., certain crop, medicinal, and timber plants). Genetic resources also belong to this category.

Figure 1: The altitudinal distribution of land area within the mountainsoftheworldasdefinedinTable1

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0


24

Common to both the ecological and economic motives for caring for biological diversity is the insurance principle; this states that the risk of losing system integrity or functioning or an economic collapse or loss of income or subsistence is likely to be less dramatic when the function or products of interest rest upon many different players. Such differences may only emerge under extreme environmental conditions; hence they may remain hidden for a long time. The more diverse a system is, the more likely there will be species or genotypes that can cope with such extreme events: events that may be abiotic (freezing, storms, or fire) or biotic (pest outbreaks, pathogens, or invasive species). In other cases, such important species are obvious and are often termed keystone species. Their absence or presence is of key importance to ecosystem functioning and agronomic success.

As an example, I refer to a recent finding of my group in both the Central Caucasus (Republic of Georgia) and the Swiss Central Alps in situations where deep erosion gullies cut into ancient and montane pastures on steep slopes that are rich in species. A single grass species that plays no spectacular role in intact grassland (Festuca valesiaca) becomes vital at erosion edges. The harsh life conditions at the edge eliminate most other taxa, with this little grass plant (owing to its dense root filter and drought resistance) sort of engineering the edge and thus delaying the erosion process. A small species may suddenly become a keystone species, and its presence or absence may be decisive for landscape processes (Figure 2).

Steep mountain terrain is secured by diverse plant cover

The insurance argument strongly depends upon the diversity of functional traits in organisms, in addition, or even in contrast, to the effect of mere taxonomic diversity. For instance, diverse plant architecture, particularly a diverse morphology below ground, contributes to resistance against disturbance and erosion. In other words, fewer but functionally diverse taxa may exert more benefits than many, but functionally similar, taxa. The big unknowns are the traits that might matter under certain extreme conditions. These could be largely hidden traits, such as those in the above grass example, or they may not even materialise in any measurable phenotype characteristics, but reside in the genome, only becoming evident under certain conditions. Given these uncertainties about trait diversity and trait function, a diverse community of taxa is a sort of safeguard against missing or losing these unknown benefits.

We need to be frank about the rather limited evidence (examples) of such benefits of diversity, however, and ‘plausibility’ should not be confused with ‘evidence’. This is a field that deserves far more solid research to back up conservationists’ efforts to protect diverse mountain biota with scientific data. In the following, I will discuss in general the likely positive interactions between plant species diversity and hydrological benefits on steep slopes in high-altitude catchments.

A central issue in all mountains is slope stability. Slopes are only as secure as the soils and the plants that hold them in place against the forces of gravity. It needs a rather complete and


25

Figure 2: Festuca valesiaca becomes a landscape engineer when it comes to secure edges of erosion gullies, while it is an unspectacular tiny grass among many other grassland taxa

in intact montane pastures (an example from the Central Great Caucasus near Kasbegi, Republic of Georgia). Note the encircled positions of tussocks of this species.


26

physically robust ground cover to prevent erosion. It is known from biodiversity research that a morphologically and phenologically diverse set of taxa is more likely to provide complete ground cover in all seasons than a depleted set of taxa, which yields open ground at times (e.g., Spehn et al. 2000). Similarly important, species respond rather differently to disturbances such as grazing and trampling by pasture animals, and these responses depend on the moisture conditions during which such disturbances occur and on the nature of the substrate. As these are unpredictable impacts and conditions, a diverse set of taxa will more likely secure this most basic function of plant cover in mountain terrain. A single well-intended treatment, such as fertilizer application or the employment of a different breed of domestic animals, may cause certain taxa to fail and disappear, thus opening the ground during certain periods and giving way to erosion or even landslides. The encroachment of shrubs into pastures may change slope stability through water infiltration (Figure 3).

Diverse plant cover and catchment value

Many mountain catchments provide water for drinking and irrigation and for hydroelectric energy, not only for use within the mountains, but also, often, in distant forelands. The land cover in the catchment is a significant factor for catchment yield. Forested catchments often yield less water (by consuming more by evapotranspiration) than catchments covered with grassland. Catchment quality, however, also includes water quality aspects, such as sediment loading or pollution. Since

Figure 3: Dense and diverse ground cover is essential to secure steep mountain slopes

The presence of a certain plant functional type may control water infiltration. In this example, a 100% cover by dwarf shrubs zeros runoff (Hiltbrunner and Körner 2004).

This may be beneficial (less surface erosion) on some soils, but detrimental in others, which become waterlogged and cause pocket erosion (Tasser et al. 2003).


27

forests often provide greater slope protection against erosion on very steep land than other types of land cover, a good mix of forest and grassland cover helps to optimise catchment yield in terms of both quantity and quality. An additional component is the way grasslands are managed. It is well known that destructive pasturing practices result in erosion and long-term loss of hydrological buffering capacity. Abandonment or irregular pasturing regimes, however, also result in tall grass swards that consume more moisture and render the land at greater risk of erosion than land that would naturally be covered by forest. Such badly managed or abandoned pastures are composed of fewer species than plots that are grazed sustainably. In other words, sustainable pasturing practices enhance both biodiversity (the ‘intermediate disturbance’ theory for high alpine biodiversity, Fox 1981) and catchment water yield.

We have explored the effect of simulated grazing on evapotranspiration by weighing grassland lysimeters in alpine catchments in the Caucasus, the Austrian, and the Swiss Alps (Figure 4). In all three cases we found that short dense swards ‘saved’ water, while not posing any risk of erosion. Should reduced evapotranspiration result in an enhanced yield of catchment water, the additional cash earned by a hydroelectric scheme (plus less wear to the engines because of reduced sediment load) could substantially exceed the cash value of the pasturing activities in the catchment. In other words, land use practices known to protect slopes from erosion lead to an increase in plant species diversity as well as catchment value. Such insights led to the foundation of the Mount Koscusko

Grazed dense, short swards lose up to 10% less waterby evapotranspiration than long grass.At 2500 m elevation this coarresponds to an increasecatchment water yield of 150 l ha-1 a-1. Sustainable grazing can increase catchment value.

Figure 4: Waterconsumptionofdiverse,sustainablygrazedalpineandmontanegrasslandislowerthan in abandoned or badly-managed pasture land, potentially enhancing catchment water yield.


28

National Park in the Snowy Mountains of Australia (Costin 1958, 1966) under the auspices of power station engineers rather than conservationists. This is also a field that is in urgent need of empirical data from different mountain environments, given the increasing demands for water and energy and the great poverty in many mountain catchments. If this provisional evidence should find wide enough confirmation, it would make a strong case for the ecological and economic benefits of land-management practices that concomitantly conserve or even enhance species richness in mountain grasslands. The linking of biodiversity, land use, and the hydroelectric benefits of both made me think of mutating Dobzhansky’s (1973) slogan on the significance of evolution into: “Nothing in mountain landscape ecology makes sense, except in the light of hydrology and soil conservation”.

Mountain biodiversity in a warmer world – where to go?

For many years ecologists described mountain biota as limited by low temperatures. A lot of research was devoted to illustrating the constraints of temperature to life. Now, the very same experts are concerned that a reduction of these temperature constraints by global warming will be detrimental to high-elevation biota, conclusions likely to confuse the general public. How can an ‘improvement’ of the ‘harsh life’ suddenly become dangerous? This confusion reflects a rather basic misconception in ecology, which, thanks to the global warming discussion, suddenly resolved itself.

In essence, any natural or semi-natural biota reflects nature’s ‘best answer’ to the given life conditions, provided there has been sufficient time for evolutionary processes (selection) and migration effects to materialise. So what might seem harsh from an anthropocentric point of view has never been harsh for those species that are dominating such locations and have attained a high degree of fitness in terms of persistence and regeneration (Körner 2003b). It never makes sense to apply an agronomic-, yield- or growth-oriented limitation concept to natural plant and animal assemblages, which are controlled by selection and reproduction rather than body mass or mass increment per unit of time: the parameters agronomists are concerned with. In this sense, any change in environmental conditions creates changes in community composition, with some species losing and others gaining ground, until a new quasi-equilibrium is established. Climatic warming is no exception. Biota will change.

Because temperatures change with elevation, mountains are in a particularly good situation in comparison to any other environment. At least for slowly-migrating organisms, such as plants, mountains are in fact the best places on earth to cope with climatic warming, because, for many (though not all), there are cool escape hatches at short distances away for those that cannot stand the ‘new heat’. Lowland taxa must either ‘find’ a mountain or adapt. The likelihood that this will happen is much less for lowland taxa than for taxa inhabiting mountain slopes. The obvious problems that may be faced by those taxa that are already restricted to summit regions should not divert us from the general situation. While we should see more rapid changes in the mountains than elsewhere because of this ‘refuge’ richness, we should see less ‘hopeless’ refugees in the mountains


29

than elsewhere. While mountains offer us early biological indications of change, the biodiversity consequences will not be extraordinary, except for in very low ranges.

Yet, any such upslope migration will cause crowding, given that all mountains become narrower rapidly with elevation (Körner 2007). So competition is likely to increase. But, once more, mountains are in a good situation: due to their rich topography, there is a high degree of segregation into diverse micro-habitats, facilitating coexistence in a given landscape. Nevertheless, the land area shrinks, and what might not be a problem for tiny plants might lead to drastic declines in populations of large territorial animals. Figure 5 summarises the various migratory options plants and animals have in a mountain landscape.

Who is going to win, who will lose?

Any change in the environment will cause local native populations to face the need to either adapt or escape (migrate), otherwise they will become extinct, most likely by competitive exclusion rather than physiological limitations—meaning that other taxa successfully compete for basic resources such as light and water or for space, prey, window of time, and so forth. Kept in isolation and fed, most taxa can easily cope with a few degrees of warming. ‘Adaptation’ is a problematic term, and its various facets are rarely explicitly distinguished. Any individual, including any of us, has the

Figure 5: a schematic presentation of migration of organisms in response to climatic warming

1 lowland species, lacking close distance escapes from too warm conditions, 2 foothill species migrating upslope, 3 high-elevation species migrating towards summit regions, 4 summit species

with no upslope escape, but increasing competition from immigrants from lower elevations, 5 short distance escapes in highland taxa using micro-habitat diversity in rugged terrain, changing

community mosaics at a given elevation.


30

ability to adapt either by physiological acclimation or, in the case of animals, by changing their behaviour. This sort of ‘adaptation’ of the phenotype must be strictly separated from evolutionary adaptation, i.e., the selective forces on genotypes that exert increased fitness in a new situation. Evolutionary adaptation again falls into two categories: that within a species (population) and that between species. The bigger a population and the more diverse the habitats it occupies, the more likely it is to host genotypes that can replace others should they fail in a new situation. In the time frame of climatic warming, the evolution of new taxa is not an issue, so replacement of species by existing species is the rule for the assemblage of new ‘adapted’ communities.

All this is in favour of many, mostly small, organisms in the mountains, and it is bad for big territorial animals. Habitat diversity and mountain fragmentation contribute to a high degree of genetic diversity within mountain species (Plüss and Stöcklin 2004, Kuss et al. 2008), except for endemic species or species on isolated mountains. Because of the rapidly changing climatic conditions from week to week and season to season, alpine organisms are also well adapted to acclimate rapidly to new conditions (Larcher 1984). When neither acclimatisation, nor behavioural changes (in animals), nor selection from the local genepool match the new demands, immigration and emigration become inevitable.

When environmental conditions change rapidly, it is vitally important not to ‘miss the train’ for those who cannot adapt fast enough. The European Edelweiss (Leontopodium alpinum) ‘missed the train home’ from the central European cold glacial steppes to the central Asian highlands (where all its relatives thrive) when the ‘sudden’ arrival of interglacial warmth had hit this species far in the west. Fortunately, there was an alternative ‘train’ to the nearby Alps to escape on, so that the Edelweiss could become the flagship plant species of the Alps. What sort of species do we risk losing, given the rapidity of change anticipated? There is no simple answer, but a few general characteristics may serve as a humble guideline.

Likely losers Likely winners

Large territorial animals Small, highly mobile organisms

Late successional plant species (K-strategists) Ruderal species (r-strategists)

Species with small, restricted populations Widespread species with large populations

Species confined to summits or the plains Mid-slope species, except for cloud forests

Combining these partly overlapping categories, we would expect small, mobile, widespread ruderals, currently not confined to summits, to be in the winning group, and large, slowly reproducing organisms with small populations to be on the losing side. It, thus, does not come as a surprise that recent advances of plant species to higher elevations were indeed made by this generalist group of ‘weedy’ taxa that appeared to take rapid advantage. On the other hand, some late successional plant species may be so resilient and adaptive and/or employ clonal growth that


31

they have hardly been affected by the last several thousand years of climatic changes: Some of these species have not changed position by more than a few metres over the last thousand or more years (Steinger et al. 1996). Again, others may escape all these problems by making use of the diverse mosaics of high-elevation micro-habitats. As a rule of thumb, a 1-2 K warming may exert little short-term changes in alpine vegetation, given the substantial natural inertia of high-elevation plant species (Theurillat et al. 2001), but more pronounced warming is likely to exert substantial changes. Because species respond individualistically, there will be new assemblages rather than a migration of given communities.

Most of these changes may be obvious to experts only. The broad public may not see the changes, particularly in view of their slow progress. Hence, there is a risk of the public not sharing the experts’ concerns in the long run, unless some flagship species are affected. It seems important, in the public debate, not to confuse the risk of extinction with extinction, as had happened with the public translation of phrases used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC IV), which led to confusion in the press. This would discredit science in the long run.

DIVERSITAS’ Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA)

GMBA aims to explain and synthesise the knowledge on biodiversity in the high mountains. This cross-cutting network of the global diversity research programme, DIVERSITAS, focuses on the uppermost montane belt, the treeline ecotone, and all life above it (alpine and nival). GMBA has issued two publications, one on the general state and causes of mountain biodiversity (Körner and Spehn 2002) and one on land use implications (Spehn et al. 2006). GMBA encourages research on the functional role of biodiversity in steep mountain terrain with a specific emphasis on soil stability and hydrological implications, as symbolised in Figure 6. The current focal area of GMBA is on developing tools for quantitative assessments of mountain biodiversity using electronic archives (Spehn and Körner 2009). Following the ‘Kazbegi agenda’ (Körner et al. 2007), this will soon lead to an electronic mountain portal in cooperation with the Global Biodiversity Information System (GBIF).

Conservationists and managers of protected areas, as well as the global change research community, will profit greatly from this new tool. By linking, for instance, the global topography database and climatological databases such as WorldClim (www.worldclim.org), with geo-referenced archive data on organisms, it will be possible to derive climatic envelopes of certain taxa or groups of taxa to explore the relative occupation of the potential environmental space (niche) today and approach projections for future ranges in a warmer world (Guisan et al. 1998). Other applications are testing spatial phylogenetic trends among larger taxonomic groups or using the climatic relatedness of species and functional types in the sense of ‘experiments by nature’.


32

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the assistance with geo-information of J. Paulsen and the artwork of S. Pelaez-Riedl, Basel.

References

Barthlott, W; Lauer, W; Placke, A (1996) ‘Global distribution of species diversity in vascular plants: Towards a world map of phytodiversity’. Erdkunde 50:317-327

Costin, AB (1958) ‘The grazing factor and the maintenance of catchment values in the Australian Alps’. CSIRO Div Plant Ind Techn Paper 10:3-13

Costin, AB (1966) ‘Management opportunities in Australian high mountain catchments’. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Forest Hydrology, pp565-577. Oxford: Pergamon Press

Dobzhansky, T (1973) ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’. Am Biol Teacher 35:125-129

Fox, JF (1981) ‘Intermediate levels of soil disturbance maximize alpine plant diversity’. Nature 293:564-565

Figure 6: a schematic representation of the interlinkages of biodiversity, soil stability, and catchment water yield in mountain terrain. GMBa encourages research to test the

hypothesis of a quantitative effect of sustainable land use and associated species richness on the hydroelectric yield of mountain catchments.


33

Guisan, A; Theurillat, JP; Kienast, F (1998) ‘Predicting the potential distribution of plant species in an Alpine environment’. J Veg. Sci. 9:65-74

Hiltbrunner, E; Körner, C (2004) ‘Sheep grazing in the high alpine under global change’. In Lüscher, A; Jeangros, B; Kessler, W; Huguenin, O; Lobsiger, M; Millar, N; Suter, D (eds) Land use systems in grassland dominated regions, pp305-307. ETH Zurich: vdf Hochschulverlag Ag

Kapos, V; Rhind, J; Edwards, M; Price, MF; Ravilious, C (2000) ‘Developing a map of the world’s mountain forests’. In Price, MF; Butt, N (eds) Forests in sustainable mountain development (IUFRO) Research series 5, pp4-9. Wallingford Oxon: CABI Publishing

Körner, C (1995) ‘Alpine plant diversity: A global survey and functional interpretations’. In Chapin, FS III; Körner, C. (eds) Arctic and alpine biodiversity: Patterns, causes and ecosystem consequences, pp45-62. Berlin: Springer.

Körner, C (2003a) Alpine plant life (2nd ed). Berlin: Springer

Körner, C (2003b) ‘Limitation and stress – always or never?’ J Veg. Sci. 14:141-143

Körner, C (2004) ‘Mountain biodiversity, its causes and function’. Ambio Special Report 13:11-17

Körner, C (2007) ‘Climatic treelines: Conventions, global patterns, causes’. Erdkunde 61:315-324

Körner, C; Donoghue, M; Fabbro, T; Häuser, C; Nogues-Bravo, D; Kalin Arroyo, MT; Soberon, J; Speers, Spehn, EM; Sun, H; Tribsch, A; Tykarski, P; Zbinden, N (2007) ‘Creative use of mountain biodiversity databases: The Kazbegi research agenda of GMBA-DIVERSITAS’. Mountain Research Development 27:276-281

Körner, C; Paulsen, J (2004) ‘A world-wide study of high altitude treeline temperatures’. J Biogeogr 31:713-732

Körner, C; Spehn, EM (eds) (2002) Mountain biodiversity. A global assessment. New York: Parthenon

Kuss, P; Pluess, AR; Aegisdóttir, HH; Stöcklin, J (2008) ‘Special isolation and genetic differentiation in naturally fragmented plant populations of the Swiss Alps’. Journal of Plant Ecology 1(3):149-159

Larcher, W (1984) ‘Klima und Pflanzenleben im Gebirge’. Universitas (Stuttgart) 39:629-638

Plüss, AR; Stöcklin, J (2004) ‘Population genetic diversity of the clonal plant Geum reptans (Rosaceae) in the Swiss Alps’. American Journal of Botany 91:2013-2021

Spehn, EM; Joshi, J; Schmid, B; Diemer, M; Körner, C (2000) ‘Above-ground resource use increases with plant species richness in experimental grassland ecosystems’. Functional Ecology 14:326-337

Spehn, EM; Liberman, M; Körner, C (eds) (2006) Land use change and mountain biodiversity. Boca Raton: CRC Publishers

Spehn, E; Körner, C (eds) (2009) Data mining for global trends in mountain biodiversity. Boca Raton: CRC Publishers

Steinger, T; Körner, C; Schmid, B (1996) ‘Long-term persistence in a changing climate: DNA analysis suggests very old ages of clones of alpine Carex curvula’. Oecologia 105:94-99

Tasser, E; Mader, M; Tappeiner, U (2003) ‘Effects of land use in alpine grasslands on the probability of landslides’. Basic and Applied Ecology 4:271-280

Theurillat, JP; Guisan, A (2001) ‘Potential impact of climate change on vegetation in the European Alps: a review’. Climatic Change 50:77-109

Plenary Session I Climate Change and its Implications for Mountain Biodiversity

3

3: Plenary Session I

37

Plenary Session I

Presentations on Climate Change and its Implications for Mountain Biodiversity

Biodiversity in the Himalayas – Trends, Perceptions, and Impacts of Climate Change Dr Eklabya Sharma, Programme Manager ECES, ICIMOD

Global Change and Mountain Regions – Strategies for Biosphere Reserves Dr Thomas Schaaf, Chief of Ecological Sciences and Biodiversity Section, UNESCO MAB Programme (with its World Network of Biosphere Reserves), Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences, Paris, France

Chair: Dr Yuri BadenkovRapporteur: Dr Arun B. Shrestha

Summary

Dr Sharma’s paper introduced the status of biodiversity conservation in the HKH region. The need to link conservation with people and development has been adequately stressed, but, despite the existence of a legal framework, it has not materialised in practice. The presentation then dealt with the climate trends observed in the Eastern Himalayas and the implications they might have on habitat shift. Examples were given of keystone species, e.g., Rhododendrons and Alnus nepalensis, which might be affected by climate change. Lastly, the presentation put forward the concept of transects and of landscape approaches. Altogether, four transects were proposed representing different geoclimatic zones and latitudinal variations. It was pointed out that transects also serve as a framework for transboundary cooperation in biodiversity conservation.

Dr Schaaf’s paper provided detailed information about the Biosphere Reserve Programme of UNESCO MAB. An overview of biosphere reserve (BR) sites around the globe (530 sites), and particularly in the mountains, was provided. It was mentioned that the number of biosphere reserves in the HKH region was very small. The basic criteria for what a biosphere reserve should possess and the functions of biosphere reserves were clarified. The typical structure of a biosphere reserve and some examples of biosphere reserves were provided. The presentation urged the establishment of additional biosphere reserves in the HKH region. It was mentioned that biosphere reserve sites in the HKH region could attract additional funding opportunities for the programme.


38

Discussion

Dr Gregory Greenwood put forward a question to all HKH participants: What could be the linkage between the cryosphere workshop (held in July 2008) and the present conference? He mentioned that the cryosphere workshop was able to produce a clear and compelling narrative of the understanding and gaps in cryospheric processes and asked what could be the narrative of the present workshop. Dr Greenwood added that, from his recent hike in Nepal, he did not notice anything ‘bad’ happening in the mountains.

Professor Ramakrishnan responded that charismatic species are important to us (scientists), but not to people in general; yet the focus of the discussions (in this conference) is the common people. He stated that there are enough species, which play important roles in the conservation of biodiversity as well as supporting livelihoods.

Professor Bruno Messerli asked Dr Thomas Schaaf why there were so few biosphere reserves in the Himalayas and mentioned this as a disparity. Dr Schaaf responded that this is indeed astonishing, compared to the Andes, for example. He was optimistic that Nepal would propose a BR site in the near future. He mentioned that India has come out strongly on this issue and already has one site – Nanda Devi – and is proposing another site in Sikkim. China has also been active in this respect, but there have been no concrete initiatives from Bhutan and Bangladesh as yet, whereas, in Pakistan, the Kalash Valley is being considered as a potential site for a BR. Thomas Schaaf added that a BR site could attract additional funding from the Global Environment Fund (GEF) as BR sites go through stringent selection processes.

Professor Christian Körner stressed that ‘plausible’ should not be mistaken for real evidence and urged that hard evidence be sought. He mentioned that biologically diverse landscapes are often manmade landscapes.

Professor Martin Price, referring to Dr Greenwood’s comment, mentioned that small species are most impacted by climate and environmental changes, but this is often unnoticed. Nevertheless, these species, as opposed to charismatic species, are more important to people. He reiterated that the discussion was about biodiversity for people.

Dr Ashiq Ahmad Khan mentioned that, in the early1990s, the emphasis had been on protecting keystone species. He mentioned a law in the mountain communities of Pakistan where taxes from the richer areas were channelled to the poorer areas for the protection of wildlife. He told participants about the success that sites originally established for trophy hunting had eventually had for the conservation of biodiversity. He suggested that sites used for trophy hunting could serve as excellent biosphere sites.


39

Dr L.M.S. Palni stated that India already has a number of mountain biosphere reserves, including one in a cold desert area in India, as national initiatives; however, the only BR recognised by UNESCO is the Nanda Devi BR. He informed participants that the use of proxy data, such as data from dendrochronology (tree-ring chronology), could be a good way of overcoming the problem of data paucity.

Dr Falk Huettmann said that the lack of BR sites in the mountains is due to the selective approach of UNESCO.

Dr Khairul Alam suggested that the Montreal Protocol provided a funding mechanism and it could be useful for the BR programme. He expressed the idea that there should be a mechanism for energy-intensive communities to contribute to less energy-intensive communities.

Dr Thomas Schaaf appreciated the suggestion by Dr Khairul Alam and responded (to Dr Huettmann) by saying that UNESCO does not designate BR sites. The proposal has to come from the government to UNESCO and it has to be discussed and approved. Professor Christian Körner added that UNESCO has the sovereignty to acknowledge the proposed BR sites. Dr Thomas Schaaf stated that the International Advisory Committee makes decisions and not UNESCO; it makes sure that the three prerequisites are met.

The Chairperson, in his concluding remarks, mentioned that the two presentations were proposing well-known approaches developed in the 1980s and stressed that the approaches should be combined for good synergy. He expressed the need to link biodiversity conservation in the Altai-Sayan ecoregion to the Tianshan and then into the HKH. He touched upon the deliberations of the Madrid conference in relation to BR. A message from Professor Emeritus Dr Larry Hamilton, concerning biodiversity conservation was delivered. In connection with connectivity, he urged the participants to think big, think bio-regionally, think even on a continental scale, and think outside the box!


40

Biodiversity in the Himalayas – Trends, Perceptions, and Impacts of Climate ChangeEklabya Sharma, Karma Tsering, Nakul Chettri and arun Shrestha, ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal

Abstract

Mountains are not only remarkably diverse, they are also important globally as centres of biological diversity. The greatest value of mountains is probably as sources of all the world’s major rivers, and those of the Himalayas are no less important in terms of providing ecosystem services that have thus far sustained huge human populations and rich biodiversity. The survival of these ecosystems and wildlife is now threatened by human activities such as timber harvesting, intensive grazing by livestock, agricultural expansion in to forest lands, and, above all, climate change. This paper presents findings from the Eastern Himalayas that have reconfirmed earlier studies that suggested that temperatures will continue to rise and rainfall patterns will become more variable, projecting both localised increases and decreases. The magnitude of climate change is predicted to be greater for the Eastern Himalayan region than projected by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the Asian region. As a result, the altitudinal shift in vegetation belts is expected to be around 80-200 m per decade and is even expected to increase over time in high-altitude ecosystems as the rate of warming increases with altitude. Anecdotal evidence from various consultations revealed that there are many vulnerable entities ranging from species to ecosystems that need immediate attention. At present, there is limited and imprecise knowledge and scientific evidence about how climate change affects biodiversity and human wellbeing, and to address this limitation consistent data generation is a prerequisite. Should the present trend continue, the impact will be severe, considering the economic, sociopolitical, and technological shortcomings of the region. Local people need to increase their adaptive capacities. The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) has devised landscape and transect approaches to bridge the gap in the medium and long term.

Introduction

Climate and natural ecosystems are intrinsically coupled and the stability of this coupled system provides an important ecosystem service. Chapter 13 of Agenda 21 of the Rio Declaration gave official, explicit recognition to the fact that mountains and uplands are an important component of the global environment. Chapter 13 sets the scene by describing the role of mountains within the global ecosystem and expressing serious concern about the general decline in their environmental quality. Beyond their common characteristics of high relative relief and steep slopes, mountains are remarkably diverse (Ives et al. 2004) and are important on a global level as centres of biological diversity.


41

The Himalayas are recognised for their ecosystem services to the Asian region (as well as to the world at large) for maintaining slope stability, regulating hydrological integrity, and sustaining high levels of biodiversity and enhancing human wellbeing. Mountains, due to their exclusive and inimitable biodiversity, have recently been receiving priority in the context of biodiversity conservation in global agendas. The Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH) region has a dynamic landscape with rich and remarkable biodiversity (Pei 1995; Guangwei 2002; Chettri et al. 2008a). Stretched over an area of more than four million square kilometres, the HKH region is endowed with a rich variety of genepools, species, and ecosystems (Myers et al. 2000), and numerous critical eco-regions of global importance (Olson et al. 2001; Olson and Dinerstein 2002).

The survival of mountain ecosystems and their biodiversity are now threatened by various drivers of change such as timber harvesting, intensive grazing of livestock, and agricultural expansion on to forest lands, and, above all, climate change. Problems associated with modernisation like greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, air pollution, land use conversion, fragmentation, deforestation, and land degradation have already crept into the HKH region. The landscapes and communities in the HKH region are being affected concomitantly by rapid environmental and socioeconomic changes. Identification and understanding of key ecological and socioeconomic parameters of mountain ecosystems, including their sensitivity and vulnerability to climate change, have become crucial for formulating plans and policies for environmental management and sustainable development of mountain regions as well as areas downstream. The welfare of approximately 1.3 billion people downstream is inextricably linked to the state of natural resources in the HKH region (Schild 2008).

This paper provides a concerted review of climate change assessment, and it focuses on the impact of climate change on areas of rich biodiversity in mountain ecosystems of the Eastern Himalayas. The content is based on credible sources and on the current level of understanding advanced through application of science in climate change and biodiversity assessment. It follows a logical sequence from exposure to climate change and the sensitivity of biodiversity resources to the potential impacts, followed by an assessment of vulnerability to climatic stresses. It concludes by examining the options and mechanisms for adaptation to the threats and vulnerabilities associated with climate change. Finally, gaps in our current knowledge and understanding are translated into recommendations for research in the Eastern Himalayas.

The Eastern Himalayas

The Eastern Himalayas are the focus of this paper because of their global significance in terms of ecosystem diversity and biodiversity, and considering their importance in geopolitical, demographic, and socioeconomic terms. The Eastern Himalayan (hereafter EH) region falls between 82.70°E–100.31°E latitude and 21.95°N–29.45°N longitude and covers an area of 524,190 sq km, extending from Eastern Nepal to Yunnan in China. The country-wise area


42

percentages are given in Table 1. The region is physiographically diverse and ecologically rich in natural and crop-related biodiversity. It is also significant from geopolitical, environmental, cultural, and ethnic perspectives, and in terms of ecosystems and tectonic orogeny.

Table 1: Percentage share of the Eastern Himalayan region by country

Country areas % of EH area

Nepal Kali Gandaki Valley, Kosi Basin, Mechi Basin 16.08

Bhutan Whole 7.60

India Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur, Tripura

52.03

China ZhongDian, DeQin, GongShan, Weixi, FuGong 6.26

Myanmar Chin and Kachin states 17.90

Source: This study

The region lies between two of the most populated nations in the world, exacting massive demands for resources to support their economic transformation. Fragmentation of ecosystems is more likely than not as economic development surpasses environmental concerns in the tradeoff. The region has inherited multiple biogeographic origins, being at the intersection of the Indo-Malayan Realm, Palaearctic Realm, and the Sino-Japanese Region. It also marks the frontier of collision between the monsoonal and mountain systems and is associated with intense thunderstorms and lightning. The EH region (which is a part of the HKH region) is also held in reverence as the ‘Water-tower for the 21st Century’, ‘The Third Pole’, the largest cryosphere outside the Poles, as home to ‘hotspots of biodiversity’, and as warranting protection in order to maintain the integrity and adaptability of the ecosystem (Figure 1).

The Eastern Himalayan region has been in the spotlight as a part of the ‘Crisis of Eco-regions’ (Hoekstra et al. 2005), ‘Biodiversity Hotspots’ (Myers et al. 2000; Mittermeier et al. 2004), ‘Endemic Bird Areas’ (Stattersfield et al. 1998), ‘Mega Diversity Countries’ (Mittermeier et al. 1997), and ‘Global 200 Eco-regions’ (Olson and Dinerstein 2002). There are 99 protected areas covering 15% of the total area of the EH (Table 2). The EH region has 25 eco-regions out of a total of 60 in the HKH region as a whole. The Indo-Burma Hotspot alone is home to 7,000 endemic plants and possesses 1.9% of the global endemic vertebrates (Myers et al. 2000). More than 7,000 species of plants, 175 species of mammals, and over 500 species of birds have been recorded in the Eastern Himalayas alone (WWF and ICIMOD 2001).


43

Table 2: Protected area (PA) number and coverage within the extent of the Eastern Himalayan (EH) boundary

Country Total area of the country (km2)

area within the EH (km2)

Number of Pas in the EH

Pa area coverage within the EH (km2)

Pa area coverage with respect to area within the EH (%)

Bhutan 46,500 39,862.4 9 11,195.0 28.1

China 9,596,960 32,863.8 9 11,917.9 36.3

India 2,387,590 272,707.1 67 28,379.2 10.4

Myanmar 676,577 93,854.9 3 8,378.7 8.9

Nepal 147,181 84,338.6 11 19,510.0 23.1

Total 12,854,808 523,626.8 99 79,380.9 15.2

Source: Chettri et al. 2008a and IUCN, WCMC, UNEP 2005

Figure 1: Map of the Eastern Himalayan region showing the three global biodiversity hotspots

Source: developed using information from Mittermeier et al. 2004


44

Climate change: variability and extremes

The IPCC AR4 on the global assessment of climate change concluded that changes in the atmosphere, the oceans, and glaciers and ice caps demonstrate unequivocally that the world is warming (IPCC 2007). These changes have been accompanied by changes in precipitation including an increase in precipitation at latitudes higher than the tropics and a decline in precipitation at lower latitudes. These changes have been accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events. Floods and droughts are becoming more frequent and intense, and this trend is likely to continue into the future.

The existing knowledge of climatic characteristics in the EH region is limited by both paucity of observation and insufficient theoretical attention to the complex interaction of spatial scales in weather and climate phenomena in the mountains. In order to determine the degree and rate of climatic trends, long-term data sets are needed, and these are not available for most of the EH region.

Despite the limitations, studies of the climate in the past and projections based on climate models have increased in recent times, albeit on various spatio-temporal scales, some of which cover the EH in part or as a whole. Work has also been carried out by ICIMOD to consolidate past information and incorporate the latest updates. A synthetic review and reassessment of projected climate trends and change towards the end of this century were carried out to realign focus on the EH region in terms of observed climatic trends and location-based scenarios of future climate situations (Shrestha and Devkota 2008). The findings have confirmed suggestions by earlier studies that temperatures will continue to rise and rainfall patterns will be more variable, projecting both localised increases and decreases. The figures for the EH do not present a drastic deviation from the IPCC outcomes for the South Asian region. Nonetheless, they reinforce the scientific basis of the contention that the EH is undergoing a warming trend.

Table 3: Regional mean temperature trends for the period 1977-2000 (°C per year)

Regions Seasonal annual

Winter(Dec-Feb)

Pre-monsoon(Mar-May)

Monsoon(Jun-Sep)

Post-monsoon(oct-Nov)

Trans-Himalayas 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.10 0.09 Himalayas 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.06 Middle Mountains 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.08 Siwalik 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.04 Terai 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.04

Source: Shrestha and Devkota 2008


45

Annual mean temperature is increasing at a rate of 0.04°C/yr (0.01-0.12°Cyr-1) or higher (Table 3). The warming trend has been greatest during the post-monsoon season and at high elevations. Increases in temperature during the period (1977-2000) have been spatially variable indicating the biophysical influence of land surface on the surrounding atmospheric conditions. In general, there is a southwest to northeast trending diagonal zone of relatively less or no warming for annual and seasonal trends. This zone encompasses the Yunnan Province of China, part of the Kanchin State of Myanmar, northeastern states of India. Eastern Nepal and eastern Tibet record relatively higher warming trends than the lowland areas. The warming in winter is greater than the normal scenario and more widespread. Additionally, a significant positive trend with altitude has been observed throughout the region. High-altitude areas have been exposed to comparatively greater warming effects than those in the lowlands and adjacent plains. The analysis suggests the following major points.

The Eastern Himalayas are experiencing widespread warming. The warming is generally 1. greater than 0.01°C/yrUsing usual seasonal dichotomies, the highest rates of warming are occurring in the winter 2. season and the lowest, or even cooling, trends are observed in the summer season.There is progressively more warming with elevation, with the areas >4000 m experiencing the 3. greatest warming rates

The results suggest that seasonal variability in temperature is increasing and the altitudinal lapse rate in temperature is decreasing. Unlike temperature, precipitation does not show any consistent spatial trend. Annual changes in precipitation are quite variable, decreasing at one site and increasing at a site nearby.

Sensitivity of biodiversity resources and services to climate change

Human societies derive many essential goods from natural ecosystems that constitute important and familiar parts of the economy; viz., food, fresh water, timber, fuelwood, fibre, non-timber forest products, biochemicals, and genetic materials. Clearly, the human economy depends upon the services given ‘for free’ by the ecosystem. Natural ecosystems also perform fundamental life-support services without which human civilizations would cease to thrive. Many human activities that modify or destroy natural ecosystems may cause deterioration in ecological services whose value, in the long term, dwarfs the short-term economic benefits society gains from such activities. Fortunately, the functioning of many ecosystems can be restored if appropriate and timely action is taken. Climate change, including variability and extremes, continues to impact mountain ecosystems; sometimes beneficially, but frequently with adverse effects on the structure and functions of these ecosystems.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) has many things in common with the climate assessments compiled by the IPCC. The two assessments have a common aim of providing


46

policy-relevant information in their respective areas of investigation, i.e., ecosystems and climate, respectively, for the benefit of humanity. The main difference is that the IPCC focuses on a specific driver (i.e., climate change), whereas the MEA focuses on a specific system involved in the causal path (i.e., ecosystems). The concept of ‘ecosystem services’ (MEA 2005) provides a useful link between the functioning of ecosystems and their role in society, including the dynamics of change over space and time. Impacts of climate change on ecosystem structure, functioning, and services have been observed (Parmesan and Yohe 2003; IPCC 2007); and these in turn affect human society – mainly by increasing human vulnerability. The following section of this paper will cover mainly the degree of sensitivity of mountain biodiversity to climate change in the region.

Sensitivity of biodiversity to climate change and potential impacts

The EH region intersects three global biodiversity hotspots: 38.9% of the Himalayan, 7.7% of the Indo-Burmese, and 12.6% of the mountains of Southwest China. Twenty-five eco-regions have been identified within the EH boundary, 12 of which are spread across the Himalayan hotspots, eight in the Indo-Burmese, and five in the mountains of South West China (Chettri et al. 2008a). Presently, there are 17 protected area complexes, 41 are candidate priority areas of great importance to biodiversity conservation, 175 are key biodiversity areas, and five are landscape complexes (Terai Arc Landscape, the Bhutan Biological Conservation Complex, the Kangchenjunga-Singhalila Complex, the Kaziranga-Karbi Anlong Landscape, and the North Bank Landscape), which are important in terms of conservation (CEPF 2005) (Figure 2).

The EH with diverse climates and a complex topography is comprised of different types of forests and vegetation. The vegetation types in the EH can be categorised broadly into: (a) tropical, (b) sub-tropical, (c) warm temperate, (d) cool temperate, (e) sub-alpine, and (f) alpine types; and these can be further classified into layers based on other bioclimatic attributes (Chettri et al. 2008b). A recent review revealed that the EH is home to a remarkable number of globally significant mammals (45 species), birds (50 species), reptiles (16 species), amphibians (12 species), invertebrates (2 species), and plants (36 species); and the majority of these species (about 144 species) are found in the northeastern states of India particularly (CEPF 2005). Besides supporting one of the world’s richest alpine flora banks, about one third of the total flora are endemic to the region (WWF and ICIMOD 2001; Dhar 2002). Details about the significance of species and their distribution, endemism, and their conservation status have been documented comprehensively and need not be repeated here.

Climate change has contributed to substantial contractions in species’ range and extinctions in the past, and projections for the future indicate that it could influence species’ persistence and lead to disproportionate distribution of species throughout ecological zones (Wilson et al. 2007). In view of the prevailing trend, the consequences of biodiversity loss as a result of climate change are likely to be greatest on the poor and marginalised people who depend almost exclusively on natural


47

resources for their sustenance. Grabherr et al. (1994) estimated that a 0.5°C rise in temperature per 100 m elevation could lead to a theoretical shift in altitudinal vegetation belts at a rate of 8-10 m per decade. This altitudinal shift in the EH is expected to be around 80-200 m per decade given the current rises in temperature in the region, which are estimated at around 0.04°C-0.1°C/yr in high-altitude ecosystems where the rate of warming increases. Such a possibility, however, is based on the speculation (tenuous optimism) that species will adapt or shift in concert with the rate of climate change. Apart from animals and some seasonal, annual and biannual plant species, the scope for keeping pace with the projected climate change is very limited. Unfortunately, there is still no straightforward explanation about how ecosystems and range may shift; notwithstanding that the mechanistic hypothesis has almost assumed a factual dimension. The multiplicity in eco-physiography along the altitudinal ascent and the facultative asymmetry in species’ survival strategies would mean that communities extant within a bioclimatic precinct could be quite different in the future as a result of climate change.

The EH harbours numerous critical habitats and species within protected area systems: one example is that of the greater one-horned rhinoceros. Amongst the eco-regions, the EH broadleaf forests, Brahmaputra Valley semi-evergreen forests, and Himalayan subtropical pine forests have the highest conservation values because of the presence of greater than average numbers of mammals, birds, and plants (WWF and ICIMOD 2001). Alluvial grasslands of the tropical forests support a high

Figure 2: The EH region showing 25 eco-regions and protected area distribution

Source: Developed using data from WWF 2006


48

density of tigers. The Brahmaputra and Ganges rivers are home to the endangered Gangetic dolphin (Platanista gangetica). Herptiles residing in the moist forests and ephemeral freshwater habitats are also vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. A list of sensitive eco-regions has been drawn up in close consultation with stakeholders in the region, taking on board the significance of composite impacts observed from multiple stress factors— including climate change—and the vulnerable entities of biodiversity associated with them (Table 4).

Table 4: Critical ecosystems in the EH with respect to climate change, as revealed during consultation processes in the Eastern Himalayas

Critical habitat Change indicator Example of observed changes

Vulnerable entities

Alpine/sub-alpine ecosystems nestled between the treeline from 4,000m to the snowline at 5,500m

• Changesinecotones• Desertification• Decliningsnowfall,

glaciation events• Changesinspecies’

composition• Growthinunpalatable

species, decreasing productivity of alpine grasslands

Transformation of earlier Quercus-Betula forest into the ‘Krummholz-type’ of vegetation comprised of species of rhododendron, salix, syringia

Ungulate species, Himalayan pica, high-value medicinal plants, botanically fascinating species (bhootkesh, rhododendron etc.), curious species (succulents, ephedra), alpine scrub flora

Cool-moist forests • Changesinecotones• Lossofhabitat• Blockageofmigration

routes

Decline in population of species of mantesia, ilex, and insectivorous plants

Habitat specialists such as red panda, blood pheasant, microflora, and associated fauna

Cloud forests of temperate elevations where moisture tends to condense and remain in the air

• Lessprecipitationandcloud formation during the warm growing season (summer)

• Lossofendemics/specific flora and fauna

• Upwardrangeshift• Desertificationofsoil,

affecting the capacity of forests to retain water

- Endemic epiphytes and lichens, wildlife dependant on cloud forest vegetation (diversity of insects)

Table 4 cont...


49

Critical habitat Change indicator Example of observed changes

Vulnerable entities

Area with intensive agriculture

• Reducedagro-biodiversity (monoculture)

• Lowemployment/gradual loss of traditional knowledge.

• Degradationofsoilquality

• PotentialincreaseinGHG emissions

Loss of traditional variety, such as upland varieties of rice, indigenous beans, cucurbit, and citrus varieties, pest increases in citrus species

Crops, cereals, and vegetables

Freshwater wetlands • Lossofwetlandsdueto sedimentation, eutrophication, drying, drainage

• Successionalshifttoterrestrial ecosystems

• Increasedsalinityinaquifers

Decrease in population of Sus salvanius; beels and associated biodiversity are changing

Large mammals such as crocodiles, river dolphins, wild-buffaloes, wetland plant species, migratory avian species

Riparian habitats nurtured by silt deposited by overflowing rivers

• Damageordestructionof riparian habitats by floods/glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs)/river bank erosion

• Degradationduetoincreased/little deposition of sediment

• Reducedstreamflow• Disruptedsuccessional

stage

Loss of pioneer species such as Saccharum spontaneum and other tree species leading to a change in species’ composition in alluvial grasslands

Ibis bill (has nesting habitats in riparian zones), market-value tree species found in riparian zone such as sisso, simal

Ephemeral stream habitat

• Lossofephemeralstream habitats

• Increasedsalinity• Riverinesystem

impacted

Riverine island ecosystems, such as that of Majuli in Assam, are being threatened

Ephemeral stream species, especially herpetofauna

Source: Chettri et al. (2008b)

Table 4 cont...


50

Knowledge gaps and research needs

Adaptations to climate change for the conservation of biodiversity and its sustainable use need to come from a clear understanding of the important habitats and species and the nature of their resiliency to climatic stress. The following is a list of the important research work needed to advance understanding of climate change and its possible impacts on biodiversity and to assist work on mitigation and adaptation in the EH region.

Policies should be reviewed and strengthened to make them more sensitive to the interaction in •processes and the linkages between the consequences of climate change to biodiversity.The EH region needs a comprehensive database of species and ecosystems and proper •documentation of indigenous knowledge and practices on adaptation to climate change, including variability and extremes. Extensive and in-depth assessment of the movements of alien, invasive species and critical •landscape linkages to flagship species, PA coverage and effectiveness, adaptability of biodiversity entities, fire management regimes, and impacts on agricultural productivity are other important areas requiring urgent attention. Emphasis should be placed on riparian habitats, least explored ecosystems, habitats of threatened species, and floral and faunal hotspots.A comprehensive survey and inventory of the distribution range of plants and animals, •biodiversity within PAs, population trends of flagship/endemic or threatened species, and status of mid-sized mammals and other groups of animals should be carried out.Capacity building is needed to carry out specific research in taxonomy, conservation biology, •and impact assessments. Efforts of various conservation initiatives active in the EH must be coordinated and collective •partnerships developed between stakeholders so that the entire EH region is able to cope with the present and future impacts of climate change.An assessment should be carried out of ecosystem structures, functioning, and productivity and •delivery of ecosystem goods and services.A study should be carried out on the interaction between climate change and land use change •to assess their combined impact on biodiversity, atmospheric CO2 concentration, species’ composition, and carbon dynamics in different ecosystems.Economic valuation should be made of ecosystem services from conservation areas.•Socioeconomic studies of land-tenure systems, food security, rights to use of resources, decision-•making processes, and governance that characterise community resiliency to climate change should be carried out.

Adaptation strategies

So far, biodiversity entities in natural ecosystems have been adapting naturally or autonomously without much adjustment on the part of those who benefit from their services. As the magnitude of climate change and other factors of global change increases with time, the need for planned


51

adaptation will become acute. Traditionally, communities that depend on biodiversity resources have informal institutions and customary regulations in place to ensure that external perturbations do not exceed natural resilience. Going by the rate of changes taking place in the demographic, economic, and sociopolitical landscapes, and their positive feedback to the climate system, traditional approaches may have to be supplemented by formal adaptation measures to address the new threats to biodiversity.

Recently, there has been a concerted move towards transition from contemporary conservation approaches to a new paradigm of landscape-level interconnectivity between protected area systems defined around the protectionist focus on species and habitats. The concept raves about the shift from the mundane species-habitat dichotomy to an inclusive perspective on expanding the biogeographic range so that natural adjustments to climate change can proceed without being restrictive. The benefit of translating the concept into action is yet to be realised. Whatever the conservation approach, communities in a protected area system must be regarded as a medium of adaptation, rather than being perceived as the reason for environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. Local participation in conservation efforts should include decision-making prerogatives and a cooperative environment of shared ownership in the process involved.

Good practices in planned adaptation are premised on the availability of adequate information about the status of biodiversity; trends in environmental change, including climate change and its potential impacts on biodiversity; and the status of human resources, expertise, institutional capacity, political commitment, and financial resources. Some of the adaptation options in the EH region include the following.

An institutional arrangement responsive to addressing the climate-change issues and sensitive to •the societal and economic priorities at national and local levelsResearch and development in agroforestry and community forestry to enhance carbon •sequestration, reduce soil erosion, improve water quality, and increase livelihood optionsOperationalisation of the transboundary landscape approach to biodiversity conservation and •protected area managementEstablishment of stations to monitor the climate and facilitate generation of accurate, long-term •climatological time series and associated infrastructure for networking and sharing dataIdentifying and monitoring climate-sensitive organisms as indicators for early detection of •climate-change signals and facilitating mediation for proactive adaptationSustainable management of rangelands and formalisation of climate-conscious pastoralism not •only to enhance productivity but also to protect the ecosystem, reduce CO2 emissions, and increase storage above and below ground


52

The transect and landscape approach

Change needs to be monitored in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas (HKH) through use of climatic parameters, physical and biological conditions, and sociocultural and livelihood situations to generate consistent, representative data: the information thus generated could be used for sustainable development and to respond to climate change. In order to generate consistent information, ICIMOD has conceptualised the use of important landscapes from east to west and transects from north to south in the HKH region. The planned landscapes and transects are representative of the HKH and concerted efforts from global programmes and other programmes within the region are expected to bridge the knowledge gap in the medium and long term. A separate paper from ICIMOD (to be delivered at this conference) on the landscapes and transects describes the details and benefits of these approaches.

References

CEPF (2005) Ecosystem profile: Indo-Burman hotspot, Eastern Himalayan region. Kathmandu: WWF, US-Asian Programme/CEPF

Chettri, N; Shakya, B; Thapa, R; Sharma, E (2008a) ‘Status of a protected area system in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: An analysis of PA coverage’. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 4:164-178

Chettri, N; Sharma, E; Shakya, B; Thapa, R; Sharma, M; Bajracharya, B; Uddin, K; Oli, KP; Dasgupta, J; Chaudhury, D (2008b) Biodiversity of the Eastern Himalayas: Trends, perceptions and impact of climate change. White paper prepared for assessment of climate change vulnerability of the mountain ecosystems of the Eastern Himalayas. ICIMOD-MacArthur Project (final draft)

Dhar, U (2002) ‘Conservation implications of plant endemism in high-altitude Himalaya’. Current Science 82:141–148

Grabherr, G; Gottfriend, M; Pauli, H (1994) ‘Climate effects on mountain plants’. Nature 369 (6480): 448

Guangwei, C (ed) (2002) Biodiversity in the Eastern Himalayas: Conservation through dialogue. Summary reports of the workshops on biodiversity conservation in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan eco-region. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Hoekstra, JM; Boucher, TM; Ricketts, TH; Roberts, C (2005) ‘Confronting a biome crisis: Global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecological Letters 8:23-29

IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers, contribution of Working Group II on climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Fourth assessment report of the IPCC-climate change 2007. Geneva: IPCC

IUCN; UNEP; WCMC (2005) World database on protected areas (WDPA), CD ROM. Cambridge (UK): IUCN, UNEP, WCMC

Ives, JD; Messerli, B; Spiess, E (2004) ‘Mountains of the world: Global priorities’. In Messerli, B; Ives, JD (eds) Mountains of the world: A global priority, pp1-15. New York; London: Parthenon Publishing Group


53

MEA (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press

Mittermeier, RA; Gil, PR; Mittermeier, CG (1997) Megadiversity. Mexico: CEMEX

Mittermeier, RA; Gils, PR; Hoffman, M; Pilgrim, J; Brooks, T; Mittermeier, CG; Lamoreaux, J; Da Fonseca, GAB (eds) (2004) Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial eco-regions. Mexico City: CEMEX

Myers, N; Mittermeier, RA; Mittermeier, CG; Da Fonseca, GAB; Kent, J (2000) ‘Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities’. Nature 403 24:853-858

Olson, DM; Dinerstein, E; Wikramanayake, ED; Burgess, ND; Powell, GVN; Underwood, EC; D’Amico, JA; Itoua, I; Strand, HE; Morrison, JC; Loucks, CJ; Allnutt, TF; Ricketts, TH; Kura, Y; Lamoreux, JF; Wettengel, WW; Hedao, P; Kassem, KR (2001) ‘Terrestrial eco-regions of the world: A new map of life on Earth’. Bioscience 51 11:933-938

Olson, DM; Dinerstein, E (2002) ‘The Global 200; Priority eco-regions for global conservation’. Annals of Missouri Botanical Garden 89: 199-224

Parmesan, C; Yohe, G (2003) ‘A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems’. Nature 421:37-42

Pei, S (1995) Banking on biodiversity. Report on the regional consultations on biodiversity assessment in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Schild, A (2008) ‘The case of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: ICIMOD’s position on climate change and mountain systems’. Mountain Research and Development 28 3/4:328-331

Shrestha, AB; Devkota, LP (2008) Climate change: Case studies of Eastern Himalayan region and Brahmaputra and Kosi basins. White paper prepared for assessment of climate change vulnerability of the mountain ecosystems of the Eastern Himalayas. ICIMOD-MacArthur Project (final draft)

Stattersfield, AJ; Crosby, MJ; Long, AJ; Wege, DC (1998) Endemic bird areas of the world: Priorities for biodiversity conservation, Conservation series No. 7. Cambridge: Birdlife International

Wilson, RJ; Gutierrez, D; Gutierrez, J; Monserrat, VJ (2007) ‘An elevational shift in butterfly species richness and composition accompanying recent climate change’. Global Change Biology 13: 1873-1887

WWF (2006) Terrestrial ecoregions GIS database. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC. Available: http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/data/terreco.cfm. Accessed 12 June 2007

WWF; ICIMOD (2001) Eco-region-based conservation in the Eastern Himalaya: Identifying important areas for biodiversity conservation. Kathmandu: WWF Nepal programme


54

Global Change and Mountain Regions – Strategies for Biosphere ReservesThomas Schaaf, UNESCO, Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences, Paris, France

Abstract

Mountains are particularly fragile environments, and this makes them ideal for studying the impact of global (including climate) change. Their zonal vegetation belts, which vary with exposition, but mainly with altitude, are likely to be influenced by global warming: increasing global temperatures will result in an upward shift of mountain vegetation zones and marked ecotones such as the timberline and the vegetation line. In addition to this phenomenon, changing precipitation patterns, in line with global warming, will seriously affect water runoff as well as glaciers and their water storage capacities for lowlands. Other effects include the socioeconomic situation of mountain populations coping with a shifting climatic context affecting their socioeconomic wellbeing. Funded under the 6th Framework Programme of the European Commission (2003-2005), the Mountain Research Initiative (MRI) and the University of Vienna (Austria), in collaboration with United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and its Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, have embarked on a global study to assess the impact of global change on the biophysical environment and the socioeconomic conditions and livelihoods of mountain people. UNESCO’s World Network of Biosphere Reserves was used as monitoring and testing sites for the study, and this resulted in the preparation of the ‘Global Change and Mountain Regions (GLOCHAMORE)’ Research Strategy. Over 25 biosphere reserves participated in the study, with about three to four sites selected among the world’s major mountain regions.

Fragile ecosystems and global change

For a very good reason, mountains are labelled as fragile ecosystems in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development’s (UNCED’s) Agenda 21. The introductory part of Chapter 12 of Agenda 21 stipulates:

“Fragile ecosystems are important ecosystems with unique features and resources. Fragile ecosystems include deserts, semi-arid lands, mountains, wetlands, small islands, and certain coastal areas.” (UN Department of Public Information: Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development, UN 1994, page 98)

Moreover, in Chapter 13 of UNCED’s Agenda 21, which specifically refers to ‘Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development’ (ibid, page 109), mountains are seen in the complex and interactive context of water, energy, biodiversity, and land degradation:


55

“Mountains are an important source of water, energy, and biological diversity. … As a major ecosystem representing the complex and interrelated ecology of our planet, mountain environments are essential to the survival of the global ecosystem. Mountain ecosystems are, however, rapidly changing. They are susceptible to accelerated soil erosion, landslides and rapid loss of habitat and genetic diversity. On the human side, there is widespread poverty among mountain inhabitants and loss of indigenous knowledge. As a result, most global mountain areas are experiencing environmental degradation. Hence, the proper management of mountain resources and socioeconomic development of the people deserves immediate action.”

Already in 1992, Agenda 21 recognised that mountains are highly vulnerable to natural and anthropogenic ecological imbalance as they are particularly sensitive areas that respond to the full range of atmospheric climate changes. Because of their vertical dimensions, mountains create gradients of temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation. Thus, a given mountain slope may include several climatic systems, such as tropical, subtropical, temperate and alpine, each of which represents a microcosm of a wider habitat diversity. There is, however, a lack of knowledge on mountain ecosystems, and specific information on ecology, natural resource potential, and socioeconomic activities in the mountains is often widely scattered, scant, or inaccessible.

Worthwhile initiatives to generate and strengthen knowledge on the impact of climate change on mountain environments have started. One example is the Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments (GLORIA), which set up monitoring sites on alpine vegetation in various sites around the world. Assessing the impacts of global change on mountain environments and on mountain livelihoods in an interdisciplinary manner – comprising both natural and social sciences – using a worldwide harmonised approach did not exist in the early years of the current millennium.

The GLOCHAMORE project

To redress this situation, a coherent and coordinated approach to studying and monitoring the impact of global change in major mountain ranges of the world was needed. Spearheaded by the Mountain Research Initiative (MRI) and coordinated by the University of Vienna, the project entitled ‘Global Change and Mountain Regions (GLOCHAMORE)’ aimed at developing a better understanding of the causes and drivers that constitute current global, including climate, change.

Thanks to funding provided by the European Commission under its 6th Framework Programme, as well as by UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme and UNESCO’s International Hydrological Programme (IHP) from 2003 to 2005, over 200 scientists and mountain biosphere reserve managers from the world over met at various international workshops and at an international Open Science Conference (Perth, United Kingdom) to understand the causes and impacts of global changes – whether generated from climate, land use change, biological invasion, global economic forces, or other sources.


56

The following is a list of the workshops held.

International launching workshop on ‘Global Change in Mountain Biosphere Reserves’ held at •the Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve (Switzerland) in November 2003 (Lee and Schaaf 2004a)First thematic workshop on ‘Global Environmental and Social Monitoring’ held at the University •of Vienna in May 2004 (Lee and Schaaf 2004b)Second thematic workshop on ‘Projecting Global Change Impacts in Mountain Biosphere •Reserves’ held in Gran Sasso National Park (Italy) in November/December 2004 (Lee and Schaaf 2005)Third thematic workshop on ‘Sustainable Land Use and Natural Resources Management in •Mountain Biosphere Reserves’ held in Granada (Spain) in March 2005 (Lee and Schaaf 2005)Fourth thematic workshop on ‘Process Studies along Altitudinal Gradients’ held in Samedan •(Switzerland) in July 2005(Most of the workshop proceedings were published by UNESCO-MAB; for pdf files, see:•

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001358/135893e.pdf –http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001373/137359eo.pdf –http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001424/142482e.pdf –

The international Open Science Conference on ‘Global Change in Mountain Regions’ (organised by the Centre for Mountain Studies in Perth, United Kingdom, in October 2005) led to the Perth Declaration which inter alia expresses the wish of mountain biosphere reserve managers and scientists to collaborate on global change issues in the mountains (see http://www.unesco.org/mab/ecosyst/mountains/PerthDecl.pdf ).

Mountain biosphere reserves

The main contribution of the UNESCO Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme to the GLOCHAMORE Project was to mobilise site managers of mountain biosphere reserves within the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Biosphere reserves combine several important features that make them ideal for monitoring activities on global climate change; they have been internationally designated for their value in conservation (in particular biological diversity); for promoting sustainable development, based on local people’s participation in environmental management; and for their research infrastructure with ongoing scientific programmes on ecosystem structure, functioning, and dynamics.

What are biosphere reserves? According to a short definition, biosphere reserves are areas of terrestrial ecosystems that are internationally recognised within the framework of UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme (UNESCO-MAB 2000). Collectively, they form a world network. Nominated by national governments, they are required to meet a set of criteria and adhere to a set of conditions before being admitted into the network. Each biosphere reserve is intended to fulfill three basic functions, and they are complementary and mutually reinforcing:


57

a • conservation function – to contribute to the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species, and genetic variation; a • development function – to foster economic and human development that is socio-culturally and ecologically sustainable; and a • logistic function – to provide support for research, monitoring, education, and information exchange related to local, national, and global issues of conservation and development.

In order to carry out the complementary activities of nature conservation and use of natural resources, biosphere reserves are organised into three distinct yet interrelated zones, known as core area(s), buffer zone(s), and transition area(s).

The • core area needs to be legally established and give long-term protection to the landscape, ecosystem, and species it contains. It should be large enough to meet conservation objectives. As nature is rarely uniform and as historical land use constraints exist in many parts of the world, there may be several core areas in a single biosphere reserve to ensure representative coverage of the mosaic of ecological systems. Normally, the core area is not subject to human activity, except research and monitoring and, as the case may be, to traditional extractive uses by local communities.The • buffer zone (or zones) is clearly delineated and surrounds or is contiguous to the core area. Its role is to minimise negative and external effects of human-induced activities on the core areas. In addition to the buffering function related to the core areas, buffer zones can have their own intrinsic, ‘stand alone’ functions for maintaining anthropogenic, biological, and cultural diversity. Buffer zones can also have an important connectivity function in a larger spatial context as they connect biodiversity components within core areas with those in transition areas. Buffer zones can be areas for experimental research; for example to discover ways to manage natural vegetation, croplands, forests, and fisheries; to enhance high-quality production while conserving natural processes and biodiversity; or to rehabilitate degraded areas. The • outer transition area may contain a variety of agricultural activities, human settlements, and other uses. It is here that the local communities, conservation agencies, scientists, civil associations, cultural groups, private enterprises, and other stakeholders must agree to work together to manage and develop the area’s resources sustainably for the benefit of the people who live there. Given the role that biosphere reserves should play in promoting the sustainable management of natural resources in the region in which they lie, the transition area is of great economic and social significance for regional development.

Although schematically presented as a series of concentric rings, the three zones are usually defined in many different ways to accommodate local geographic conditions and constraints. They may have multiple core areas and buffer zones, which in turn are surrounded by the transition area marking the boundary of the entire management site: this flexibility allows for creativity and adaptability and is often considered to be one of the greatest strengths of the concept (UNESCO-MAB 1996).


58

UNESCO’s 193 Member States formally recognise the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. To date (October 2008), 531 biosphere reserves can be found in 105 countries (see http://www.unesco.org/mab/BRs.shtml).

About forty per cent of all biosphere reserves are located in mountain areas (for individual site descriptions, see http://www.unesco.org/mab/wnbrs.shtml). The central question common to all biosphere reserves is: how can we conserve the environment (e.g., mountain ecosystems) while at the same time ensuring sustainable development for the local population? Or, alternatively, how can we reconcile the conservation of biological resources with their sustainable use? Essentially, the answer lies with environmental management. Biosphere reserves aim to resolve land use conflicts by developing holistic economic and environmental management plans that afford protection to the natural resources yet allow for sustainable economic activities for the local population. Unlike most other protected areas, biosphere reserves assume a people-centred approach through which solutions for sustainable land management are worked out among local stakeholders, scientists, and government officials and are based upon scientific spatial analysis. The integration of nature conservation, sustainable development, and environmental research and monitoring makes biosphere reserves particularly appropriate for studying the impact of global change on the biophysical environment and the livelihoods of mountain people.

For the GLOCHAMORE Project, the following mountain biosphere reserves participated in the study in an attempt to have representative sites covering the major mountain ranges of the world.

Australia: Kosciuszko 1. Austria: Gossenköllesee 2. Austria: Gurgler Kamm3. Canada: Mount Arrowsmith 4. Chile: Araucarias 5. Chile: Torres del Paine6. China: Changbaishan7. Colombia: Cinturón Andino8. Germany: Berchtesgaden Alps9. India: Nanda Devi 10. Kenya: Mount Kenya11. Kyrgyzstan: Issyk-Kul 12. Mongolia: Uvs Nuur Basin13. Morocco: Oasis du Sud marocain14. Peru: Huascarán15. Russian Federation: Kavkazskiy 16. Russian Federation: Katunskiy 17. Russian Federation: Sikhote-Alin18. South Africa: Kruger to Canyons19.


59

Spain: Sierra Nevada20. Sweden: Lake Torne Area21. Switzerland: Entlebuch22. Switzerland: Swiss National Park23. USA: Glacier 24. USA: Niwot Ridge 25. USA: Denali 26.

With their gradients from virtually ‘zero’ direct human interference in the legally-protected zones (core areas), to medium (buffer zones), to strongly anthropogenically impacted areas (transition areas), biosphere reserves were considered as interesting sites for study and monitoring global change impacts in mountain ranges. Being part of a world network, managers of the biosphere reserves could also be mobilised through the UNESCO-MAB institutional infrastructure of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves administered by UNESCO. Many biosphere reserves have long-term series of climate data (temperature and precipitation) and species’ lists, which can be monitored over time and correlated with global warming. Moreover, biosphere reserves also include areas where people live and make a living in their transition zones; hence, the repercussions of global warming on local mountain economies and people’s livelihoods can be assessed.

The GLOCHAMORE research strategy

The main outcome of the GLOCHAMORE Project was the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy as a blueprint to guide managers of mountain biosphere reserves and scientists in implementing global change research in the mountains (see pdf file at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001471/147170E.pdf ).

The research strategy is built on the assumption that sustainable management can only be achieved with stakeholder involvement. Stakeholder involvement will not only increase the clarity of the research, but also enhance its relevance and acceptability and, hence, the efficiency and impact of the research project. Consulting local people and the managers of mountain biosphere reserves is therefore central to the implementation of future GLOCHAMORE projects.

This research strategy is organised according to our current understanding of the main axes of causality. It focuses first on drivers of global change; then on the impacts of global change on ecosystems; then on the subsequent impacts on ecosystem goods and services, regional economies, and health; and finally on institutional arrangements. Placing the human dimension in the second half of the list emphasises mountain and lowland people’s dependence on mountain goods and services that are affected by both indirect and direct impacts of global environmental change.


60

The Research Strategy addresses the following 10 themes and 41 sub-themes.1. Climate

2. Land use Change 2a Quantifying and Monitoring Land Use 2b Understanding the Origins and Impacts of Land Use

3. The Cryosphere 3a Glacier Extent 3b Glacier Mass Balance and Melt Water Yield 3c Snow Cover 3d Snow Melt 3e Permafrost

4. Water Systems 4a Water Quantity 4b Water Quality and Sediment Production 4c Aquatic Community Structure

5. Ecosystem Functions and Services 5a Role of Alpine Areas in N and Water Cycles 5b Role of Forest in C Cycle and Resource Production 5c Role of Grazing Lands in C, N and Water Cycles, Slope Stability and Household

Economy 5d Soil Systems 5e Pollution 5f Plant Pests and Diseases

6. Biodiversity 6a Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring 6b Biodiversity Functioning 6c Biodiversity Management 6d Alpine Community Change 6e Key Fauna and Flora 6f Forest Structure 6g Culturally Dependent Species 6h Impacts of Invasive Species

7. Hazards 7a Floods 7b Wildland Fire


61

7c Mass Movements 7d Avalanches

8. Health Determinants and Outcomes Afflicting Humans and Livestock

9. Mountain Economies 9a Employment and Income 9b Forest Products 9c Mountain Pastures 9d Valuation of Ecosystem Services 9e Tourism and Recreation Economies

10. Society and Global Change 10a Governance Institutions 10b Rights and Access to Water Resources 10c Conflict and Peace 10d Traditional Knowledge and Belief Systems 10e Development Trajectory and Vulnerability 10f Urbanisation in Mountain Regions

A critical and constructive assessment of the implementation of the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy is provided by Greenwood at this conference, who also will give information about various GLOCHAMORE follow-up meetings at the regional level.

This paper outlines UNESCO’s views on how global change in mountain regions could be operationalised, based on the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy and using mountain biosphere reserves (and similarly managed areas) as study and monitoring sites.

While it would, indeed, be desirable to implement the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy in its entirety for holistic reasons, biosphere reserve managers and scientific institutions may not be able to afford the necessary human resources and technical and scientific infrastructure needed for such an undertaking. Biosphere reserves and scientists are, therefore, encouraged to tackle as many aspects and themes of the research strategy as possible in line with their own local, national, and regional priorities.

In order to keep the ‘global’ approach of the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy, in particular in regards to the sharing of information by using a harmonised methodology in mountain ranges in both developing and industrialised countries, it is suggested that only a few themes of the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy are addressed. Common denominators that are relevant to biosphere reserves and scientists in the North and in the South alike are the following: (1) biodiversity subject to the impacts of global change; (2) availability of freshwater resources in the context of global warming; and (3) mountain economies and livelihoods of mountain dwellers.


62

UNESCO-MAB has prepared a project proposal entitled ‘Global Climate Change in Mountain Sites (GLOCHAMOST) – Elaborating Adaptation Strategies in Biosphere Reserves’ for funding by potential sources, and this would put the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy into practice.

The main objective of the GLOCHAMOST Project is to implement the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy in representative mountain biosphere reserves worldwide, with a view to developing adaptation strategies addressing the specific impacts of global change on these mountain environments, their inhabitants, and others who depend on goods and services deriving from these environments.

The specific objectives of the project are as follows. To implement the research strategy in mountain biosphere reserves in order to address global •climate and environmental change in the mountains – This objective focuses on monitoring changes in the biophysical environment and on understanding the interacting ecological and hydrological processes in mountain regions, both with and without local human interference, along altitudinal and other gradients (e.g., land use). Such work recognises the unique value of the many mountain ecosystems that have been, and remain, relatively uninfluenced by direct human activities, especially in protected areas such as the core areas of biosphere reserves. An important aspect of this objective is to develop and consolidate a network of observation sites in the mountains to serve as an ‘early warning’ system for assessing the impacts of global change.To evaluate the consequences of global changes for mountain regions as well as for lowland •systems that depend on mountain resources – The emphasis of this objective is to increase our understanding of the consequences of global change for people and ecosystems in mountain regions and adjacent lowland areas. Credible impact assessments form the baseline for informing policymakers about issues of global changes at local to global levels. In addition, information from impact assessments has direct application to policies and strategies for resource management that are implemented on local and regional scales.To facilitate the development of adaptive sustainable land, water, and resource management •strategies for mountain regions tailored to the specific needs and potentials of participating mountain biosphere reserves – The emphasis of this objective is to define a set of potential human responses to global climate change that can be implemented on local and regional scales. Adaptation strategies developed under this objective will assist policymakers by indicating the extent of degradation of key mountain resources and by evaluating interactions between alternative resource management strategies and trajectories of change generated by global factors.

Regarding its approach, the project will foster collaboration and communication within the scientific communities examining mountain research and global change in both industrialised and developing countries around the world. More importantly, the project will facilitate collaboration among researchers, managers of mountain biosphere reserves, and mountain communities affected by


63

global change (including climatic, environmental, and socioeconomic changes). As expressed in the Perth Declaration, mountain scholars and managers of mountain biosphere reserves declared their mutual commitment to continue work that has already begun under the GLOCHAMORE Project: global change scientists will link available knowledge systems and conduct research in mountain biosphere reserves (MBRs), thus providing scientific advice to their managers in order to help to enhance the overall management of these sites in the context of global change. Inversely, MBR managers will continue collaboration with the scientific community and other relevant stakeholders on issues related to global change at the site level.

The focus of the project will be on inter-regional and interdisciplinary studies that address the causes and, in particular, the impacts of environmental and socioeconomic changes in mountain regions. To this end, the project will use a harmonised approach to assess the consequences of these changes for the biophysical environment and human societies and to propose strategies for adaptations to cope with these changes. It is anticipated that this integrative research framework will lead to the development of site-specific strategies that can be used on a larger scale to shape policies that ensure sustainable development in mountain regions.

Implementation of the project will be continually reviewed during a series of annual meetings: this proved to be a very successful approach during the GLOCHAMORE Project. The objectives outlined for the GLOCHAMOST Project will be achieved by ensuring that appropriate on-site research activities are carried out in each participating mountain biosphere reserve, depending on local needs and resources, and these are to be defined independently. The GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy has laid the foundation for ensuring that project activities are integrated, coordinated, consistent, and applied effectively.

The project will be developed with a focus on selected mountain biosphere reserves that participated in the GLOCHAMORE Project and where a strong commitment for collaboration among scientists, site managers, and local communities has been demonstrated in the past. The goal is to cover the Earth’s major mountain ranges with sites that have varying socioeconomic contexts. A strong focus on capacity building is embedded within the project; and this will be achieved through sharing information between participants from industrialised and developing countries during the annual review workshops, as well as through training in data collection and data analysis. In addition, the project will bring together scientists in the field of global change representing both the natural and the social sciences in an indispensable effort to formulate strategies for adaptation in the context of global climate change. Hence the project will facilitate the creation of synergies between different groups of specialists and interdisciplinary cooperation, enhancing the spatial and temporal coordination of individual research projects.

To a great extent, the GLOCHAMOST Project relies on activities already existing within both institutional networks, such as the World Network of Biosphere Reserves of UNESCO-MAB and the


64

regional Global Change Research Networks of the MRI, and global change research institutions. It aims, inter alia, to create a coordinated network of study sites linked by a common understanding of purpose that provides benefits to each participating site in a way that exploits synergies. An interdisciplinary approach will be ensured through the participation of a variety of scientific disciplines such as ecology, hydrology, forestry, agriculture, economics, sociology, and protected area management.

Whereas all ten themes stipulated in the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy are relevant for global change studies, differing priorities, financial constraints, and the differences in available structures of research and management capacity among mountain biosphere reserves in industrialised and developing countries will require fine tuning at each site.

For this reason, the GLOCHAMOST Project includes a minimum set of topics to ensure a common and harmonised approach among all participating sites and to share similar management and research results among all project partners. First, biodiversity, particularly in regards to rare fauna and flora species, determines the conservation value of every biosphere reserve, and rare or endangered species may be threatened due to global and climate change. Second, the availability of freshwater resources for both ecosystem functioning and human wellbeing is a key issue in the context of climate change. Third, people whose livelihood systems will need to adapt to global and climate change live within and around all mountain biosphere reserves.

Accordingly, the new project should focus on the following themes.Biodiversity: key fauna and flora (item 6e of the research strategy) •Water: water quantity (item 4a of the research strategy)•Mountain economies: employment and income (item 9a of the research strategy)•

Biodiversity: key fauna and flora

Rationale: Certain species are very important politically and constitute a key reason for the creation of each biosphere reserve. The fate of the site is thus tied to the fate of the species – and this is frequently influenced by land use change and could be threatened by climate change.

Research goal: To predict the probability of local persistence of key species under different global climate change scenarios.

Actions:Collect presence, and if possible, abundance data, of key species along with abiotic •environmental data.Develop models that predict the likelihood of species’ occurrence (and if possible abundance) •on the basis of abiotic environmental characteristics.


65

Assess the extent to which biotic interactions (e.g., competition and facilitation) must be •addressed in order to predict distribution and abundance.Undertake experimental studies on the response of common and rare species to climate change.•Validate models and scenarios using empirical studies of processes of basic populations and •organisms.Simulate future distribution and, if possible, abundance under different climate and land use •scenarios (local and regional) and under different assumptions of species’ mobility.Identify key species at risk.•

Water: water quantity

Rationale: Mountains are key sources of water for human consumption and economic use (agriculture, hydropower), both within mountain regions and in the lowlands downstream. The main impact of climate change with respect to mountain areas may well relate to the amount and timing of water released.

Research goal: To determine and predict water balance and its components, particularly runoff and yield of mountain catchments (including wetlands and glaciers), under different global change scenarios.

Actions:Establish and maintain gauging stations on representative drainage situations within MBRs.•Determine the relationship between precipitation, temperature, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, •runoff, and land use characteristics within representative drainage situations.Develop models to predict discharge from representative drainage situations on several different •timescales from monthly to hourly.Develop the input datasets necessary for other basins and test model predictions against •observed discharge on a range of time scales.

Mountain economies: employment and income

Rationale: Global change will alter the capacity of landscapes to generate wealth and to provide livelihoods for resident populations and for distant, but, nonetheless, dependent populations. An understanding of these changes and local people’s ability to respond is a prerequisite for successful adaptation to such impacts.

Research goal: To predict the impacts of global change scenarios on the economies of mountain regions and economies dependent on mountain goods and services, and, hence, to assess the resilience of mountain societies to global change.


66

ActionsCompile data on incomes deriving from all economic sectors.•Develop regional economic models (for both monetised and subsistence economies, as •appropriate), taking into account environmental, demographic, economic, and political driving forces.Simulate possible future economies under different regional scenarios of climate, land use, •human demography, and external forces.Identify attributes of mountain communities that make them resilient to global change.•

The GLOCHAMOST Project proposal will be discussed at the post-conference international workshop entitled ‘Research Strategy on Global Change in Mountain Biosphere Reserves’ on 19 November 2008 here at ICIMOD. All interested persons are invited to attend this workshop.

References

Lee, C; Schaaf, T (eds) (2004a) Global change research in mountain biosphere reserves, Proceedings of the international launching workshop, November 2003, Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve. Paris: UNESCO

Lee, C; Schaaf, T (eds) (2004b) Global environmental and social monitoring, Proceedings of the international thematic workshop, 9-11 May 2004, Vienna, Austria. Paris: UNESCO

Lee, C; Schaaf, T (eds) (2005) Global change impacts in mountain biosphere reserves, proceedings of two international thematic workshops, 29 November-2 December 2005, l’Aquila, Italy; 14-17 March 2005, Sierra Nevada Biosphere Reserve. Paris: UNESCO

UN Department of Public Information (1994) Agenda 21 – Programme of action for sustainable development. New York: United Nations

UNESCO-MAB (1996) The Seville strategy. Paris: UNESCO

UNESCO-MAB (2000) Biosphere reserve map. Paris: UNESCO

UNESCO-MAB (2008) http://www.unesco.org/mab/ (accessed 15 October 2008). UNESCO-MAB homepage

UNESCO-MAB (2008) http://www.unesco.org/mab/ecosyst/mountains.shtml (accessed 15 October 2008). Information on UNESCO-MAB’s mountain activities

UNESCO-MAB (2008) http://www.unesco.org/mab/ecosyst/mountains/gcmbr.shtml (accessed 15 October 2008). Information on ‘Global change in mountain regions (GLOCHAMORE) and its research strategy’

Plenary Session II Biodiversity Management for Economic Goods and Ecosystem Services from Mountains

4

4: Plenary Session II

69

Plenary Session II

Presentations on Biodiversity Management for Economic Goods and Ecosystem Services from Mountains

Biodiversity Goods and Services – Increasing Benefits for Mountain Communities Dr Robert Zomer, ECES, ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal

Ecosystem Services Arising from Biodiversity Professor Palayanoor S. Ramakrishnan, Indian National Science Academy, Honorary Senior Scientist, Jawaharlal Nehru University, School of Environmental Sciences, New Delhi, India

Chair: Professor Martin PriceRapporteur: Dr Isabelle Providoli

Summary

Dr Zomer addressed the increasing benefits for mountain communities from ecosystem services at local, regional, and global levels, elaborating on the roles of mountain communities and cultural diversity in maintaining biodiversity. Mountain farmers are stewards of genetic heritage and resources within both managed and semi-managed landscapes. He highlighted the following types of useful biodiversity fulfilling a multitude of needs.

Flora, fauna, multipurpose trees, pollinators, medicinal insects•Agrobiodiversity•

Communities suffer when biodiversity resources are degraded. Drivers of degradation include poverty, poorly managed subsistence activities, population, urban growth, roads, commercial exploitation, resource extraction, unsustainable tourism, globalisation, and global change.

With regard to payment for ecosystem services (PES) and upstream-downstream linkages, opportunities directly result from biodiversity conservation. As examples, Dr Zomer mentioned watershed services for the most part.

Quality/quantity of water, e.g., China – Green for Grain•India, e.g., large payments to mountain states•China – rangelands, e.g, payments to reduce herd sizes•

Still outstanding issues on PES are the valuation of ecosystem services (ES), identifying provision of additional ES (indicators – quantification of ES), appropriate agreements, institutional framework, implementation and monitoring, equitable distribution of benefits, and transparency and governance.


70

Existing global climate change frameworks on carbon, greenhouse gases (GHGs), forests, and biodiversity include the following:

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – Climate Change Mitigation

Kyoto Protocol 2008-2012•GHG emission reduction targets –Land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) –Clean development mechanisms (CDM) – afforestation – reforestation –

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and (Forest) Degradation (REDD)The Stern Review (2006) emphasised inclusion of the prevention of deforestation as a key •element in any future international climate frameworks. UNFCCC Conference of Parties (CoP) 15 – Copenhagen 2009•Post-Kyoto Framework – after 2012•

ICIMOD – HKH and REDDDevelopment of a Mountain REDD agenda•Mountains have very different (and heterogeneous) conditions: biophysical, socioeconomic, •and institutional. Methods and approaches applicable in lowland forests may not be applicable in the mountains •– and they are data sparse.The unique conditions and challenges of the mountains need to be highlighted in the •international policy arena to articulate the need for REDD policies relevant to the mountains and to the HKH.

Professor Ramakrishnan highlighted the importance of interdisciplinarity between the bio-physical and social dimensions in his presentation “from ecosystems to socio-ecological systems”. He emphasised the understanding of mutually supportive dynamics existing between cultural diversity and linked biological diversity, with implications for community-centred sustainable developmental pathways. Biodiversity links knowledge systems and is the key to addressing sustainability concerns, especially through participatory approaches based on community ‘knowledge systems’.

Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is an economic, ecological, and ethical process. Professor Ramakrishnan described some examples and case studies from India in order to discuss and highlight the sustainable landscape management approach. To conclude, he presented adaptive management, which entails participatory problem-solving and the empowerment of all stakeholders.


71

Discussion

During the discussion, some issues were raised, which were discussed later on during group work.PES/biological corridors•How to make biological corridors visible?•How to pay poor/local people to maintain biodiversity?•How to engage downstream sectors in carbon payments?•PES, carbon issues, and CDM need reality checks•

CDM (Clean Development Mechanism)Issue of source and sink, internal and external costs•

Mountain agricultureMountain agrobiodiversity, e.g., India – subsistence agriculture in the mountains. Subsistence – •sustainable agriculture: How to transform subsistence agriculture into commercial agriculture including organic production?

Poverty and climate changeStatement: poverty is not responsible for landscape decline. There is a danger of interlinking •poverty, biodiversity, and climate change, and each case should be considered separately.Biodiversity has physical, social, cultural, and economic factors.•The question remains as to how to respond to global challenges at the local level.•In the HKH the relationship between poverty and biodiversity is not clear. Therefore, a •transdisciplinary approach, including local people, and which can be either bottom-up or top-down, is needed.


72

Biodiversity Goods and Services – Increasing Benefits for Mountain CommunitiesRobert Zomer, ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal

Abstract

Mountain communities benefit from the goods and services of global biodiversity in many ways: the direct benefits of local and regional biodiversity include a wide array of basic subsistence needs such as medicines cash crops, non-timber forest products, essential contributions to living standards, and improved livelihoods. Equally important are a range of ecosystem services such as clean water, slope stability, and the long-term disease resistance and food security provided by crop genetic diversity. Intangible benefits extend to aesthetic, religious, cultural, and recreational values associated with a wide variety of culturally significant biodiversity entities. Agricultural biodiversity is particularly important for mountain communities, as well as for the world at large. The value of, and benefits from, ecosystem services, locally, regionally, and globally, are increasingly being understood, and this is being articulated in a variety of international and scientific forums. Increasingly, efforts are being made to identify mechanisms that will support and compensate, among others, mountain communities that maintain or enhance these services through Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES) mechanisms. Climate change has highlighted the important role of terrestrial ecosystems and carbon storage in terrestrial ‘sinks’ as an ecosystem service. The potential for PES in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas (HKH), particularly from Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), and the need for a mountain-specific climate change and REDD agenda, are discussed.

Introduction and background

Mountain communities, like the rest of humanity, benefit from the goods and services of global biodiversity in many ways. Direct benefits of local and regional biodiversity include a wide array of basic subsistence needs such as medicines, cash crops, and non-timber forest products; all of which provide essential contributions to living standards and improved livelihoods. In addition, equally important, but sometimes less evident, benefits include a range of ecosystem services such as clean water, slope stability, and the long-term disease resistance and food security provided by crop genetic diversity. Intangible benefits extend to aesthetic, religious, cultural, and recreational values associated with a wide variety of culturally significant biodiversity; for example, rudraksh seeds, bodhi trees, lotus blossoms, and sacred groves. A vast diversity of life forms fulfils a multitude of mountain community needs. Diverse flora and fauna, such as multipurpose trees or medicinal plants and insects, all play important roles in mountain economies throughout the Hindu Kush-Himalayas


73

(HKH). For example, in the Middle Hills of the HKH, integrated farming systems rely on surrounding forests for nutrient transfers to maintain soil fertility and long-term farm productivity. A wide variety of fodder sources, mostly from forest trees and leaf litter collected from the forest floor, provide conduits that transfer nutrients to the farm through integrated livestock-cropping systems, stall-feeding, composting, and labour-intensive management.

Agricultural biodiversity is amongst the most direct of benefits for mountain communities and, of course, for the world at large. Many important food crops and other plant and livestock species have centres of origin or diversity within mountains and mountainous areas. Landraces and wild relatives of many agricultural species and cultivars originate, exist, or are conserved in the mountains. This is especially the case in the HKH and other remote mountain areas where market penetration has been limited by difficult access and other constraints associated with the topography and heterogeneity of the landscape. Mountains provide large-scale refuges for in situ conservation of genetic resources upon which advanced plant breeding and crop production rely. Even as the contribution to global food security is invaluable, mountain communities rely on this agrobiodiversity to maintain subsistence livelihoods and resilient farming systems under the difficult conditions imposed by the mountains.

Mountain communities also benefit, maintain, and enhance biodiversity within landscapes. Sacred groves, culturally and religiously significant plants, the selection of useful species, and crop traits, all represent anthropogenically maintained diversity. In many cases, mountains farmers are stewards of globally significant genetic resources and a regional or local genetic heritage. In addition, within many parts of the HKH, mountain landscapes can be seen as managed or semi-managed landscapes, with farmer selection and land use management maintaining high levels of biodiversity. This is true in the Middle Hills of Nepal where population densities range up to 500 per sq.km, yet landscape, genetic, and biological diversity levels are generally high. Further, the Himalayas have a long and ancient history of human settlement, use, and disturbance. Shifting cultivation, as found in the Eastern Himalayas, can, under optimal circumstances, maintain high levels of diversity through production of patches, edges, and landscape mosaics. The role of mountain communities and the important role of mountain cultures in maintaining biodiversity have been recognised explicitly in the Convention on Biological Diversity and in its Mountain Biodiversity Programme of Work.

Communities suffer when biodiversity resources are degraded, or access to them is restricted. Among the drivers of degradation in the HKH are widespread poverty, poorly managed subsistence activities, population growth, roads, urbanisation, commercial exploitation, resource extraction, and unsustainable or poorly-managed tourism. In addition, wider processes, such as globalisation, migration, and global climate change, are also affecting mountain communities and mountain biodiversity.


74

Payment for ecosystem services (PES)

The value of, and benefits from, ecosystem services, locally, regionally, and globally, are increasingly gaining recognition and are being discussed in a variety of international and scientific forums, most notably the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) describes these ecosystem services as falling into three categories, all within a general framework of supporting services, i.e., those services that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services. Examples of supporting services include biomass production, production of atmospheric oxygen, soil formation and retention, nutrient cycling, water cycling, and provisioning of habitats. These ecosystem services fall within the following categories (Figure 1).

Provisioning services• are the products obtained from ecosystems; for example, genetic resources, food and fibre, and fresh water.

Regulating services• are the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes; for example, the regulation of climate, water, and some human diseases.

Cultural services• are the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experience, for example, knowledge systems, social relations, and aesthetic values.

Having recognised the global value of these ecosystem services, increasing efforts are being made to identify mechanisms that will support and compensate, among others, mountain communities that maintain or enhance these. Various approaches, schemes, and strategies for maintaining and enhancing a variety of ecosystem services, such as watershed management, in situ biodiversity conservation, or carbon sequestration, through payment mechanisms are generally referred to as Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES). To date, successful examples have been focused mostly on watershed services and water resources, with rationales given in terms of upstream-downstream linkages. Examples include the Grain for Green (Green Hills, Clean Rivers) programme in China, which makes conversion of slopes over 25° to tree or grass cover mandatory, and for which grain subsidies are provided: perhaps the largest PES ever. Another example is the planned payments to herders on the Tibetan Plateau to reduce herd sizes and maintain the rangelands of high-altitude pastoral landscapes, which is to commence with a 100,000 ha pilot project in 2009.

Among the significant outstanding issues delaying widespread implementation of PES schemes are questions concerning valuation and the identification (and quantification) of additional provisional services. Quantifiable or generally agreed upon indicators and/or measures are lacking. Likewise, other requirements for the successful implementation of PES include the crafting of appropriate agreements and institutional frameworks, as well as the challenges of implementation, monitoring,


75

and verification. Equitable distribution of benefits requires transparency and appropriate environmental governance structures.

Carbon sinks and biodiversity

Climate change has highlighted the important role of carbon storage as an ecosystem service. Forests and trees are important components of the global carbon cycle, fixing and storing large quantities of carbon in vegetation and soils. Forests also harbour and provide habitats, a substantial portion of global biodiversity. Forests can act as both sources and sinks for atmospheric CO2. They release carbon into the atmosphere when disturbed by natural or human causes, and they absorb atmospheric CO2 when vegetation and soil carbon accumulate after afforestation, reforestation, or natural revegetation. The global impact of deforestation, driven largely by agricultural expansion, is a major component of ongoing global environmental change and contributes significantly to atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) accumulation and climate change.

Land use change and unsustainable land management contributes approximately 20% to annual global greenhouse gas emissions, with a 40% increase in emissions from land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) since 1970. About one-third of GHG emissions come from developing countries. Tropical forest loss is predicted to continue to occur at 5% per decade for the next 30-50 years. South and Southeast Asia are among the regions with the highest predicted rates of forest loss. Deforestation and ecosystem degradation are major causes of biodiversity loss, as well as being sources of emissions. Carbon finance that conserves forests and promotes sustainable land use could have a significant impact on biodiversity conservation within the HKH region if it supports sustainable forest management successfully.

Afforestation and/or reforestation under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM-AR)

The inclusion of carbon sink projects into the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), as well as the more general Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) concept, has been controversial (Kolshus 2001; Kolshus et al. 2001; Forner and Jotzo 2002; Jung 2003). The CDM is an instrument intended to reduce GHG emissions, while helping developing countries to achieve sustainable development. It has the multiple goals of poverty reduction, environmental benefits, and cost-effective emission reductions. Under the afforestation and reforestation provisions of the CDM, a small percentage of the requirement for total global emission reduction offsets can come through afforestation and reforestation (CDM-AR) projects in developing countries. Avoided deforestation was specifically excluded from the CDM agreement for a variety of reasons, mainly the potentially large size of this pool of carbon credits. To date, bureaucratic and onerous monitoring and verification requirements have bogged down the CDM-AR process, along with significant issues associated with the marketing of credits, certification, and inclusion in international markets and compliance mechanisms. Nevertheless, significant voluntary markets have opened up


76

for CDM-AR type projects. Likewise there is an opportunity for niche carbon markets, such as premium carbon certified to meet specified ecological, cultural, and socioeconomic criteria for equity and sustainability. Land suitability for CDM-AR and the potential hydrological impacts have been modelled on a global scale (Zomer et al. 2008; Trabucco et al. 2008) with significant amounts of suitable land showing acceptable hydrological impacts on watersheds.

CDM-AR projects may have the potential to make substantial contributions to biodiversity conservation in the HKH if a robust carbon market for these credits revives this mechanism. In particular, growing trees on farms in diverse agroforestry production systems has the potential to reduce pressure on forest resources significantly. The important biodiversity conservation aspects of growing trees outside of forests for domestic and industrial uses should not be underestimated. Most people agree on the desirability of conserving forests and wildlife habitats, but the growing demand for wood products continues to create increasing pressure on remaining forest reserves, especially in the tropics and in developing countries. Growing economies and burgeoning populations in South Asia, and the world as a whole, will continue to propel the need for these valuable renewable resources. Growing trees on farms directly reduces pressure on forests, wildlife, and biodiversity, while sequestering carbon from the atmosphere into wood and soils.

Finding ways to meet the ever-growing demand for food, fibre, and shelter with increasingly scarce and finite land resources must be aligned with the global intention to conserve biodiversity on this planet. One key to conserving forest ecosystems in tropical, densely-populated developing countries lies in meeting domestic demands for wood from trees that are grown outside of forests, i.e., on farm. For example, in northern India, poplar production satisfies this demand for commercial softwoods, providing environmental services regionally through the reduction of pressure on Himalayan forests with only minimal predicted impacts on regional and local hydrological balances (Zomer et al. 2007). Should CDM-AR mechanisms not be carefully implemented, however, or be used to promote widespread monocultural plantations of fast-growing trees, or biofuels, labelled as afforestation or reforestation, impacts on biodiversity could be substantial and negative. Nevertheless, CDM-AR still represents a potentially important PES mechanism with substantial potential within the HKH, given that appropriate compensation and equity issues can be worked out.

Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD)

Deforestation and forest degradation have been identified as important sources of GHG emissions, both globally and within national and regional policy forums within the HKH region. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that 1.6 billion tons of carbon are released annually due to land use change, of which the major part is due to deforestation (Denman et al. 2007). This on-going land use change, estimated to account for one-fifth of current global carbon emissions, which impacts on biodiversity and other ecosystem services, as well as local livelihoods, is of particular concern throughout many parts of the HKH. South and Southeast Asia have among the highest rates of deforestation in the world (FAO 2005; FAO 2007).


77

Maintaining existing forests, promoting improved forest and land management, and avoiding the emissions associated with degradation of both forest resources and other land use types have been identified by the IPCC as among the least expensive climate change mitigation options. The Stern Review (Stern 2007), a report published by the Government of the United Kingdom analysing the economics of climate change, emphasised the prevention of further deforestation as one of four ‘key elements’ for future international climate frameworks. Consequently, the programme on ‘Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation’ (REDD) in developing countries has emerged as a central component of the global climate protection regime currently being negotiated to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which comes to an end in 2012. Decisions taken in December 2007 in Bali, at the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP 13) put into motion a process aimed towards achieving an agreement on REDD by COP 15 in Copenhagen, December 2009.

The possibility of significant international transfers of funds under a post-Kyoto agreement to finance REDD has attracted the attention of policy makers and the public in developing countries (Kanninen et al. 2007) and in the HKH region. Estimates of the potential global value of REDD payments vary depending on the underlying assumptions. Assuming a conservative carbon value of $10 per ton of carbon dioxide (CO2), estimates include a net present value of $150 billion (Chomitz et al. 2007) and annual revenue of $2.3-12 billion (Ebeling 2006; El Lakany et al. 2007). But with more positive assumptions about the carbon price ($10-20/t CO) and reductions in deforestation (20-50% ), estimates for annual REDD revenues are about $7-23 billion (El Lakany et al. 2007). Past experience has shown that benefits for developing countries lacking the capacity to implement and participate in complex international agreements have been elusive (Kanninen et al. 2007).

To ensure that proposed REDD implementation within the HKH region contributes meaningfully to the goals of sustainable development, biodiversity conservation, and improved livelihoods for the poor requires significant regional and national-level capacity building in anticipation of the agreement to be signed at the UNFCCC COP 15 in Copenhagen in 2009. Especially needed is the creation of governance structures that successfully compensate those directly affected, such as forest users and local communities, as these will be vitally important to ensure the equitable implementation at local levels and the distribution of benefits to those most directly affected by proposed land use and land-management changes.

High levels of uncertainty exist concerning land use changes and trends, deforestation rates, and carbon budgets, as well as about information on appropriate methods to measure and estimate these essential parameters. Our current knowledge of forest cover, carbon budgets, and processes of ecosystem change is lacking in highly heterogeneous and diverse mountainous regions such as the HKH (Xu et al. 2007). There is an urgent need for standardised, globally agreed upon definitions and methods to provide a basis for collecting baseline information on forest cover and changes in forest cover (Mathews 2001; Lepers et al. 2005). It is vitally important, however, that these standards reflect and incorporate the unique attributes and conditions of forests and land use


78

in the mountains and in the HKH. A rapidly advancing REDD process will require comprehensive monitoring systems to produce forest cover data and indicators to accommodate what will be a recurrent need for timely information. Significant capacity building will be required by most of the countries within the region to meet the challenges associated with REDD.

Development of a regional knowledge base, based on multiscale research, as well as advanced remote sensing and modelling approaches, are essential to support the regional and national partners in understanding the implications of and in benefiting from the complex issues involved in the negotiation and implementation of an international agreement on REDD. Understanding of both technical and methodological issues regarding assessment of carbon and land use changes, and in-depth research on the drivers, processes, and costs and benefits of deforestation, degradation, and ecosystem management options for local resource users and local communities need to be strengthened. Both improved understanding of benefits and costs to communities, as well as high-level expertise on carbon issues and advanced approaches for monitoring and assessment of carbon, are required if the least-developed countries in the region are to participate meaningfully and benefit from REDD. Improved understanding of the drivers and impacts of deforestation and forest degradation, as well as specific management options at ecosystem level are essential to allow countries in the region to adopt policies and negotiating positions that address the needs of poor mountain communities.

Past experiences have shown that neglecting the role of local livelihood and resource use by local communities has led to failed resource management policies (Murdiyarso and Herawati 2005; Banskota et al. 2007). Ecosystem management approaches that incorporate and work closely with local communities need to be identified and piloted in order to provide a range of country- and ecosystem-specific management options to reduce carbon emissions. If carbon emissions from land use activities, such as deforestation, degradation, and conversion to agriculture, are to be reduced, then guidelines and best practices for ecosystem-specific and sustainable land use management must be developed. Importantly, governance structures need to be developed that ensure that carbon benefits are distributed equitably, compensate livelihood losses of local communities, and promote sustainable development and environmental conservation goals (Murdiyarso and Herawati 2005; Banskota et al. 2007). Local and participatory ground truthing, carbon accounting, and land use change approaches to monitoring (Banskota et al. 2007), such as development of community-based REDD monitoring programmes, can lower the high transaction costs, which have had significant impacts on the adoption and success of Kyoto Protocol’s CDM-AR provisions.

Networking with ongoing international and global efforts and activities is an important opportunity for the region to gain access to advanced methods and approaches, as well as to give the region an avenue to ensure mountain regions are able to articulate meaningful positions within the various international forums and policy arenas – particularly within the UNFCCC and associated environmental conventions. Active regional networking can act as the platform both to focus international efforts on the HKH and other mountain regions and to allow the countries of the region


79

to promote a mountain-specific REDD agenda. Likewise, a Mountain REDD Agenda is needed to explicitly highlight and promote a strong component on biodiversity conservation. Simply conserving carbon within existing forests, i.e., slowing down the rate of deforestation, will certainly improve the situation in many countries, especially tropical lowland regions where major drivers include commercial and illegal logging and conversion to agricultural uses. Mountain forests and the HKH region, however, present unique conditions and require mountain-specific approaches, amongst which is the high value associated with biodiversity conservation. Although within the HKH some of these same drivers apply, forest and land degradation associated with unsustainable land use practices and/or poorly managed subsistence activities, are major ongoing land cover change processes. Degradation is a slower rate of conversion, compared to outright deforestation, but nevertheless leads to significant biodiversity loss in the short to medium term. A Mountain REDD Agenda could articulate the very different and heterogeneous biophysical, socioeconomic, and institutional conditions in the mountains, particularly in the HKH. Methods and approaches applicable to lowland forests may not be applicable in the mountains where data are sparse and terrain is less accessible. Highlighting the unique conditions and challenges of mountains in the international policy area should be promoted by the mountain science and research community, in particular, to articulate the need for climate change mitigation, carbon finance, and REDD policies relevant to the HKH.

References

Banskota, K; Karky, BS; Skutsch, M (2007) Reducing carbon emissions through community-managed forests in the Himalayas. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Chomitz, KM; Buys, P; De Luca, G; Thomas, TS; Wertz- Kanounnikoff, S (2007) At loggerheads? Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests. Jakarta: World Bank

Denman, KL; Brasseur, G; Chidthaisong, A; Ciais, P; Cox, PM; Dickinson, RE; Hauglustaine, C; Heinze, E; Holland, D; Jacob, U; Lohmann, S; Ramachandran, PL; da Silva Dias, D; Wofsy, SC; Zhang, X (2007) ‘Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry’. In Solomon, S; Qin, D; Manning, M; Chen, Z; Marquis, M; Averyt, KB; Tignorand, M; Miller, HL (eds) Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the IPCC Fourth Assessment. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp541-584. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Ebeling, J (2006) Tropical deforestation and climate change: Towards an international mitigation strategy. Oxford: University of Oxford

El Lakany, H; Jenkins, M; Richards, M (2007) Background paper on means of implementation. Contribution by PROFOR to discussions at UNFF-7, April 2007. Washington, DC: Programme on Forests (PROFOR)

FAO (2005) Global forest resource assessment 2005: Progress toward sustainable forest management, FAO Forestry Paper 147. Rome: FAO

FAO (2007) State of the world’s forests. Rome: FAO


80

Forner, C; Jotzo, F (2002) ‘Future restrictions for sinks in the CDM: How about a cap on supply?’ Climate Policy 2: 353-365

Jung, M (2003) The role of forestry sinks in the CDM – Analysing the effects of policy decisions on the carbon market. HWWA Discussion Paper 241, Hamburgisches Welt-Wirtschafts-Archiv (HWWA). Hamburg: Hamburg Institute of International Economics

Kanninen, M; Murdiyarso, D; Seymour, F; Angelsen, A; Wunder, S; German, L (2007) Do trees grow on money? The implications of deforestation research for policies to promote REDD. Bogor: Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

Kolshus, HH (2001) Carbon sequestration in sinks: An overview of potential and costs. CICERO working paper 2001, Blindern, Norway. Oslo: Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research

Kolshus, HH; Vevatne, J; Torvanger, A; Aunan, K (2001) Can the clean development mechanism attain both cost-effectiveness and sustainable development objectives? CICERO working paper 2001:8. Blindern: Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research

Lepers, E; Lambin, EF; Janetos, AJ; DeFries, R; Achard, F; Ramankutty, N; Scholes, RJ (2005) ‘A synthesis of information on rapid land cover change for the period 1981–2000’. Bioscience 55(2):115-124

Mathews, E (2001) Understanding the FRA 2000, Forest briefing No 1. Washington DC: World Resources Institute

MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington DC: World Resources Institute

Murdiyarso, D; Herawati, H (2005) Carbon forestry: Who will benefit? Proceedings of a workshop on carbon sequestration and sustainable livelihoods. Bogor: Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

Stern, N (2007) The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Trabucco, A; Zomer, RJ; Bossio, DA; van Straaten, O; Verchot, LV (2008) ‘Climate change mitigation through afforestation/reforestation: A global analysis of hydrologic impacts with four case studies’. Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment 126: 81-97

Xu, J; Shrestha, A; Vaidya, R; Eriksson, M; Hewitt, K (2007) Regional challenges and local impacts of climate change on mountain ecosystems and livelihoods, ICIMOD Technical Paper. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Zomer, RJ; Bossio, DA; Trabucco, A; van Straaten, O; Verchot, LV (2008) ‘Climate change mitigation: A spatial analysis of global land suitability for clean development mechanism afforestation and reforestation’. Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment 126:67-80

Zomer, RJ; Bossio, DA; Trabucco, A; Yuanjie, L; Gupta, DC; Singh, VP (2007) Trees and water: Smallholder agroforestry on irrigated lands in Northern India. IWMI Research Report 122. Colombo: International Water Management Institute


81

Ecosystem Services Arising from Biodiversity

Palayanoor S. Ramakrishnan, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

Abstract

Having destroyed much of the global biodiversity (in all its scalar dimensions – sub-specific, species, ecosystems, and landscapes), this valuable resource of human wellbeing is now confined mostly to mountain areas; the Himalayan mountain systems being no exception. Conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity is not only important for mountain people, with all the intangible values linked to tangible benefits accruing not only to mountain societies and those in the adjoining plains, but also to humanity in general (MEA 2005; Ramakrishnan 2008a,b). This is the context in which ecosystem services (the ‘intangibles’ and the ‘tangibles’) should be perceived.

The intangibles

Mountain societies are closely linked to nature and the natural resources around them, and they tend to have a holistic view of ‘nature and ‘culture’. Cultural diversity and biological diversity are mutually supportive of one another; the connecting link between the two being their traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). The expression of culture-based intangible dimensions of psychological value to society come in the form of music, dance, poetry, folk tales, and religious rituals, and through artefacts such as sculptures, stupas (pillars), temples, monasteries, and so forth: all are embedded in the ‘natural cultural landscape’, to which they tend to remain attached (Ramakrishnan 2008b). Often these intangible values could bring about tangible benefits (Ramakrishnan 2008a).

Cultural identity implies the intangible values with which humans tend to identify themselves, and these are important from a psychological perspective. This has been the driving force for human beings’ relationships with nature and the natural resources around them through the concept of the ‘ecocultural landscapes’ to which they relate. What should also be recognised at this stage is that traditional mountain societies still remain attached to ‘natural cultural landscapes’, which they have carved out of nature and natural resources together with all the natural and human-managed ecosystems. Indeed, they perceive the artefacts of human design, which have a variety of different forms and shapes (sculptures, temples, and monasteries), also to be an integral component of the cultural landscape. Apart from cultural expressions reflected through the concept of ‘natural cultural landscapes’, embedded within are other dimensions that are related to biodiversity – ‘sacred groves’ (ecosystems of social value) and ‘sacred species’ (species of social value) (Ramakrishnan et al. 1998). Therefore, there is an urgent need to conserve or restore these cultural landscapes,


82

referred to as ‘organically evolved landscapes’ at the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation’s (UNESCO’s) World Heritage Convention (Rossler 2001), within which communities have an active role to play because of their own concerns for sustainable livelihoods (Ramakrishnan 2008a). Selected examples of ‘living’ eco-cultural landscapes in the mountains of the world (Ramakrishnan et al. 1998) are the following.

The ancient rice terraces of the Ifugaos in the Philippines, managed sustainably as an integrated •landscape system of beauty and ecocultural harmony.The Ziro valley area of the Apatanis of Arunachal Pradesh, India, where traditional wet-rice •cultivation, well known for its ecological efficiency and economic productivity, is part of an efficiently managed community forest within a ‘mega-cultural landscape’ encompassing the surrounding socio-ecological hill systems. All this is linked to a range of religious festivals and rituals (Riba 2004) contributing to the harmonious existence of a number of ethnic groups in the area, making it an ideal candidate for ‘world heritage’ status under UNESCO’s or FAO’s initiatives on cultural landscapes and/or ‘Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems’ (GIAHS) initiative. The ‘Binii Ajin’ festival of the Apatanis is a unique event that forms a backbone cementing •intangible values to tangible benefits accruing to society, and therefore needs a special mention. This festival can be viewed as the focal point around which Apatani cultural identity is built (Riba 2004). The institutional arrangements for the month-long festival of Binii Ajin are closely connected with the land use management system: it also forms the backbone of a network of support structures amongst all members of the tribe and even helps to smooth over crisis situations, as and when they arise. The eco-cultural security constituted during this festival is given formal approval by invitations to the Myoko festival in March, which is not confined to Apatanis alone. This festival involves ethnic groups living all around in the surrounding hills: the Apatanis ensure eco-cultural harmony with cooperation amongst all during crisis situations such as during the frequent fires that occur in the Apatani landscape. Indeed, Binii Angin not only contributes to eco-cultural harmony within the region, but also to human security.The ‘diffused’ cultural landscape complex focused around the River Ganges covering extensive •areas of hills and plains in India, with all the religious heritage sites, myths, and stories woven around them, reaching as far as the Bay of Bengal where the sacred river meets the sea. This is a heritage site for millions living within and outside this ‘diffused cultural landscape’ (Ramakrishnan 2003). The sacred Himalayan land of Sikkim with its sacred landscapes and groves (ecosystems); and •the ‘Demojong’ which is a unique cultural heritage site for many more living all around in the region, not only because of its cultural value, but because of its ecological significance with traditional institutions governing broad land use management (Ramakrishnan 2008b).

These illustrations of human-inhabited landscapes stand apart from the imposing and other awe-inspiring distant landscapes of the Himalayas and others across the globe. Indeed, the concept of


83

living as part of a cultural landscape carved out by human beings is catching on, not only among modern, urbanised mountain societies in the European Alps (Maurer and Holl 2003), but also among highly urbanised societies: the community movements of people living in extensive urban conglomerates in the USA is one example of people’s desire to reach out to ‘nature’ (Shutkin 2000).

Tangible values emerging from the ‘intangibles’

TEK is an important connecting link between intangible values and the tangible benefits derived from them. There is increasing evidence to suggest that validated TEK could be used to arrive at general principles for modulating ecosystem or landscape-level processes on a regional or global scale, cutting across socioecological systems (Ramakrishnan et al. 1998). In the contemporary context, TEK cannot stand alone, but has to be integrated with formal text-book knowledge in order to address issues of ecological conservation linked to sustainable development.

Tangible dimensions of TEK derived from ‘intangibles’ (Ramakrishnan 2008b) can be classified as follows.

Economic• – Traditional ethnobiology (lesser-known plants and animals used for food and medicinal plants of direct economic value harvested from the wild). Socioecological• – The ways in which traditional societies conserve and manipulate biodiversity and the implications in terms of ecosystem resilience as a result of the sustainable management of soil biology and fertility, nutrient cycling, and soil moisture regimes. All of this enables traditional local communities to cope with increasing environmental uncertainties in a fragile mountain environment. Sociocultural• – Cultural, spiritual, and religious belief systems that mountain people cherish, which are centred around ‘sacred species’, ‘sacred groves’ (ecosystems), and ‘sacred landscapes’ – the socially valued invariably having an ecological keystone value in terms of biodiversity conservation (Ramakrishnan 2008a).

All of this implies interdisciplinary approaches centred on TEK (Figure 1), relevant for participatory sustainable mountain development involving the community. TEK encompasses traditional institutional arrangements that are ethnicity-specific, apart from modern institutions derived through an elective process.

What should be emphasised at this point is that the role of formal text book knowledge cannot be underestimated; linking the ‘traditional’ with the ‘formal’ to arrive at appropriate ‘hybrid’ technologies’ and institutional arrangements is the need of the hour.


84

Managing agrobiodiversity for food security

With a wide range of agroforestry systems operating in a fragile forested landscape, food security is an important concern for mountain people. Classifying these complex systems and organising them along a gradient of management intensification is a difficult task; although a loose grouping along such a gradient provides a useful framework for discussing the complexity of the agroecosystem and its functional linkages (Figure 2). At one extreme are the casually managed

Descriptive (social and/or ecological)

Process-linked (socio-ecological)

Ecological units – Species to landscapes

Socially valued species to landscape – structure and function

Natural and human-managed ecosystem typologies and linked societal benefits

Selective process in space and time

Species organisation in natural and human-managed ecosystems

Food/medicinal species

Socially valued species/functional groups of species

Ecological attributes of species/functional groups of species

Cultural

Socioeconomic

Social

anthropologic

Figure 1: Interdisciplinary approaches centred on traditional ecological knowledge


85

systems such as shifting agriculture in the north-eastern Himalayan region (Ramakrishnan 1992a; Ramakrishnan et al. 2006), whereas at the other extreme are intensely managed cropping or plantation systems, such as those in the mountain areas of the Western Ghats (Ramakrishnan et al. 2000), with systems under varying degrees of management falling in between. Of the four theoretical formulations of possible patterns of biodiversity changes under management intensity gradients, Curve IV is now being accepted as the pattern contributing to agroecosystem complexity, stability, and resilience linked to productivity (Swift et al. 1996). Realising that agrobiodiversity is the key to agroecosystem resilience, working at middle levels of intensity in management (at which level there is a decline in agrobiodiversity) as the critical area for sustainable management of agriculture with concerns for optimising production from the systems (Swift et al.1996).

It should be possible, then, to have at least two additional pathways for agriculture apart from high input modern agriculture: (a) improving the traditional through incremental change and (b) restoration through the contour pathway where the emphasis is on adjusting development models to the ecological contours that exist in the landscape (Swift et al. 1996). With land degradation and declining yield setting in under modern agriculture, this too needs buffering mechanisms in place within the soil system to counter the ill effects arising from modernisation What these pathways imply in real terms is best illustrated through the following specific development examples.

CURVE I & CURVE II are extreme possibilities.CURVE III is a softer version (ecologists’ expectations).CURVE IV is more probable and interesting.

Unmanaged system (forest grassland)

Casual management (shifting cultivation, nomadic pastoralism home gardens)

Low intensity management (traditional compound farm, rotational, fallow traditional agroforestry)

Middle intensity management (horticulture, pasture mixed farming traditional cash cropping)

High intensity management (crop rotation, multi-cropping, alley cropping, intercropping)

Modernism (plantations and orchards, intensive cereal and vegetable production)

IV II

III

I

Figure 2: Agroforestrysystemsgroupedalongagradientofmanagementintensification


86

The incremental pathway

Casually-managed systems or those with low-intensity management levels, such as shifting agriculture, need developing, largely through TEK inputs, building up step by step with traditional technological inputs and by bringing in inputs based on formal knowledge to a minimum extent. The redevelopment initiative known as ‘Nagaland Environmental Protection and Development’ , briefly referred to as NEPED, in Nagaland, established with funding from the India-Canada Environmental Facility, is the best example of this pathway (Ramakrishnan 2008a). Briefly, an attempt at sustainable tree fallow management was made; selection of tree species was based on community perceptions, choosing socially-valued trees that have an ecological keystone value: a generalisation of TEK that we arrived at earlier (Ramakrishnan et al. 1998). Such an approach to the selection of species ensures community participation in fallow management to prevent land degradation, rather than leaving it to nature (Ramakrishnan 1992a, b). With the involvement of over 35 ethnic groups living in Nagaland, it became imperative to integrate traditional, institutional arrangements with modern institution building through elective processes, and this ensured community participation to the fullest degree.

The contour pathway

This concept emphasises adaptive management of agricultural systems through models constructed to fit into the given ecological contours. A whole variety of sedentary agroforestry and alley cropping systems fall into this category, and model construction may use more inputs based on formal knowledge than the incremental pathway with TEK-based inputs supplementing these only as required. Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT), developed for mountain agriculture in the Philippines, would fall into this category. Land is prepared on terraces and annual and perennial crops are planted in three to five bunds between double rows of nitrogen-fixing perennial trees and shrubs planted on contours (Partap and Watson 1994). This technology, although designed to fit into mountain ecological contours, has had little acceptance elsewhere, or in the Himalayan region, for reasons that are socioecological: (i) farmers with uncertain land tenure do not want to cover an entire hill slope; (ii) often landholdings are small and fragmented; (iii) few farmers can afford the heavy investment involved in site preparation and management; and (iv) many traditional farmers are not ready to accept drastic changes in land use systems based on formal knowledge. This technology, however, was adapted to the local value system in the Central Himalayan context, and was integrated on a pilot scale into their traditional rotational farming practices as redeveloped agroforesty system models using socially-valued tree species (Ramakrishnan et al. 2005a).

Modern agriculture

With its high-energy inputs, modern agriculture stands apart as an artificial entity of monoculture in a landscape devoid of much tree cover. It has proved to be detrimental to modern agriculture itself; for example, in the Indian context, and hence the efforts to bring tree cover into the landscape


87

through agro- and rural forestry programmes to restore soil health (Singh et al. 1994). Buffering mechanisms at the landscape level are ensured through sustainable organic residue management, the objective being to counter the ill effects of excessive use of chemicals. Such an approach to improving biodiversity above ground will enhance the biodiversity below ground and has implications for sustainable soil fertility management. In this endeavour, if TEK-based socially-valued trees and shrubs are used, community participation is ensured.

The ‘FBO’ (Fertilisation Bio-organique dans les Plantations de Thé) or ‘Bioorganic Fertilization for Tea Plantations’), developed by a group of Indian and French scientists under the leadership of Professors B. Senapati and Patrick Lavelle as part of an ongoing international initiative on tropical soil biology and fertility (TSBF), has promoted sustainable soil health (Ramakrishnan et al. 2005b). The steps taken towards sustainable management of soil health through organic residue management have led to a reduction in fertilizer inputs to between 30-50% in the tea gardens of the Western Ghats of southern India, resulting in increased productivity and an improvement in the quality of tea (Senapati et al. 2002). This patented technology has now reached Chinese shores. What is significant is that the success of such an ecosociological approach towards organic residue management could be monitored for soil health through earthworm species identified and of ecological keystone value to the soil.

Sustainable forestry in a mountain landscape

Foresters have always managed forests exclusively based on formal silvicultural knowledge, although in recent times community participatory approaches are gaining acceptance as a result of concerns about sustainability. Arising from this consideration, the approach now is to strengthen forestry practices by integrating TEK based on community perceptions. Socially-valued and ecologically significant keystone species form the basis for participatory community forest management. Early successional species, such as Nepalese alder or bamboo species in north-east India (Ramakrishnan 1992a) and common agroforestry systems linked to early successional tree species and late successional oak species in the central Himalayas (Ramakrishnan et al. 1998), have been shown to be socially or culturally-valued species of ecological keystone value. The ecological keystone value often can be linked to their role in sustainable soil fertility and nutrient cycling processes. TEK linked with tree-based agroforestry management was integrated with the forest architecture desired based upon the formal analysis of tree growth: the effort involved a mix of socially-valued, early successional tree species along with late successional species to derive a compatible set of species brought together to enable ‘condensed forest succession’ (Ramakrishnan 1992a).

Such a TEK-based approach to forestry management enables rapid and sustainable replenishment of soil fertility and nutrient cycling management within the forest ecosystem. Such an approach of linked knowledge systems integrated into soil-water management through reviving traditional technologies where available, and/or through inexpensive, modern water-harvesting technologies,


88

Sustainable livelihood/development

Improved community participation

Improved sub-soil recharge

Water management (TT)

Biodiversity changes

Oak regeneration (TEK)Bamboo regeneration

Improved livelihood

Increased biodiversity

Agro ecosystem redevelopment

Improved soil fertility

would bring manifold ecological benefits (Figure 3). In turn, this has implications for food security and the availability of fodder, fuelwood, and non-timber forest products (NTFPs), which are of economic benefit to the local people in many situations in which landscapes are already degraded to a great extent, and socially protected ‘sacred groves’ as relict ecosystems can form the learning ground for ecosystem restoration. There are over a thousand sacred groves in the Indian region alone, including one in the desertified Cherrapunji region (Ramakrishnan 1992a). This is illustrative of the value of sacred groves for the restoration of degraded lands.

What does all this imply? We need to take a good look at our forestry practices and conservation issues and integrate silvicultural issues with ecological and sociocultural considerations (Ramakrishnan 1992b) for sustainable forestry (Figure 4).

Figure 3:BenefitsofintegratingTESsystemsintosoil/watermanagement


89

Silviculture

Social-economicsand culturalEcological

Tropicalforest

management

Conclusions

With external pressures leading to rapid deforestation and land degradation (Indian National Science Academy et al. 2001), and with modern societies trying to impose development pathways that are alien to the value systems of mountain people, conflict situations are emerging in many parts of the world. Linking cultural diversity with biological diversity through TEK as a tool for sustainable development could help conserve or restore the cultural landscapes that mountain people treasure. Indeed, we have shown that knowledge systems (the traditional linked with the formal in an appropriate way) form an important tool for ensuring human security (Ramakrishnan 2008c). Human conflicts will only be exacerbated in the context of rapidly emerging ‘global change’ in an ecological sense (Sala et al. 1999) and economic ‘globalisation’ (Dragun and Tisdell 1999). Traditional and marginalised mountain societies in the developing world will be among those that suffer the most. Indeed, such considerations form an important basis for the renewed emphasis on TEK for sustainable forestry through the initiative of the International Union of Forest Research Organisations (IUFRO) and for the emerging initiative of the International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP) on ‘Knowledge systems, societal learning, and sustainability’, both of which are relevant to address the rapidly emerging environmental uncertainties.

Figure 4: Integrating silvicultural issues with ecological and sociocultural considerations


90

References

Dragun, AK; Tisdell, C (eds) (1999) Sustainable agriculture and environment: Globalization and the impact of trade liberalisation. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar

Indian National Science Academy; Chinese Academy of Sciences; U.S. National Academy of Sciences (eds. Wolman, MG; Ramakrishnan, PS; George, PS; Kulkarni, S; Vashishtha, PS; Shidong, Z; Qiguo, Z; Yi, Z; Long JF; Rosenzweig, C; Solecki, W) (2001) Growing populations, changing landscapes: Studies from India, China and the United States. Washington DC: National Academy Press

Maurer, M; Holl, O (eds) (2003) Naturals Politikum. Vienna: Rosa-Luxemburg-Institute

MEA (2005) (Coordinating lead authors: De Groot, D; Ramakrishnan, PS); (Lead authors: van de Berg, A; Kulenthran, T; Muller, S; Pitt, D; Wascher, D; Wijesuriya, G); (Contributing authors: Amelung, B; Eliezer, N; Ram Gopal, A; Rössler, M) (2007) ‘Cultural and amenity services’. In Conditions and trends assessment: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, pp455-476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Partap, T; Watson, HR (1994) Sloping agricultural land technology (SALT): A regenerative option for sustainable mountain farming, ICIMOD Occasional Paper No. 23. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Ramakrishnan, PS (1992a) ‘Shifting agriculture and sustainable development: An interdisciplinary study from North-Eastern India’. Man and Biosphere book series 10, Paris: UNESCO; Lancs: Parthenon Publishing (Republished in 1993 by New Delhi: Oxford University Press)

Ramakrishnan, PS (1992b) ‘Tropical forests: exploitation, conservation and manage ment’. In Special Issue on Environment and Development, Impact (UNESCO) 42: 149-162

Ramakrishnan, PS (2003) The sacred Ganga river-based cultural landscape. Museum International (Special Issue: The Sacred in an Interconnected World) 55: 7-17

Ramakrishnan, PS (2008a) Ecology and sustainable development: Role of knowledge systems. New Delhi: National Book Trust of India. (Revised edition of Ramakrishnan, PS 2001. Ecology and sustainable development. New Delhi: National Book Trust of India)

Ramakrishnan, PS (2008b) The cultural cradle of biodiversity. New Delhi: National Book Trust of India

Ramakrishnan, PS (2008c in press) ‘Linking knowledge systems for socio-ecologi cal security’. In Brauch, HG; Grin, J; Mesjasz, C; Krummenacher, H; Behera, NC; Chourou, B; Spring, UO; Kameri-Mbote, P (eds) Facing global environmental change: Environmental, human, energy, food, health and water security concepts. Germany: Peace Research and European Security Studies, AFES Press

Ramakrishnan, PS; Saxena, KG; Chandrasekhara, U (eds) (1998) Conserving the sacred: For biodiversity management (UNESCO Volume). New Delhi: Oxford & IBH

Ramakrishnan, PS; Chandrashekara, UM; Elouard, C; Guilmoto, CZ; Maikhuri, RK; Rao, KS; Sankar, S; Saxena, KG (eds) (2000) Mountain biodiversity, land use dynamics and traditional ecological knowledge (UNESCO Volume). New Delhi: Oxford & IBH

Ramakrishnan, PS; Boojh, R; Saxena, KG; Chandrashekara, UM; Depommier, D; Patnaik, S; Toky, OP; Gangawar, AK; Gangwar, R (2005a) One sun, two worlds: An ecological journey. New Delhi: UNESCO; Oxford: IBH


91

Ramakrishnan, PS; Swift, MJ; Saxena, KG; Rao, KS; Maikhuri, RK (2005b) Soil biodiversity, ecological processes and landscape management. New Delhi: UNESCO; Oxford: IBH

Ramakrishnan, PS; Saxena, KG; Rao, KS (2006) Shifting agriculture and sustainable development of North-East India: Tradition in transition. New Delhi: UNESCO; Oxford: IBH

Riba, M (2004) When the mist is lifted – a UNESCO sponsored documentary. Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh: Centre for Cultural Research and Documentation

Rossler, M (2001) Sacred landscapes: New perspectives in the implementation of the cultural landscape concept in the framework of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, A final report on UNESCO thematic expert meeting on Asia-Pacific Sacred Mountains, pp27-41. Paris: World Heritage Centre, UNESCO; Tokyo: Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan & Wakayama Prefectural Government

Sala, OE; Chapin III, FS; Gardner, RH; Lauenroth, WK; Mooney, HA; Ramakrishnan, PS; (1996) ‘Global change, biodiversity and ecological complexity’. In Walker, B; Steffen, W; Canadell, J; Ingram, J (eds) The terrestrial biosphere and global change: Implications for natural and managed ecosystems – synthesis volume, IGBP Book Series 4, pp304-328. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Senapati, BK; Naik, S; Lavelle, P; Ramakrishnan, PS (2002) ‘Earthworm-based technology application for status assessment and management of traditional agroforestry systems’. In Ramakrishnan, PS; Rai, RK; Katwal, RPS; Mehndiratta, S (eds) Traditional ecological knowledge for managing biosphere reserves in south and central Asia, pp139-160. New Delhi: UNESCO; Oxford: IBH

Shutkin, WA (2000) The land that could be: Environmentalism and democracy in the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge: MIT Press

Singh, P; Pathak, PS; Roy, MM (eds) (1994) Agroforestry systems for degraded lands, Volumes I & II. Jhansi: Range Management Society of India

Swift, MJ; Vandermeer, J; Ramakrishnan, PS; Anderson, JM; Ong, CK; Hawkins, B (1996) ‘Biodiversity and agroecosystem function’. In Mooney, HA; Cushman, JH; Medina, E; Sala, OE; Schulze, ED (eds) Functional roles of biodiversity: A global perspective, pp261-298, SCOPE Series. Chichester: John Wiley

Plenary Session IIIInstitutionalising Long-term Continuity in Mountain Research Programmes

5

5: Plenary Session III

95

Plenary Session III

Presentations on Institutionalising Long-term Continuity in Mountain Research Programmes

Hindu Kush-Himalayas – Current Status, Challenges and Possible Framework for the Conservation of BiodiversityProfessor Ram Prasad Chaudhary, Central Department of Botany, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal

Global Change and Mountain Regions: Research Strategy and its Implementation Dr Gregory Greenwood, Director, Décanat, Faculté des Géosciences et de l’Environnement, Switzerland

A Global Long-term Observation System for Mountain Biodiversity: Lessons Learned and Upcoming Challenges Professor Harald Pauli, GLORIA: The Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments, Department of Conservation Biology, Vegetation and Landscape Ecology, University of Vienna, Austria

Chair: Dr Uday R.SharmaRapporteur: Dr Mats Eriksson

Summary

Three presentations were made at the plenary session highlighting ‘current status, challenges, and possible framework’, the Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments (GLORIA) research framework, and the Global Change in Mountain Regions (GLOCHAMORE) and related research frameworks.

Discussion

The discussion became more of a question and answer session, with 11 questions posed to the presenters, to which they subsequently responded.

The issues touched upon largely revolved around the stakeholders who are, or will be, part of a more concerted long-term research programme. It is obvious that researchers themselves have the strongest stake, but several questions focused on the management level: what is the rationale for managers to become more closely involved in a mountain biodiversity agenda? It was concluded that the managers’ group is sometimes difficult to reach and more and improved efforts need to be


96

made. It was acknowledged that interest often follows funding: whenever funding is available the discussions and involvement of different groups are realised. The role of the beneficiaries was also discussed: who are they and how are they getting involved? One group of beneficiaries is at the grass-root level, and this brings the question of dissemination into focus: how are research results and new knowledge made available to those who are in need of them and can put them to use?

The session was summarised by the Chair, Dr Uday R. Sharma, who concluded with the following points.

Research should be structured•Research should be interdisciplinary in the HKH region and should be supported by •governments and local peopleDissemination of results is very important•How can the research be linked to livelihoods and poverty alleviation? What is in it for the •poor?How can interest and ownership at the national level be ensured? How interest and ownership •are ensured and how dissemination is taking place should be spelt out and highlighted.


97

Hindu Kush-Himalayas: Current Status, Challenges and Possible Framework for the Conservation of BiodiversityRam P. Chaudhary, Central Department of Botany, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal

Abstract

The Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH) region contains vast ice reserves. Livelihoods, agricultural productivity, and economic development in the HKH countries rely heavily on mountain runoff and the sustainable management of natural resources. The region has rich biological diversity of global significance; however, it also has a long list of problems. Changes occurring in this region are of relevance far beyond its borders. This presentation gives a glimpse of the status and major challenges facing the region and a possible framework for the conservation of biodiversity.

The HKH hosts four global biodiversity hotspots; 60 eco-region types; and 488 protected areas (PAs). It also has 1,106 Important Bird Areas (IBAs), and 53 Important Plant Areas (IPAs), although many important biodiversity areas fall outside PAs. The HKH is rich in endemic genera and species of angiosperms. Hotspots in the northeastern Himalayas of India harbour flowering plants of primitive families and genera, an active centre of speciation, and a cradle of flowering plants. In the HKH, there are approximately 25,000 species of angiosperm, 75,000 insects, and 1,200 birds in addition to the rich agrobiodiversity and wild relatives of crop plants. There is a considerable gap in our knowledge about biodiversity in the region, in particular about lower groups of plants and invertebrates.

Major challenges to biodiversity conservation at various levels in the HKH stem from inadequate policies and strategies; weak institutional, administrative, planning, and management capacities; inadequate data and information management; unsustainable harvesting of resources; and poverty. This paper presents a framework for plans and programmes that is based on the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD’s) target for 2010 and includes the challenges that have to be overcome. This paper also examines climate change in the context of the environmental and socioeconomic conditions of mountain and lowland people, which are not adequately understood. Long-term monitoring through systematic research on species’ richness in different eco-regions and along different gradients is proposed.

Transboundary poaching and illegal hunting continue within the countries of the region and across transboundary areas, despite laws protecting biodiversity. Harmonisation of laws and coordination among HKH member countries for transboundary conservation are seen as effective ways to control these problems.

Other specific challenges pertinent to member countries include the sustainable harvesting of biological resources, access to genetic resources and benefit sharing, sustainable tourism, livelihoods, pasture management, and human-wildlife conflict; and these could be managed through regional coordination


98

among member countries and good governance at the national level. The three objectives of the CBD: conservation, sustainable use, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits could succeed if legislation, governance, and society move forward in harmony.

Background

The Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH) region extends from the borders of Myanmar and China across northern India, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The mountains harbour vast reserves of ice, and livelihoods, agricultural productivity, and economic development depend heavily on runoff and flow from these ice fields and the sustainable management of natural resources. In terms of biodiversity, the region is among the richest globally: it has a high rate of endemism and is the centre of origin for many crops and livestock. The region is beset also by a long list of problems. What happens in the HKH in terms of change has ramifications far beyond the region. This presentation will give a brief account of the status and major challenges facing the region, and propose a possible framework for biodiversity conservation.

Status

The HKH covers 4,000,000 sq.km, is geologically young, and has a diverse topography typified by slope, altitude, exposure, microclimates, substrata, and climate (Ives et al. 2004). The region is known for ‘hotspots’ of biodiversity, which are unique and rich at the ecosystem, species, and genetic levels.

Biodiversity at ecosystem level

The HKH hosts four global biodiversity hotspots: the Himalayan hotspot, Indo-Burmese hotspot, the mountains of southwest China, and the mountains of Central Asia (Mittermeier et al. 2004). Similarly, among 60 eco-region types found within the HKH, 30 are critical and represent 12 of the Global 200 Eco-regions (Chettri et al. 2008). The prominent eco-regions within the HKH include the eastern Himalayan alpine meadows; Tibetan Plateau steppe; eastern Himalayan broadleaf and conifer forests; Terai-Duar Savannas and grasslands; western Himalayan temperate forests; and the Middle Asian montane woodland and steppe (Olson and Dinerstein 2002).

The region is endowed with many globally significant plant and animal species (Pei 1995) and endemic species. The Indo-Burmese hotspot alone is home to 13,500 plant species, 7,000 (51.9%) of which are endemic, and 2,185 vertebrate species, 528 (24%) of which are endemic species (Myers 2001). The eastern Himalayan alpine shrub and meadows along the Inner Himalayas support an estimated 7,000 plant species and are a distribution centre for taxa: Rhododendron, Androsace, Primula, Gentiana, Leontopodium, Meconopsis, Saxifraga, Sedum, Saussurea, Potentilla, Pedicularis, Viola, and so on. Similarly, the eco-region has about 100 mammal species such as the snow leopard (Uncia uncia), blue sheep (Pseudois nayur), and takin (Budorcas taxicolor) (www.worldwildlife.org – accessed on 10 June 2008).


99

The PAs in the HKH host a unique assemblage of biological diversity. In 2007, a total of 488 PAs were recorded with a wide spatial coverage of more than 1.6 million sq. km, representing about 39% of the region’s terrestrial area, with China, India, and Nepal contributing the most PAs (Chettri et al. 2008). Chettri et al. also analysed an increasing trend in the establishment of PAs within the HKH over the last three decades, i.e., from only 12 PAs in 1957, to 98 in 1977, and to 346 in 1997.

The programme on Important Bird Areas (IBAs) identified 1,106 IBAs in the eight member countries of the HKH, of which around 30% (330 IBAs) are within the HKH per se; however, 73% of the total IBAs in terms of area and 57% in terms of number are outside the existing PA network (Chettri et al. 2008).

Plantlife International and national partners in five countries (Bhutan, China, India, Nepal, and Pakistan) have provisionally recognised 53 Important Plant Areas (IPAs) for medicinal plants in the Himalayas, with a significant number of smaller sites at the local level (Hamilton and Radford 2007). A critical assessment of IPAs in terms of coverage of area and along the west-east and altitudinal axes, however, is yet to be undertaken for the entire HKH.

Another important aspect of biodiversity in the HKH is endemism. The region is rich in endemic genera and species of angiosperms. In Nepal, it is estimated that at least 500 (almost 8%) out of an estimated 7,000 species are endemic to Nepal; and in Bhutan as many as 750 species (15 %) of 5,000 species are endemic.

The northeastern Himalayan hotspot in India, along with the contiguous region of the Chinese provinces of Yunnan and Schezwan, is a refuge for flowering plants of primitive families and genera, an active centre of speciation, and a cradle for flowering plants (Takhtajan 1969). A study carried out by Behera et al. (2002) in the Subansiri district, Arunachal Pradesh (AP) in the eastern Himalayas revealed a predominance of five plant families (i.e., Rubiaceae, Lauraceae, Acanthaceae, Magnoliaceae, and Rosaceae), which accounted for 45.8% (27 species) of the total number of endemic species in AP. The same study concluded that the occurrence of many primitive families and genera is indicative of the long evolutionary age and affinities of the area with respect to species’ endemism.

Biodiversity of species and genetic diversity

The HKH lies at the crossroads of six floristic regions: the Central Asiatic in the north, Sino-Japanese in the east, Southeast Asia-Malaysian in the south-east, Indian in the south, Sudano-Zambian in the south-west, and Irano-Turanian in the west. As many as 25,000 species of angiosperms (10% of the global total), 75,000 insects (10% of the global total), and 1,200 birds (13% of the global total) are estimated to occur in the region (Jansky et al. 2002). The HKH is also rich in agrobiodiversity and wild relatives of crop plants (www.icimod.org).


100

There is a wide diversity of fauna in the region; for instance, in southwest China, there are as many as 2,175 species of vertebrates (70% of the total species in China), among which there are 340 mammals (60% of the total in China), 165 species of amphibians (75% of the total in China), and 229 reptiles (60% of the total in China) (www.icimod.org). The Eastern Himalayan Region is home to 163 globally threatened species, including Asia’s three largest herbivores – Elephas maxima, Rhinoceros unicornis, and Bubalus bubalis – and its largest carnivore, the tiger (Panthera tigris), as well as several birds such as vultures, adjutant storks, and hornbills (www.worldwildlife.org). A glance at plant and animal diversity in the HKH region by country is given in Table 1; however, there is a considerable gap in our knowledge about biodiversity, in particular about lower groups of plants and invertebrates. The figures need updating in the present context.

Table 1: A glance at plant and animal diversity in the HKH by country

Country Geographical area (sq. km)

Number of flowering plants & ferns

Birds Mammals Reptiles amphibians Fish

Afghanistan 652,090 4,500 389 119 2 6 2

Bangladesh 144,000 7,400 632 125 154 23 736

Bhutan 46,500 5,000 800 160 - - 197

China 9,596,960 29,700 572 499 1,186 380 279

India 2,387,590 17,000 1,200 350 453 182 -

Myanmar 676,577 7,766 967 300 241 75 -

Nepal 147,181 5,568 844 181 100 43 185

Pakistan 796,095 6,000 666 188 174 16 156

Source: Pei 1995

Challenges and a possible framework for biodiversity conservation

The major challenges to biodiversity conservation in the HKH are inadequate policies and strategies; weak institutional, administrative, planning, and management capacities; inadequate management of data and information; unsustainable harvesting of resources; and poverty. A possible framework with ultimate aims, goals, and challenges is given in Table 2.


101

Table 2: Possible framework for biodiversity conservation in the HKH

Ultimate aim: To develop an eco-referenced database on biodiversity in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas (HKH)

Ultimate goal: Institutionalising long-term continuity in mountain research programmes in the HKH

Level Challenges objective(s) approach/programmes

Global CBD target Monitoring tool for biodiversity trends in eco-regions/countries

Develop realistic, time-bound, measurable targets following 2010 target guidelines.

Climate change Better understanding of biodiversity

Develop, test, and demonstrate innovative analytical methods and tools through pilot studies.

Regional Transboundary poaching and illegal hunting

Long-term monitoring and cooperation among countries sharing transboundary landscapes

Develop connectivity of ecosystems and harmonise laws through regional collaboration.

National Sustainable harvesting of biological resources

Reduce unsustainable use of biological resources.

Develop good governance and management.

Access to genetic resources and benefit sharing (ABS)

Ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources.

Address ABS properly in legislation or as fundamental rights in the constitution.

Sustainable tourism Conservation of biological and cultural diversity and enhancement of socio-economic status

Develop social equity mechanisms to support local communities.

Local Livelihoods Enhance diversification of socio-economic activities

Develop strong linkages with processes operating at regional and global levels.

Pasture management Management of traditional pasture lands

Develop ways to minimise or avoid grazing pressure.

Human-wildlife conflict

Crop damage and livestock depredation

Develop joint training programmes.

Source: The author


102

CBD 2010 targets

Biodiversity is currently being lost at unprecedented rates. The losses are due to complex responses to human-induced and global changes (Jansky et al. 2002). To address this problem, representatives from 190 countries at the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) committed themselves to reducing the current rate of biodiversity loss as a contribution to poverty alleviation by adopting the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010 target (Balmford et al. 2005).

Steps towards developing global 2010 target indicators started in 2004 at the Conference of Parties (COP-7). Subsequently, in 2006, COP-8 adopted a framework for monitoring implementation of the achievements of 2010; and some are also linked to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In addition, the COP has also invited governments to develop measurable, time-bound, and outcome-oriented national and/or regional goals and targets, considering submissions from indigenous and local communities and other stakeholders and incorporating them into relevant plans and programmes.

For the member countries of the HKH, the challenges remaining ahead are to develop national goals, targets, and indicators and incorporate them in their Fourth Biodiversity National Report to be submitted to the CBD Secretariat by March 2009. It is being realised that “the governments have set the ambitious target of reducing biodiversity loss by the year 2010: the scientific community now faces the challenge of assessing the progress made towards this target and beyond” (Pereira and Cooper 2006).

Many countries in Europe (such as the UK) seem to be in a better position with respect to progress in developing targets and indicators (www.parliament.uk); countries in the HKH are less prepared. It would be preferable to aim at developing a national framework of goals and targets in a format similar to those adopted by the COP (UNDP/GEF 2008). Although each country may define timing and level of ambition to achieve time-bound, specific national targets according to their institutional capabilities, regional networking to achieve national targets would be most rewarding as biodiversity conservation in the HKH is in the process of interdependency.

Climate change

Mountain areas are highly sensitive to global climate change; however, from the scientific point of view they provide unique opportunities to detect, model, and analyse global change processes and their effects on the environmental and socioeconomic conditions of mountain and lowland people (Hofer 2005). Research programmes in the context of global change in mountain regions are particularly important (i) for generating and strengthening knowledge about the ecological and sustainable development of mountain ecosystems; (ii) for understanding the dynamics, functioning, and importance of providing a number of strategic goods and services essential to the wellbeing of


103

both rural and urban, highland and lowland peoples, particularly water supplies and food security; and (iii) for establishing a database devoted to mountains to capitalise on knowledge to support interdisciplinary research, programmes, and projects for improvement of decision making and planning (Hofer 2005).

Species’ richness

Species’ richness is a simple, but most widely used, measure of biodiversity (Whittakar et al. 2001) and acts as a surrogate measure for many other kinds of variation in biodiversity. Changes in species’ richness along altitudinal transects is, therefore, valuable in the study of global climatic change (Korner 2007). Biogeographic variation in species’ richness is essential to our understanding and conservation of biodiversity.

Monitoring changes in species’ diversity by considering indicators that represent species’ richness on three different spatial scales, such as local, landscape, and macro-scale, have been essential and are discussed by Whittaker et al. (2001). Weber et al. (2004) simplify and use the term local biodiversity for biodiversity within one type of habitat; landscape diversity for biodiversity in a given area with different types of habitats (habitat mosaics); and macro-scale diversity for regional biodiversity, i.e., biogeographic regions or countries.

Numerous studies have examined the relationships between the richness of plant species, as well as climate, spatial, and environmental variables such as size of area, latitude, elevation, precipitation, and evapotransportation. Species’ richness in the mountains is generally thought to decrease with latitude and elevation (Korner 2007); however, the pattern of change is found to be variable. Several studies have shown a monotonic decrease with altitude in vascular plant species (Austrheim 2002); others have found a hump-shaped relationship between the richness of vascular plant species and altitude (Grytnes and Vetaas 2002; Bhattarai and Vetaas 2003; Kharkwal et al. 2005) or non-random change with elevation (Carpenter 2005). Species’ richness is found to be significantly higher on north-facing than on the south-facing slopes in the dry inner valleys of the Trans-Himalayas of Nepal; and is determined by moisture and evapotranspiration (canopy and aspect) (Panthi et al. 2007).

Current knowledge is inadequate to predict climate change impacts on biodiversity, especially species in a narrow range in the HKH. It is suggested that long-term monitoring should be introduced through systematic research on species’ richness in different eco-regions in the HKH at altitudinal gradients and on both north (wetter) and south (drier) aspects. An ecosystem management approach is emerging between Bhutan, India, and Nepal in the Kanchenjunga landscape (Chettri et al. 2008).


104

Functional types

In past and recent years, considerable time, effort, and money have been spent on collecting biological specimens. Ecologists do not have ready access to datasets that allow them to assign plant species to functional types, i.e., biodiversity that provides goods and ecosystem services. Taxonomists can develop databases of specimens that combine taxonomic data at specimen level with physical data (variation among individuals) so that this information can be assigned to predict the sensitivity of plant species responding to climate change. This is one way to predict the species that will be under greatest threat in a range of climate change scenarios, and thus which vegetation types are most at risk (Pendry et al. 2007). Specimens are the link between functional types and taxa. Some promising information is available for parts of the HKH on the eFloras site (www.efloras.org); however, most floristic database systems operate at taxon level. Development of an integrated regional taxonomic and ecological database for in-depth understanding of ecosystem functions and tackling climate issues would be more useful than a database on the basis of species per se.

Transboundary poaching and illegal hunting

Most countries in the Himalayan region have laws for biodiversity conservation and have adopted the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), implementing their international obligations in their national laws; yet wildlife are still poached for trade within countries and across transboundary areas (Li et al. 2000).

The traded species include medicinal plants, animal species, and wildlife products used for food, medicine, and pets. Illegal trade in the Himalayan region is relatively active across the Sino-Nepal, Sino-India, and Sino-Pakistan borders, threatening the survival of many endangered species. The main species involved in trade include an endemic Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii) used for Shatoosh wool and skin, an endangered animal the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) used for its skin, the Saker falcon (Falco cherrug), and the hill myna (Gracula religiosa): the latter two are kept as pets (Li et al. 2000).

The degree of protection accorded to endangered plant and animal species differs from country to country. In China, the penalty for illegal hunting and trade in the giant panda is very high, from imprisonment to death. Legislation alone, however, will not solve the problem of illegal wildlife trade, because in many instances national laws are not fully enforced. Harmonisation of laws (Li et al. 2000) and coordination among HKH member countries for transboundary conservation (Chettri et al. 2008) could be effective ways of controlling transboundary poaching and illegal hunting.


105

Sustainable harvesting of biological resources

A majority of people in the HKH depend on biological resources, mainly non-timber forest products (NTFPs) (medicinal plants, bamboo, and mushrooms) for sustenance as well as economic development. Unsustainable harvesting, however, has reduced the quantity and quality of many NTFPs in the wild in the HKH (HMGN/MFSC 2002).

Studies have proved that many major natural resource management crises are in badly governed countries, because correlation exists between bad governance and bad resource management. Good governance management appears to be much more likely in countries with stronger economies and effective democratic processes (Sayer and Campbell 2004).

Access to genetic resources and benefit sharing (ABS)

Access to genetic resources and sharing of benefits (ABS) can be a major force in: (i) the conservation of the knowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous communities that possess in-depth knowledge about the ecology and economy of plant species and (ii) the emergence of institutions and governance structures that are essential for sustainable use of biological resources. Rules and regulations regarding fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources have been weakly addressed by countries in the HKH. The ABS process will remain incomplete unless the social and economic wellbeing of people and governance issues related to the same are addressed. For a country like Nepal, which is writing a new constitution, ABS should be endorsed as a fundamental right of indigenous people who are strongly dependent upon the availability and sustainable use of biological resources for their livelihoods.

Sustainable tourism

Tourism based on nature and culture is becoming increasingly popular in the HKH. Bhutan, with a natural environment relatively intact, has great potential to benefit from this growing demand. Ecotourism incomes should be used to support the conservation of biocultural diversity and enhance the socioeconomic status of local communities through social equity, as in the case of Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal.

Livelihoods

Mountain people have a holistic view of the eco- and societal systems and their relationship with nature is based on coexistence rather than competition (Ramakrishnan 2005). The livelihoods of the inhabitants of the HKH are dependent upon existing processes and activities, namely: (a) glacier retreat and water management; (b) agricultural practices and animal husbandry, tourism, trade, and migration; and (c) traditional knowledge and intellectual property rights. The above processes interact with each other and have strong linkages with processes operating at regional and global


106

levels. For example, the people of Manang (Trans-Himalayas) achieved success not by avoiding the process of globalisation, but by linking up to the process (Chaudhary et al. 2007).

Pasture management

In the HKH region, traditional pasture lands near the treeline are common and used by villagers as common property for grazing, with little or no consideration of carrying capacity. Current predictions suggest that the effects of warming will be minimal only in the tropics and maximum at high altitude (Korner 2007). Two issues are pertinent to pasture management. The first issue is related to overgrazing by livestock on high-altitude grasslands, often leading to the dominance of unpalatable species (Ranunculus, Anemone). The second issue is about indications of future climate change where a shift to warmer habitats would lead to the extension of the xerophytic vegetation types, which, at best, offer browsing for goats, but little for sheep and bovines.

Human-wildlife conflict

Livestock depredation and crop damage by wildlife are two areas of concern that are now emerging as the main problems encountered by local communities in the HKH. In Bhutan, crop damage by wild animals is ranked as one of the biggest problems faced by most rural communities. Another problem that seems to be on the rise is livestock depredation by wild animals such as tigers, leopards, wild dogs, bears, and snow leopards. While people are (environmentally) conscious, their main source of livelihood is severely affected by their tolerance of wildlife. Joint training programmes need to be developed between governments and communities to resolve human-wildlife conflict.

Conclusion

Biodiversity monitoring requires reliable information on status, condition, conservation value, and trends of biodiversity at different levels from a broad, global or continental context, to comparisons of landscapes within defined regions, and comparisons of stands within and among regions. There is a considerable gap in knowledge, not only about biotic wealth in the HKH-region, but also about the distribution and composition of communities and ecosystems. Long-term systematic research at all levels representing varied eco-regions along gradients in the HKH is needed to generate the knowledge to predict climate change. The information documented should be reproducible and statistically sound for easy communication to a broad range of stakeholders such as politicians, planners, and policy makers.

To fulfil the commitments of the CBD, it is suggested that biodiversity indicators are developed to assess national performance and monitor the status and trends of biological diversity. Biodiversity indicators also provide feedback for continual improvement of biodiversity management programmes.


107

Regional coordination among member countries of the HKH could be an effective way of implementing transboundary conservation and ensuring the sustainable use of resources; while good governance and political stability would strengthen the implementation of biodiversity programmes at the national and field levels.

The three objectives of the CBD: conservation, sustainable use, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits can be achieved if legislation, governance, and societies move forward in harmony.

References

Austrheim, G (2002) ‘Plant diversity pattern in semi-natural grasslands along an elevation gradient on southern Norway’. Plant Ecology 161: 193-205

Balmford, A; Bennun, L; ten Brink, B; Cooper, D; Côté, IM; Crane, P; Dobson, A; Dudley, N; Dutton, I; Green, RE; Gregory, RD; Harrison, J; Kennedy, ET; Kremen, C; Leader Williams, N; Lovejoy, TE; Mace, G; May, R; Mayaux, P; Morling, P; Phillips, J; Redford, K; Ricketts, TH; Rodríguez, JP; Sanjayan, M; Schei, PJ; van Jaarsveld, AS; Walther, BA (2005) ‘The Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2010 target’. Science 307:212-213

Behera, MD; Kushwaha, SPS; Roy, PS (2002) ‘High plant endemism in an Indian hotspot – Eastern Himalaya’. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 669-682

Bhattarai, KR; Vetaas, OR (2003) ‘Variation in plant species richness of different life forms along a subtropical elevation gradient in the Himalayas, east Nepal’. Global Ecology and Biogeography 12:327-340

Carpenter, C (2005) ‘The environmental control of plant species density on a Himalayan elevation gradient’. Journal of Biogeography, 32:999-1018

Chaudhary, RP; Aase, TH; Vetaas, OR; Subedi, BP (eds) (2007) Local effects of global changes in the Himalayas: Manang, Nepal. Kathmandu: Tribhuvan University; Bergen: University of Bergen

Chettri, N; Shakya, B; Thapa, R; Sharma, E (2008) ‘Status of a protected area system in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: An analysis of PA coverage’. International Journal of Biodiversity Science Management 4: 164-178

Grytnes, JA; Vetaas, OR (2002) ‘Species richness and altitude: A comparison between null models and interpolated plant species richness along the Himalayan altitudinal gradient, Nepal’. The American Naturalist 159 (3):294-304

Hamilton, AC; Radford, EA (2007) Identification and conservation of important plant areas for medicinal plants in the Himalaya. Salisbury: Plantlife International; Kathmandu: Ethnobotanical Society of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal

HMGN/MFSC (2002) Nepal biodiversity strategy. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Nepal

Hofer, T (2005) ‘Introduction: The International Year of Mountains challenges and opportunity for mountain research’. In Huber, UM; Bugmann, KM; Reasoner, MA (eds) Global change in mountain regions – An overview of current knowledge. Holland: Springer Science


108

Ives, JD; Messerli, B; Spiess, E (2004) ‘Mountains of the world: A global priority’. In Messerli, B; Ives, JD (eds) Mountains of the world: A global priority, pp1-15. London: Parthenon

Jansky, L; Ives, JD; Furuyashiki, K; Watanabe, T (2002) ‘Global mountain research for sustainable development’. Global Environmental Change 12: 231-239

Kharkwal, G; Mehrotra, P; Rawat, YS; Pangtey, YPS (2005) ‘Phytodiversity and growth form in relation to altitudinal gradient in the central Himalayan (Kumaun) region of India’. Current Science 89(5): 873-878

Körner, Ch (2007) ‘The use of ‘altitude’ in ecological research’. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22(11): 569-574

Li, YM; Gao, Z; Li, X; Wang, S (2000) ‘Illegal wildlife trade in the Himalayan region of China’. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 901-918

Mittermeier, RA, Gils, PR; Hoffman, M; Pilgrim, J; Brooks, T; Mittermeier, CG; Lamoreaux, J; Da Fonseca, GAB (eds) (2004) Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial eco-regions. Mexico City: CEMEX

Myers, N (2001) ‘Hotspots’. Encyclopedia of biodiversity, volume 3, pp371-381. London: Academic Press

Olson, D; Dinerstein E (2002) ‘The Global 200: Priority eco-regions for global conservation’. Annals of Missouri Botanical Garden 89: 199-224

Panthi, MP; Chaudhary, RP; Vetaas, OR (2007) ‘Plant species richness and composition in a trans-Himalayan inner valley of Manang district, central Nepal’. In Himalayan Journal of Sciences 4(6): 57-64

Pei, S (ed.) (1995) Banking on biodiversity: Report of the regional consultation on biodiversity assessment in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Pendry, CA; Dick, J; Pullan, MR; Knees, SG; Miller, AG; Neale, S; Watson, MF (2007) ‘In search of a functional flora: Towards a greater integration of ecology and taxonomy’. Plant Ecology 192: 161-167

Pereira, HN; Cooper, HD (2006) ‘Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change’. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21(3): 123-129

Ramakrishnan, PS (2005) ‘Mountain biodiversity, land use dynamics and traditional ecological knowledge’. In Huber, UM; Bugmann, HKM; Reasoner, MA (eds) Global change and mountain regions, pp551-561. Holland: Springer Science

Sayer, JA; Campbell, BM (2004) The science of sustainable development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Takhtajan, AL (1969) Flowering plants, origin and dispersal. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd

UNDP/GEF (2008) Towards 2010. A guide to carrying out national assessment of progress towards the 2010 biodiversity target: Setting targets and preparing the fourth national reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity – Draft for Discussion at CBD COP9. New York: Convention on Biological Diversity and United Nations University/Institute of Advanced Studies


109

Weber, D; Hintermann, U; Zangger, A (2004) ‘Scale and trends in species richness: Considerations for monitoring biological diversity for political purposes’. Global Ecology and Biogeography 13: 97-104

Whittaker, RJ; Willis, KJ; Field, R (2001) ‘Scale and species richness: Towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity’. Journal of Biogeography 28: 453-470

Weblinks

WWF (US) www.worldwildlife.org

WWF International www.wwf.org and www.panda.org

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development www.icimod.org

UK Parliament www.parliament.uk

eFloras.org www.efloras.org


110

Global Change and Mountain Regions: Research Strategy and its ImplementationGregory B. Greenwood, Director, Mountain Research Initiative, Institute of Geography, University of Berne, Switzerland

What is the GLOCHAMORE strategy?

The GLOCHAMORE (Global Change and Mountain Regions) Research Strategy (Björnsen Gurung 2005) was the product of a Specific Support Action managed jointly by the University of Vienna and the Mountain Research Initiative (MRI) under the European Union’s (EU) Sixth Framework Programme on ‘Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems’. The goal of the project was a state-of-the art integrated and implementable research strategy to gain a better understanding of the causes and consequences of global change in mountain regions.

The GLOCHAMORE strategy was developed through a series of workshops structured around the four main elements of the MRI as described in MRI’s founding report (Becker and Bugmann 2001):

monitoring and analysis of indicators (Grabherr et al. 2005),•integrated model-based studies (Bugmann et al. 2007),•process studies along gradients (Becker et al. 2007), and•approaches to sustainable development (Price et al. 2006).•

Workshop reports available on the MRI website give more detail about each of these workshops.

The strategy was also developed with the participation of managers from 28 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation’s (UNESCO’s) Mountain Biosphere Reserves (MBRs) around the world. The work programme of the project expected that the strategy would be implemented in European MBRs, and it foresaw the potential implementation in MBRs on other continents.

MBRs were a logical focus of the GLOCHAMORE strategy as their very structure exemplifies the environmental issues currently facing humanity. As the global population more than tripled from 1.65 billion in 1900 to 6 billion in 2000 (UN 2004), conservation shifted from its traditional emphasis on the protection of reserve areas to a concern with the sustainable use of resources under human stewardship. Biosphere reserves mirror these concerns through a structure with:

“... three elements: one or more core areas, which are securely protected sites for conserving biological diversity, monitoring minimally disturbed ecosystems, and undertaking non-destructive research and other low-impact uses (such as education);


111

a clearly identified buffer zone, which usually surrounds or adjoins the core areas, and is used for cooperative activities compatible with sound ecological practices, including environmental education, recreation, ecotourism, and applied and basic research; and a flexible transition area, or area of co-operation, which may contain a variety of agricultural activities, settlements and other uses and in which local communities, management agencies, scientists, non-governmental organizations, cultural groups, economic interests and other stakeholders work together to manage and sustainably develop the area’s resources.” (Seville Strategy 1995)

Thus, MBRs are meant to both conserve nature and to allow wise use, while, most important from a research perspective, providing a laboratory to understand and to innovate.

The strategy itself is organised into ten disciplinary headings, each of which has one to several themes, totalling 41 themes. Each theme under each heading has a rationale, a specific research goal, and a set of specific actions.

The strategy emphasises that disciplinary research must occur within the context of the terrestrial system. The themes are clearly recognisable to scientists from those disciplines. But the organisation of themes under headings reflected an Earth system approach, starting with drivers, principally climate and land use change, proceeding to biophysical systems, such as the cryosphere and ecosystems, then to ecosystem services, such as biodiversity and natural resources, and concluding with socioeconomic concerns. This approach is congruent with the ‘whole system’ approach of the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP: Amsterdam Declaration 2001) and the Science Plan of the joint International Geosphere Biosphere Programme’s and International Human Dimensions Programme’s (IGBP/IHDP) Global Land Project (GLP 2005), but emphasises the coupled human-Earth system on the scale of mountain regions rather than on the scale of the entire planet.

The strategy also recommends a transdisciplinary approach. The strategy recognises that, as a global community statement, it is an archetypal list of themes, only a few of which are necessarily compelling in a given mountain region. Identifying those themes that are most compelling in a given setting requires working with stakeholders in those environments. A survey of MBR managers (Greenwood 2005) showed considerable variation in the ranking of different issues and highlighted several issues that the scientific community had not recognised as important. Stakeholder participation in defining research priorities will not only make the research more relevant but will also build a constituency for its use in decision making.

The change in emphasis from the four-element approach to the 41 themes under 10 headings was meant to promote implementation. While the methodological approach of the MRI founding report is undoubtedly correct, there are few constituencies that identify themselves using those descriptions – with the possible exception of monitoring. On the other hand, there are many more constituencies that identify themselves by theme or by place. Thus, by expressing the strategy in terms of specific


112

disciplines brought together in the context of a mountain-region-centric Earth systems’ approach, MRI hoped to facilitate implementation.

What would successful implementation of GLOCHAMORE look like?

One vision of the successful implementation of the GLOCHAMORE strategy would be a network of mountain research sites around the world where research on some or all of the GLOCHAMORE themes is pursued in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary manner. Such networks would at once provide locally-relevant research, which could inform resource management at each site, as well as providing comparisons and contrasts of results across sites to improve understanding of how mountain environments respond worldwide to drivers of global change. It would be more than an observing system; it would rather be a network of field stations implementing a common research strategy.

While this vision of success seems unassailable, it is important to realise that many global change research programmes have quite different, implicit visions of success. The overarching logic guiding the ESSP is that of the Earth system:

“The unified set of physical, chemical, biological and social components, processes and interactions that together determine the state and dynamics of Planet Earth, including its biota and its human occupants.” (http://www.essp.org/index.php?id=10&L=en)

The individual programmes that compose the ESSP are, with the exception of the integrated regional studies, not place-based, but rather focused on some subsystem of the terrestrial system (e.g., carbon or water cycles, human security, the role of institutions). Success is, therefore, logically measured in terms of research programmes in these specific domains. To the degree that places even exist within this subsystem, they are less important as places, and more important as replicates useful for illuminating the underlying science questions in the programmes’ research plans.

Achieving success – creating a global network of research sites – is a daunting proposition. Without significant funding dedicated specifically to the formation of such a global change research network (GCRN), it is impossible to arrive at this vision of success directly. Rather one must use existing programmes, each with its own constraints and visions of success, to move, usually obliquely, toward the vision.

A prime example of such a programme is the project entitled Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments (GLORIA) (Grabherr et al. 2000), in which a standard methodology is applied worldwide in such a way that one can make firm statements about the rates of change in alpine plant communities in specific regions while building up datasets that will allow comparisons across sites. Other projects, such as the Mountain Invasion Research Network (MIREN: Deitz et al.


113

2006) and the Cordillera Forest Dynamics Network, are similar efforts to develop methodologies related to a specific theme and to employ them at sites around the world.

GLORIA and MIREN are clear successes in their own terms, and important steps towards a more complete understanding of impacts of global changes in the mountains. They are not in themselves, however, complete interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary research programmes. An interim measure of success might be just more GLORIA-like programmes, which could, if they were ever applied in the same place, eventually be hooked together to create a Global Change Research Network (GCRN).

What has been the history of GLOCHAMORE implementation by MRI?

Europe

At the outset, MRI attempted to use place rather than discipline as an organising paradigm. Shortly after the publication of the GLOCHAMORE strategy, MRI invited scientists and managers associated with the European MBRs that had participated in the GLOCHAMORE project to attend a meeting in Zürich on 3-4 May 2006, to translate the GLOCHAMORE strategy into a programme appropriate for Europe. The assumption underlying this approach was that the issues related to global change were owned more completely by MBR managers than by disciplinary scientists. These managers would, therefore, have an interest in promoting interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research programmes in their MBRs and in linking these programmes together into a network.

The hoped-for launch of a global change research network in the European mountains did not, however, ensue from this meeting. There are many reasons for this outcome, not least of which might have been an insufficient number of both managers and researchers at the meeting.

Nonetheless, the assumption that MBR managers were central to the implementation may also have been simply wrong. Some MBRs had long, rich histories of research, and it is plausible that those managers saw no particular benefit to them or their constituencies in ‘standardising’ research at their sites to some international standard. In other sites, research was but one of many management concerns, usually of lower priority than other issues. In yet others, the sites were managed by researchers and, therefore, had no administrative apparatus through which stakeholders could make their concerns manifest. Thus, while MBRs remained quite logical sites for global change (GC) research, their management did not prove to be a useful starting point for such research.

Thereafter, MRI took quite a different approach, one focused on scientists, regardless of their affiliation with place, and on funding. MRI announced another meeting for 1-2 February 2007 on global change in the European mountains, but this time with a subtitle emphasising funding through


114

the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP7). Furthermore, it made no assumptions regarding an optimal structure for implementation, but rather asked researchers how they wished to proceed. This meeting drew ten times as many participants as the earlier meeting with most of the participants paying their own travel costs.

Subsequent to this launch of MRI Europe, MRI was able to provide a coordinator for the network. This coordinator was instrumental in maintaining the momentum of the network through subsequent thematic and networking conferences in October 2007 and April 2008, and by launching a new, related effort for global change research in the Carpathians.

The Americas

MRI had similar experiences on other continents. MRI co-sponsored the Conference on Corporate Research and Development’s (CONCORD’s) ‘Climate Change – Organising the Science for the American Cordillera’ meeting in Mendoza, Argentina, on 4-6 April 2006, a very well-attended meeting on scientific issues related to climate change in the mountains of the Western Hemisphere.

The CONCORD meeting took place against a background of ongoing networking among researchers interested in global change in the North American mountain region reflected in the Consortium for Integrated Climate Research in Western Mountains (CIRMOUNT 2006), with its Mountain Climate Sciences’ Symposium in California in May 2004, and subsequent MTNCLIM (mountain climate) meetings in Montana, Oregon, and Colorado. The network was generally one of disciplinary researchers, albeit with interdisciplinary interests, although among its principal members were researchers from the United States Geographical Survey (USGS) bound together by the Western Mountain Initiative, a project that included multiple sites in the American West.

Immediately following the meeting, MRI sponsored a one-day workshop on the potential for an American Cordillera Transect (ACT), uniting managers and scientists associated with 24 sites along the length of the Cordillera (map, http://mri.scnatweb.ch/networks/mri-amercian-cordillera/cordillera-transect-sites-map.html). The workshop elicited considerable interest in the formation of six working groups on scientific themes. One of those working groups, the Cordillera Forest Dynamics Network, has progressed well, while another on hydrological and meteorological monitoring made initial progress. The others stalled.

MRI did not have the funding to provide administrative support to the ACT, and none of the American participants rose to the challenge of organising it. A survey in 2007 still showed a considerable interest in the ACT on the part of the participants in Mendoza. Consultations with the senior partners in the CONCORD meeting indicated the necessity of a coordinator, and in 2008 MRI was able to entice an American academic of Latin American origin to assume that coordination role. The focus of coordination, however, has moved away from the ultimate goal of forming a network of sites to a more proximate objective of funding the development of a network


115

of researchers interested in the human dimensions of global change. This proximate objective aligns far better with the interests of the coordinator and with the disciplinary framework for funding than the original objective. It is hoped that success in organising the researchers will lead eventually to the replication of similar research at sites along the Cordillera and, finally, linkage of research into human dimensions with that on Cordillera forests and other topics.

Africa

MRI launched a Global Change Research Network for African Mountains (GCRN_AM) in Kampala, Uganda, in July 2007 at a conference that attracted 60 participants who were mostly from Africa and Europe. Much of the research portrayed there was strongly location-based. Subsequent discussions among participants have maintained this location-based orientation, with plans developed for a climate monitoring network in the Ethiopian Highlands, an interdisciplinary network of mountain research in the Republic of South Africa, and so on. Thus, in many ways, the African network is developing more closely along the lines of the original GLOCHAMORE plan than any of the other networks.

After its experience with the ACT, MRI decided to act as coordinator for the GCRN_AM, principally by contacting the principals through monthly conference calls and by periodic publication of a GCRN_AM newsletter.

Asia

In Asia, MRI has found essentially two separate global change research communities. The first is that associated with the Central and Northern Asian mountains, which is dominated by Russian speakers. The second is that of the ICIMOD nations focused on the Hindu Kush-Himalayas-Tibet with English and Chinese as the dominant languages.

MRI considered launching a Central and Northern Asian network in 2006, but found insufficient interest among potential participants to justify proceeding further at that point. The lack of a competent Russian speaker within MRI certainly contributed to this situation.

In Southern and Eastern Asia, MRI confronted an environment already rich in institutions and agendas. In early 2006, MRI encountered at least three relevant efforts in the region. First, MRI learned of Dr John Shroder (University of Nebraska) and retired US Ambassador to India, Harry Barnes, both of whom were working on the idea funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) of ‘peace through science’, particularly peace between Pakistan and India with the Siachen Glacier as a poignant example. Second, MRI was already aware of the Italian-sponsored SHARE-Asia effort (Stations at High Altitude for Research on the Environment), which was advocating increased monitoring, principally of atmospheric conditions, in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas.


116

Finally, MRI found the Monsoon Asia Integrated Regional Study (MAIRS), launched by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and endorsed by the ESSP, which had already established a Mountain Zone Component within its programme.

The MAIRS Science Plan (Fu et al. 2006) identified multiple stresses on ecosystems and biophysical resources in high mountain zones as one of four key issues within Monsoon Asia. Furthermore, the plan identified six priority research areas that will provide the focus for MAIRS research in the mountain zone:

hydrology and water availability,•ecosystems and biodiversity,•agriculture, forestry, and food security,•natural disaster management,•energy and transport, and•air quality and human health. •

Thus, given the rather extensive scoping already accomplished by MAIRS, which yielded results not dissimilar from those of GLOCHAMORE, MRI deemed it wise to collaborate with this existing programme, even though its vision of success (e.g., a network of interdisciplinary research sites in the mountains) had yet to be clarified.

MAIRS and MRI collaborated on a scientific planning workshop on the mountain zone held in Beijing in November 2006, which, among other things, brought the Shroder-Barnes effort into the MAIRS framework. Furthermore, it produced a research plan for the mountain zone (Manton and Ailikun 2007) that consisted of actions listed under 13 thematic disciplines.

One of these actions began with a hazards and cryosphere conference, hosted by ICIMOD in March 2008, but organised and underwritten with Shroder-Barnes US NSF funding. The meeting had strong representation from Nepal, Pakistan, and India, but little from China. It was interdisciplinary within the context of the cryosphere, but allocated little time for formal discussions among researchers on new research network projects.

Other mountain zone implementation actions of MAIRS included project proposals to the Asia-Pacific Network on climate change impacts on the cryosphere and hydrology, and another on simulating the impacts of climate change on agriculture using crop models.

It is unclear at this point if this approach will yield the kind of interdisciplinary research envisioned under the GLOCHAMORE strategy. While the MAIRS Mountain Zone effort has succeeded in generating some new mountain zone research, the research projects retain a disciplinary focus and are isolated from each other spatially.


117

What are the lessons learned from MRI’s activities?

The first take-home lesson is that interdisciplinary, location-based research is still, first and foremost, research. As such, researchers and scientists must be the focus of any implementation strategy. While resource and reserve managers are important stakeholders, and may even be willing to support research, they generally do not provide the impetus for research projects even in their own reserves, much less across a network of sites. Thus, the very first step in creating a network of sites is creating a network of scientists.

Creating a network of scientists is not a trivial task. In fact, much of the story of MRI has been the long, hard task of learning who is doing what where and making others in the community aware of their work: that is, in making actual the latent community of researchers on global change in mountain regions. The glib mandate to ‘convene the relevant researchers’ frequently masks ignorance about exactly who those researchers are – or could be: identifying them is a research effort in itself.

The second take-home lesson follows on largely from the first: that the principal vehicle by which research changes is a project proposal to a research funding agency. Activities such as conferences or the production of research plans may be important prerequisites, but concepts and pronouncements do little if they do not eventually find their way into a proposal for funding.

The search for funding is arguably a more effective means of convening researchers than even special conferences. It is not easy to assemble researchers around the academic exercise of crafting an interdisciplinary strategy, since that exercise frequently takes time away from the central work of the researcher. Injection of a chance for new funding changes, however, the discussion from academic to very real and, therefore, it becomes far more engaging.

The third take-home lesson is that one needs a coordinator to embody the ideal of interdisciplinary research, which neither disciplinary scientists nor research funding agencies will likely create on their own. While it is not impossible for researchers to coalesce into an international network (see GLORIA), those networks will almost invariably be disciplinary or thematic in nature. It is the theme or discipline that unites researchers across national boundaries. As noted earlier, it is rare that those associated with place – the managers and stakeholders – are sufficient by themselves to create an interdisciplinary research programme, even though their experiences embody the interdisciplinary nature of place. They are neither researchers themselves, nor do they necessarily think that research, as opposed to political action, will provide the solutions they seek.


118

What is the relevance of these take-home lessons for the ICIMOD biodiversity community?

This analysis suggests that there are at least two ways to proceed towards a biodiversity research programme that elucidates the likely outcomes of global changes. The first would be to pursue the kind of global change research network proposed by GLOCHAMORE, within which biodiversity would have its rightful place along with the other pressing issues associated with global change. This route would require a programme, that is, a coordinator focused on locating and engaging scientists along with managers and stakeholders associated with the sites and on incorporating the programme into funding proposals at the national and international levels.

The second route would focus uniquely on biodiversity issues and would rely on the expansion of existing programmes such as GLORIA and MIREN as well as the initiatives of the Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA) initiative. One could imagine a consortium of these programmes that would coordinate, as much as possible, the independently planned activities of the programmes. This approach essentially forces these programmes to deal with the take-home lessons noted above. While expanded and coordinated programmes such as these would certainly represent progress in terms of additional effort focused on biodiversity, one would not be assured of achieving either truly interdisciplinary research or a coherent joint network of sites.

References

Amsterdam Declaration (2001) www.essp.org/index.php?id=41&L=en

Becker, A; Bugmann, H (2001) Global change and mountain regions: The mountain research initiative. Stockholm: IGBP

Becker, A; Körner, C; Brun JJ; Guisan, A; Tappeiner, U (2007) ’Ecological and land use studies along altitudinal gradients’. Mountain Research and Development 27:58-65

Björnsen Gurung, A. (ed) (2005) The global change in mountain regions research strategy, UNESCO and MRI. Zurich: ADAG Press

Bugmann, H; Björnsen Gurung, A; Ewert, F; Haeberli, W; Guisan, A; Fagre, D; Kääb, A (2007) ‘Modeling the biophysical impacts of global change in mountain biosphere reserves’. Mountain Research and Development 27:66-77

CIRMOUNT Committee (2006) Mapping new terrain: Climate change and the America’s West. PSW Experiment Station. Albany (CA): USFS

Dietz, H; Kueffer, C; Parks, CG (2006) ‘MIREN: A new research network concerned with plant invasion into mountain areas’. Mountain Research and Development 26: 80-81

Fu, C; Penning de Vries, FWT; Ailikun; Chen, CTA; Lebel, L; Manton, M; Snidvongs, A; Virji, H (eds) (2006) The initial science plan of the Monsoon Asia integrated regional study. Bejing: MAIRS-IPO; IAP-CAS

GLP (2005) Science plan and implementation strategy, IGBP Report No. 53/IHDP Report No. 19. Stockholm: IGBP Secretariat


119

Grabherr, G; Björnsen Gurung, A; Dedieu, JP; Haeberli, W; Hohenwallner, D; Lotter, A; Nagy, L; Pauli, H; Psenner, R (2005) ‘Long-term environmental observations in moun tain biosphere reserves: Recommendations from the EU-project GLOCHAMORE’. Moun tain Research and Development 25: 376-383

Grabherr G; Gottfried M; Pauli H (2000) ‘GLORIA: A Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments’. Mountain Research and Development 20:190-192

Greenwood, G (2005) ‘What are the important global change themes and issues in mountain biosphere reserves?’ In Global change impacts in mountain biosphere reserves: Projecting global change impacts and sustainable land use and natural resources management in mountain biosphere reserves. Paris: UNESCO

Manton, M; Ailikun (2007) Report of the planning workshop on MAIRS mountain zone implementation. Beijing: MAIRS-IPO; IAP-CAS

Price, M; Björnsen Gurung, A; Dourojeanni, P; Maselli, D; (2006) ‘Social monitoring in moun tain biosphere reserves: Conclusions from the EU GLOCHAMORE Project’. Moun tain Research and Development 26:174-180

Seville Strategy (1995) www.unesco.org/mab/BRs/offDoc.shtml

UN (2004) The world at six billion. www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbillion.htm

(map, http://mri.scnatweb.ch/networks/mri-amercian-cordillera/cordillera-transect-sites-map.html)


120

A Global Long-term Observation System for Mountain Biodiversity: Lessons Learned and Upcoming ChallengesHarald Pauli1, Michael Gottfried2, Christian Klettner, Sonya Laimer and Georg Grabherr 1 Austrian Academy of Sciences – Mountain Research Unit: Man and the Environment, Vienna, Austria2 Department of Conservation Biology, Vegetation and Landscape Ecology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Introduction – the human impact

During the last two to three decades it has become increasingly obvious that anthropogenic environmental impacts have reached continental to global dimensions. Large-scale changes in land use practices, driven by technical progress, globalised economies, and demographic changes have been discernible on all continents. Climate warming is accelerating, and there is no doubt that human activity is one of the main contributors. Concomitantly, airborne or direct nitrogen deposits into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems lead to general eutrophication. An intensified global trade and traffic have reduced barriers to species’ distribution so that neobiota threaten regional biota and agricultural crops. Through these dramatic changes and impacts, a new era, the Anthropocene, appears to have started (Steffen et al. 2004). Even in remote places like mountain regions, we can observe a shift from nature-dominated to human-dominated environmental changes (Messerli 2006).

Sala et al. (2000) concluded from a comprehensive analysis that many of the anthropogenically caused environmental changes, although globally perceptible, have key drivers that deviate on a regional basis. In tropical forests and savannah ecosystems, as well as in the steppes and temperate biomes of the southern hemisphere, drastic changes and degradation have been caused mostly by land use activities. Biomes of the Mediterranean type (Mediterranean area, South West Australia, California, Chile, South Africa’s Cape Province) are particularly prone to invasion by neobiota. In densely populated areas of temperate regions, eutrophication from industry, settlements, and traffic is of special relevance. For the arctic tundra, boreal forests, and high mountain regions, impacts of climate warming have been identified as effective drivers of change in ecosystems.

In mountain regions and their surrounding areas, consequences of climate change, such as glacier retreat; changes in permafrost distribution, in snow regimes, and water discharge; and impacts on the biosphere, such as shifting species’ ranges and shifting ecotonal boundaries with an associated loss of biodiversity, are of particular relevance (Huber et al. 2005). The ecological services


121

provided by mountain ecosystems could become critically impaired, and would certainly change, through rapid climate warming.

The focus on mountain regions

Mountains became the focus of attention globally as a result of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 ( Messerli and Ives 1997). The demand for good model projections and an early warning system, as well as for research to derive an understanding of the fundamental processes of changes, has increased enormously. This is especially so in the case of ecological risk assessment, e.g., concerning loss of drinking water resources, increased erosion, increased incidence of catastrophic floods and avalanches, and the loss of biodiversity.

Research, thus, has increased in a number of mountain countries where different concepts were followed: a comprehensive integrative assessment of both ecological and socioeconomic systems that included transdisciplinary approaches was amongst the early assessments conducted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s Man and Biosphere Programme (UNESCO-MAB ) projects in Davos and Grindelwald (Switzerland) and Obergurgl (Austria) (Price 1995). On the other hand, targeted research programmes focussed on specific processes such as permafrost or changes in glaciers (Haeberli 1995).

Unlike in Arctic research, however, the emergence of a communicative international mountain research community appeared with some delay. The large research programmes, e.g., the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), DIVERSITAS, or the Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) did not focus on mountain environments – at least not in their early phases.

A major milestone towards forming an international scientific community was reached by the IGBP workshop at ICIMOD in Kathmandu in 1996 (Becker and Bugmann 2001) and a series of follow-up meetings led to the establishment of the Mountain Research Initiative (MRI) in 1998. In cooperation with MRI and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisations’ Man and the Biosphere (UNESCO MAB) programme, the European Union’s project Global Change and Mountain Regions (GLOCHAMORE) (Björnsen-Gurung 2006), a comprehensive ‘Global Change Research Strategy’ was developed. This strategy builds on four main research activities: (1) monitoring and analysis of indicators (Grabherr et al. 2005), (2) integrated model-based studies (Bugmann et al. 2007), (3) process studies along gradients (Becker et al. 2007), and (4) approaches to sustainable development (Price et al. 2006).

Around the turn of the millennium, two programmes or research networks targeting mountain biodiversity emerged: the Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA; Körner and Spehn 2002) and the Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments (GLORIA; Grabherr et al. 2000).


122

High mountain systems were recognised as global indicators for ecological consequences of global or climate change. High mountain areas, also known as the alpine life zone (Körner 2003), are defined here as the area from the upper climatic tree-line ecotone (or its substitute vegetation) upwards to the high-elevation limits of life. With increasing altitude, mountain biota are exposed to and governed by low temperature conditions. High mountain systems are distributed across all latitudes from tropical to polar zones, where a low temperature regime is a common feature. Moreover, at least the high elevation sites are little or not at all exposed to direct land use impacts, making them particularly suitable for studying the ecological effects of climate change.

In situ observation of ecological impacts induced by warming

The GLORIA programme is devoted to long-term monitoring of high mountain biodiversity and thus to activity 1 of the Global Change Research Strategy. GLORIA focuses on upward shifts and displacements of mountain plants induced by warming. Such changes have been observed already in several mountain systems (Grabherr et al. 1994; Sturm et al. 2001; Klanderud and Birks 2003; Kullmann 2004; Moiseev and Shiyatov 2003; Walther et al. 2005). In response, GLORIA developed a standardised monitoring method: the Multi-Summit approach consisting of observation sites in summit areas at different altitudes (Pauli et al. 2004). In the first implementation phase, the Multi-Summit approach was applied successfully in 18 mountain regions (target regions) across Europe in 2001 by a European Union research project. In each of these regions, several summit sites were aligned along an elevational gradient. (See www.gloria.ac.at for GLORIA’s monitoring objectives and rationale for using summit habitats and for a detailed method description.)

The site-based network since has expanded rapidly with target regions in New Zealand, Australia, the Americas, and in some regions of Asia. It extended further into Europe and, beyond expectations, experienced a rapid expansion in North and South America. Currently, it comprises more than 50 working groups in 61 target regions on five continents.

A global, site-based mountain biodiversity network – lessons learned and upcoming challenges

In the following passages we attempt to focus on the fundamental structure and organisation of the GLORIA network; and not only on its rapid progress, but also on the challenges to be solved.

A feasible approach and scientific requirements – a tradeoff?

Comparability, simplicity, and economy were the main considerations in designing GLORIA´s Multi-Summit approach. Focusing on the global distribution of the alpine life zone, the network is aligned along the fundamental climatic gradients: altitude, latitude, and longitude across the planet’s major biomes. Given the extensive area considered, a cost-saving and simple method with


123

low maintenance costs was a crucial requirement for a durably operating, global multi-site network. Therefore, the approach was based on the composition of species. Measuring mountain biodiversity will provide information not only on threats to particular species, but also will yield the best indicators of the integrity of mountain ecosystems (Körner 2002). Among the wide range of organism groups, vascular plants were favoured because they (1) occur over a wide range of climatically variable high mountain systems (from humid to arid regions); (2) often are specific to certain elevation belts; (3) are of fundamental relevance for ecosystem functioning; (4) can be readily recorded in the field (as sessile and macroscopic individuals); and (5) thus sufficient experts should be available for this organism group. Among climate variables, we use soil temperature as being of outstanding ecological importance, not only for the temperature regime itself but also for detecting the period of snow cover, and it can be measured relatively easily compared to, e.g., precipitation.

As such, the GLORIA network stands in contrast to comprehensive and costly integrated monitoring of ecosystems, such as those operated by the network of Long-term Ecological Research Network (LTER) sites. GLORIA’s focus on a large number of sites and on selected but highly-relevant features of mountain ecosystems (i.e., vascular plant diversity and temperature) thus provides a new component in long-term observation strategies. Through its simplicity, it not only has great potential for synergistic interaction with ecosystem monitoring (LTER), experimental and data-mining approaches (e.g., GMBA), modelling studies, but also for foci such as those on invasive species (Mountain Invasion Research [MIREN] network; Dietz et al. 2006), mountain ethnobotany (Salick et al. 2006), and on policy-relevant indicators of climate warming impacts (European Environment Agency 2007).

A common baseline structure – a common task to come together

The appearance of a new globally significant threat to biodiversity, such as climate warming, was the fundamental reason intensifying the need to come together for biologists concerned with the assessment of actual impacts on biodiversity and with developing an early warning system. The development of a simple but effective method of long-term monitoring that can even be applied in remote regions under expedition conditions, therefore, was an important requirement. GLORIA was filling a gap by providing a practicable methodology. Its wide acceptance is manifested by the rapid growth of the observation network. The urgent demand for setting a baseline of well-positioned and documented permanent plots became a common challenge of mountain ecologists around the world. The standardised and manageable GLORIA approach contributed a great deal to stimulating and reinforcing international exchange and cooperation, in particular among countries, institutions, and researchers with different research traditions. The globally scattered ‘islands of cold environments’ were and will be made more accessible to comparative observation and research. This should contribute to raising awareness about a unique treasure of biodiversity and its vulnerability.


124

Simple ecosystems? A deal with the complex global alpine life zone!

With increasing altitude, ecosystems become less complex in terms of biotic interaction, whereas abiotic factors, such as temperature, become more important. This was one of the reasons why high mountain ecosystems were considered to be particularly suitable as a global indicator of warming-induced impacts on biodiversity.

The alpine life zone, however, is rather complex in its topography and its influence on habitat diversity, the compression of bioclimatic belts, its varied climate, and the processes of evolution of its biota. This makes this zone particularly rich in vascular plant species. For example, 20% of all native European vascular plant species are centred within the continent’s alpine life zone, which only covers about 3% of the continent (Väre et al. 2003): on a global level also, its plant diversity is above the global average (Körner 2002).

The state of knowledge varies greatly from region to region, from relatively well-studied areas in Europe or North America to less-known areas in parts of the Asian mountains and the Andes where comprehensive literature is often not available. For example, during fieldwork on a GLORIA summit in southern Peru, two new vascular plant species were discovered. Thus, even when dealing with the ‘easily distinguishable’ vascular plants, their identification and monitoring can be a challenge. One also has to deal with untypically tiny individuals that need to be properly identified. Moreover, working conditions are very demanding – either in cold, windy, rainy, and frequently changing conditions or under strong UV-B radiation and in thin air. GLORIA fieldwork does not mean just mountain hiking and noting plant species that grow along a path, but precision work in the harsh conditions of mountain summits: a team of four persons may spend more than a month completing the set up and species’ records on a series of four summits (i.e., the standard sample of a GLORIA target region). Therefore, one of the critical constraints is finding well-trained, ambitious botanical experts who are willing to persist for weeks in an unpleasant climate. This is also the reason why this work hardly can be carried out voluntarily, in contrast to, e.g., bird censuses or mapping of country flora.

Pristine versus anthropogenically altered mountain ecosystems

The low pressure from human land use in high mountain areas is one of the advantages over lowland areas: when studying the impacts of climate warming – the higher we get the less noticeable should be a warming-induced signal of change. The GLORIA network, however, not only focuses on the upper limits of plant life, but includes the area down to the tree-line ecotone.

In some regions, we still find rather pristine tree lines, such as in parts of North America and other boreal to arctic regions or, e.g., in New Zealand. In many of the European mountain areas, in large parts of the Andes and mountains of Asia, however, traditional land use – mainly mountain pastoral and/or burning practices – have altered the tree-line ecotone and, to a minor extent, also


125

the lower alpine zones. Changes in such traditional land use patterns, either through abandonment of mountain farming or its intensification, will overlap with an overall footprint of climate warming.

A global network of long-term observation sites, therefore, also has to deal with impacts arising from human land use. Here, GLORIA’s multi-site perspective has the potential to contribute with suitable observation sites, if both rather pristine and sites influenced by land use are included.

The inter- and transdisciplinary potential of a focused observation programme

The process involved in developing a Global Change Research Strategy for UNESCO MAB’s Mountain Biosphere Reserves (Björnsen Gurung 2006) demonstrated an unconstrained integration of the GLORIA programme into an inter- and transdisciplinary strategy (Grabherr et al. 2005). In around 25 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites (and in 11 of the 26 pre-selected reserves for the research strategy) GLORIA is already represented at active observation sites. The GLORIA design, due to its approved applicability, was also considered as a model for other observation designs, e.g., focusing on montane forests in Biosphere Reserves.

Moreover, the GLORIA network not only consists of Multi-Summit sites. GLORIA master sites are operating on the basis of existing research infrastructure and focus on interdisciplinary approaches in ecological climate impact research such as cooperation with permafrost research, climatology, ecological modelling, tree-line dynamics, and the use of other organism groups as climate warming indicators.

Further, the basic Multi-Summit approach was extended in some regions by downslope transects linked to GLORIA summit sites. Master sites are operating in the Alps (Schrankogel, Tyrol/Austria; www.gloria.ac.at/?a=42&b=56), White Mountains (California/USA; www.wmrs.edu/projects/GLORIA%20project/default.htm), and the Rocky Mountains (Glacier National Park, Montana/USA).

Additional activities and approaches in GLORIA are not only restricted to sites designated as master sites, but also to particular target regions where experts for other organism groups are available or specific ecological features are traced. These include, e.g., the development of a new method for arthropod monitoring on GLORIA summits (Urals, Russia) and amphibian observations and monitoring of upper limits of crop cultivation in the Andean Puna region.Other activities focus on field trials for testing the recording accuracy and precision: test plots have to be installed outside of the permanent plot area.

A long-term perspective and the struggle with short-term structures

Most high mountain plants are long-lived and slow growing. This has the advantage that species hardly vary in size from year to year, but their responses reflect climatic changes beyond short-term


126

oscillations. In consequence, a time-intensive resurvey every year is not required and also not recommendable, because a high recording frequency would cause undesirable additional disturbance at the permanent plot. Instead, resurveys are planned at intervals of five to 10 years. Permanent plots once established and maintained at such intervals gain in value with time and thus are an investment for oncoming generations.

A disadvantage of the relatively long re-recording intervals is that ‘early warning’ signals would appear with some delay and that the generally short-termed funding options could fail to support the essential need for a long-term operation. As with any research activity, long-term monitoring approaches will be measured also by the frequency of results’ dissemination – either by a scientific output or by the capability of reaching policy makers and a wide public audience. In this respect, an intrinsic competitive disadvantage is associated with long-term monitoring activities – for slow-growing alpine plants in particular. This appears to be the main reason why observation networks such as GLORIA, although much in demand, are rare still. In the implementation phase that stretches over a considerable period in the case of a globally-oriented network, this is a particularly critical factor. Scientific output and general outreach, albeit stepwise, should increase with the availability of data on comparable time series.

Data from the GLORIA master site in the Alps, however, could show striking results on warming-induced declines of high-altitude species that were discernible only after a 10-year period (Pauli et al. 2007). In the summer of 2008, a first continent-wide GLORIA resurvey campaign was carried out across Europe. Data, not yet analysed, may already yield valuable insights into the dynamics and potential threats of climate change on mountain biodiversity.

Another long-term feature of GLORIA is its orientation as an open process. The network can be joined by a potential partner group whenever it is suitable. This appears to be important for a global approach where starting positions and constraints vary greatly among regions and institutions. On the other hand, this has a significant impact on the calculability of efforts to coordinate the network. The tasks of coordination not only include close communication with partner groups to guarantee standardised field application and data preparation, to produce scientific output, and to agree on data ownership; it also involves the maintenance and update of the central GLORIA database and website, the planning of master site projects, and of additional activities such as cooperation with other networks and institutions working on policy-related issues concerning biodiversity.

The GLORIA coordination, although occasionally lagging a bit behind, has successfully managed the rapid extension of the network. Thus, we very much look forward to upcoming challenges that we should be able to meet in close cooperation with a growing community of motivated persons and institutions.


127

References

Becker, A; Kroner, C; Burn, JJ; Guising, A; Tapeline, U (2007) ‘Ecological and land use studies along altitudinal gradients’. Mountain Research and Development 27: 58-65

Becker, A; Bugmann, H (2001) Global change and mountain regions, IGBP report 49. Stockholm: The Mountain Research Initiative

Björnson Gurung, A (ed) (2006) GLOCHAMORE. Global change and mountain regions-research Strategy. Berne: University of Berne

Bugmann, H; Björnson Gurung, A; Ewert, F; Haeberli, W; Guisan, A; Fagre, D; Kääb, A (2007) ‘Modeling the biophysical impacts of global change in mountain biosphere reserves’. Mountain Research and Development 27:66-77

Dietz, H; Chuffer, C; Parks, CG (2006) ‘MIREN: A new research network concerned with plant invasion into mountain areas’. Mountain Research and Development 26:80-81

European Environment Agency (2007) Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: Proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. EEA Technical Report 11. Copenhagen: EEA

Grabherr, G; Björnson Gurung, A; Dedieu, JP; Haeberli, W; Hohenwallner, D; Lotter, A; Nagy, L; Pauli, H; Psenner, R (2005) ‘Long-term environmental observations in mountain biosphere reserves: Recommendations from the EU-project GLOCHAMORE’. Mountain Research and Development 25: 376-383

Grabherr, G; Gottfried, M; Pauli, H (1994) ‘Climate effects on mountain plants’. Nature 369: 448-448

Grabherr, G; Gottfried, M; Pauli, H (2000) ‘GLORIA: A Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine environments’. Mountain Research and Development 20:190-191

Haeberli, W (1995) ‘Climate change impacts on glaciers and permafrost’. In Guisan, A; Holten, JI; Spichiger, R; Tessier, L (eds) Potential ecological impacts of climate change in the Alps and Fennoscandian Mountains, pp97-103. Geneva: Conservatoire et Jardin Botaniques de Genève

Huber, UM; Reasoner, MA; Bugmann, HK (eds) (2005) Global change and mountain regions: An overview of current knowledge. Dordecht: Springer

Klanderud, K; Birks, HJB (2003) ‘Recent increases in species richness and shifts in altitudinal distributions of Norwegian mountain plants’. The Holocene 13:1-6

Körner, Ch (2003) Alpine plant life: Functional plant ecology of high mountain ecosystems, 2nd edn. Berlin: Springer

Körner, Ch (2002) ‘Mountain biodiversity: Its causes and function’. In Körner, C; Spehn, EM (eds) Mountain biodiversity: A global assessment. London and New York: Parthenon Publishing

Körner, Ch; Spehn, EM (2002) Mountain biodiversity: A global assessment. London and New York: Parthenon Publishing

Kullman, L (2004) ‘The changing face of the alpine world’. Global Change Newsletter, IGBP 57: 12-14

Messerli, B (2006) ‘From nature-dominated to human-dominated global change in the mountains of the world’. In Price, MF (ed) Global change in mountain regions, pp3-5. Duncow: Sapiens Publishing


128

Messerli, B; Ives, JD (eds) (1997) Mountains of the world: A global priority. London and New York: Parthenon

Moiseev, PA; Shiyatov, SG (2003) ‘Vegetation dynamics at the treeline ecotone in the Ural highlands, Russia’. In: Nagy, L; Grabherr, G; Körner, C; Thompson, DBA (eds) Alpine biodiversity in Europe – A Europe-wide assessment of biological richness and change, pp423-435. Berlin: Springer

Pauli, H; Gottfried, M; Reiter, K; Klettner, C; Grabherr, G (2007) ‘Signals of range expansions and contractions of vascular plants in the high Alps: Observations (1994-2004) at the GLORIA master site Schrankogel, Tyrol, Austria’. Global Change Biology 13:147-156

Pauli, H; Gottfried, M; Hohenwallner, D; Reiter, K; Casale, R; Grabherr, G (2004) The GLORIA field manual – Multi-Summit approach. Luxembourg: European Commission

Price, M (ed) (1995) Mountain research in Europe. An overview of MAB research from the Pyrenees to Siberia, UNESCO MAB Series 14. Paris: UNESCO.

Price, M; Björnsen Gurung, A; Dourojeanni, P; Maselli, D (2006) ‘Social monitoring in mountain biosphere reserves: Conclusions from the EU GLOCHAMORE Project’. Mountain Research and Development 26:174-180

Sala, OE; Chapin III, FS; Armesto, JJ; Berlow, E; Bloomfield, J; Dirzo, R; Huber-Sannwald, E; Huenneke, LF; Jackson, RB; Kinzig, A; Leemans, R; Lodge, DM; Mooney, HA; Oesterheld, M; Poff, NL; Sykes, MT; Walker, BH; Walker, M; Wall, DH (2000) ‘Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100’. Science 287:1770-1774

Salick, J; Byg, A; Amend, A; Gunn, B; Law, H; Schmidt, H (2006) ‘Tibetan medicine plurality’. Economic Botany 60:227-253

Steffen, W; Sanderson, A; Tyson, P; Jäger, J; Matson, P; Moore, B; Oldfield, F; Richardson, K; Schellnhuber, J; Turner, BL; Wasson, R (2004) Global change and the Earth system: A planet under pressure. Berlin: Springer

Sturm, M; Racine, C; Tape, K (2001) ‘Climate change – increasing shrub abundance in the Arctic’. Nature 411:546-547

Väre, H; Lampinen, R; Humphries, C; Williams, P (2003) ‘Taxonomic diversity of vascular plants in the European alpine areas’. In Nagy, L; Grabherr, G; Körner, C; Thompson, DBA (eds) Alpine biodiversity in Europe – A Europe-wide assessment of biological richness and change, pp133-148. Berlin: Springer

Walther, GR; Beißner, S; Burga, CA (2005) ‘Trends in upward shift of alpine plants’. Journal of Vegetation Science 16: 541-548

Weblinks

www.gloria.ac.at

www.gloria.ac.at/?a=42&b=56

California/USA;www.wmrs.edu/projects/GLORIA%20project/default.htm)

Technical Working Groups

Parallel Sessions

6

131131

Group 1: Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity and Mountain PAs

The Climate Change Programme of WWF NepalDr Ghana Shyam Gurung, WWF Nepal

Impact of Climate Change and Coping Strategies in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (NDBR), Central Himalayas, IndiaDr RK Maikhuri, GB Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development

Chair: Professor P.S. Ramakrishnan Rapporteur: Dr Yan Zhaoli

Summary

Professor Ramakrishnan welcomed participants to the group and introduced the topic; contributions to the topic and scope for discussion were given by Professor Christian Körner and others. The agenda had two presentations and a focused discussion on how climate change incidences were affecting mountain biodiversity.

The first presentation was an account of climate change from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Nepal given by Dr Ghana Shyam Gurung. The evidence for climate change included rising temperatures in Nepal (the higher the altitude the more rapid the increases), melting glaciers and threats to populations downstream, and increasing occurrence of natural disasters. WWF Nepal is working in various areas to minimise the impacts of climate change: building networks and partnerships, raising awareness, detecting and modelling changes, drafting a national climate change policy, identifying alternative energy options, and prioritising opportunities for negotiation and action.

The second presentation was about the impacts of climate change and coping strategies in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve by Dr RK Maikhuri from the GB Pant Institute. He noted that climate change impacts on mountain biodiversity were seen in agriculture, pasture, forests and timberline vegetation, alpine meadows, and so on. These impacts had consequences for human activities such as tourism and intensive harvesting of high-value mountain products. In the central Himalayas, local people’s perceptions about climate change were mainly confined to warming and increased variability of rainfall. He also reported that coping mechanisms in the mountains included eco-tourism, cultivation of medicinal plants, and use of pack animals.

6: Technical Working Groups: Group 1


132

Discussion

Following the two presentations, questions were asked of the two presenters, but these questions went far beyond the presentations with contributions from other group members and lots of interaction. All the group members, Professor Christian Körner in particular, actively contributed their expertise to the discussion. Group members agreed that research data and publications defining exactly how climate change is taking place in the mountains and what are the differences from the plains were unavailable. From fragmented information, however, evidence of climate change could be seen from rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, melting of glaciers and permafrost, increasing aridity, the drying up of wetlands, reduced water supplies, and an increase in water-induced disasters. The interesting point was that diverse mountain topography might mean that mountains are more adaptable to change, because change can go upwards and around the mountains.

The impacts of climate change on mountain biodiversity are not easily decipherable due to lots of uncertainty and the existence of other drivers contributing to changes, and their interactions. Nonetheless, there are still obvious impacts: plant succession in the last 150 years was quicker than ever before with faster regeneration; little mountain caps and some species are disappearing in Australia; there are changes in the habitats of wildlife and plant species with a general trend towards moving upwards (such as tigers being found at higher altitudes or exotic plant species invading alpine ecosystems); and loss/reduction of keystone species especially in changed environments such as drying highland wetlands. Water regime changes brought about by climate change might have greater impacts on biodiversity and people’s livelihoods than climate change itself.

Climate change affects various biological resources in different ways. When change happens, species that are fast to respond will survive, but life forms with narrow niches might disappear. Generally speaking, vegetation is more affected by climate change than animals, because vegetation cannot move. When suitable habitat spaces shrink in response to climate change, this favours competitive species, but many species in the mountains (especially the high mountains of the HKH region) are selective in terms of their environment and have narrow niches.

Protected areas contain only a fraction of mountain ecosystems. The smaller the protected area is, the more vulnerable it will be to climate change. Therefore, the suggestion is to design large protected areas with flexible boundaries (boundaries could be changed seasonally or as per the need). In many cases, corridors and transboundary protected areas should be established to assure sufficient area and connectivity for effective biodiversity conservation.

Protected areas, however, should not destroy livelihoods. Mountain people might not worry too much about the loss of biodiversity or keystone species, but their reactions to changes in land use patterns, decisions about livestock management, new livelihood options, and migration interplay with the richness of biodiversity and effectiveness of conservation. Therefore, mobilising and involving people within and near protected areas is a key factor in conserving biodiversity. Carbon trading and payment for ecosystem services are potential opportunities for involving local people.


133133

The Climate Change Programme of WWF-NepalGhana S. Gurung and Sandeep C. Rai, WWF-Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal

Introduction

This paper briefly provides information on climate change and presents the initiatives taken by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Nepal, in partnership with the Government of Nepal and other stakeholders, to address the key issues at various levels.

Background

The correlation between climate change and anthropogenic activities is firmly established, as stated in the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In fact, the average global surface temperature has increased by about 0.8°C in the past century and 0.6°C within the last three decades (IPCC 2007). Likewise, CO2 concentration (carbon dioxide concentration), which was below 300 parts per million (PPM) of CO2 before the pre-industrial state, has now reached approximately 384 PPM CO2. Even though it seems possible to stabilise the global emissions to the current 384 PPM CO2 level, the global mean temperature would probably still rise between 1-3°C and reach close to a 2°C threshold of the global average temperature above the pre-industrial state (IPCC 2007). Indeed, the 2°C global average temperature increase means the following.

A sixty per cent loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic•Complete and irreversible melting of the Greenland ice caps •Twenty-five per cent or more decrease in the volume of Antarctic sea ice and continued •retreating of sea ice for about two degrees of latitude Increase in the frequency and intensity of floods, droughts, storms, heat waves, tropical •cyclones, hurricanes, and other extreme events leading towards increasing economic costs and likely decreasing development opportunitiesSubstantial damage and disruption to arctic and mountain ecosystems, and a major proportion •of the tundra and about half of the boreal forest area may disappearAn eighty per cent loss of South African Karoo and a fifty per cent loss of Kakadu (Australia) •and the Sundarbans (Bangladesh) wetlandsApproximately twenty-five per cent loss of species from the current range•Six hundred and sixty-two million to three billion more people facing water shortages•Global water shortages and increased soil moisture stress, resulting in intensification of land use •and desertification; and much more


134

The above facts clearly indicate that the global average temperature increase needs to be well below the tipping point of 2°C to ensure long-term conservation of biodiversity and sustainable development.

Nepal’s global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are negligible compared to those of developed countries. For instance, Nepal has less than 0.4% of the world’s total population and is responsible for about 0.025% of the annual GHG emissions (HMG/NPC/MOPE 2003). With an average annual increase in temperature of 0.06°C per year, however, Nepal is very vulnerable to climate change impacts as a result of its fragile ecological systems and rugged geophysical structures with high elevations and steep slopes. Indeed, the impacts of climate change are clearly observed on Himalayan glaciers as they are retreating rapidly and forming massive glacial lakes, which present a great risk of catastrophic glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) (ICIMOD 2001). The GLOFs could easily result in loss of human lives, property, and infrastructure, as well as displacement of thousands of people (WWF-NP2005).

For a country like Nepal where agriculture is the predominant means of making a living for the majority of people, even a slight change in climatic conditions can lead to devastating consequences, particularly in the contexts of food security and poverty. In fact, various aspects of agriculture have already been disrupted, resulting in changed cropping patterns, variations in crop yields, and increased pest problems owing to temperature change. There is also an indication that Nepal might experience the ‘summit trap phenomena’ due to the impact of climate change on biodiversity and ecological processes.

Climate change initiatives

To address the impacts of climate change in Nepal, WWF Nepal introduced a Climate Change and Energy Programme in 2003 with the aim of raising awareness about climate change through the dissemination of information to people from all walks of life (WWF-NP 2006). In this context, WWF Nepal organised various school-level interactions, youth campaigns, and national and international media trips, as well as broadcasts of documentaries on climate impact and witness stories. WWF Nepal also played a vital role in the establishment of a coalition of fifteen civil society organisations into a network entitled ‘Climate Change Network Nepal-CCNN’ in 2003. As a result of continued lobbying by the CCNN, Nepal ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2005, even in the absence of a functioning parliament. Likewise, WWF Nepal has developed a partnership with the Curriculum Development Centre (CDC), Ministry of Education and Sports, to incorporate climate change issues into the formal school (grades 1-10) curriculum. Under the leadership of the CDC, the incorporation work for grades 5, 9, and 10 has been completed and the work remaining will be completed by 2009.

In partnership with the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM)/Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology (MoEST), WWF Nepal has initiated a regional research project entitled


135

‘Himalayan Glaciers and River Project’, which is being implemented in Nepal and India. The initiative aims to identify the tipping point of the Dudh Koshi River Basin with its implications for the Ganges Basin and the likely consequences of this tipping point on various sectors downstream.

Through its Climate Change and Energy Programme, WWF Nepal has been able to develop a functional working relationship with the MoEST and strengthen its partnership with the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation and its departments (MoEST 2004). Under the leadership of MoEST, WWF Nepal was able to bring back the issue of biogas into the CDM portfolio in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process. Likewise, MoEST and WWF Nepal have been able to draft the preliminary National Climate Change Policy for Nepal with strong participation of stakeholders, ranging from people at the grassroots to policy makers. Since 2003, WWF Nepal has been engaged actively in the UNFCCC process together with the MoEST. Since the inception of the Climate Change and Energy Programme, WWF Nepal has been facilitating and supporting the MoEST for training in negotiations and drafting the national position paper for the UNFCCC process.

WWF Nepal has a strong Alternative Energy Programme, which is being implemented at its project sites. For instance, WWF Nepal has installed over 2,300 biogas plants in the Terai Arc Landscape since 2006. This biogas programme has contributed towards saving about 4,600 metric tons of fuelwood annually. The programme also contributes to the reduction of global greenhouse gases, on the one hand, and increases the capacity for adaptation of local communities on the other. To provide benefits to a widespread population and sustain the programme, WWF Nepal has developed the biogas project into a carbon financing project by using gold standard methodology and developing it as a WWF Network First Gold Standard Verified Emission Reduction (VER) project. With support from partners and the local community, WWF Nepal has been able to provide 100% solar lighting to the local people of Upper Dolpa who are residing in the buffer zone of Shey Phoksundo National Park and install five community-based micro-hydro schemes in the Dolpo, Sagarmatha, and Kanchenjunga areas, thereby benefiting more than 600 households. The installation of 205 kW of micro-hydro saves about 2,930 metric tons of fuelwood annually.

The focus of WWF Nepal

Based on the emerging climate change issues and past experiences, WWF Nepal’s Climate Change and Energy Programme intends to focus its efforts mainly in four major areas. The four major areas are as follows.

Global New Deal1. Adaptation 2. Alternative Energy3. Carbon Financing 4.


136

Under the Global New Deal for fair and equitable United Nations’(UN) deals, WWF Nepal will work with its worldwide network and lobby jointly with the Nepal government and civil society to ensure a new equitable UN treaty enters into force in 2012. This should set the world on a course of action to reduce global GHG emissions to 80% by 2050 and establish a global carbon market and other mechanisms to promote clean energy investment in all developing countries— supporting adaptation in least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS).

WWF Nepal has already conducted vulnerability assessments in the Sagarmatha and Langtang areas, and such assessments will also be carried out at other project sites as needed. WWF intends to implement adaptation activities based on extensive analysis of the findings of vulnerability assessments. Adaptation mechanisms will mainly focus on biodiversity, water resources, and the livelihoods of local people.

Under the Alternative Energy Programme, WWF Nepal will promote alternative low-carbon energy technologies at the project sites to reduce the pressure on natural forests and contribute towards increasing the capacity for resilience of local communities and ecosystems. The low-carbon technologies proposed include solar home system, micro-hydro, improved cooking stoves, use of biofuels, solar hotpots, and other energy efficient technologies.

WWF Nepal will engage intensively in the carbon financing market. Carbon financing is a tool for bringing revenue from carbon emitting businesses to conservation work in Nepal. Here, WWF Nepal aims to install 40,000 biogas plants in its project sites, particularly in the Terai Arc Landscape and develop it into a Gold Standard Verified Emissions Reduction (VER) project. WWF Nepal will also become involved in the Reduce Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) portfolio and provide support to the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation to generate revenue and incentives from this principle and develop a mechanism to deliver benefits to local communities. WWF Nepal will implement an early action project applying the REDD Principle. In fact, WWF Nepal played an active role in developing the Readiness Plan Idea Note (R-PIN) that was submitted to the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) of the World Bank.

Conclusion

Even though Nepal’s contribution to climate change is insignificant compared to developed and large developing countries, the impacts of climate change are clearly visible from the highest mountains to the plains. Therefore, Nepal needs to work proactively to benefit from adaptation projects and global sustainable financing mechanisms.


137

References

HMG/NPC/MOPE (2003) Sustainable development agenda for Nepal. Kathmandu: HMG

ICIMOD (2001) Inventory of glaciers, glacial lakes and glacial lake outburst floods: Monitoring and early warning systems in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. A contribution of working groups I, II, and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.wmo.ch/pages/partners/ipcc/index_en.html (accessed 15 December 2008)

MoEST (2004) Initial national communication to the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Kathmandu: Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, Government of Nepal

WWF-NP (2005) ‘An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China’. Overview report of the Himalayan glacier and river project. Kathmandu: WWF Nepal Programme

WWF-NP (2006) WWF Nepal strategic plan 2006-2011. Kathmandu: WWF Nepal


138

Impact of Climate Change and Coping Strategies in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, Central Himalayas, IndiaR.K. Maikhuri1, L.S. Rawat1, Vikram S. Negi1, Prakash Phondani1, abhay Bahuguna1, K.P. Chamoli 2 and Nehal Farooquee1

1 GB Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Garhwal Unit, Srinagar Garhwal, Uttarakhand, India2 HNB Garhwal University, Department of Botany, Pauri Campus, Srinagar Garhwal, India

Introduction

The Indian Himalayas form a vast mountain system with a geographical area of about 5,91,000 sq.km covering 18% of the area of India, and they are an important part of the global system. The protected area network in the Himalayan region consists of five biosphere reserves, 18 national parks, and 71 wildlife sanctuaries and accounts for 9.2% of the area of the Indian Himalayas (Maikhuri and Rao 2006). India is recognised as one among twelve of the mega biodiverse regions of the world, and this is mainly due to the presence of the Himalayas. The rich biodiversity of the region owes its existence, to a great extent, to the traditional and cultural values of the society.

Global change and, in particular, global warming have and will have serious impacts on the biophysical environment and the socioeconomic conditions and livelihoods of people in the Himalayas and adjacent areas in the plains. Species’ composition and diversity, habitats, and the occurrence of rare and endangered species, as well as invasive species at high altitude, will also be affected, thus jeopardising the conservation value of Himalayan protected areas and their environments (Maikhuri et al. 2000; Nautiyal et al. 2002; Maikhuri et al. 2003). Further, it is impacting on glacial retreat, thereby affecting freshwater supplies and other ecosystem services.

Accepting that global change is occurring at rates unprecedented in recorded human history, people inhabiting the buffer zone of the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (NDBR), in particular, and the Himalayas, in general, need to develop adaptation mechanisms and coping strategies in various economic sectors in order to ensure equitable livelihoods for people living in this region (Maikhuri et al. 2003). The capacity to adapt varies considerably among regions and socioeconomic groups, however, and will continue to vary over time. Therefore, enhancing adaptive capacity is a necessary condition for reducing vulnerability, especially for the most


139

vulnerable regions and socioeconomic groups. The present paper discusses the impact of climate change on agriculture, transhumant pastoralism, forests and alpine meadows, and the tourism sector. In addition, local people’s perceptions and knowledge, which they have acquired over a period of time (mostly the older generation), have been recorded as evidence of some of the aspects and important indicators of climate change in the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve and the central Himalayas. Coping and mitigation strategies are discussed briefly also, based on records from extensive participatory action research carried out by the authors over the last two decades in the NDBR.

Study area, people, and climate

The Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (NDBR), a world heritage site, is a unique area with rich ecological, cultural, religious, and spiritual values and abundant biodiversity. It covers a total area of 5860.69 sq.km and has two core zones, viz., Nanda Devi National Park (624.62 sq.km) and the world famous Valley of Flowers National Park (87.50 sq.km). The park’s 5148.57 sq.km buffer zone hosts the famous religious shrines of Badrinath and Hemkund Saheb and it has 47 villages (Figure 1). The sociocultural fabric is as interesting as the natural environment itself. The local inhabitants belong to two ethnic groups, viz. the Indo-Mongoloid (Bhotiya group) and Indo-Aryan (Khasa group). These communities practise marginal subsistence agriculture and animal husbandry. Small wool-based cottage industries are also a source of income. The diverse ecosystems of the NDBR contain a tremendous array of floral and faunal diversity, many of which are rare and endangered species.

There are three seasons – summer (April- June), rainy season (June-September), and winter (October-March), and the average annual rainfall is 928.81 mm. About 47.8% of the annual rainfall occurs over a short period of two months (July-August) due to the strong influence of the monsoon. The maximum temperature ranges from 11 to 24°C and the minimum from 3 to 7.5°C. The altitudinal range of the biosphere reserve varies from 2,100 masl to 7,817 masl.

Impact of climate change on traditional hill agriculture

Agriculture is a minor land use in the spatial context and is practised only on 0.7% (21.15 sq.km) of the total geographical area of the NDBR. Inaccessibility, environmental heterogeneity, biological, sociocultural, and economic variations in the NDBR have led to the evolution of diverse and unique traditional agroecosystems, crop species, and livestock, which help traditional farming societies to sustain themselves (Maikhuri et al. 2000). During the recent past, as a result of rapid changes in land use caused by sociocultural and economic changes and various environmental perturbations, the biodiversity of agricultural crops in the buffer zone has changed steadily. The response of agricultural crop production in the high-altitude region to climate change varies according to crop composition, edaphic conditions, and the cropping pattern.


140

In high-altitude areas, the global shift in the environment is leading to a rise in temperature, but in the very near future, however, it will bring more opportunities particularly for cash crops like tomatoes, cabbage, chillies, peas and medicinal plants (Maikhuri et al. 2003). Notwithstanding, reduction in winter snowfall, spring rainfall, and meltwater flows will produce a deficit of soil moisture that could limit any increase in yields resulting from temperature increases. It is believed that even minor changes in temperature could have a major impact on the severity of diseases. Amaranthus crops are most vulnerable to climate change as observed during the recent past when this crop was severely attacked by a disease called Hymenia rickervalis at between 1,000 and 1,800 masl, whereas at between 2,200 and 2,800 masl it grew well. It is assumed that poor rainfall during July and high temperatures and humidity, particularly in the first and second weeks of September, provided favourable conditions for the moth that damaged the crop and reduced the yield. Besides crops such as traditional legumes (Vigna unguiculata, Vigna angularis), important

Figure 1: Location of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve


141141

summer legumes growing between 1,000 and 2,000 masl have problems with fruit setting because of the shift in peak rainfall time and other climatic factors. Diseases such as rust and blight are common in cereals and potato crops, and legumes such as Phaseolus spp become infected through soil- borne insects such as Coleoptera species. These insects damage the crops in the early stages of seed germination. One of the reasons for the occurrence of disease in these crops could be that the climatic conditions are favourable for the life cycles of the insects, i.e., an increase in moisture or humidity or milder winters in the lower regions (between 500-1,500 masl). High-altitude agriculture in this region is definitely in transition and a rise in temperature in the future may enhance agricultural productivity.

Impact of climate change on transhumant pastoralism

Animal husbandry constitutes an important component of the rural economy in the buffer zone and provides a wide range of services and products such as draught power, manure, wool, and supplementary nutrition (Maikhuri et al. 2000). Transhumant pastoralism in the NDBR buffer zone has undergone rapid changes due to various factors.

As a system of land use, pastoralism requires a variety of different ecological niches. Loss of only a small but vital resource, such as alpine grazing lands or village commons in the lower valleys, can upset the delicate balance on which survival depends. As a result of conservation of land cover in the alpine area and intensified production in the lower valleys, transhumant pastoralists have lost most of the available grazing areas. To adjust to this situation, farmers keep less livestock. The reductions are not sufficient to keep grazing intensity at the required optimum of about 0.3 hectares per animal unit, however (Nautiyal et.al. 2002).

As mentioned above, NDBR livestock management also involves important relationships with lower altitudes (the Terai-Bhabhar tract). Currently, the lowland Terai region has dry spells from December to May (with the exception of winter storms). Although changes to the seasonal distribution of rainfall are highly uncertain, light rainfall or no rainfall during winter would seriously jeopardise the long-standing regime in which some families send their livestock to the lowlands from winter to early spring. This practice is also important for maintaining soil fertility in the lower areas. In the event of an increase in temperature in the Terai belts and at low altitude, and also lighter than average rainfall, these areas would be under increasing pressure to provide adequate winter grazing. At this point, existing institutional arrangements for grazing control may well become inadequate and thus appropriate arrangements are required that provide viable options for pastoralist economies.

Climate change at high altitude would seriously affect the quantity and quality of forage available for the transhumant pastoral production system, increase disease and pests that spread disease (transmission of wind-borne, foot and mouth disease viruses), reduce water supplies, and thus make it difficult to survive in extreme environments.


142

Impact of climate change on forest and timberline vegetations

In the NDBR, the predominant forest types are Pinus wallichiana, Quercus species, mixed (pine-oak), Cedrus deodara, mixed conifer, Betula and Abies and Cupressus torulosa, along with scrubland and alpine and low-altitude grasslands. The forested area of the NDBR only covers about 10 to 11% of the reserve, but in terms of biological diversity it is very important.

The timberline, the most prominent and significant ecological boundary where the sub-alpine forest terminates, has been identified as a zone sensitive to environmental change and could be effectively modelled and monitored for future impacts of climate change. In some locations, timberline vegetation represents evergreen conifers exclusively, while in some areas it is covered totally by deciduous broad-leaved trees (Purohit 2003). The native species of the reserve at the timberline are Betula utilis, Abies pindrow, and Rhododendron companulatum, and they have complex, unique habitats of medicinal and aromatic plants and wild edibles.

In this region there is a dominance of tree species such as Abies pindrow, Betula utilis, and Acer caesium because of their physiological adaptation to extremely low temperatures. These species with narrow ecological niches or amplitudes may disappear if they fail to compete with new arrivals under a warmer regime and/or to expand their ranges. Mid-altitude species (1,600-2,000 masl), such as Pinus roxburghii, Cedrus deodara, Cupressus torulosa, Quercus dialtata, Q. semicarpifolia, Q. leucotricophora, and Rhododendron arboretum have a wider altitudinal range than alpine and sub-alpine species and hence disappearance of the former is less likely than of the latter (Maikhuri et al. 2003).

Pinus wallichiana and Cedrus deodara are the most valuable tree species in the buffer zone villages as the wood is very resistant to rot and is the timber preferred for house construction. The decrease in snowfall and rainfall in the study area is probably affecting deodar species negatively. Pinus wallichiana, however, has a wider altitudinal range than other Himalayan conifers and is capable of surviving a wide range of environmental conditions. Some of these characteristics may make this species more adaptable to climate change than the Cedrus deodara and other tree species growing in this altitudinal zone. The local villagers and the authors have noticed that, during the recent past (15-16 yrs), Pinus wallichiana and Cupressus torulosa had been regenerating and spreading faster than other species beyond and above Tolma, Lata, Kaga, and Garpak villages which are located between 2,600 to 3,000 masl.

A change in climate in the study area in the future is likely to affect both species negatively and could lead to a decline in the area or a shift in their ranges towards higher altitudes. In addition, many important tree species in the timberline zone of the reserve have already been listed in the rare and endangered categories, i.e., Taxus baccata, Juniperus spp, and Betula utilis. These species are overexploited, legally or illegally, to a great extent and increased rates of destruction and the influence of a changing climate have made the situation worse. Betula utilis has sociocultural and religious value and is also considered a keystone species of the timberline


143

ecosystem: it forms the upper limit of forest vegetation ascending to an altitude of between 3,200-4,000 masl (Purohit 2003) Betula utilis needs a lot of light and grows in areas where there is heavy snowfall: but it has a poor soil seed bank and large-scale local extinction of the species is possible if seed production on a landscape scale declines (Maikhuri et al. 2003).

The residents of the buffer zone did note that, in the recent past, the stems and leaves of Betula utilis growing in association with Abies pindrow, Rhododendron campanulatum, and Taxus baccata between 3,300 to 3,600 masl were damaged severely by defoliator moths and this may be due to a decrease in snowfall in the past 8 to 10 years and a gradual increase in temperature.

Impact of climate change on alpine meadows

Alpine meadows or grasslands are used extensively for grazing during summer (May-October) by various groups of local and transhumant pastoralists and are also an important reservoir of high-altitude medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs). This ecosystem is generally found above 3,800 masl in the NDBR where the climate is characterised by a high degree of complexity due to interaction between the high mountain peaks and atmospheric precipitation, mainly in the form of snow which covers the ground for five to six months a year (Purohit 2003). The growth period for plants is very short and the plants are very sensitive to changes in temperature. The distribution of alpine grasses and MAPs and their composition and association are determined by topography, shade and soil moisture, slope, light intensity, snowfall, intensity of grazing, and other biotic pressures.

In the high-altitude areas (>3000 masl) current CO2 levels are close to pre-industrial levels and in valleys at lower elevations they are close to the present global average (Maikhuri et al. 2003). Thus, the impact of CO2 enrichment will vary spatially. Decline in biomass accumulation with decline in elevation in alpine species of the Himalayas, such as Aconitum balfourii and Aconitum heterophyllum (Nautiyal 1996), suggests that their growth is not limited by low CO2 and low temperature conditions. Growth of Allium strecheyi, Arnebia benthamaii, Pleurospermum anglicoides, and Dactylorhiza hatagirea was enhanced by warming and growth of Angelica glauca and Rheum emodi was reduced, although these species are similar in their ecological distribution (Kandari 2005).

When considering the likely impact of future climate change on alpine grasslands various factors should be considered such as changes in temperature, precipitation, and soil moisture as well as in the direct response of grasses to enhanced atmospheric CO2. The effects of increased CO2 on grasses and plants also depend on the C3 and C4 photosynthetic pathways of plant species in a community. The outcome of climate change would thus be specific to the region and location and involve a complex interaction of various factors. The alpine grasslands of the NDBR could also be impacted by rising temperatures that would promote the upward migration of woody plants from lower elevations.


144

Ecotourism and climate change

The NDBR has much to offer in nature-based tourism or ecotourism, pilgrimages, and religious tourism activities. It has been reported in several case studies that, in areas where mass tourism occurs in sensitive ecosystems, severe impacts have resulted. The nature and extent of such impacts depend on the intensity of tourism activity as well as the sensitivity of the impacted ecosystems. Most of the studies showed that more severe impacts of tourism on species and ecosystems arise from the infrastructure and building activities involved, rather than from the recreational activities themselves, as in the case of mountain tourism and pilgrimages carried out at Badrinath, Hemkund Saheb (Valley of Flowers), Gangotri, Bhojwasa, and Gaumukh. The results of some studies indicate that in most cases buffer zone areas are unable to withstand the recreational pressure that tourism and the subsequent impacts of further development of infrastructure generate.

Climate change could generate not only serious problems, but also opportunities for the tourism sector. Earlier, tourism revolved around trekking and pilgrimage in the NDBR region. During the recent past, however, tourism in the form of adventure tourism, winter sports, expeditions to glaciers and adjoining areas, mountaineering, nature ramblers, and pilgrimages has expanded rapidly. This has had a negative impact on natural resources, but a positive impact on the living standards of the people inhabiting the buffer zone as well as of those dependent on tourism. A broad understanding of the impact of a leisure culture would include the fact that increasing numbers of people are remaining in the buffer zone of the reserve and its adjoining areas for much longer periods. Tourism in the biosphere reserve may provide better opportunities for income generation as other primary and secondary production sectors (i.e., agriculture, livestock, and non-timber forest product collection) decline. The culture and religion of traditional and local communities, however, are open to pressures that may have uncertain outcomes (Maikhuri and Rao 2006).

Field-based observations and people’s and farmers’ perceptions of the impacts of climate change

Analysis of indigenous knowledge could provide insights into the changing climate and its impacts. People’s perceptions are derived not from any direct measurements of the climate, but from the way it affects their immediate surroundings and livelihoods. Deductions from people’s perceptions, however, will be limited to a time scale that is within the range of human memory. Indicators of climate-change impacts were analysed through interactive discussions with 350 respondents in two different age groups (i.e., AG1, 20-50 years and AG2, 50-80 years or above). The majority of respondents in both age groups agreed that, during recent decades, there had been many changes observed in the climate and they cited various examples. It was observed that respondents who were 50-80 years or above had a deeper understanding, keener observation, more in-depth knowledge, and more experience of the changes in local climate than the respondents who were 20-50 years of age. In-depth field observations of a team of scientists from GP Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development (GBPIHED) (Garhwal Unit) over the past 18 years and


145

local people’s perceptions revealed that advancement of flowering, leafing, and fruiting time (15-20 days) of medicinal and aromatic plants (i.e., Rhododendron arboretum, Allium stracheyi, A. humile, Betula utilis, Meconopsis aculeate, and Saussurea obvallata) and some prominent wild edible species (i.e., Rebis orientale, Rosa webbiana, and R. sericea) had been noticed and they considered it the most striking evidence of climate change.

More than 50% of respondents in the 20-50 age group and 90% of the respondents in the 50-80 or above age group noticed the significant decrease in snowfall and cover in the Malari, Gamsali, Niti, and Dunagiri villages located between 3,000-3,600 masl because of their recollections of 30 years or more. The recession of the Satopanth, Dunagiri, and other glaciers located in the biosphere reserve is another important indicator of climate change in the region according to local people involved in trekking and mountaineering activities. The most significant piece of evidence is the decrease in water resources used by livestock, particularly in several alpine pastures, low-altitude forests, and grazing areas over a period of 10-15 years, according to transhumant pastoralist communities. They attributed this change to a gradual increase in temperature and the consequent drying up of water bodies. Nonetheless, the possibility of modification of changes caused by the altered climate by non-climatic factors cannot be ruled out (Maikhuri et al. 2003).

Coping and mitigation strategies: The priority interventions

Conservation of wild biodiversity: strengthening of the protected area

network

Redundancy associated with species’ richness is likely to increase the probability of compensation of negative impacts caused by changing environmental conditions. Although we have a long history of planned conservation (9.2% area of the Himalayas is legally protected), our knowledge of people, biodiversity, vulnerability, and their linkages is very limited. Therefore, participatory research/management could turn people’s callous and negative attitudes to positive attitudes towards protected areas as well as improving scientific knowledge related to potential uses of biodiversity for coping and mitigation (Maikhuri et al. 2000).

Rehabilitation of degraded forests and abandoned lands

The failure of afforestation and reforestation efforts to develop degraded lands in the Himalayan mountains could be attributed largely to unawareness of people’s essential needs, and, hence, their lack of cooperation. People’s participation is now considered to be a prerequisite to the success of any land rehabilitation efforts in the Himalayas. The practice and framework developed for degraded land rehabilitation is now widely accepted, particularly by local people. Considering the diversity of ecosystems, indigenous knowledge, and socioeconomic conditions in the NDBR, any rehabilitation strategy should be location-specific (Maikhuri et al. 2003; Maikhuri et al. 2007).


146

Conservation and management of alpine meadows

The NDBR management authority needs to reduce livestock densities in the region to allow the area under conservation to regenerate naturally and meet the growing demand for fodder for wildlife. In addition, in-depth studies on the carrying capacity of different alpine pastures should be undertaken.

Promotion of traditional crop cultivation and bioprospecting

In spite of the many virtues of traditional crops, precious genetic diversity, the rivet of stability for the ecosystem, is gradually being lost (Maikhuri et al. 2000). Pragmatic multidisciplinary research efforts are needed to develop farming systems and select appropriate crops in view of future climate change so that adequate supplies of food and economic security, conservation of traditional crop wealth, sustainability of production systems, and environmental conservation are assured.

Cultivation and conservation of medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs)

The cultivation and use of medicinal and aromatic plants offer potentials for employment generation in this region if undertaken properly, and this may help reduce the existing pressure on natural resources. GBPIHED is one of several organisations involved in testing, developing, and demonstrating action research to create an atmosphere and relationship conducive to farmers, extension officers, and research and development institutions for promoting large-scale cultivation and conservation of MAPs (Maikhuri et al. 2000).

Promotion of eco-friendly rural technologies and capacity building

Technology change is an important instrument in the continual process of socioeconomic development, and poor access to suitable technologies is one of the main causes of poverty, drudgery, and natural resource degradation in the central Himalayas. Hence appropriate technologies suitable for high-altitude regions, such as protected cultivation, organic composts and bio-fertilizers, bioprospecting of wild edibles, off-farm, and other supporting technologies are needed to provide viable options for income generation and thus reduce the existing pressures on forest and alpine meadows and other bioresources (Maikhuri et al. 2007).

Ecotourism promotion and development

Ecotourism in a high Himalayan reserve such as the NDBR needs to be very carefully considered and, therefore, ecotourism plans need to be integrated with other management plans, such as those for wildlife, fire, vegetation, and eco-development, to reduce the overall pressure on forests and biodiversity (Maikhuri and Rao 2006).


147

Institutional cooperation, coordination, collaboration and capacity building to

address climate change in different sectors

There is inadequate capacity in many research and development institutions working on environmental and conservation issues in relation to climate change: therefore, awareness raising and capacity building at individual and institutional levels are of utmost importance. It is also important to enhance the capacities of local people who are likely to be vulnerable to projected climate impacts.

Priority research areas

Documentation of traditional ecological knowledge as well as people’s knowledge and 1. experiences about the pattern and indicators of climate change and its impacts on forests, alpine meadows, agriculture, livestock, and humans through use of participatory approachesEffect of the climate on seasonal variability and reliability, and climate extremes affecting 2. agricultural production, forests, and water resourcesEstablishment of permanent sample plots in different forest types along elevational gradients for 3. an effective and comprehensive monitoring programme to track the response to a changing climate at both community and species levelCapacity building for researchers and scientists engaged in the field of climate change and 4. modelling studiesDevelopment of appropriate weather and meteorological stations in important and sensitive 5. biomes and ecosystem types for regional projections of climate parameters to facilitate development of regional climate models Interfaces with policy issues, administration, local communities, and research and academic 6. institutions on the broad aspects of options for adaptation, mitigation, and livelihoods

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the Director, G.B.Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Kosi Katarmal, Almora for provision of facilities and to The Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility (TSBF), Global Environment Facility (GEF), International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for financial support.

References

Kandari, LS (2005) Eco-physiological and socioeconomic studies of some rhizomatous medicinal and aromatic plants species. PhD thesis, H.N.B. Garhwal University, Srinagar Garhwal

Maikhuri, RK; Nautiyal, S; Rao, KS; Chandrasekhar, K; Govall, R; Saxena, KG (2000) ‘Analysis and resolution of protected area-people conflicts in Nanda Devi biosphere reserve, India’. Environmental Conservation 27:43-53


148

Maikhuri, RK; Rao, KS (2006) Developing eco-tourism for Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve: Strategies and action plan. New Delhi: G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development and UNESCO

Maikhuri, RK; Rao, KS; Patnaik, S; Saxena, KG; Ramakrishnan, PS (2003) ‘Assessment of vulnerability of forest, meadows and mountain ecosystems due to climate change’. ENVIS Bulletin 11(2): 1-9

Maikhuri, RK; Rawat, LS; Negi, V; Purohit, VK (2007) Eco-friendly appropriate technologies for sustainable development of rural ecosystems in Central Himalaya. New Delhi: G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development

Nautiyal, MC (1996) ‘Cultivation of medicinal plants and biosphere reserve management in alpine zone’. In Ramakrishnan, PS; Purohit, AN; Saxena, KG; Rao, KS; Maikhuri, RK (eds) Conservation and management of biological resources in Himalaya, pp569-583. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH

Nautiyal, S; Rao, KS; Maikhuri, RK; Saxena, KG (2002) ‘Transhumant pastoralism and sustainable development: A case study in the buffer zone of the NDBR, India’. Mountain Research and Development 23 (3):255-262

Purohit, A (2003) Studies on structural and functional aspects of timberline vegetation in Nanda Devi Biosphere, Garhwal Himalaya. PhD thesis, H.N.B. Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal


149149

Group 2: Land Use Change Trends and Impacts on Mountain Biodiversity

Trends in Land Use and Land Cover Changes and their Impacts on Biodiversity in the HimalayasProfessor Xu Jianchu, Country Representative, World Agroforestry Centre

Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity from a Global Perspective*

Eva Spehn, GMBA, c/o Institute of Botany, University of Basel, Switzerland

Chair: Dr Daniel B. FagreRapporteur: Birendra Bajracharya

Summary

Professor Xu presented the state of land cover/land use in the Himalayas and stated that urbanisation was a slow process and climate a long-term driver of change. Historical evidence and an integrated framework would be needed to understand change. An example from the Tarim Basin showed that the rangeland pattern shifted with changes in glaciers. Similarly, the variability of the Asian monsoon has always had a strong effect on food production in China; this could be traced back to 190 AD when the fall of Chinese dynasties was correlated with weaker monsoons. He described the five Chinese elements – gold, land, energy/fire, water, and wood – and the balance between them, which is believed to be important for a harmonious ecosystem.

The major causes of land cover change in different geographical and historical contexts were identified as changes in the livelihoods of nomads in highland rangelands; forest transition due to plantation and agroforestry; agricultural intensification; and tropical forest and lowland plantation economies. There were also impacts of hydrological responses to land use/cover and climate changes. These impacts were illustrated by examples of rubber plantations and agroforestry policies. Professor Xu attributed the regional pathways of land use change to a new generation of traditional nomads, agropastoralists, and shifting cultivators whose livelihood patterns are changing, and interactions between different actors, between the highlands and lowlands, and between management decisions and policies. The alternative pathways contributing to the sustainability of mountain ecosystems were identified as payment for ecosystem services, agroforestry, and sustainable forest management for carbon, biodiversity, and water-related ecosystem services. It was emphasised that policy support is essential and decision makers should not be forgotten.

* Presentation based on paper on GMBA presented in Session V, Part 1, p259.


150

Dr Spehn presented land use change and mountain biodiversity from a global perspective by giving examples from a number of Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA) research findings. The land use changes that reduce mountain biodiversity are mainly the cultivation of formerly pristine areas; intensification of agriculture/husbandry in montane areas; and abandonment of formerly grazed montane and alpine grasslands. The research agenda of GMBA on land use change was presented with research examples from the European Alps, Caucasus, and Himalayas. The research questions focused specifically on the use of highland vegetation and husbandry systems; fire ecology; highland cropping, hunting and gathering and medicinal plants; regeneration; cross-cutting research issues on hydrology and erosion; interactions of land use with climate change; and indigenous knowledge. The Kilimanjaro study looked into the effects of forest fire on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. The study in the Himalayas looked into the effects of grazing. It was found that moderate grazing increased species’ diversity and that impact is low in the case of highland grasslands, unless grazing rates are very high. The selection of less palatable species and appropriate animal selection helps in management of loss due to grazing. The studies and findings are synthesised in Eva M. Spehn, Maximo Liberman and Christian Körner (eds) (2006) Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity.

Discussion

During specific discussions on the presentation by Xu Jianchu, Professor Martin Price commented that taking the changes experienced in China as a mean in forest transition might not give a true picture when one considered the vastness of the country. Forest transition is a big topic of debate and actual functional aspects should be examined as forest biomass and density are not the same.

Following the presentation by Eva Spehn, Professor Martin Price suggested that it is necessary to look at the whole picture of forest, agriculture, and grazing land. There were comments that some systems required fire to increase biodiversity, but it depended upon the frequency of burning. Similarly, the impact of abandonment also depended upon where pastures were and for how long they had been abandoned.

The points raised during the discussion are summarised below.

No information is available on the overall trend of land cover/land use changes in the •Himalayas.There is a need to look at the definitions of land use and land cover as these will lead to •different interpretations of change. Land use and land cover are linked, but they are separate concepts.Assessing land use change and its impact on biodiversity is scale dependent.•On the largest scale, there can be such intense land use and land cover changes (LULCC) that •minimum habitat and population of organisms can suffer negative impacts and mountain biodiversity can be reduced.


151151

On intermediate and local scales, LULCC is site specific, dependent on history, national •policies, and upon whether natural mountain biodiversity, agricultural biodiversity, or functional biodiversity are being measured. On these scales, LULCC can have both positive and negative impacts. Large habitats and connectivity are matters for large species and usually managed by •governments, but farmers’ landholdings, home garden management, and small-scale biodiversity species, such as keystone species, should also be taken into account. Similarly, underground biodiversity such as fungi and bacteria should not be forgotten as they support productivity above ground.Policy plays an important role in bringing about LULCC. The Chinese government considers •introducing rubber plantations and forests as conservation measures, but monocultural plantation is not good for biodiversity, fire, and water regimes. Fire is used by herders to increase grass cover, but policies do not permit the burning of •grasslands. Conflicting policies of different government departments sometimes drive different LULCC (e.g., the promotion of plantation by the Forest Department and the promotion of horticulture by Department of Agriculture).

Example – Thirty years ago poplars were planted in Kashmir to meet timber requirements, –but this changed the moisture in the atmosphere and introduced fungus into apple plantations.Example – Scottish forestation was intended to meet the demand for fuelwood by coal mines –during the Second World War, but the spin-off is that now there is an abundance of mushrooms in the forested areas and they are a very big mountain product.Example – In the Chittagong Hill Tracts the land-tenure system is causing changes in land –use.

Livelihood and ecological processes needs to be looked at together. It is important to see how •management affects biodiversity and ecosystem functions such as slope stability and water supplies. Habitat degradation and fragmentation cause conflict between human and wildlife populations, e.g., elephants in India and Nepal.

Example – In upper Mustang, less snow in recent years has resulted in a decrease in fodder, –resulting in fewer animals being raised and less dung for cooking: this in turn has led to an increase in the collection of wood from the scarce forest resources.

We need compelling narratives that motivate programmes from funding agencies.•Example – The narrative 25 years ago about the intensification of land use in the middle –Himalayas increasing landslides and floods in Bangladesh provided a lot of impetus.Example – The recent glacier studies, which are plausible although not proved, have drawn –attention to climate change.

We should not assume too much, however; the example of shifting cultivation in the Eastern •Himalayas shows us that many assumptions are incorrect.

The Himalayan region is so diverse and we need stories for each area that factor in history and policy, but avoid generalisation. We should not just look vertically above and below the tree lines, but also at eastern and western areas, which are very different.


152

Trends in Land Use and Land Cover Changes and their Impacts on Biodiversity in the HimalayasXu Jianchu, Senior Scientist, Country Representative, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), China Programme

Introduction

The pace, magnitude, and spatial reach of human alteration of the Himalayan region are unprecedented (Ives and Messerli 1989). Changes in land cover (the biophysical attributes of the Earth’s surface) and land use (the human purpose or intent applied to these attributes) are among the most important (Lambin et al. 2001). Land use and land cover changes directly impact biodiversity in mountain ecosystems (Körner 2004); contribute to local and regional climate change; and provide feedback on global climate warming (Houghton et al. 1999). By altering ecosystem services, environmental change in the Himalayas affects the ability of biological systems to support the 1.3 billion people in the ten river basins in the region (Xu et al. 2007). Such changes also determine, in part, the vulnerability of places and people to climatic, economic, or sociopolitical perturbations (Kasperson et al. 1995).

The theory of Himalayan environmental degradation, which involves a paper published in ‘Science’ in 1975, is enormously influential: a wake-up call concerning land use issues in the high mountains and a stimulus to research in the Himalayan region (Eckholm 1975). Many studies have focused on causes of land use and land cover changes. Among the most powerful contemporary forces that drive land use and land cover changes are increasing human activities (anthropogenic drivers) and climate change (climatic driver). These forces are positive in some cases and negative in others. Despite both the magnitude of land use and land cover changes and advances in spatial technology by Earth observing satellites, our understanding of the land use trends and their impacts on biodiversity in the Himalayas is insufficient. Scientists recognise, however, the overall forest transition, including plantation and forest recovery (Rudel et al. 2005; FAO 2007) and rangeland degradation (Wilkes 2008) in most Himalayan countries. Better data alone are insufficient for improved understanding and projections of future land use change. They must be matched by enhanced understanding of the causes of change and interactions among different drivers, and of the interlinkages between land use systems along elevation gradients for environmental services, as well as feedback to coupled ecological-social systems. This paper tries to synthesise major land use and land cover trends along elevation gradients, i.e., highland rangeland, upland forest and agriculture, lowland plantations, and urban areas.


153

Land use and land cover changes in the Himalayas

Land use in the Himalayas is a function of altitudinal gradients, latitudinal variation, and the local political economy. Land cover in the Himalayas was first described by its longitude and its altitudinal variation by Schweinfurth (1957). In general, a variation in species along the Himalayan arc can be observed, as well as an extreme vertical zonation. From east to west, vegetation becomes more sparse, with tropical rainforest in Assam to subtropical thorn steppe in the Punjab. The forests of the humid regions in the eastern Himalayas are composed of broad-leaved species, in the central Himalayas of oak and coniferous, and in the western part mainly of coniferous species. Land use or land cover varies from east to west and according to elevation. In the west of the Himalayas, in Balochistan, desert prevails, followed by shrubland in the rest of Pakistan. The middle mountains of the Himalayas are mainly under cropland. North of the main cropping areas, at higher altitudes, there are extensive pastures. In the east of the Himalayas, large forest areas cover extensive parts of Yunnan province and the areas of Myanmar falling within the boundaries of the Himalayas. In northeast India and parts of Myanmar shifting cultivation is quite common. The land use on the Tibetan Plateau varies from nomadic pasture to agropasture to sedentary agriculture. The prevailing farming systems are rice-wheat integrating irrigated rice, wheat, vegetables, and livestock on the southern boundary of the Himalayas and inner valleys of the middle mountains, followed by highland mixed farming systems incorporating a range of cereals, legumes, tubers, fodder, and livestock. Large areas of Afghanistan and Balochistan are pastoral and sparsely farmed. On the upper slopes of the Himalayan ranges above about 3,000 m farming depends on potatoes, wheat, barley, and buckwheat, plus cattle and yaks.

In the Himalayas over 80% of the population depends on either full- or part-time farming for their livelihood. Most farmers are subsistence farmers and grow mainly grain. This grain production has remained stable over the last 10 to 15 years, but with the population increase the per capita availability of grain is decreasing. Climate change has led to a fall in food production, particularly during years when climatic events are extreme. Land use and/or cover in the key basins shows the differences between the rivers of the western part of the Himalayas, the Eastern Himalayas, and the Chinese rivers (Table 1). The Southeast Asian rivers still have dense forest cover in their basins, while the South Asian rivers have a substantial percentage of crop land, mainly irrigated. All the basins, however, have lost large amounts of their original forest cover. The industrial and urban areas are quite limited in all basins, but these land uses are expected to increase in the future.

The Himalayan highlands show a different land use picture, with 22.6% forests, 50.5% grassland, 9% agriculture, less than 0.1% urban, and 17.8% for others such as bare areas, water, snow, and ice (See Figure 1).


154154

Major river

Forest - broad-leaved

Forest - needle-leaved

Forest - flooded

Mosaic - forest and natural vegetation

Shrub

Grassland

Shrub-grass-sparse

Shrub-grass-flooded

Agriculture

Mosaic - agriculture-nature

Bare areas

Water body

Snow and ice

Urban


Table 1: Land use and land cover in the ten key river basins

River Forest Grassland, savanna, shrubland

Wetlands Cropland Irrigated cropland

Dryland Urban and industrial areas

Loss of original forest cover

Indus 0.4 46.4 4.2 30.0 24.1 63.1 4.6 90.1

Ganges 4.2 13.4 17.7 72.4 22.7 58.0 6.3 84.5

Brahmaputra 18.5 44.7 20.7 29.4 3.7 0.0 2.4 73.3

Irrawaddy 56.2 9.7 6.3 30.5 3.4 4.4 1.9 60.9

Salween 43.4 48.3 9.5 5.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 72.3

Mekong 41.5 17.2 8.7 37.8 2.9 0.8 2.1 69.2

Yangtse 6.3 28.2 3.0 47.6 7.1 2.0 3.0 84.9

Huang He 1.5 60.0 1.1 29.5 7.2 79.4 5.9 78.0

Tarim 0.0 35.3 16.3 2.3 0.6 38.6 0.3 69..3

Amu Darya 0.1 57.3 0.0 22.4 7.5 77.8 3.7 98.6

Source: International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Ramsar Convention Bureau, and World Resources Institute (WRI) 2003

Figure 1: LanduseandlandcovermapofICIMOD-definedworkingareaintheHimalayas


155

Rangeland degradation in the highlands

Significance

Rangeland is a predominant land use in the Himalayas, accounting for more than half. Highland rangelands provide ecosystem goods and services locally and downstream. Driven by a combination of climate change impacts and unsustainable management practices, half of the grasslands in the highlands are estimated to be degraded or desertified. Himalayan rangelands also provide livelihoods for approximately ten million pastoralists, many of whom live in poverty. Rangeland degradation – due either to unsustainable management practices or to the impacts of climate change – undermines the basis of pastoral economies. Analysis of meta-data found that both climate change and anthropogenic factors contribute to the degradation of grassland ecosystems.

Drivers

Observed and predicted climate change: Both observed and predicted temperature changes show that from 1955 to 1996 average annual temperatures on the Plateau rose by of 0.16° per decade, much higher than the rate of increase for the northern hemisphere as a whole. The rate of increase in winter minimum temperatures (0.32–0.33°/decade) has been particularly rapid. Trends in precipitation are more diverse across the highlands. On average, precipitation has increased by 3.4 mm/decade, mostly due to an increasing trend in winter precipitation in terms of snowfall.

Sedentarisation and increasing livestock population: Sedentarisation refers to attempts to settle migratory peoples permanently in terms of land use, property, and settlement. As a result of sedentarisation, many nomads have converted to a sedentary lifestyle in most parts of the Himalayan region. There is a widespread belief that rangelands have relatively constant carrying capacities, which are derived from their native agro-ecological potential and that stocking strategies exceeding these capacities cause degradation, especially in alpine and arid zones. Therefore, increasing livestock populations linked with overgrazing is often blamed for degradation. The intrinsic variability of rangeland ecologies, however, makes it difficult to distinguish directional change (e.g., loss of biodiversity and soil degradation) from readily reversible fluctuations; hence, interpretations of ‘degradation’ and ‘desertification’ should be viewed with caution. Rangelands in alpine or arid zones are increasingly seen as non-equilibrium ecosystems. Modification to the biological productivity of these rangelands on annual to decadal time scales is mainly governed by biophysical drivers, such as climate change, and human factors such as mismanagement.

Impacts

Impacts of climate change on grasslands: As temperatures change, the location of climate belts at high altitudes will change. Some studies report changes in plant community structure and, in areas of permafrost transition, total loss of vegetation and ecosystem functions has been observed.


156

Warming over the last 20 years has benefited vegetation growth in arid steppe and desert areas, but the currently most productive grasslands are not among areas that are predicted to benefit from global warming. Grassland productivity is highly correlated with precipitation, and more productive vegetation types in the highlands are experiencing declining precipitation trends. Some field studies report diminution of average grass height and declining yield, due to declining summer (growth season) rainfall and a shortened growing season.

Anthropogenic influences on grasslands: Scientists generally concur that overgrazing is pervasive across the highlands. High grazing intensities are correlated with declines in vegetation height, coverage, and above-ground biomass, as well as soil organic matter and nutrient content. Some research has suggested that overgrazing has been driven and exacerbated by grassland management policies, as the contracting of grasslands has restricted herd mobility. Optimum grazing contributes to the maintenance of both biodiversity and the productivity of grassland ecosystems, however (Klein et al. 2004).

Forest transition in the uplands

Significance

Forests have multiple functions, they harbour biodiversity, present landscape beauty, anchor soil and water, sink carbon, regulate climate and temper streamflow, and also directly supply forest products (timber, firewood, paper, and non-timber forest products) for local livelihoods and economies. Over one hundred million people in the Himalayas directly depend on forests for their livelihood, particularly the poor. Equally important, forest areas can be converted into agricultural land for grazing and food production. Farmers, herders, and shifting cultivators have nurtured and managed biomass in totally different ways for centuries, if not millennia, across the Himalayas. The Himalayan region, as the source of ten large river systems, has a great variation in climatic zones and forest ecosystems according to longitude, latitude, and altitude.

Drivers

The ‘Theory of Himalayan Degradation’, which assumed that poverty and overpopulation in the Himalayas would lead to deforestation and, finally, the disappearance of highland forests in Nepal, did not come true. There is a pseudo-linkage between highland deforestation and lowland floods. Since the early 1980s, most nation states in the Himalayas seem to have embarked on a road to forest transition, after a history of dramatic forest loss. Examples are joint forest management in India, forestry user groups for community forest management in Nepal, forest tenure reform in China (known as the ‘Forestry Three Fixes’ in 1981), and forestry and biodiversity conservation in Bhutan. Tree plantation, natural regeneration, and the establishment and expansion of protected areas followed by secured access and tenure, community participation, and social fencing have all taken place in the mid-hills of the Himalayan region. With market incentives and the reinforcement


157

of forest tenure, farmers planted more trees and managed more forestlands than ever before. The biggest floods on the Yangtze River in history stimulated the Chinese state to pay for environmental conservation through land use conservation, or the ‘Grain for Green’ programme.

Mountain people still depend on forest resources from fodder to firewood, and from timber to non-timber forest resources for their livelihoods to a great extent. It is estimated that 80% of the total population in the Southwest use firewood for cooking and winter heating as well as curing tobacco: the annual demand for firewood is about one hundred million cubic metres.

The effects of climate change on mountain forest vegetation are upward or northward shifts in the treeline. There is strong evidence that forest plant species and as many vertebrates and invertebrates have already followed the pace of climate change by shifting their distributions to higher altitudes. There has been a significant upward shift in treeline at a rate of 5-10 m per decade (Baker and Moseley 2007) and in species’ optimum elevation averaging 29 metres per decade (Lenoir et al. 2008) in alpine ecosystems.

Impacts

Scarcity of timber and secure tenure rights stimulate local communities and the private sector to plant more trees. As a result, forest plantation significantly increased forest area from 96,000 kha in the late 1970s to 143,000 kha in the early 2000s (Kauppi et al. 2006). Also, one benefit of free trade is that China now imports more timber products from other countries (Zhang 2000). Energy technology and economic growth can also lead to the substitution of forest resources. More and more rural households are benefitting from biogas, small hydropower, and solar energy, which directly reduce reliance on firewood from the forests. In the practice of decentralised forest management, government officials have shifted their ideological discourses to economic instruments for forest management and conservation, reflected in both the case of the ‘Sloped Land Conversion Programme (SLCP)’ and the ‘Natural Forest Protection Programme (NFPP)’. As a result, China has the largest planted forest area in the world, a total of 71.3 million hectares in 2005 (FAO 2007).

The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 integrates those identifications into a Forest Identity Index to compare forest transition status in 50 nations (Kauppi et al. 2006). Net forest cover in Asia is increasing, mainly due to large investments in forest plantation such as those in China (FAO 2007). Growth in plantation, however, does not cancel out the continued loss of natural forests and deterioration of the environment.

The impact of forest transition on biodiversity needs to be re-examined. Monocultural plantation has nothing to contribute to biodiversity. Introduced fir (Abies sp.) plantations in northwest Yunnan are very vulnerable to insect attacks (Cosmotriche saxosimilis). Since 1986 more than 20,000 ha of Abies forest have been affected by pests in Shangrila County of Diqin Prefecture (Xu and Wilkes


158

2004). In many places endemic species have been replaced by invasive species in the disturbed habitats, so low levels of biodiversity will persist in the early state of transition.

The interactions of land, forest, and water have long been discussed and debated. Land use or cover is intrinsically linked to the hydrological cycle; therefore, a land use decision is often a water decision. The effects of forest expansion on stream flows and water quality appear to vary with the type and structure of vegetation as well as conditions of the catchment. Ma et al. (2008) found that afforestation in a mountain watershed reduced surface water and streamflow and increased baseflow and evaporation during the monsoon.

Agricultural intensification

Significance

Agricultural intensification – defined as higher levels of input and/or increased output (in quantity or value) of cultivated or reared products per unit area and time – as during the Green Revolution in the 1960s when there was a doubling of India’s food production from 1960 to 2000. Such achievements are viewed sceptically by observers contemplating the future of non-irrigated agriculture in the tropical world where intensification may be considered environmentally untenable because of special biophysical constraints and socioeconomic conditions that inhibit farmers’ (especially smallholders) access to inputs

Drivers

Intensification is triggered by land scarcity in economies not yet fully integrated into the market, and it is usually linked to growth in population and its density, whether caused by natural increases, migration, incursion of non-agricultural land uses, or institutional factors (e.g., land-tenure regimes). Land scarcity changes land-labour ratios, driving up the intensity of cultivation and, where possible, shifting production towards the market and to high-value products such as fruit, flowers, and vegetables. Markets trigger commercial intensification of agriculture in a commodification pathway. Investment in crops or livestock modify the factors and value of production per hectare. Technology innovations such as a ‘Green Revolution’ through the development of modern or high-yielding crop varieties have made great contributions to agricultural intensification. In the mid-1960s, scientists developed modern varieties of rice and wheat that were adopted extensively by smallholder farmers in the region. Significant land use intensification can be driven also by intervention, usually in state-, donor-, or NGO-contrived projects intended to promote development in a region or economic sector, and often through commercial agriculture for national and international markets that increase income for the participants and the state.


159

Impacts

Rapidly developing scarcity of land may trigger increases in cropping frequency unmatched by appropriate changes in inputs or management, resulting in a ‘stressed’ system with stagnating or declining outputs and land degradation. This intensification pathway is vulnerable not only to markets, but to changes in ecosystems or government and development policies. As a result of intensification, many traditional farming systems, such as shifting cultivation, have been transformed into either monocultures of modern varieties of food crops or cash crops. Much of the agrobiodiversity in agroecosystems has been lost forever.

The large-scale and high intensity of biocide and fertilizer application have had negative consequences on the health of mountain farmers who have neither proper knowledge nor access to health services. Food security does not always provide dietary diversity and balanced nutrition. The environmental consequences of input mismanagement and overuse include destruction of beneficial insects, water logging and salinisation of irrigated land, pollution of groundwater and rivers, poisoning of farm workers, and excessive dependence on modern crop varieties. Research estimates show that almost half the nitrogen applied is not used by crops, but instead washes away into the forests, wetlands, lakes, and rivers. Over-fertilized trees grow faster than normal and the levels of nutrients in the foliage contain more nitrogen and less calcium and magnesium than normal trees; and about 10% of the added nitrogen is leaking out of the forest as nitrate in groundwater. In China, nitrate levels are already well above the World Health Organization (WHO) standard for public health risks, and these may well double over another half century. Health problems are exacerbated by the impacts of biocide use when agricultural chemicals leak into irrigation canals and drinking water. Diseases caused by expansion and changes in agricultural practices are associated with a range of food-borne illnesses globally (Xu et al. 2008).

Deforestation and plantation in the tropics

Significance

Tropical forests in the foothills of the Himalayas are important habitats for rich biodiversity in the region. Satellite images indicate, however, that deforestation has occurred mostly in the tropical areas of Southwest China, Myanmar, Northeast India, and southern Nepal in past decades. The causes of tropical deforestation remain debatable. Broadly speaking, two major and divergent pathways of explanation have emerged: single factor causation versus irreducible complexity. Shifting cultivation and population growth have been viewed as primary causes, whereas, on the other hand, the correlates of deforestation and the causative variables are stated to be many and varied, revealing no distinct pattern. The most visible transformation of the tropical landscape has come about through the creation of monocultural plantations such as rubber, tea, tropical fruits, and bananas. We thus recognise a need for both comparative analyses of the main processes of land cover change and for advanced methods to monitor and model land cover changes on regional scales.


160

Drivers

Poverty- and capital-driven deforestation constitute two general pathways to tropical deforestation in the Himalayas. Poverty, in combination with other factors such as poor access to resources and institutions, low income, and social deprivation, has been reported as an underlying social process of deforestation in many case studies in the region.

Poverty-driven cases of deforestation, however, are often simply associated, in various combinations, with shifting cultivation (traditional swidden farming as well as slash-and-burn agriculture), permanent smallholder subsistence farming, land reclamation, and colonisation along the forest frontiers.

Most poverty-driven cases are further underlain by aspects related to property rights: mainly, insecure ownership, quasi-open access, and poor empowerment of local user groups (marginality and social deprivation). Similarly, market failure (in about half of the cases), but even more so market growth and commercialisation, underly poverty-driven deforestation. All cases are underlain by public attitudes, values, and beliefs; and especially by unconcern towards forest ecosystems.

Cases of capital-driven deforestation are related to cash flow for development in tropical frontiers through the plantation economy. Commercial farming through large-scale monocultural plantation is considered a pathway to modernity and poverty alleviation in the region by state governments through which the land use change can transform subsistence farming systems into modern society.

Impacts

Causes of tropical deforestation are often the interplay of several factors. Encroachment of subsistence smallholder farmers can be observed in patches in the uplands and foothills. While the expansion of large-scale cash crop plantations clearly appears as the most pronounced proximate cause of tropical deforestation, shifting cultivators cannot be accused of being the key agents of deforestation. First, shifting cultivation is almost consistently caused by timber logging as a concomitant cause. Second, traditional swidden-fallow farming emerges as a regional feature of upland and foothill Himalayas, most of them poverty-driven and related to colonisation due to lack of property rights and access to institutions.

Although the forest-runoff link is still debatable, there is strong evidence that deforestation and monocultural plantation cause soil degradation and a shift in hydrological regimes, no doubt further contributing to biodiversity loss.


161

Urbanisation

Significance

Urbanisation as land cover, in the form of built-up or paved-over areas, occupies only less than 0.1% of the Himalayan land surface. Urbanisation affects land change elsewhere through the transformation of urban-rural linkages. The economic boom in China and India and the remittance economy in Pakistan and Nepal, however, have accelerated urbanisation and rural-urban migration. Many people have moved temporally and permanently from rural to urban areas, and this has great impacts on land use and land cover change. Increasing numbers of urban inhabitants depend on mountain ecosystem services for fresh water and food supplies as well as recreation. Fifty-two per cent of China’s population was urban in 2007, the rural-urban linkage or the urban ‘ecological footprint’ is critical for land use trend assessments.

Drivers

Urbanisation in the Himalayas is mainly driven by rapid economic growth in China and India as well as globalisation through labour migration and a remittance economy such as that of Nepal.

Impacts on mountain biodiversity and ecosystem services

The not-so-simple pathways of urban impacts on rural land cover mean that at least two broad urbanisation pathways lead to different impacts on rural landscapes. In the well-developed world, large-scale urban agglomerations and extended peri-urban settlements fragment the landscapes of such large areas that various ecosystem processes are threatened, including the migration and sustainability of biota. Ecosystem fragmentation in peri-urban areas, however, may be offset by urban-led demands for conservation and recreational land uses. In a different vein, economically and politically powerful urban consumers tend to be disconnected from the realities of biologically rich habitats and resource production, and they are largely inattentive to the impacts of their consumption on distant locales. Cities attract a significant proportion of the rural population by way of permanent and circulatory migration, and the wages earned in the city are sent by migrants to rural homelands, in some cases transforming the use of croplands and creating ‘remittance landscapes’. Perhaps, most importantly, this urbanisation changes lifestyles ultimately associated with demographic and land use transitions increasing expectations about consumption and, potentially, weakening understanding of production-consumption relationships, usually noted in the well-developed world: all of these have implications for biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Alternative pathways

Economic growth and land use transition in the Himalayas have geopolitical implications for the world also. Converting arable land to urban construction and tree plantation directly affects domestic food security with the potential to influence global commodity markets. China imported a


162

total of 5.8 billion US dollars’ worth of animal feed with an average annual change of 57% in value from 1999-2003; 94% of this consisted of soybeans, largely from Latin America including Brazil and Argentina, and this has implications for land use and land cover in the Amazon. Free trade can export the impacts of one nation’s timber consumption to another nation that harvests the timber. By implementing the Natural Forest Protection Programme (NFPP) or logging restrictions in 1998 and tariff reductions on forest products in 1999, China’s annual timber product imports from Myanmar more than tripled between 1997 and 2002. There are increasing instances of exported impacts or leakages of one nation’s timber consumption to another’s forests in Asia (Kauppi et al. 2006). While the robust economy in the region demands more land for plantation, there are instances of exported impacts of land use to another’s forestland. Chinese investors search for more land for rubber plantation in neighbouring countries such as Laos and Myanmar. Conversion of secondary forest areas to rubber is considered an economic opportunity by both local decision makers and farmers. Rubber plantation will eventually become the dominant landscape in the tropics of mainland Southeast Asia. Following China, India has reached a turnaround in forest transition; both are enjoying forest expansion and strong economic growth (Kauppi et al. 2006). It is only a matter of time before this has great impacts on the global commodity market. Alternative pathways have to be developed locally with sustainable land use management and lifestyles with a low-carbon economy. Some alternative pathways include payment for ecosystem services, mosaic agroforestry landscapes, and sustainable forest management.

Payment for ecosystem services

Himalayan forest and grassland ecosystems provide society with a wide range of services – from reliable flows of fresh water to productive soil and carbon sequestration. In response to growing concerns from urban and downstream inhabitants, markers are emerging for payment for ecosystem services around the world: these are voluntary or mandated by policy and are related to carbon, water, and even biodiversity. Due to late growth of awareness in the private sector, States in the Himalayas have taken leading roles in such payments. China allocated large amounts of funds to pay upland farmers to convert farmlands in the upper watersheds into conservation, often called the ‘Sloping Land Conversion Programme’ or ‘Grain for Green’. Municipalities try to pay for headwater farmers to change their land use practices; for example by reducing use of chemical fertilizers to conserve watersheds for drinking water.

Agroforestry landscape

Agroforestry – managing trees with agricultural crops – has the potential for provision of ecosystem goods and services in human-dominated landscapes. Agroforestry is uniquely suited to address both the need for increased food and biomass resources and the need to sustainably manage agricultural landscapes to provide critical ecosystem services such as water, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration. Moreover, it is suited to achieving these objectives in areas where there are high rates of rural poverty such as in the Himalayas. Agroforestry reinforces natural intensification,


163

and this can be strengthened by increased access to markets for agroforestry products. In fact, millions of smallholder farmers have grown trees on farms and in agricultural landscapes of the Himalayas for many generations. Many traditional agroforestry practices can be found from tropical to temperate areas of the Himalayas. Two trends seem almost universal in the Himalayas: the number of trees in forests is declining, and the number of trees on farms is increasing.

Sustainable forest management

Although forest transition occurs, the forest density is still very low. Chinese forest cover has significantly increased from 14% in 1978 to 19% at present; however, forest density is still very low with no increase at all in the past three decades. Most forests are not managed and have a low average stocking volume: 85 m3/ha (140 tCO2/ha) in Chinese forestlands, even much lower for plantations: 47 m3/ha (80 tCO2/ha). The potential activities for sustainable forest management include: a) increasing target diameter/rotation period; b) terminating current practices to extract premature future crop trees and focusing future increments on poor performing trees; c) increasing vertical and horizontal structure by converting monocultures into close-to-nature forests; and d) improving site species matching in existing stands by supporting natural regeneration of desired tree species. Financing carbon forestry can achieve not only economic but also ecological benefits for mountain ecosystems.

References

Baker, BB; Moseley, RK (2007) ‘Advancing treelines and retreating glaciers: implications for conservation in Yunnan, PR China’. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 39:200-209

Eckholm, E (1975) ‘The deterioration of mountain environments’. Science 189:764-770

FAO (2007) State of the world’s forest 2007. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization

Houghton, RA; Hackler, JL; Lawrence, KT (1999) ‘The U.S. carbon budget: Contribution from land use change’. Science 285: 574–578

IUCN; IWMI; Ramsar Convention and WRI (2003) Water Resources Atlas. Available online at http://multimedia.wri.org/watersheds_2003/index.html (accessed 12 June 2007)

Ives, JD; Messerli B (1989) The Himalayan dilemma: Reconciling development and conservation. London: John Wiley and Sons

Kasperson, RE; Kasperson, JX; Turner II, BL; Dow, K; Meyer, WB (1995) ‘Critical environmental regions: concepts, distinctions and issues’. In Jeanne X; Kasperson, RE; Kasperson, JX; Turner II, BL (eds) Regions at risk: comparisons of threatened environments, pp1-41. Tokyo: United Nations University Press

Kauppi, PE; Ausubel, JH; Fang, JY; Mather, SAS; Sedjo, RA; Waggoner, PE (2006) ‘Returning forests analyzed with the forest identity’. PNAS 130(46):17574-17579

Klein, JA; Harte, J; Zhao, XQ (2004) ‘Experimental warming causes large and rapid species loss, dampened by simulated grazing on the Tibetan Plateau’. Ecology Letters 7(2):1170-1179


164

Körner, Ch (2004) ‘Mountain biodiversity, Its causes and function’. Ambio 13: 11-17

Lambin EF; Turner II, BL; Geist, H; Agbola, S; Angelsen, A; Bruce, JW; Coomes, O; Dirzo, R; Fischer, G; Folke, C; George, PS; Homewood, K; Imbernon, J; Leemans, R; Li, X; Moran, EF; Mortimore, M; Ramakrishnan, PS; Richards, JF; Skånes, H; Steffen, W; Stone, GD; Svedin, U; Veldkamp, T; Vogel, C; Xu, J (2001) ‘Our emerging understanding of the causes of land use and -cover change’. Global Environmental Change 11: 261-269

Lenoir, J; Gegout, JC; Marquet, PA; de Ruffray, P; Brisse, H (2008) ‘A significant upward shift in plant species optimum elevation during the 20th Century’. Science 320:1768-1771

Ma, X; JC, Xu; Y, Luo; SP, Aggarwal; JT, Li (2009) ‘Response of hydrological processes to land cover and climate change in Kejie Watershed, Southwest China’. Hydrological Process, 23: 1179-1191. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.7233

Rudel, TK; Coomes, O; Moran, E; Achard, F; Angelesen, A; Xu, J; Lambin, E (2005) ‘The forestry transition: Towards a global understanding of land cover change’. Global Environmental Change 15: 23–31

Schweinfurth, U (1957) ‘Die horizontale und vertikale verbreitung der vegetation im Himalaya’. Bonner Geographische Abhandlungen 20(12): 1-375

Wilkes, A (2008) Towards mainstreaming climate change in grassland management: Policies and practices on the Tibetan Plateau, Working Paper No. 68. Kathmandu: Nagarjuna Publication

Xu, JC; Sharma, R; Jing, F (2008) ‘Critical linkages between land use transition and human health in the Himalayan region’. Environment International 34:239-247

Xu, JC; Shrestha, AB; Vaidya, R; Eriksson, M; Hewitt, K (2007) The melting Himalayas: Regional challenges and local impacts of climate change on mountain ecosystems and livelihoods. ICIMOD technical paper. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Xu, JC; Wilkes, A (2004) ‘Biodiversity impact analysis in northwest Yunnan, Southwest China’. Biodiversity and Conservation 13(5): 959-983

Zhang, YQ (2000) ‘Deforestation and forest transition: theory and evidence in China’. In M. Pal and H. Vanhanen (eds) World forests from deforestation to transition, pp41-65. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Weblinks

www.worldagrorestry.org


165165

Group 3: Wetland Ecosystem Functions and Services – Implications of Climate Change

Wetlands of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas – Ecosystem Functions, Services and Implications of Climate ChangeChaman Trisal, Wetlands International South Asia, New Delhi, India

Chair: Dr Chris BakerRapporteur: Mr Pradeep Mool

Summary

Chaman L. Trisal from Wetlands International – South Asia made a presentation on ‘Wetlands of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas – Ecosystem Functions, Services and Implications of Climate Change’. The presentation was followed by a short video clip of about seven minutes duration on issues related to the wetlands and climate change in the Wular Lake’s Jhelum Basin area.

The presentation highlighted key issues concerning wetlands in the HKH region. The speaker stated that wetlands accounted for about 17% of the area of the region, which was the source of ten major Asian rivers, supporting 29% of the global population. The importance of some ecosystem services was discussed in the presentation. For example:

Carbon sequestration: The Rourgei marshes in China store 750 million tonnes of carbon – 7.5 •times the annual fossil fuel emissions of the Chinese transportation sector.

Hotspots of biodiversity: Bar-headed geese use the voer (creek) marshes and high-altitude •wetlands (HAWs) of Bhutan as breeding grounds. Along the rivers of Kashmir – high-altitude wetlands provide cold-water habitats for fish (trout).

Cultural linkages and support to livelihoods: The Rourgei marshes support more than 50,000 •Tibetan herders, and several high-altitude wetlands, such as Gokyo in Nepal, are of religious and spiritual significance, especially for Hindus and Buddhists.

Water diversion, drainage for agriculture, overgrazing, and stresses induced by climate change are leading to degradation and contributing to a wide range of human- and environment-driven threats. Significant changes have occurred as a result of climate change in the Himalayan region, and these will result in rapid increases in glacial melt – which contributes 4–45% of the river base flows – increased variability of flows, and frequent droughts and floods.


166

Shifts in biodiversity are rendering species with restricted habitats vulnerable and will lead to high levels of vulnerability within communities. Wetland vulnerability, in turn, will increase vulnerability to climate change. Wetlands can also play an adaptive role in contributing to climate change by providing services to regulate hydrological regimes – storing peak flows, augmenting lean flows, and storing carbon – peatlands, and supporting biodiversity.

The example of wetlands in the Wular Lake Basin of the Kashmir Valley in Jhelum Basin was given. About seventy per cent of the area was originally marshland and was converted to agricultural and plantation land from 1911 to 2007. An analysis of river discharge data (over the past 100 years) showed higher flow volumes and earlier onset of high flows due to increasing glacial melt in the Jhelum Basin. This will lead to increased vulnerability of downstream areas with floods and droughts and loss of wetlands. Poverty and marginalisation of communities in the lake area because of degradation of the lake were considerable. The percentage of the population below the poverty line has increased significantly compared to the state of Jammu and Kashmir as a whole.

A management package for wetlands and river basins is necessary to integrate wetlands into climate-change adaptation measures. The following factors needed to be considered:

The functioning of high-altitude wetlands is considered critical to ensure sustained provision of •ecosystem services to the downstream reachesWetland conservation and wise use as alternatives to structural approaches•The connectivity of wetlands to river systems is critical for maintenance of ecosystem services•

The following points were also raised.In relation to biodiversity and water regimes, a sectoral policy approach to wetlands and 1. water management is used with a limited degree of integration.The role of wetlands in water management and river-basin management is not explicitly 2. recognised.Water allocation strategies are focused on human needs without considering ecological 3. requirements. The principal focus in the management of water resources is on the role of the state and 4. community institutions – the private sector’s role is limited and incentive mechanisms diffused.There is an urgent need for action as inadequate integration increases the vulnerability of large 5. populations and ecosystems – especially on account of climate change.

The ‘Himalayan Wetlands Initiative’ is a regional initiative of the Ramsar Convention, initiated by regional member countries and other international organisations such as ICIMOD, WWF, and Wetlands International (WI): it still needs endorsement by member countries. ICIMOD and other partners are coordinating this. The ‘Himalayan Wetlands Initiative Strategy’ for the conservation and wise use of Himalayan Wetlands was finalised recently by participants at the workshop (1-3 September 2008) in Kathmandu and the following areas were included.


167

Database methodologies for Himalayan Wetlands 1. Mechanisms and facilities for cooperation, networking, and capacity building2. Improved knowledge of climate change impacts and adaptive responses3. Devising and promoting best practices on Himalayan wetland management 4. Development of participatory communication, education, and awareness (CEPA) programmes 5. Development of policy support for implementation of wetland conservation6.

Discussion

The following issues emerged from the discussion following the presentation. High-altitude peatlands in China, such as the Rourgei marshes, were experiencing changes in •water regimes as a result of rises in temperature, and this was causing a 47% reduction in river water regimes. Payment for ecosystem services for downstream benefits from upstream were already in practice •in China in the high-altitude wetlands and rangelands to compensate herders for not controlling grazing.In the Chinese high-altitude peatlands, about 100 tons of carbon would be released if the •water table on one hectare of land decreased by one metre.There has been negative impacts on some wetlands, such as Napa Lake in China, due to •tourism, horse riding, and mining activities.Some lakes on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau are shrinking and water sources need assessing to find •out whether they are rainfed or from glacial melt. This would make a significant difference to the response to climate change. The decrease in permafrost has resulted in a reduction in water reserves and wetlands by about •27% in the Yangtze and Yellow river headwaters in Qinghai.There is inadequate knowledge about the relationship between water management, climate •change, and wetlands. Further research on hydrological data is needed to understand the water sources for wetlands and the climate patterns in HKH mountain areas. Siltation and debris are filling dams and reservoirs rapidly in the HKH region such as in Pakistan.There could be a potential positive impact from climate change in the wetlands such as that •from glacial melt. It should be recognised, however, that this would imply a change in wetland types. There were specific research gaps when it came to the integration of wetland ecosystems into •water, and linking research to policy to livelihoods and local knowledge meant better research.There was an example from Machu County in China where people were working together with •researchers, policy makers, and local communities of herders to implement a system of ecological service payments.In Myanmar there is little information and an inventory of wetlands is needed: this could be put •together in collaboration with Wetlands International and ICIMOD.Most infrastructures, such as dams and hydropower projects, disturb the free migration and •breeding of aquatic life: the aquatic life along the Irrawaddy River is one example.


168

The ‘Himalayan Wetlands Initiative’ offers an opportunity to move from a fragmented national •approach to a regional multidisciplinary approach with common methodologies for data collection and sharing.

Some key conclusions were drawn from the session.More integrated, multidisciplinary research is essential to bring about wetland conservation and •understand the relationship of wetlands to climate change.Practitioners and policy makers should be more engaged in setting research agendas and •encouraging development agendas.Research should take into account relationships between communities and livelihoods.•

Some key research issues were identified.What is the role of high-altitude wetlands and especially peatlands in climate change •mitigation?Is there a role for restored/maintained wetlands as tools in climate change adaptation?•Payment for ecosystem services is an emerging tool to support wetland communities in •conserving high-altitude wetlands. Research is needed to identify the best practices and these should be developed based on the evaluation of current examples. More investment in data infrastructure and research to understand the relationship between •wetlands and water resources is needed.

During Plenary Session IV, the reporting of group work for this session raised the issue of the resilience of the biodiversity approach through introduction of valuable genes and species. The opportunity provided by the carbon sequestration dimensions of wetlands was also discussed and highlighted as a key area for future work.


169169

Wetlands of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas – Ecosystem Functions, Services and Implications of Climate ChangeChaman Trisal, Wetlands International – South Asia, New Delhi, India

Introduction

The Hindu Kush-Himalayas are replete with wetlands distributed throughout the region at different latitudes, longitudes, and altitudes. Fed primarily by melting glaciers, these wetlands play an enormous role in the ecological and economic security of the region through their wide range of ecosystem services among which are support to local livelihoods, regulation of hydrological regimes, carbon sequestration, and support to biodiversity. Despite their significant role, these wetlands are under threat due to degradation of catchments, water diversion, unsustainable tourism, and other pressures. Climate change has severe implications for the wetlands as a result of changes in hydrological regimes, biodiversity, and unmanaged mitigation and adaptation responses. Integration of wetland restoration and the sustainable management of adaptation strategies will improve the effectiveness of regional responses to climate change. The present paper provides an overview of the distribution and extent of the wetlands in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region, their functions and ecosystem services, and the implications of climate change. It also provides an outline for their integration into strategies for adaptation to climate change.

Extent and distribution of wetlands

The Hindu Kush-Himalayas, which form a part of the Greater Himalayan Region, include the mountain territories of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Nepal, and Pakistan. The region is bound by the highly fertile Gangetic plains to the south and the Tarim Basin in the north. To the east is a continental scarp that extends from the Khingan Range in northeastern China through the Taihang Mountains to the eastern edge of the Yunnan-Guinzhou Plateau separating the low-lying areas of China from the Quinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Extremes in altitude, relief, climate, geology, and geomorphology provide an environment supportive of a complex mosaic of landscapes. The region is replete with wetlands in diverse forms such as rivers and floodplain marshes, peat lands, glaciated lakes, hot springs, seasonal waterlogged areas, and manmade wetlands (Figure 1). The altitudes above 3,000 masl have glaciated lakes that probably originated during the third Himalayan glaciation period. They are fringed by alpine wetlands between 2,000 to 2,500 masl. The third series is that of the valley lakes, which are found at lower altitudes and mainly occur along river courses. Assessments based on the database for global lakes and


170


170

wetlands (Lehner and Döll 2004) indicate that the overall extent of the wetlands is about 17% of the total area (Trisal and Kumar 2008). These figures, however, are dependent upon the accuracy of the datasets, their use, and interpretation. Wetlands within the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region in China are mainly found in the north, south, and southeast part of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. The alpine climate favours the creation of a vast frozen soil layer that is conducive to the formation of wetlands such as lakes, marshes, and swampy meadows. Known as ‘simsar’ in Nepal (meaning perennial sources of water), 16 glacial and 8 tectonic lakes have been identified of which Panch Pokhari, Dig Tsho, Tonju, Gosainkund, Bhairav Kund, Tilicho, Phoksundo, and Rara are the most famous. Rara is the largest and deepest of the high-altitude wetlands in Nepal followed by Phoksundo. The wetlands of Bhutan are found located within three clusters: (i) several lakes in the northwestern part of Jigme Dorji Wildlife Sanctuary, (ii) eleven small lakes in western Bhutan, and (iii) a cluster of six small lakes in eastern Bhutan (Scott 1989). All the major rivers in the country, viz., the Drangme Chuu, the Pung Tsang Chhu, the Wang Chuu, and the Amo Chuu, originate from wetlands. Within India, the wetlands are mostly located within the Leh and Ladakh regions in Jammu and Kashmir, parts of the states of Uttaranchal, Himachal Pradesh, and in seven northeastern states. Pangong Tso, Chushul Marshes, Hanle River Marshes, Tso Morari, Tso Kar, Wular, Loktak, and parts of the Mehao Sanctuary are wetlands of

Figure 1: Wetlands of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas

Source: drawn based on Lehner and Döll 2004 and Jarvis et al. 2008


171

India falling within the Hindu Kush region. Tarbela and Mangla (Pakistan), and Ab-e-Istadeh-ye-Moqor and Kajakai are key wetland systems of Pakistan and Afghanistan within the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region. Moyingyi and Indawngy are the major Hindu Kush-Himalayan wetlands in Mynamar. All these wetlands are linked to their river basins, the major ones being the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Irrawady, Salween, Mekong, Yangtze, and Yellow rivers.

Wetland ecosystem functions and services

Wetlands are critical links between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and are characterised by high primary productivity and the richest biodiversity on Earth. They store and purify water, recharge groundwater aquifers, trap sediments, and improve water quantity and quality. The ecosystem services provided by the wetlands of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas need to be understood in terms of their interconnectedness within the river basins and their linkages to biodiversity and socioeconomic benefits, particularly the livelihoods of hill communities.

Located at the basin crests, these wetlands play an important role in capturing and retaining melting snow and ice and, wherever possible, rainfall, releasing water progressively and, therefore, acting as suppliers and regulators of water for the entire basin. Himalayan glaciers cover approximately three million ha, or 17% of the global mountain area. With an area of 35,110 sq. km and ice reserves of 3,735 cu.km, they are the largest bodies of ice outside the polar caps (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). Such a high concentration of fresh water and ice has aptly earned the region the designation of the ‘third pole’ of the Earth. The wetlands, by capturing this glacial melt, form the source of ten large rivers of Asia, the basins of which support more than 500 million people (19% of the global population) living within India, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Nepal, China, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam. With the contribution of snow and glacial melt to the major rivers in the region ranging from less than five per cent of the average flow of the Irrawady River to more than 45% of the Indus River, the regulation of flow regimes and flow support in the lean seasons becomes critical to the sustenance of economic development in the downstream reaches of their associated basins (Xu et al. 2007).

The wetlands also play an important role in mitigating climate change by acting as carbon sinks. The peat lands in China are one of the most important stores of carbon in the mountain regions storing from 1,500 to 4,000 tons per ha, or up to 8 to 20 times more than mountain forests and 50 to 100 times more than mountain grasslands. The peat lands on the plateau store 750 million tons of carbon, equivalent to 2.7 billion tons of CO2 (equivalent to 7.5 times the annual fossil fuel emissions from the whole transportation sector in China).

The wetlands of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas are also associated with high biodiversity values. The relatively young Himalayan mountain ranges have opened up new southward routes of migration and colonisation into what had hitherto been an island. A range of high-altitude lakes within the Himalayas acts as stopover habitats for Palaearctic species migrating from the west. Similarly, they


172

act as stopovers for species migrating from East and Southeast Asia, later spreading over the entire Indian subcontinent along the Central Asian Flyways (Trisal 1996). The Rourgei marshes are an important breeding habitat, especially for summering and breeding populations of black-necked cranes, Grus nigricollis. Tso Morari is an important breeding ground for bar-headed geese (Anser indicus) and supports significant populations of great crested grebe, Brahminy duck, ruddy shelduck, lesser sand plover, black-necked cranes (Grus nigricollis), and black-necked grebes (Podiceps nigricollis) (Mishra and Humbert 1998; Chandan et al. 2006). In the eastern Himalayas, wetlands situated in Sikkim, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland, and Manipur and the sanctuaries of the Brahamputra Valley are important internationally for a number of bird species.

Wetlands of the Central and Eastern Himalayas support an extremely varied mammalian fauna including several rare and threatened species. Over 40 species listed in Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, are found within wetland sanctuaries. Cervus eldi eldi is the most endangered species and is now confined to Keibul Lamjao National Park in the Loktak Lake area (Trisal and Manihar 2004). The Kaziranga National Park is home to 15 species of India’s threatened mammals and has the largest population of one-horned rhinoceros in the world. The high-altitude wetlands are also important from the perspective of fisheries, particularly cold water fisheries. Species of Schizothorax, Orienus, Schizothorichthys, and Tor dominate the high-altitude wetlands of Nepal and India (Raina 1999; Swar 2002).

Despite being located within mountainous terrain, the wetlands of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas are closely linked to the cultures and livelihoods of several communities, which have traditionally linked their identity and existence to these ecosystems. The Rourgei marshes are home to close to 50,000 nomadic Tibetan herders leading a traditional pastoral lifestyle. High-altitude wetlands are centres of cultural and religious identity for several communities. Gosainkund, Damodarkund, Brahmakund, and Rinmoksha Daha in Nepal and Sheshnag, Tarsar, Marsar, and Gangbal are examples of high-altitude wetlands that are revered by the Hindus as special to their religion and cultures. Similarly, the Buddhists hold high-altitude wetlands such as Gosainkund in high reverence as several of their teachers, viz., Padmasambhava and Milarepa, are believed to have obtained their spiritual insights there. Rich scenic beauty located within pristine environments also makes these wetlands tourist attractions.

Climate change in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas

The entire Himalayan region is facing tremendous pressure due to increasing temperatures. Places like the Tibetan Plateau have shown consistent trends in warming over the last 100 years. The third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts warming by as much as 3°C during the 2050s and about 5°C during the 2080s over the Asian land mass as a result of future increases in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. The stresses of climate change are likely to disturb the ecology of the mountain and highland systems of Asia.


173

One of the key consequences of rising temperatures is the impact on the overall glacial cover within the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region. Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the current trend continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035, or even sooner, is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. The total area is likely to shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 sq.km by 2035 (WWF 2005). One example of rapid glacial retreat is the Gangotri Glacier which, within the last three decades, has receded at rates three times those of the preceding 200 years (Srivastava 2003).

Glacial melt plays an important role in supporting perennial rivers in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region, and these rivers are the lifelines of millions of people in South Asia. The Gangetic Basin alone is home to 500 million people, about 10% of the total human population. As glaciers melt, river runoff is expected to initially increase in winter or spring, but eventually decrease as a result of loss of ice. Such reductions will have serious consequences for development activities downstream, particularly agriculture. The current trends of glacial melt suggest that the Ganges, Indus, Brahmaputra, and other rivers criss-crossing the Indian plains could become seasonal rivers affecting downstream economies, particularly availability of water for agriculture, ultimately affecting food security in the region.

The other important consequence of climate change is the variability of flows as peak flows increase and flows in the lean season decline. This would then lead to risks of flooding in the wet seasons and water shortages and even long dry spells in the dry seasons. This would increase water stress and can already be seen in the decline in agricultural productivity in many parts of Asia. The gross per capita availability of water in India is projected to decline from 1,820 cum/year in 2001 to 1,140 cum/year in 2050. India will reach a state of water stress before 2025 when availability will fall below 100 cum/capita (CWC 2001). Intense rain occurring over fewer days implies an increase in floods and a decrease in the rechargeable potential of groundwater. Expansion of areas under severe water stress will be one of the most pressing environmental topics as the number of people living under such severe conditions is likely to increase substantially. Climate change also has severe implications for biodiversity within the region. About 50% of Asia’s total biodiversity is at risk due to climate change. Large populations of species could disappear as a result of the synergic effects of climate change and habitat fragmentation. Within the Himalayan region, a shift of species to higher elevations is projected. Species with restricted habitat availability run the risk of habitat fragmentation, loss, or even extinction if they cannot move, particularly after an increase of 2ºC (Dirnbock et al. 2003). As a result of rapidly melting glaciers, the frequency of glacial runoff and glacial lake outburst floods has increased, causing mud flows and avalanches (WWF 2005).

The ultimate impact of these changes will be on the livelihoods of large numbers of people in Asia living below the social and economic poverty lines. In the absence of opportunities, poor


174

communities are left with no option but to use even disaster-prone areas, unproductive lands, and ecologically fragile areas that have been designated for protection purposes. With climate change, the poorest will be most vulnerable and without appropriate measures; and this will continue to slow down economic progress in developing countries of Asia (Cruz et al. 2006).

Implications of climate change for wetlands and ecosystem services

Climate change has several implications for wetlands and their ecosystem services. Although definitive assessments for regional wetlands in the context of climate change are a major research gap, increasing temperatures and associated changes in flow regimes are expected to alter their extent and distribution significantly. For high-altitude wetlands, changes in glacial extent can have tremendous impacts on wetlands. Due to the melting of Himalayan glaciers, more than 9,000 glacier lakes have been formed, many potentially dangerous as they could erupt into glacial lake outburst floods (GLOF). An assessment carried out by ICIMOD has led to identification of 200 potentially dangerous glacial lakes in the region with the potential to wash away entire livelihoods through catastrophic floods (Bajracharya 2007). In some parts of the Himalayan region about 30% of the lakes and marshes have disappeared during the last 30 years due to the effects of climate change and overexploitation of wetland resources. Peat lands are also quite vulnerable because of warming and drought. Within the middle altitudes, the wetlands are very likely to be affected by changes in hydrological cycles, which include increases in glacial runoff and shifting monsoon patterns.

The other range of impacts on wetlands is likely to emerge from the unsustainably managed and ill-informed climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. One of the key conclusions of climate-based assessments within Asia is the likelihood of declining agricultural productivity and an increase in catastrophic events such as floods and droughts. Historically, responses to similar situations have been biased towards structural approaches such as flow regulation through dams and reservoirs, embankments, channelization, and cultivation of additional areas for food production. All of these responses have the potential to accentuate wetland conversion, changes in hydrological regimes, pollution, and habitat fragmentation.

Wetland ecosystem services and adaptation to climate change

Wetlands have a tremendous role to play in adapting to the impacts of climate change. Through their inherent capacity to regulate flow regimes, wetlands can provide a stable flow of water by storing glacial melt and runoff and gradually releasing them over a period of time. Wetlands also recharge groundwater aquifers during the wet season, thereby maintaining moisture during the drought periods. Peat lands act as carbon stores, thereby preventing its release into the atmosphere. Loss of wetlands and their associated ecosystem services would thereby enhance the vulnerability of communities to climate change. An example of this is seen in the wetlands of the


175175

Jhelum Basin. Loss of extensive marshes that formed contiguous parts of the high-altitude wetlands of the River Jhelum is known to have brought about a reduction in the hydrological regulation capacity of the wetlands leading to an increase in frequency of floods and droughts within the Kashmir Valley (Fig 2) (WISA 2007).

One of the key efforts in integrating wetland ecosystem services into strategies for adaptation to climate change within the region has been the promotion of the ‘Himalayan Wetland Initiative’, which envisages the establishment of a framework for regional cooperation in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan countries within the ambit of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The initiative, through regional action, emphasises integration of conservation and wise use of wetlands into water and other natural resource management and land use planning endeavours and the facilitation of an effective strategy for adaptation to climate change. Although formal ratification by all member countries is still not completed, to date priority issues have been identified to increase cooperation among the countries; to improve the ecological status of the wetlands; and improve the livelihoods of the people dependent on Himalayan wetlands. The priority issues identified are (i) to carry out an inventory and assessment of high-altitude wetland (HAW) services and values; (ii) assessment of climate-change impacts on wetland functions and values; (iii) engaging participatory involvement of all stakeholders, including the private sector; (iv) enhancing improved awareness of wetland values and services at local community and government levels; (v) promotion of downstream and upstream

Figure 2: Changes in mean monthly flows in the River Jhelum at Baramulla, Kashmir, India


176

linkages; (vi) development of effective networking between various stakeholders; and (viii) addressing common issues of ecological safety (wetlands-related disasters). The recently concluded workshop on ‘Himalayan Wetlands and Initiative Strategy’ held in Kathmandu from 1 to 3 September 2008 recommended the following strategic areas.

Develop database methodologies for Himalayan wetlands.•Develop mechanisms and facilities for cooperation, networking, and capacity building.•Improve knowledge of climate-change impacts and adaptation responses. •Devise and promote best practices for Himalayan wetlands’ management.•Develop participatory communication, education, and public awareness (CEPA) programmes. •Develop policy support for implementation of wetland conservation.•

Considering wetlands as a part of the overall hydrological regime, a key prerequisite for achieving effective conservation and wise use of wetlands in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas is their integration into the framework of river basin management. The objective of the framework is to coordinate conservation, management, and development of water and land-related resources across sectors within a given basin in order to maximise the economic and social benefits derived from water resources in an equitable manner. The framework also aims to preserve and, wherever necessary, restore fresh-water ecosystems. Integration of the wetlands of the region is, therefore, a useful framework for achieving conservation and wise use of wetlands and mainstreaming their ecosystem services into broader conservation and development contexts. Despite this recognition, there is very limited integration of wetlands within river basin management policies, plans, and strategies. A review of the water and wetland sectoral policies and strategies in four countries (Bhutan, China, India, and Nepal) by Wetlands International-South Asia indicated a sectoral approach within these two sectors with a very limited degree of integration (Trisal and Kumar 2008). This limits communication between the two sectors, often leading to changes in water regimes detrimental to wetland ecosystems. Lack of effective capacity within the region to assess the intersectoral linkages and their integration into planning and management of water resources is the key factor limiting the harmonisation of these sectors. Balancing water use for human needs and ecological purposes is an important challenge that remains to be addressed.

There is an urgent need to implement a capacity-building strategy in the region to ensure integration of wetlands into the management of river basins. Based on a process of regional consultation led by Wetlands International and involving government and non-governmental organisations from Bhutan, China, India, and Nepal, the following capacity-building needs were identified.

An integrated river basin management (IRBM) framework for the Himalayan region balancing a) sociopolitical contexts and management planning requirementsMethods and tools for inventory and assessment; management planning at river basin level; b) allocation of water for human and ecological purposes; valuation of ecosystem services; incentive systems for balancing conservation and development needs; and modelling impacts of climate change at relevant resolutions


177

Data access and sharing and multistakeholder and multisectoral communication and c) cooperation at the institutional level

The capacity-building strategy to address the above needs should include (i) creating appropriate institutional mechanisms for imparting training to wetland managers, policy planners, decision makers, and other relevant stakeholders; (ii) developing training models and training materials online; (iii) developing monitoring and review processes to improve the efficiency of capacity-building processes and adaptations as necessary; (iv) creating a network of wetland managers for collaborative research and development of a knowledge base; and (v) developing tool kits as a mechanism for sharing information about the Asian Wetland Inventory, hierarchical information at the level of sub-basin and wetland complexes’ level to monitor changes in ecological characteristics of the wetlands, and the interpretation of this information in terms of upstream-downstream linkages.

Conclusion

Integration of ecosystem functions and services of the wetlands of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region is an effective adaptation strategy against the rapidly emerging pressures caused by climate change. There is an urgent need to undertake and promote cross-sectoral and multiscale actions regionally to achieve this integration. This should be supported by an intensive capacity-building process involving wetland managers, policy planners, decision makers, and local stakeholders to enable effective wetland management and restoration.

The overall volume of water in the River Jhelum passing Baramulla has been increasing steadily over the years. Conspicuous is the presence of distributed peaks from May to August. These are attributed to the wetlands of the basin, which played a role in absorbing the peak flows and releasing them gradually during lean periods. With the destruction of these wetlands, flow moderation is no longer in operation, leading to floods and droughts.

References

Bajracharya, SR; Mool, PK; Shrestha, BR (2007) Impact of climate change on Himalayan glaciers and glacial lakes – Case studies on GLOF and associated hazards in Nepal and Bhutan. Kathmandu: ICIMOD; UNEP/ROAP

Chandan, P; Gautam, P; Chatterjee, A (2006) ‘Nesting sites and breeding success of black-necked crane Grus nigricollis in Ladakh, India’. In Boere, GC; Galbraitrh, CA; Stroud, DA (eds) Waterbirds Around the World, pp311-314. UK: The Stationery Office Edinburgh

Cruz, RVO; Lasco, RD; Pulhin, JM; Pulhin, FB; Garcia, KB (2006) Climate change impact on water resources in Pantabangan Watershed, Final Technical Report. Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change (AIACC)

CWC (Central Water Commission) (2001) Water and related statistics. New Delhi: Central Water Commission, Water Planning and Projects Wing, Information Systems Directorate


178

Dirnbock, T; Dullinger, S; Grabherr, G (2003) ‘A regional impact assessment of climate and land use change on alpine vegetation’. Journal of Biogeography 30:401–417

Dyurgerov, MD; Meier, MF (2005) Glacier and change Earth system: A 2004 snapshot. Boulder (Colorado): Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado

Jarvis, A; Reuter; HI; Nelson, A; Guevara, E (2008) Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4. International Centre for Tropical Biology (CIAT) Cali, Columbia and others. See CGIAR Consortium for Spatial Information, http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org

Lehner, B; Döll, P (2004) ‘Development and validation of a global database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands’. Hydrological Journal 296:1-22

Mishra, C; Humbert, DB (1998) ‘Avifaunal survey of Tso-morari Lake and adjoining Nuro Sumdo Wetland in Ladakh, Indian Trans-Himalaya’. Forktail 14: 67-70

Raina, HS (1999) Cold water fish and fisheries in Indian Himalayas: Lakes and reservoirs’. In Fish and fisheries at higher altitudes: Asia. Rome: FAO

Srivastava, D (2003) ‘Recession of Gangotri Glacier’. In Srivastava, D; Gupta, KR; Mukerji, S (eds) Proceedings of workshop on Gangotri Glacier, 26-28 March 2003, Lucknow, Special Publication No. 80. New Delhi: Geological Survey of India

Scott, DA (ed) (1989) A directory of Asian wetlands. Gland: IUCN

Swar, DB (2002) ‘The status of cold water fish and fisheries in Nepal and prospects of their utilization for poverty reduction’. In Cold water fisheries in the Trans Himalayan countries. Rome: FAO

Trisal, CL (1996) ‘Wetland biodiversity in the Himalayan Region’. Changing Perspectives of Biodiversity Status in the Himalaya 2(6): 63-711

Trisal, CL; Manihar, T (2004) The atlas of Loktak lake. New Delhi: Wetlands International-South Asia and Loktak Development Authority

Trisal, C; Kumar, R (2008) Integration of high altitude wetlands into river basin management in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: Capacity building needs assessment for policy and technical support. New Delhi: Wetlands International-South Asia

WISA (2007) Comprehensive management action plan for Wular lake. Kashmir. New Delhi: Wetlands International-South Asia

WWF (2005) An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impact in Nepal, India and China. Kathmandu: WWF Nepal Programme

Xu, Jianchu; Shrestha, A; Vaidya, R; Eriksson, M; Hewitt, K (2007) The melting Himalayas. Regional challenges and local impacts of climate change on mountain ecosystem and livelihoods. Kathmandu: ICIMOD


179179

Group 4: Balancing Biodiversity Conservation with Community Livelihoods

Balancing Biodiversity Conservation with Community Livelihoods in the Pamir-Alai Mountains in Central AsiaDr Libor Jonsky, United Nations University

Balancing Biodiversity Conservation with Community Livelihoods: A Global PerspectiveDr Thomas Schaaf, Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences, UNESCO’s MAB Programme

Chair: Professor RP ChaudharyRapporteur: Dr Brigitte Hoermann

Summary

Dr Libor Jansky from the United Nations University and Dr Thomas Schaaf from UNESCO gave presentations about how biodiversity conservation and community livelihoods can be balanced.

Dr Jansky referred to the Pamir-Alai Mountain project in Central Asia. The project’s aims are to restore, sustain, and enhance the productive and protective functions of the transboundary ecosystem in order to improve the social and economic wellbeing of rural communities and households using resources from the region’s ecosystem for their sustenance, while preserving its unique landscape and globally important biodiversity. This distinct ecosystem hosts global values that face immediate threats. Endemic animal species are endangered because of overuse by local communities, habitat destruction, and international hunting activities, while endemic plant species are endangered as they are used as fuel substitutes. The overexploitation of grasslands is leading to pasture degradation. The overuse of biomass resources as fuel substitutes grew after the Soviet Union stopped the supply of fossil fuels and electricity. The role of the Pamir-Alai Mountains as water towers and global carbon sinks is also being affected. To conserve ecological and cultural diversity, new adaptive land use systems, such as irrigated and rainfed agriculture or transhumance livestock breeding, have to be identified in a participatory manner to increase the capacity of the local communities and create ownership over their natural resources.

Dr Schaaf presented a global perspective on balancing biodiversity conservation with community livelihoods with examples from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Man and Biosphere Programme (MAB). UNESCO’s ‘Biosphere Reserve’


180

concept was presented as a feasible and sustainable way of balancing biodiversity with community livelihoods. Biosphere reserves are areas that are internationally recognised for promoting and demonstrating a balanced relationship between people and nature, thereby combining conservation with sustainable development. In mountain areas, clear assets can be identified: spectacular scenery, a clean environment, rare and endangered species, and cultural uniqueness. These assets particularly favour tourism as a means of balancing biodiversity conservation with community livelihoods. With several examples of biospheres (BSP) around the world, different approaches to balance conservation and livelihoods have been used – ecotourism in the Issyk-Kul BSP, Kyrgyzstan; eco-lodges and organic food production in the Dana BSP, Jordan; licensing for protected biosphere products in Africa; and biospheres as a brand fetching premium prices in Switzerland. Further information is available at www.unesco.org/mab.

Discussion

The key issues discussed by the participants were as follows:The longstanding debate that a balance between conservation and livelihoods is not possible •was rejected on the basis of the participants’ experiences throughout the HKH countries. The working group agreed that the conservation of biodiversity is a global responsibility as its •loss will have global impacts.Degradation and loss of biodiversity have been identified as principally a result of human •impacts; therefore, the balancing of conservation and livelihoods is a top priority.As long as there are insufficient opportunities for earning livelihoods, the pressure on biodiversity •will not ease. Any conservation programme must, therefore, also address livelihood options.Balancing conservation and livelihoods can only be successful if local communities are involved •in conservation programmes. A sense of ownership and an understanding of the value of biodiversity among communities must be achieved. In addition, interventions should build on local culture, knowledge, and experience.Tourism is a very promising strategy for livelihoods in mountain areas; however, this is not •applicable throughout the region. Other opportunities need to be identified or developed, and this is difficult for very remote and inaccessible mountain areas.Some participants argued that agrodiversity had been neglected during the conference and •needed to be looked at more thoroughly. Agrodiversity is not only important in terms of food security in the mountains, but also crucial for conserving genes important to the global (research) community. Generalisations are difficult to make about ideal, sustainable livelihood options for communities. •It is necessary to diversify, adapt, and blend traditional and modern technologies.


181181

Balancing Biodiversity Conservation with Community Livelihoods in the Pamir-Alai Mountains in Central AsiaLibor Jansky, Nevelina Pachova, United Nations University, UN Campus, Bonn, Germany Luohui Liang, United Nations University, Tokyo

Introduction

Mountains are repositories of rich biological diversity. Over the centuries, mountain farmers and communities have come to integrate multifaceted values into their beliefs, traditions, livelihoods, and identities. The social functions of mountain ecosystems, which are often considered ‘sacred’ in many mountain communities, have served as an important stimulus for community-based biodiversity conservation (Bernbaum 1997). Similarly, mountain biodiversity at genetic, species, and landscape levels, has traditionally played an important role in reducing the vulnerability of food production systems to climatic variations and environmental risks (Liang et al. 2001).

Spreading production risk over a diversity of crops and livestock that have differing resistance to uncertain biotic and abiotic stresses is a traditional strategy for building the resilience of agricultural systems in mountainous regions. So is the development of complex social networks and relationships around agricultural practices such as seed exchange, communal resource use, and crop harvesting. Dispersion and rotation of crops and livestock over different niches in the landscape, agroforestry systems, mixed farming systems, wild product collection, and food storage have emerged as livelihood strategies and have given rise to social practices that are adapted to the multiple environmental risks in mountain regions and are based on, and thus promote, biodiversity conservation. Traditional resource use and management strategies, together with the rich cultural heritage they entail, however, are being continuously replaced by unsustainable production and resource extraction. The impacts and implications of such livelihood changes for both ecosystem health and human security in mountainous regions are an important cause, particularly in the context of the growing manifestations of climate change in the world’s highlands.

The causes of shifts to unsustainable resource use and management practices vary widely. In some regions, commercial agriculture, along with improved access to high-yield varieties, markets, and off-farm jobs, which have been promoted as a means of reducing poverty in highland regions, has resulted in the marked decline of traditional agricultural systems and the rich diversity of crops and animals they have supported in the past. In others, growing poverty, due to the continuing marginalisation of the highlands, has led to the spread of short-term resource-mining strategies,


182

which are causing damage that is often irrevocable to the structural and functional integrity of mountain ecosystems and diversity. In mountainous regions, such as those in the Caucasus and Central Asia, that are undergoing a transition from centralised planning and development, largely subsidised by a strong state, towards political independence and market-based income-generation, the two trends seem to converge.

The Pamir-Alai mountains, which cover the eastern part of Tajikistan and the southern part of Kyrgyzstan, are among the mountain regions most severely affected by the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the subsequent processes of fundamental restructuring of formal and informal political and market institutions in the newly-independent states. Building upon three decades of experience in mountain research and development issues, the United Nations University (UNU 2008), an independent research agency in the system of the United Nations, is undertaking the challenging task of mobilising efforts and resources to develop an integrated response to addressing the interlinked problems of poverty and resource degradation in the Pamir-Alai mountains. In light of the global implications of the problem, the initiative is being supported financially by the Global Environment Facility (GEF 2008) and a consortium of national and international partners.

GEF is a financial mechanism for supporting the implementation of the three global environmental conventions – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United Nations Biodiversity Convention (UNCBD), and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). As such, it is an innovative institutional structure and the primary source of financing for the environment in developing and transitional states. The GEF is designed to provide incremental financing for activities that could lead to the generation of global environmental benefits such as the conservation of globally important biodiversity or the improvement of the carbon storage capacities of ecosystems. In the case of the Pamir-Alai initiative, in addition to the direct benefits from improvements in the health of the region’s ecosystem and services, and the wellbeing of the communities whose livelihoods are dependent on them, a replicable framework for balancing ecosystem conservation and community livelihoods in semi-arid, transboundary mountainous regions in transition is expected to emerge.

This paper gives a brief account of the key resource degradation issues and livelihood challenges in the Pamir-Alai mountains and the approach and interventions for addressing them agreed upon through a process of participatory research and broad-based stakeholder consultations. Prior to that, a brief overview of the UNU’s broad range of initiatives in the field of mountain agrobiodiversity conservation is given as a background to the evolution of the overall approach to balancing biodiversity conservation with community livelihoods in mountainous areas.


183

Conservation and sustainable management of agrodiversity in mountain ecosystems

From 1992-2002, the UNU global project ‘People, Land Management, and Environmental Change (PLEC)’ assessed agricultural practices contributing to the conservation of agrodiversity across 12 developing countries. The UNU initiative provided the basis for the first major GEF project on agrobiodiversity conservation, and this was executed by the UNU. The GEF PLEC project, which ran from 1998 to 2002, pioneered a participatory approach for developing, testing, and demonstrating successful agrobiodiversity conservation practices through close cooperation between land users and scientists in setting up in situ conservation tests and assessments and organising farmer-to-farmer demonstrations.

In 2002, UNU joined forces with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in a programme aimed at identifying and safeguarding Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS). Building upon the methodological approach and knowledge generated through PLEC, UNU has assisted FAO in preparing case studies and nominating several remarkable land use systems in mountain regions in China, Guinea, India and Mexico for the programme. The UNU-nominated traditional rice-fish culture system in China has already been included as one of the five pilot systems for the GIAHS programme. Other UNU-nominated systems include ‘rotational agroforestry’ in mountainous regions of China; the ‘tapade house garden system’ in the highlands of Guinea, the ‘milpa house garden system’ in the highlands of Mexico, and ‘Sikkim Himalayan agriculture’ in India.

Another avenue for supporting and upscaling agrodiversity conservation practices is the recent establishment of a collaborative research network for sustainable land management in the mountainous region of mainland Southeast Asia (MMSEA), encompassing the Yunnan Province of China; the Kachin and Shan States of Myanmar; the northern regions of Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam; and extending to Northeastern India. The traditional shifting cultivation system, which is rich in crop diversity and indigenous knowledge, is in transition in this region and is being lost through the expansion of monocultural cash crops. The UNU network is developing appropriate strategies and tools to harness local skills, knowledge, and adaptation mechanisms to ensure a sustainable transition and guard against negative impacts on agrodiversity, food security, and the resilience of livelihood systems and communities. The review of regional experiences has been carried out through international workshops and the findings have been published in two volumes (Saxena et al. 2006).

UNU’s initiatives and experience in agrodiversity conservation have demonstrated that innovative resource use and management knowledge and practices contribute to local livelihoods while preserving the agrobiodiversity and resilience of mountain agricultural systems. Such knowledge and practice can be generated and disseminated through international support to strengthen local alliances between farmers and scientists; and through the cross-fertilization of ideas among scientists


184

from proximate geographic regions facing similar challenges. Dispersed global efforts, however, are insufficient to generate large-scale resource-use and management changes in the absence of improvements in the national and regional legal, policy, and institutional contexts. Lessons from mountain research and development initiatives synthesised during the Bishkek Global Mountain Summit (BGMS) in 2002 (Jansky et al. 2002; Price et al. 2004) highlight the fact that involving national policy makers and other relevant stakeholders in initiatives to integrate environmental issues and concerns into broader development options beyond sustainable agriculture (which is often insufficient for alleviating poverty in the world’s mountains) is essential to achieve sustainable resource use and management change. The UNU mountain development initiative in Central Asia, which is an off-spring of the BGMS, was undertaken in light of accumulated knowledge and experiences.

Threats to biodiversity and ecosystems in the Pamir-Alai Mountains in Central Asia

The mountains of Central Asia are among the world’s major biodiversity hotspots (Conservation International 2005). Direct anthropogenic pressures on the region’s natural resources, as well as habitat degradation and landscape changes driven by the coupled processes of climate change and man-induced desertification, threaten both agricultural biodiversity and the endemic wildlife. The Pamir Mountains in Tajikistan and the adjacent Alai and Chon-Alai mountain ranges in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan represent a significant portion of the mountains of Central Asia and constitute an example of the challenges facing marginal mountain areas in the broader region.

Although separated by a political border, which goes along the ridges of some of the highest peaks in the Pamir-Alai region, the Tajik Pamirs and the Alai mountain ranges constitute an integral geographic unit with a diversity of landscapes, including high continental glaciers, mountain lakes, alpine and sub-alpine meadows, mountain forests, wetlands, and cold deserts. Climatic conditions in the region range from sub-humid to arid. The combination of topographic and climatic conditions in the region, as well as the location of the Pamir-Alai mountains at the cross-section of the Tien-Shan, Karakoram, Kunluk, and Hindu Kush mountain regions, have resulted in a unique diversity of flora and fauna entailing Siberian, Boreal, Mongolia, Iranian, and Himalayan elements. The Pamir-Alai mountain ranges are home to a large number of the 1,500 endemic plant species found in the broader Central Asian region; and among these are the ancestors of domestic fruit and nut varieties, medicinal herbs, and wild flowers. The region also hosts a large number of endemic animal species, including globally endangered ones, such as the Marco Polo sheep (Ovis ammon polii), the snow leopard (Uncia uncia), and the Siberian ibex (Capra sibirica), as well as a wide range of birds of prey. The agrodiversity genepools of the region’s resources, as well as its wildlife, are under increasing threat from both climatic changes and anthropogenic pressures.

Mountains are among the regions most vulnerable to climate change. In the Tajik Pamirs, between 1961 and 1990, average temperatures increased by 0.5°C and, if present trends continue, by


185

2050 it is estimated that air temperatures will rise by a further 2-3°C (Novikov and Safarov 2002). Rising temperatures have increased the rate at which the region’s 9,000 glaciers melt, and it is estimated that over 25% of their ice reserves were lost during the period from 1957-2000 (UNCCD 2003). The Fedechenko Glacier alone, with a current length of 70 km, shrunk by almost 1 km, losing 11 sq.km of its area and 2 sq. km of its ice volume in the second half of the 20th Century. If these trends continue many of the small glaciers at lower altitudes will disappear completely and the total ice volume will decline by a further 25-30%. Changes in temperature and water supply regimes are likely to affect mountain vegetation and wildlife directly, leading to the extinction of individual species and ecosystems. Shifts of altitudinal zones across the region may lead to competition for scarce vegetation and water resources between wildlife and livestock in the medium and long-term. Furthermore, direct anthropogenic pressures may increase if mountain communities fail to cope with the challenges they are currently facing in adapting to environmental changes.

The capacities of the inhabitants of the Pamir-Alai mountains to cope with growing climate variability, with increasing frequency and intensity of disasters (such as avalanches, glacial lake outbursts, floods, mudflows, landslides, and rockfalls), as well as with their secondary impacts (such as water logging and salinisation) are severely constrained by abysmal poverty and growing resource degradation in the region. The Pamir-Alai Mountains are home to some of the poorest and most marginalised people in Central Asia. Isolated from the capitals of Dushanbe and Bishkek by high mountain ranges, a limited and dilapidated transportation infrastructure, as well as by ethnic boundaries and corresponding political power divisions, the inhabitants of the Pamir-Alai had to shift to livelihoods based almost exclusively on subsistence agriculture following the collapse of the centralised economic system in the region in the early 1990s. The people endure harsh living conditions at an elevation of 1,200 to 3,500 m, scarce production resources (arable land of between zero and 0.3 ha per capita, vegetation period as little as 75 days per year in some regions, and low summer precipitation and cold winters with minimal temperatures as low as -58°C). In addition, there is limited state support for sustaining a mountain region that was over populated during the Soviet regime. In the early years after independence, the previously state-organised system of agricultural production and export was discontinued, guaranteed state employment discontinued, and social benefits and subsidised fuel cut off, giving rise to a humanitarian crisis in some parts of the region.

The threat to food security in the region has been alleviated through humanitarian aid, remittances from seasonal and permanent migrants, and drastic reductions in livestock. Forest and vegetation resources, and indirectly soil and wildlife, have been heavily affected by a shift to short-term resource mining and extraction in the struggle to meet basic human needs (such as heating and cooking) for survival (Breu and Hurni 2003). Despite notable improvements in the livelihoods of the Pamir-Alai inhabitants as part of the overall process of economic recovery in the two countries over the past decade, anthropogenic pressures continue to disrupt the structural and functional integrity of the fragile mountain ecosystems and resources; and this, in turn, increases their vulnerability to


186

the growing climate variability and related disasters. A participatory baseline assessment of the scope, intensity, and causes of resource degradation in the region was undertaken to serve as a basis for discussions about developing a framework to address the interlinked challenges of poverty and resource degradation. A summary of the findings from the baseline assessments is given in Table 1.

Table 1: Land degradation within the High Pamir and Alai mountains

Degradation Type

Degradation Processes Severity

Western Pamirs Eastern Pamirs alai Mountains

Soil degradation

Water erosion Moderate Moderate Moderate

Wind erosion Low Moderate Low

Mass wasting Moderate Low Locally high

Fertility decline Moderate Moderate Moderate

Salinisation Low Locally high Low

Vegetation degradation

Deforestation (reduction in area of forest and decline in number of tree species)

High Low (trees never significant part of the area’s natural vegetation)

High

Reduction in vegetative cover provided by shrubs (Teresken and other species)

High High Moderate

Reduction in vegetative cover in the pastures

Low for distant pastures, high for pastures close to settlements



Decline in pasture quality with increase in proportion of non-palatable species




Table 1 cont...


187

Degradation Type

Degradation Processes Severity

Western Pamirs Eastern Pamirs alai Mountains

Bio-diversity degradation

Decline in wildlife diversity

Moderate Moderate Moderate

Decline in the population of individual wildlife species

High High High

Decline in plant diversity Moderate Moderate Moderate

Decline in the population of individual plant species

High High High

Decline in habitat quality High High High

Water degradation

Decline in seasonal availability

Low Low Low

Decline in water quality Low Low Moderate

Increased flood frequency and severity


Climate deterioration

Increased risk of glacial lake outbursts, avalanches, and rockfalls

High Low Moderate

Increased glacial melting Moderate overall but locally high

Moderate Moderate

Rising permafrost boundary


Source: Breu and Hurni 2005

The main findings of the assessment regarding the status of the region’s resources and the immediate causes of degradation are summarised in the following passages.

Vegetation is most affected by degradation. Forest and dwarf-shrub plant communities suffer •badly from high pressure (use as fuel substitutes) and pasture land from unsustainable land use (overgrazing on pastures in the vicinity of settlements). They show signs of severe degradation. Areas with agricultural soils are very scarce. They form an essential resource for sustaining rural •livelihoods and have been used intensively with unadapted land use practices (e.g., use of land on steep slopes and poor irrigation practices and nutrient management) and suffer a moderate degree of degradation.

Table 1 cont...


188

Although concrete figures on wildlife are unavailable, continuous hunting activities and habitat •destruction are believed to have caused a considerable decrease in animal populations.It is changes in the seasonal availability and distribution of water within the region, rather than •its quality, which are of major concern, although there are local exceptions.

A framework for an integrated, transboundary response

Attempts to revive and expand agricultural production to ensure long-term food security in the region are being funded by development agencies, remittances from abroad, and credit. Such attempts, however, are severely constrained by the already degraded arable land and pastures, requiring major investments in land rehabilitation; by the limited traditional and technical agricultural knowledge and skills available in the region due to the Soviet system of labour division during collectivisation of agricultural production; and by the lack of state support for and recognition of the importance of the Pamir-Alai biodiversity and ecosystem resources (Jansky and Pachova 2006). A concerted effort among relevant stakeholders within Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan is critical to avoid a transition from impoverishment-driven resource mining and degradation to one driven by agricultural intensification without concern for the carrying capacities of local ecosystems. Furthermore, in view of the limited scope for agricultural development in the region, resource pooling across the transboundary region is essential in order to expand the development options beyond those offered by subsistence agriculture.

The results of the participatory baseline assessment were discussed with various stakeholders at a series of national and regional consultations. The consultations facilitated a shared vision of the problem of resource degradation in the High Pamir and Alai Mountains in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. They also provided a forum for reaching an agreement on an overall framework for integrated action to address the problem over the coming years. In view of the interlinked development and environmental aspects of the problem of resource degradation in the region, two main targets were agreed upon, and these are given below.

To address the linkages between poverty, vulnerability, and land degradation at the community 1. level through the promotion of sustainable land-management practices that contribute to improving the livelihoods and the economic wellbeing of the inhabitants of the High Pamir and Alai Mountains

To mitigate the causes and negative impacts of land degradation on the structure and 2. functional integrity of the ecosystems of the High Pamir and Alai Mountains through mainstreaming sustainable land-management tools and practices from household, community, local government, national, and regional levels


189

To realise the above objectives, the development and implementation of targeted activities was seen to be essential to achieve the four main outcomes envisaged as follows.

Outcome 1: Enhanced regional cooperation between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan enabling regional strategic planning and national legislation and policies; institutional, technical, and economic incentives; and an environment for sustainable management of the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai mountain ecosystems

Outcome 2: Improved capacity of Tajikistan’s and Kyrgyzstan’s public and private sector agency research and advisory support service providers to promote sustainable land management in the High Pamir and Alai Mountains

Outcome 3: Reduction in rural poverty and economic vulnerability through restoration and enhancement of the productive and protective functions (ecological goods and services) of the High Pamir and Alai mountain ecosystems

Outcome 4: Generic guidelines for upscaling and replication of the lessons learned from the project’s experience with sustainable land management within comparable transboundary mountain regions within Asia and elsewhere

The strategic framework provides the basis for undertaking integrated multi-level and cross-sectoral activities for promoting sustainable mountain development in the Pamir and Alai mountains. Concrete activities to be undertaken over the coming years include:

development of an integrated strategy and action plan for natural resource use and •management in the High Pamir and Alai Mountains; harmonisation of national policy, legislative, and institutional frameworks in line with the •requirements for sustainable mountain development identified and agreed upon in the concrete regional context; enhancement of the capacities of national and local research;•advisory and support agencies essential for supporting the implementation of the improved •national policy and legislation and contributing to local development needs;development of community-based resource use and management plans in selected sub-district •units identified as hotspots of vulnerability;preparation and implementation of a portfolio of micro-projects with development and •environmental benefits initiated and designed by the local stakeholders in line with community-based resource use and management plans;upscaling of best practices in the project area; and •assessment of the project’s experience in order to replicate lessons from it in similar mountain •areas in the wider Central Asian region.


190

References

Bernbaum, E (1997) Sacred mountains of the world. Los Angeles and London: University of California Press

Breu, T; Hurni, H (2003) The Tajik Pamirs: Challenges of sustainable development in an isolated mountain region. Berne: Geographica Bernensia for Centre for Development and Environment, University of Berne

Breu, T; Hurni, H (eds) (2005) Baseline survey on sustainable land management in the Pamir-Altai Mountains: Synthesis report. Berne: Centre for Development and Environment, University of Berne

Conservation International (2005). Biodiversity hotspots. www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/resources/pages/maps.aspx (accessed February 2005)

Jansky L; Ives JD; Furuyashiki, K (2002) Mountain momentum: Agenda for today and policy beyond IYM2002. Tokyo: UNU/ESD

Jansky, L; Pachova, NI (2006) ‘Towards sustainable land management in mountain areas in Central Asia’. Global Environmental Research 10(1): 99-115

Liang, L; Stocking, M; Brookfield, H; Jansky, L (2001) ‘Biodiversity conservation through agrobiodiversity’. Global Environmental Change 11(1):97-101

Novikov, V; Safarov, N (2002) State of the environment report of the Republic of Tajikistan. http://enrin.grida.no/soe.cfm?country=TJ

Price, FM; Jansky, L; Iatsenia, AA (eds) (2004) Key issues from mountain areas. Tokyo: UNU Press

Saxena, KG; Liang, L; Yasuyuki, K; Satoru, M (eds) (2006) Small-scale livelihoods and natural resources management in marginal areas of monsoon Asia. Dehra Dun: Bishen Singh and Mahendra Pal Singh

UNCCD (2003) Confronting land degradation and poverty through enhanced UNCCD Implementation. Discussion paper presented at the subregional partnership building forum for the Central Asian Republics, 30 June- 4 July 2003, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Weblinks

Global Environment Facility (GEF) www.gefweb.org

United Nations University (UNU) www.unu.edu


191

Balancing Biodiversity Conservation with Community Livelihoods: A Global PerspectiveThomas Schaaf, UNESCO, Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences, Paris, France

Abstract

Biosphere reserves – designated within the framework of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s Man and the Biosphere Programme (UNESCO-MAB) and its World Network of Biosphere Reserves – are sites that innovate and demonstrate approaches to conservation and sustainable development. They remain under national sovereign jurisdiction and share their experiences and ideas nationally, regionally, and internationally within the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. There are 531 sites worldwide in 105 countries that are formally recognised by UNESCO’s 193 Member States. This paper provides a number of examples of biosphere reserves and how biodiversity conservation is practised for the benefit of enhancing community livelihoods.

Introduction

One of the main questions that concerns both environmental managers and development aid workers is how we can balance biodiversity conservation with community livelihoods. An obvious answer to this question is often ‘sustainable development’.

Sustainable development is a pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also in the indefinite future. The term was used by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (informally better known as the Brundtland Commission), which coined what has become the most often-quoted definition of sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. At the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August to 4 September 2002), the term ‘sustainable development’ was considered as a collective responsibility that is based on three pillars.

“Accordingly, we assume a collective responsibility to advance and strengthen the interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars of sustainable development — economic development, social development and environmental protection — at the local, national, regional and global levels”.


192

(Paragraph 5 of Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POI_PD.htm as of 21 October 2008.)

While ‘sustainable development’ is a very important notion, its implementation on the ground may not always be easily understood and put into operation. UNESCO, through its Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme, believes it has one answer – albeit not the only answer – of how to practise sustainable development in very concrete terms. Our approach is based on the ‘biosphere reserve’ concept, a site-based concept that combines biodiversity conservation with local and community- based sustainable development, and on scientific studies on human-environment interactions as well as ecosystem studies.

Biosphere reserves

What are biosphere reserves? According to a short definition, biosphere reserves are areas of terrestrial ecosystems that are internationally recognised within the framework of UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme (UNESCO-MAB 2000: Biosphere Reserve Map). Collectively they form a world network. Nominated by national governments, they are required to meet a set of criteria and adhere to a set of conditions before being admitted into the world network. Each biosphere reserve is intended to fulfill three basic functions, which are complementary and mutually reinforcing:

a • conservation function – to contribute to the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species, and genetic variation; a • development function – to foster economic and human development that is socio-culturally and ecologically sustainable; and a • logistic function – to provide support for research, monitoring, education, and information exchange related to local, national, and global issues of conservation and development.

In order to carry out the complementary activities of nature conservation and use of natural resources, biosphere reserves are organised into three distinct yet interrelated zones, known as core area(s), buffer zone(s), and the transition area(s).

The • core area needs to be legally established and give long-term protection to the landscape, ecosystem, and species it contains. It should be sufficiently large to meet conservation objectives. As nature is rarely uniform and as historical land use constraints exist in many parts of the world, there may be several core areas in a single biosphere reserve to ensure a representative coverage of the mosaic of ecological systems. Normally, the core area is not subject to human activity, except research and monitoring, and, as the case may be, to traditional extractive uses by local communities.The • buffer zone (or zones) is clearly delineated and surrounds or is contiguous to the core area. Its role is to minimise negative and external impacts of human-induced activities on the core areas. In addition to the buffering function related to the core areas, buffer zones can have their


193

own intrinsic, ‘stand alone’ functions for maintaining anthropogenic, biological, and cultural diversity. Buffer zones can also have an important connectivity function in a larger spatial context as they connect biodiversity components within core areas with those in transition areas. Buffer zones can be areas for experimental research; for example, to discover ways to manage natural vegetation, croplands, forests, and fisheries; to enhance high-quality production while conserving natural processes and biodiversity; or to rehabilitate degraded areas. The • outer transition area may contain a variety of agricultural activities, human settlements, and other uses. It is here that the local communities, conservation agencies, scientists, civil associations, cultural groups, private enterprises, and other stakeholders must agree to work together to manage and develop sustainably the area’s resources for the benefit of the people who live there. Given the role that biosphere reserves should play in promoting the sustainable management of natural resources of the region in which they lie, the transition area is of great economic and social significance for regional development.

Although schematically presented as a series of concentric rings, the three zones are usually defined in many different ways to accommodate local geographic conditions and constraints. They may have multiple core areas and buffer zones, which in turn are surrounded by the transition area marking the boundary of the entire management site. This flexibility allows for creativity and adaptability and is often considered as one of the greatest strengths of the concept.

All biosphere reserves contain at least one or several legally protected areas (e.g., national parks, nature reserves, or forest reserves) for the long-term protection of nature and for the conservation of biodiversity. This paper does not emphasise the aspects of biodiversity conservation of biosphere reserves as all biosphere reserves have been designated within the ‘World Network of Biosphere Reserves’ for their value to biodiversity conservation and environmental protection. This paper rather provides several examples from the world over to illustrate aspects of ’sustainable development’ that foster community livelihoods in mountain biosphere reserves.

Mountain ranges, and biosphere reserves located therein, provide several important assets that can be used for the positive marketing of biodiversity conservation and community livelihoods. The spectacular beauty and scenery of the mountains, their clean and largely unpolluted areas, and the occurrence of many rare and endangered plant and animal species distinguish mountains from a natural point of view as extraordinary places. As many mountain ranges are also characterised by a relatively large ethnic and linguistic diversity, the cultural assets of the mountains are often quite outstanding with their specific culturally-based rituals and belief systems, viz., spiritual beliefs, songs, poetry, dance, as well as local and technological knowhow of handicraft production.

These assets make mountain areas key destinations for tourists. If tourism can be handled in an ethical manner, in that local communities benefit from the income generated by tourism, and if tourism is practised in a manner that is respectful of the environment and leaves only a marginal ecological footprint, then biodiversity conservation and community livelihoods can be mutually


194

reinforcing pillars resulting in win-win situations for the environment and for people. Some of these win-win situations have been implemented with good success in several mountain biosphere reserves.

The Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve in Kyrgyzstan was designated as a site within the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves in 2001. Surrounded by the glaciated Tian-Shan mountain range, the Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve reaches an altitude of over 7,000 metres above sea level and contains important fresh water resources. The Issyk-Kul Lake appears like an oasis in this arid region, covering an area of 623,600 hectares, which makes it the second largest high-altitude lake in the world. Ecotourism activities in the Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve include demonstration of eagle hunting as well as the production and marketing of felt carpets using traditional designs by women’s cooperatives.

The Dana Biosphere Reserve in Jordan (designated in 1998) includes a system of mountains and wadis (riverbeds in desert areas which remain dry unless it rains heavily) extending from the top of the Eastern Rift Valley to the lowlands of Wadi Araba. The representation of different bio-geographical zones and the dramatic changes in elevation result in very rich biodiversity and a complex set of land cover types. The reserve hosts globally and regionally important species such as the Cyprus warbler (Sylvia melanothorax) and the sand fox (Vulpes rueppelli) as well as the endemic Syrian serin (Serinus syriacus) which live in a Mediterranean Oak forest. Using the slogan ‘caring for nature, caring for people’, the Jordanian Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature, which is in charge of managing the site, has created an interrelated ecotourism approach that provides eco-lodges and tents within the reserve for tourists, and it has set up farming schemes for the local population for production of organically grown herbs, fruit, and olives, which are processed on site and marketed to premium hotels in the capital city, Amman. A workshop for jewellery production for a women’s cooperative provides income opportunities for women in particular.

The Bia Biosphere Reserve in Ghana (designated in 1983) is situated in south-western Ghana close to the border with the Côte d’Ivoire and covers an area of 7,770 hectares. The biosphere reserve occupies an undulating terrain with an elevation of between 170 and 240 metres above sea level. Located in the transition zone between the moist evergreen and moist semi-deciduous vegetation zones, the area is dominated by Celtis-Triplochiton associations, Teinghemella heckelii and Entadrophragma angolense. Many of Ghana’s major forest animals can be found in Bia, e.g., the forest elephant (Loxodonta african cyclotis), the globally endangered bongo (Tragelaphus euryceros), and many primates. Although not a mountain site, the example of Bia Biosphere Reserve is given here as the management of the site has put into place a rather original scheme to diversify income opportunities for local communities living around the protected core zone of the reserve: The African giant snail (Acatina acatina) abounds in the nature reserve and is considered a meat delicacy among West Africans. As animal species are protected in the reserve, collecting licenses, together with a fee, have been provided to three village communities. A portion of the


195

fees is used by the reserve management to enhance the protection of the area, while the remainder is returned to the village communities for community-based projects (e.g., to establish water pumps or to upgrade school buildings). When this scheme proved to be very successful and demand increased for additional collecting licenses, snail farming was introduced into village communities to increase the production and marketing of the African giant snail.

The Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve in Switzerland (designated in 2001) is located at the foot of the Alps in the central part of Switzerland. It covers some 39,000 hectares and reaches an altitude of 2,350 metres above sea level. Few regions in the country have natural and cultural landscapes that are as intact as those in Entlebuch. It includes peat bogs and raised bogs, alluvial and riverine forests, as well as complete cave systems such as those in the Schrattenfluh and Napf areas. There are approximately 17,000 people living in the area (2000) and the population embarked on a highly participative approach when making the biosphere reserve proposal. The inhabitants in Entlebuch aim to promote regional ‘Entlebuch Biosphere Products’ such as cheese, ham, and spirits, cultivate natural resources (grass, wood, and the landscape), and develop ecotourism. Local hotel and restaurant owners use the ‘Entlebuch Biosphere’ label as a sign of high-quality products.

The Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Reserve (designated in 2000) is located on the east coast of Vancouver Island in British Columbia (Canada). Situated in the coastal Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) biogeoclimatic zone, the forests in the area were logged in the early 1900s. Today, secondary vegetation trees are reaching harvestable size, and this has led to pressure from the logging industries. Approximately 38,000 residents live permanently in the area, and it can total up to 43,000 people depending on the season (2000). The Coastal Salish First Nations live in the biosphere reserve. Today, however, the population is dominated by descendants of European immigrants. Tourism and service industries, as well as fishing and forestry, provide the main sources of income. The Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Reserve includes the entire watershed draining the area. Management focuses on the maintenance of healthy aquatic, coastal estuarine, and intertidal ecosystems. A few years ago, a local currency – the oceanside dollar – was introduced in the community: tourists can buy it (at an exchange rate of 1 to 1 with the Canadian dollar) and use it to settle their hotel bills and purchase other items. The underlying idea is that the oceanside dollar will become a collector’s item, which tourists will take home so that a net inflow of money into the biosphere reserve’s community will take place.

The examples of biosphere reserves from around the world show that biodiversity conservation goes well in line with sustainable development to enhance community livelihoods. It is imperative, however, that holistic and integrated ‘conservation-cum-community livelihood’ packages are developed that highlight the need for both enhanced environmental conservation and community livelihoods. As no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solutions exist, each site needs to work out the specificity and marketing opportunities that can project a positive image for ecotourism and related activities. The drivers for such ecotourism packages must be local communities whose needs and aspirations must be taken into account and who should be involved in the overall management of a biosphere reserve.


196

The biosphere reserve concept was developed in the mid 1970s, i.e., some 30 years ago. While some have criticised the concept as a ‘soft’ conservation approach, others have seen its potential for combining environmental conservation with economic development. With some 30 new biosphere reserve proposals received by the UNESCO MAB Secretariat every year from all over the world, the World Network of Biosphere Reserves has grown into a relatively large undertaking, which currently counts 531 sites in 105 countries (October 2008). Internationally speaking, the sites are formally recognised by UNESCO’s 193 Member States and 6 Associate Members and are considered to be a tool for the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of biological resources.

Bibliography

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development: Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POI_PD.htm (accessed 20 October 2008)

UNESCO-MAB (1996) The Seville strategy. Paris: UNESCO

UNESCO-MAB (2000) Biosphere reserve map. Paris: UNESCO

UNESCO-MAB (2008) UNESCO-MAB homepage. http://www.unesco.org/mab/ (accessed 20 October 2008)

UNESCO-MAB (2008) Site descriptions of individual biosphere reserves. www.unesco.org/mab/wnbrs.shtml (accessed 20 October 2008)


197197

Group 5: Biodiversity Transects and Transboundary Connectivity Approaches in Mountains for Long-term Monitoring and Regional Cooperation

Long-term Monitoring Using Transect and Landscape Approaches within the Hindu Kush-HimalayasDr Nakul Chettri, ICIMOD

Transboundary Connectivity Approaches for Biodiversity ManagementDr Graeme L. Worboys, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) (Mountains Biome), Gilmore, Australia

Chair: Dr LMS PalniRapporteur: Dr Krishna Prasad Oli

Summary

Two presentations were made by Dr Nakul Chettri of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and Dr Graeme Worboys, Chair of the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Dr Chettri addressed the possibilities of developing and implementing biodiversity transects while Dr Worboys made a presentation on corridor connectivity approaches to link landscapes with protected areas and protected areas with fragmented landscapes.

In his presentation, Dr Chettri talked about the major challenges of conservation and development in the HKH region. Challenges related to physical change include, inter alia, land degradation, land fragmentation, habitat fragmentation, and biosphere reserves and protected areas increasingly being turned into islands of conservation. There are direct and indirect drivers of change that are impacting on ecosystem services and the wellbeing of people in the Himalayan region. In order to address the impact of different drivers, several institutions are working with local communities, on the one hand, and with regional member countries, on the other. This has resulted in the development of momentum among participating countries, resulting in the promulgation of different policy frameworks for transboundary biodiversity management. Examples include the Sacred Himalayan Landscape in the Nepal-Bhutan biological corridor complex and the Terai Arc Landscape in Nepal. These initiatives are milestones in terms of enhancing transboundary


198

biodiversity conservation. More transboundary landscapes have been identified in the Himalayan region by ICIMOD.

Although transboundary biodiversity conservation has been one of ICIMOD’s main thrusts, in view of climate change issues, a new approach to transboundary biodiversity conservation research through transects has been proposed. This concept includes extensive parts of entire ecosystems found within given latitudes and longitudes. This approach will examine the entire gamut of biophysical aspects as well as monitoring the drivers of climate change.

The second presentation was made by Dr Graeme Worboys on Connectivity Conservation Management (CCM). The major thrust of his presentation was how to develop corridor connectivity and retain interconnection between the natural land and people in response to climate change. This is necessary to respond to global change and biodiversity and to ensure the future of the Earth. In mountain areas both culture and biological resources should be viewed in tandem as providing a basis for people’s livelihoods. Therefore, conserving the natural landscape, conserving habitats and their links, retaining connecters of the ecological evolutionary process, and managing major threats will facilitate adaptation in the face of climate change. The speaker indicated that protected areas and biosphere reserves are good ways of monitoring the effect of climate change and the best method of species conservation because a network of nature reserves provides core habitats for many species in the transects. Landscape connectivity can promote biocultural conservation.

Several methods can be used for conservation connectivity. Currently, many national governments in the region have set aside protected areas and biosphere reserves where there are already bio links or ecological networks that can be strengthened by adopting the transect concept and vision as a method of conservation connectivity. In order to achieve connectivity conservation, a vision with three settings – nature setting, management setting, and people setting – was proposed. Natural settings include landscape connectivity, ecological connectivity, habitat connectivity, and evolutionary process connectivity. Similarly, management settings include policy legislation and information, while people settings provide the life-support system.

Discussion

The concepts of transect and landscape corridor connectivity were discussed. Key areas of discussion and recommendations are given below.

Comprehensive list of species including lower taxa – In major biodiversity inventories prepared by authorities, ecologists, and others from national parks and protected areas, emphasis has been given to wildlife flagship species and angiosperms, whereas the lower taxa, which play a significant role in maintaining transects or connectivity and enhancing the conservation of biological resources, have been neglected. The biodiversity of the lower taxa should also be documented as they can act as indicator species.


199

Risk of having invasive species – Large areas in the HKH region are farmed. In such areas many species that are not endemic have been incidentally or intentionally introduced and have colonised and dominated native species. Active management is required to prevent their domination of indigenous species.

Technology transfer – Within HKH countries, there are several useful technologies that have been developed and have economic potential, but which are not shared with other countries. These technologies have a great potential to improve livelihoods and should be shared among regional member countries (RMCs). Examples of such technologies are: harvesting musk from the musk deer without killing it and manufacturing seabuckthorn products. ICIMOD should promote the sharing process and help to transfer technologies to other countries that may need them.

Confidence building – Several times during discussions, it was emphasised that ICIMOD should be engaged in building confidence between various partners in the region. This is crucial for the effective implementation of any transboundary biodiversity management programme.

Communication at different levels – Often decision and policy makers at different levels are unaware of how policies have been implemented and what the international and regional policies governing conservation of keystone species in the region are. In addition even national policies and laws are not clear within different government departments. Therefore, a communication strategy is essential.

Dealing with uncertainties – The biggest problem in the conservation and management of transborder biodiversity resources, in particular in mountain areas, is uncertainty in the face of climate change. What will happen is hard to forecast. Therefore, resilience methods and practices and resilient species need to be learned from local communities and important components identified for adoption in the face of uncertainty.

Databases – Data on the climate and biodiversity are available in different countries, but they are not shared with others and their use has not benefited transboundary biodiversity conservation processes. The group felt that data needed to be generated using existing databases as a starting point. This means making fresh commitments to regional data sharing and establishing a regional clearing-house mechanism (CHM).

Clarification of concepts – As the concepts of corridors, landscape connectivity, and transects are new to many RMCs in the HKH region, it is important to make it clear what these terms actually mean to the stakeholders concerned.

The discussion points outlined above led to some recommendations for improving transboundary corridor conservation, developing corridor connectivity, and adopting transects as one of the concepts for transboundary biodiversity conservation and monitoring and improving livelihood options.


200

Recommendations

Participants made the following recommendations.

The group decided to promote the concept of transects for transboundary biodiversity •conservation, landscape, and corridor connectivity development. This, however, needs to be made conceptually clear and shared among participating countries.Any policy development (including a framework or guidelines) on transects needs to be simple •and location specific. Policies should be developed in collaboration or in conformity with the partners and their national policies (for example, India has recently announced a national mission on sustaining the Himalayan ecosystem and has made a commitment at the highest level).In order to develop the concept and framework of transects and corridor connectivity and to •develop a cooperative framework, the group recommended that an internal multi-disciplinary team should be formed in ICIMOD to develop the concept, share it with a select group of participants from this conference, and stakeholders, and then recommend a methodology for implementation.


201201

Long-term Monitoring Using Transect and Landscape Approaches within the Hindu Kush-HimalayasNakul Chettri, Eklabya Sharma and Rajesh Thapa, ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal

Abstract

The Hindu Kush-Himalayas (HKH), expanding over more than four million square kilometres, is one of the most significant regions in the world. The region is endowed with rich biodiversity, culture, and sources of fresh water that serve more than 200 million people living in the region and 1.3 billion people living in the river basins downstream. Therefore, the geographical coverage of the HKH is massive and diverse. As signatories to the global conservation conventions, the regional member countries of the HKH have set aside areas considerably rich in biodiversity for different systems of protection. The prevailing global climate change scenario, however, reveals that the HKH region is a ‘white spot’ about which there is scattered and limited data. Considering the significance of the HKH on local, regional, and global levels, it is imperative to close the gaps in our knowledge of this biodiversity rich area to meet the challenges arising from the consequences of climate change. To do so, however, concerted cooperative efforts are necessary in representative areas. The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) conceptualised transect and transboundary approaches, and proposed that regional and global players collaborate in this effort in the future. This paper looks at the rationale of ‘transects’ and ‘transboundary landscapes’ with an appeal to the regional member countries of the HKH and global actors to join hands in using this long-term monitoring concept to close the data gaps. Such an effort will help make conservation efforts effective by meeting the challenges of climate change and enhancing the ecosystem services arising from this region

Introduction

The Hindu Kush-Himalayas (HKH), the working area of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), is one of the most significant mountain regions in the world. Endowed with a rich variety of genepools and species, as well as ecosystems of global importance, the region hosts parts of the four Global Biodiversity Hotspots: namely the Himalayas, Indo-Burma, the Mountains of South-West China, and the Mountains of Central Asia (Mittermeier et al. 2004). The region, with its varied landscapes and soil formation, diverse vegetation types, and climatic conditions, is well known for its unique flora and fauna and a high level of endemism (Myers et al. 2000). Approximately 39% of the HKH is comprised of grassland, 20% of forest, 15% of shrubland, and 5% of agricultural land. The remaining 21% accounts for other types of land cover such as barren land, rocky outcrops, built-up areas, snow cover, and water bodies. Elevation zones across the HKH extend from tropical (<500 m) to alpine ice-snow (>6,000 m), with a


202

principal vertical vegetation regime comprised of tropical and subtropical rainforest, temperate broadleaf deciduous or mixed forest, and temperate coniferous forest, including high-altitude cold shrub or steppe and cold desert (Pei 1995; Guangwei 2002). Within this varied landscape, the cultural diversity is equally significant. The region has more than a thousand living languages with diverse ethnicity, traditions, and cultures (Turin 2005). In addition, the HKH region is also known as the ‘Water Tower of Asia’. The Himalayas alone have nearly 4,000 sq.km of snow and ice: truly constituting a ‘third pole’ of the Earth and a formidable global ecological buffer. This ecosystem provides services and directly forms the basis for livelihoods for a population of around 200 million people; indirectly, the river basins supply water and other ecosystem services to 1.3 billion people, a fifth of the world’s population.

The geographic term ‘Hindu Kush-Himalayas’ is not very precise. Stretched over more than four million square kilometres, the HKH includes Bhutan and Nepal in their entirety and parts of six other countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, India, Myanmar, and Pakistan. In other words, ICIMOD’s target area includes the Karakoram, the Pamir range, and other neighbouring ranges. Some of the analyses encompass impact areas that include the river basins of the ten major rivers originating in these ranges, namely, the Amu Darya, Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Irrawaddy, Salween, Mekong, Yangtze, Yellow, and Tarim. Therefore, the geographical coverage of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas is massive and diverse.

All eight HKH regional member countries, being signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), are committed to conservation and, as a measure towards the immediate protection of globally significant landscapes, have set aside more than 39% of their most biologically rich terrain with a total number of 488 protected areas (Chettri et al. 2008). In addition, the region also hosts 27 Ramsar sites, 13 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Heritage sites, and 330 Important Bird Areas (IBA) (Birdlife International 2007; IUCN et al. 2005). Therefore, it is apparent that the HKH region has global significance in terms of conservation of biodiversity, as well as of sustainable development for the people living in the region.

Conservation and development challenges

Many factors contribute to the loss of biodiversity; for example, habitat loss and fragmentation, species’ introduction, overexploitation, pollution, nutrient loading, and global climate change. The direct drivers of environmental change include climate change, change in land use or cover, and introduction and/or removal of species; indirect drivers include demographic, economic, and sociopolitical changes (MEA 2005). In the HKH region, the impact of humans on natural environments in terms of overextraction of resources, habitat degradation, and loss of species is growing every day, being multiplied by an increasing human population and its pressure on biological resources (Chettri and Sharma 2006). Many of these pressures influence biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services, and, more often than not, the impact is negative on people’s wellbeing (Xu et al. 2007).


203

Global communities, including conservationists, are alarmed by the recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the Earth’s climate has become warmer and precipitation regimes have changed substantially in the last 100 years (IPCC 2007). The prevailing climate change scenario in the HKH region, however, is somewhat incomplete and scattered; and one IPCC report referred to the region as a ‘white spot’ in terms of data and information (IPCC 2007). Anecdotal evidence from the region, however, is sending alarming signals about the fate of Himalayan biodiversity and its services (Liu and Chen 2000; Shrestha et al. 2000). Although the global community is trying to understand the biodiversity and climate change nexus, there is a lack of information and research.

ICIMOD, an intergovernmental regional centre, has been a knowledge, learning, and enabling centre for the past two and a half decades. It is a centre where information and knowledge are developed and exchanged and where innovation, technology transfer, and effective communications are used to empower its regional member countries and their people. In recent years ICIMOD has been advocating biodiversity conservation and sustainable development through a ‘mountain perspective framework’, characterised by understanding the imperatives of mountain conditions such as fragility, inaccessibility, marginality, diversity, specific niche opportunities, and human adaptation mechanisms. ICIMOD has also been active in facilitating its regional member countries through various conservation and development approaches. Among these approaches are participatory natural resource management; regional cooperation in applied research on conservation and management through an ‘ecosystem approach’ considering transboundary landscapes and using crosscutting criteria of policy, governance, equity, and gender; and mainstreaming information and knowledge management principles. This paper puts forward a concept of integrated conservation and development through ‘transect’ and ‘transboundary landscape’ approaches to close the data gaps reported by IPCC (2007) and to enhance ecosystem services through concerted efforts from regional and global players.

Rationale for transect and landscape approaches

In the recent past, various conservation approaches and strategies have evolved to address the alarming loss of global biodiversity. The Himalayas were also in the spotlight in many conservation prioritisation approaches such as Crises Eco-region, Endemic Bird Areas, Mega Diversity Countries, and Global 200 Eco-regions (Brooks et al. 2006). These approaches mainly focussed on the identification of biodiversity rich areas for the establishment of protected areas and assumed that species’ distributions change relatively slowly, unless they are directly affected by human activities. With the recent evidence of global climate change, there is a growing consensus that these conservation strategies must anticipate the prevalent impacts of climate change to make conservation efforts more effective (Araujo and Rahbek 2006; IPCC 2007). Although the consequences of biodiversity loss are often the greatest on the poor and marginalised who depend mostly on immediate natural resources, there is ample evidence to show that climate change will modify their distribution and abundance in terms of both altitudinal (Bakkenes et al. 2002;


204

Grabherr et al. 1994; Parmesan 2006) and latitudinal gradients (Parmesan et al. 1999; Hickling et al. 2006). Interactions among global changes in themselves and in relation to biodiversity and their impacts on services to human beings are complex, however, and poorly understood in the HKH region and elsewhere. This is mainly due to a lack of holistic, comprehensive approaches to conservation planning and a lack of adequate data (Margules and Pressey 2000; Sarkar 2007).

Recent evidence suggests that co-occurring global changes can confound results from single factor studies and need an interdisciplinary approach (Root et al. 2003). Thus, in the HKH region, there is an urgent need to untie these complexities and understand the practical implications through an innovative approach. This is not an easy task and the reasons are the massive geographical coverage with inaccessible terrain and the diverse ecological conditions of the HKH region. These place practical limitations on any comprehensive research taking the whole area into consideration. In addition, due to the geo-political and socioeconomic differences among the regional member countries, there are variations in the level of research capacity, consistency in data quality, and data-sharing mechanisms— which are often poor with irregular monitoring systems. Moreover, most approach priorities to conservation in the HKH region are focussed on altitudinal gradients, critical ecological zones, and biodiversity rich areas mainly concentrated in an east-west direction leaving out the fact that climate change aspects of biodiversity need to consider latitudinal dimensions as well, i.e., south-north aspects. The latitudinal dimension has a special risk factor for highland species found in the arid and semi-arid areas of the Tibetan Plateau, Hindu Kush, Karakoram, and Pamir ranges as they are sensitive to climate change and more likely to be at risk of extinction. Globally, there is numerical evidence of a shift of species towards the north (Grabherr et al. 1994; Hickling et al. 2006) or to higher elevations (Peterson 2003; Wilson et al. 2007), especially for species in the transition zone between sub-alpine and alpine areas, which are more vulnerable to climate change as they have limited scope to move (Carpenter 2005). Such analyses for the HKH region, however, are few and limited to certain pockets only.

ICIMOD has been instrumental in introducing the concept of ‘transboundary landscapes’ and ‘conservation corridors’ by identifying seven critical transboundary landscapes in the HKH region covering complexes from east to west, wet to dry, and from low to high-altitude situations (Fig 1). ICIMOD, along with partners such as The Mountain Institute (TMI), World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF), and International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), has developed comprehensive conservation and development strategies for a few of the complexes at national and regional levels (Choden et al. 2008; GoN/MFSC 2006; Sharma et al. 2007). These initiatives in some of the landscapes, such as Everest and Kanchenjunga, however, are focussing on the status and management aspects of biodiversity, but not including climate change and latitudinal perspectives. With this realisation, ICIMOD proposes to include more transboundary landscapes from east to west as well as altitudes in the ‘transect’ approach.


205

Transects, landscapes, and their significance

A transect is defined as a strip line drawn for the purpose of systematic studies. ICIMOD proposes four north-south transects covering a total area of 1,378,199 sq.km (40%) of the HKH region where significant representation of the Global 200 Eco-regions, protected areas, Important Bird Areas, Ramsar sites, and World Heritage sites are present (Table 1, Figure 1). The four transects also cover six out of seven critical transboundary landscapes; namely, the i) Wakhan, ii) Karakoram, iii) Kailash-Nanda Devi, iv) Everest, v) Kanchenjunga, and vi) Brahmaputra (Figure 1) with substantial representation of cryosphere, wetlands, and biodiversity. In addition, these transects also cover more than 100 potential glacial lake outburst floods (GLOF) found in the Himalayas. The only transboundary landscape that does not fall within the four transects is the ‘Cherrapunjee-Chittagong’ landscape; and inclusion of this landscape would help to bring in elements that would be interesting in the context of climate change in the critical landscapes downstream and in the

Figure 1: Map showing seven transboundary landscapes and four transects in the HKH region

Legend

Hindu Kush-Himalayan region boundary

Major rivers of the region

Proposed transects

Important transboundary complexes

1 Wakhan 2 Karakoram 3 Kailash 4 Everest 5 Kangchenjunga 6 Brahmaputra - Salween 7 Cherapunjee Chittagong

Source: ICIMoD’s working documents on transects


206

subtropical ecological zones. A combination of transboundary landscapes and transects in the monitoring area brings in the following three attributes:

most of the biophysical and sociocultural pockets and altitudinal (foothills to alpine), latitudinal •(north-south), and longitudinal (east-west) coverage, dry and wet situations, and all major types of farming systems;cryospheric areas, wetlands, potential GLOFs, and areas rich in biodiversity; and•all the eight countries of the HKH, thus providing opportunities for cooperation. •

Table 1: Conservation significance of the proposed transects of the HKH region

Variables Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3 Transect 4

Total area (sq.km) 144978 239980 340155 653086

Ramsar sites* 36287 (4) 76345 (2) 17543 (2) 138455 (5)

Heritage sites* 630 (1) 1148 (1) 16984 (2)

Biodiversity hotspots* 22044 (2) 98764 (1) 80592 (1) 375155 (3)

Eco-regions** 8 (3) 12 (3) 12 (4) 20 (8)

Important Bird Areas* 1959 (31) 2071 (19) 5217 (30) 8509 (29)

Protected areas (IUCN I-VI)* 13471 (52) 18983 (16) 143683 (25) 585561 (82)

*signifies information on area in sq.km (number) and ** total eco-regions and (the Global 200 Eco-regions)Source: IUCN et al. 2005; Birdlife International 2007

ICIMOD’s role

Being a regional knowledge, learning, and enabling centre with strong partnerships in the HKH, ICIMOD could take a lead role in coordinating the efforts of global partners and regional member countries to strengthen monitoring systems on a long-term basis. It could take the regional cooperation components in implementing transect and transboundary landscape approaches in partnership with strategic institutions from the north and the region: the capacities of the institutions could be strengthened and global knowhow customised. ICIMOD proposes to make an inventory of the information and institutions already present in the proposed transects and landscapes, following which a strategy for cooperation for long-term monitoring will be developed.


207

References

Araujo, MB; Rahbek, C (2006) ‘How does climate change affect biodiversity?’ Science 313:1396-1397

Bakkenes, M; Alkemade, RM; Ihle, F; Leemans, R; Latour, JB (2002) ‘Assessing effects of forecasted climate change on the diversity and distribution of European higher plants for 2050’. Global Change Biology 8:390–407

Birdlife International (2007) Important bird area data provided by Bird Life International, taken from world bird database. http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/avibase.jsp (accessed 19 June 2007)

Brooks,TM; Mittermeier, RA; da Fonseca, GAB; Gerlach, J; Hoffmann, M; Lamoreux, JF; Mittermeier, CG; Pilgrim, JD; Rodrigues, ASL (2006) ‘Global biodiversity conservation priorities’. Science 313: 58-61

Carpenter, C (2005) ‘The environmental control of plant species density on a Himalayan elevation gradient’. Journal of Biogeography 32: 999-1018

Chettri, N; Sharma, E (2006) ‘Assessment of natural resources use patterns: A case study along a trekking corridor of Sikkim Himalaya’. Resources, Energy and Development 3(2): 21-34

Chettri, N; Shakya, B; Thapa, R; Sharma, E (2008) ‘Status of protected area system in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya: An analysis of PA coverage’. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 4(3): 164-178

Choden, S; Shakya, B; Chettri, N (2008) Biological corridor strategic plan (2008-2013) Toorsa strict nature reserve – Jigme Dorji National Park Western Bhutan. Thimphu: Nature Conservation Division, Department of Forest, Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan

GoN/MoFSC (2006) Sacred himalayan landscape – Nepal strategic plan (2006-2016) broad strategy document. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal

Grabherr, G; Gottfriend, M; Pauli, H (1994) ‘Climate effects on mountain plants’. Nature 369: 448

Guangwei, C (2002) Biodiversity in the Eastern Himalayas: Conservation through dialogue. Summary reports of the workshops on biodiversity conservation in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan ecoregion. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Hickling, R; Roy, DB; Hill, JK; Fox, R; Thomas, CD (2006) ‘The distributions of a wide range of taxonomic groups are expanding polewards’. Global Change Biology 12: 450-455

IPCC (2007) ‘Summary for Policymakers, contribution of working group II on climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability’. Climate change 2007, fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Geneva: IPCC

IUCN; UNEP; WCMC (2005) World database on protected areas (WDPA), CD-ROM. Cambridge: UNEP (WCMC)

Liu, X; Chen, B (2000) ‘Climatic warming in Tibetan plateau during recent decades’. International journal of climatology 20:1729-1742

MEA (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington: Island Press

Margules, CR; Pressey, RL (2000) ‘Systematic conservation planning’. Nature 405: 243-253


208

Mittermeier, RA; Gils, PR; Hoffman M; Pilgrim, J; Brooks, T; Mittermeier, CG; Lamoreaux, J; da Fonseca GAB (eds) (2004) Hotspots revisited. Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Mexico city: CEMEX

Myers, N; Mittermeier, RA; Mittermeier, CG; da Foseca, GAB; Kent, J (2000) ‘Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities’. Nature 403(24): 853-858

Parmesan, C (2006) ‘Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change’. Annual Reviews of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematic 37:637-669

Parmesan, C; Ryrholm, N; Stefanescu, C; Hill, JK; Thomas, CD; Descimon, H; Huntley, B; Kaila, L; Kullberg, J; Tammaru, T; Tennent, WJ; Thomas, JA; Warren, M (1999) ‘Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming’. Nature 399: 579–583

Pei, S (1995) Banking on biodiversity. Report on the regional consultations on biodiversity assessment in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Peterson, AT (2003) ‘Projected climate change effects on Rocky Mountain and Great Plains birds: Generalities of biodiversity consequences’. Global Change Biology 9: 647-655

Root, TL; Price, JT; Hall, KR; Schneider, SH; Rosenzweig, SH; Pounds, JA (2003) ‘Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants’. Nature 421: 57-60

Sarkar, S (2007) ‘An open access database for Himalayan environmental management’. Himalayan Journal of Sciences 4(6):7-8

Sharma, E; Chettri, N; Gurung, J; Shakya, B (2007) Landscape approach in biodiversity conservation: A regional cooperation framework for implementation of the convention on biological diversity in Kangchenjunga landscape. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Shrestha, AB; Wake, CP; Dibb, JE; Mayewski, PA (2000) ‘Precipitation fluctuations in the Nepal Himalaya and its vicinity and relationship with some large scale climatological parameters’. International Journal of Climatology 20:317-327

Turin, M (2005) ‘Language endangerment and linguistic rights in the Himalayas: A case study from Nepal’. Mountain Research and Development 25 (1): 4–9

Wilson, RJ; Gutierrez, D; Gutierrez, J; Monserrat, VJ (2007) ‘An elevational shift in butterfly species richness and composition accompanying recent climate change’. Global Change Biology 3:1873-1887

Xu, J; Shrestha, AB; Vaidya, R; Eriksson, M; Hewitt, K (2007) The melting Himalayas: Regional challenges and local impacts of climate change on mountain ecosystems and livelihood. Kathmandu: ICIMOD


209

Transboundary Connectivity Approaches for Biodiversity ManagementGraeme L. Worboys1 and Bruce Jefferies2

1 Vice Chair, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) (Mountains Biome), Gilmore, Australia 2 IUCN WCPA (Mountains Biome), Wanaka, New Zealand

Introduction

Connectivity conservation will play an increasingly important role in conserving species during the 21st Century. The Earth is facing its sixth great extinction event and the first perpetrated by a single species, thanks to human impacts on natural ecosystems and life-support processes. The retention and conservation of large natural areas of land that interconnect protected areas are recognised as critical human responses to help mitigate such impacts, the effects of climate change especially. This connectivity of natural lands helps conserve the “degree of movement of organisms such as plants and animals and processes such as ecological interactions, ecosystem processes and natural disturbances” (after Crooks and Sanjayan 2006), and in turn this helps conserve species. The areas in which such action is taken, including core protected areas, are described as Connectivity Conservation Areas (CCAs). These areas are also more effective in offsetting climate change impacts if they are very large and span many degrees of latitude. Often this means that CCA’s transgress one or more international boundaries. When this is the case, transboundary connectivity approaches for biodiversity management are usually practised. These approaches are discussed in this paper; however, the concept of connectivity conservation and its management are introduced first.

Connectivity conservation

Connectivity areas provide a depth of natural environments that may assist species to respond and potentially survive biome shifts caused by climate change. Connectivity of natural vegetation is needed by most species to be able to move effectively between protected areas within a landscape (Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006). When protected areas are islands surrounded by modified lands, such as those that are cultivated, there are fewer opportunities to conserve a diversity of species in the long term. Large-scale connectivity conservation involves managing an entire landscape mosaic of natural lands to facilitate species movement (Bennett 2003). Scientists recognise that this connectivity conservation may include four distinct types of connectivity within such a landscape-scale mosaic, and these are given as follows (Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006; Mackey et al. 2008).

Landscape connectivity that recognises core protected areas that are interconnected by large, 1. naturally vegetated areas.


210

Habitat connectivity in which the natural, interconnected landscape retains opportunities for 2. species to move selectively by using preferred habitats.Ecological connectivity in which the natural landscape permits species to contribute to 3. ecosystem diversity and ecosystem functions such as a birds transferring rainforest tree seeds across a landscape with their droppings.Evolutionary connectivity in which the interaction of species with the broader environment 4. permits adaptive and evolutionary changes.

The retention of connectivity conservation areas (CCAs) thus maintains connectivity for species, plant and animal communities, and ecological processes (Bennett 2003), which includes maintaining ecologically functional populations of highly interactive species in the landscape; 2) the habitat needs of highly dispersive fauna; 3) natural fire regimes; and 4) natural hydro-ecological regimes (Mackey et al. 2008:1).

A focus on large natural lands as connectivity conservation areas has been reinforced by Andrew Bennett in his ‘linkages in the landscape’ book, in which he states:

“The most attractive option for maintaining connectivity is to manage entire habitat mosaics, but this is likely to be effective only where there is largely natural vegetated cover […]. (Bennett 2003)”

Large-scale connectivity conservation was also formally recognised by the IUCN WCPA (Mountains Biome) through a declaration developed by 40 connectivity conservation management experts at an IUCN WCPA workshop held in Papallacta, Ecuador in 2006: the declaration states (Mountain Forum 2007; Worboys et al. 2009 In prep):

“The maintenance and restoration of ecosystem integrity requires landscape-scale conservation. This can be achieved through systems of core protected areas that are functionally linked and buffered in ways that maintain ecosystem processes and allow species to survive and move, thus ensuring that populations are viable and that ecosystems and people are able to adapt to land transformation and climate change. We call this proactive, holistic and long-term approach connectivity conservation.”

The declaration is a confirmation of the conservation needs of species and ecosystems, as well as the needs of people in these large natural areas. How connectivity conservation areas actually function for species will differ depending on the species, the duration of time, the environmental condition of the landscape, and the dynamics of climate change (Mackey et al. 2008).

Large-scale connectivity conservation is intuitive. It just makes sense to keep natural bushland that has always been interconnected in an unfragmented state, particularly when it has been this way for geological epochs. The value of connectivity is also supported by some experimental data, although the actual research completed has been limited. Researchers in the United States found


211

that in South Carolina habitat patches connected by corridors actually enhanced the richness of plant species in comparison to isolated habitat patches (Damschen et al. 2006). They also found that connectivity corridors did not promote the invasion of exotic species. Connectivity conservation successes in the Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) corridor, such as movement and use of wildlife overpasses by species; the protection of grizzly bear movement ‘chokepoints’; and the movement of wolves into central Banff due to the removal of impediments (allowing predator-prey relationships with elks to be reinstated), have been achieved thanks to active connectivity conservation management along the Y2Y corridor (Locke in Worboys et al. 2009 in prep). These successes focus on both wildlife movement and the aspects of connectivity conservation related to ecological function.

Despite concerns expressed in the literature over specific aspects of wildlife corridors, the more encompassing aspect of connectivity conservation has come a long way in the last 30 years (Bennett et al. 2006), and large-scale connectivity conservation areas are seen as wise, long-term investments, especially given the current evidence that:

“... at least in the short term, the total amount of habitat [in connectivity conservation areas] often may be a more important determinant of the status and persistence of species in modified landscapes than the spatial pattern or configuration of habitats. (Bennett et al. 2006)”

Based on the precautionary principle, what is important is that large-scale connectivity conservation areas be conserved, since they maintain opportunities for many species to survive and move and for ecosystem processes to continue to function (Bennett et al. 2006). The opposite, habitat destruction and fragmentation, leads to extinction (IUCN 2004). Connectivity conservation areas are also a critical response to climate change and the associated biome shifts that may be anticipated.

Connectivity conservation management

Connectivity areas need active management, and such management is complex, dynamic, and situational. A conceptual Framework for Connectivity Conservation Management (CCM) has been developed (Worboys et al. 2009 In prep: Figure 1) which identifies the implementation of CCM based on a shared vision, leadership, a strategic management plan, action, and evaluation as part of a process (or cycle) of management. The entire management process is also influenced by the interactive dynamics of three key settings, 1) the people; 2) management; and 3) the natural settings (Fig.1). The Framework identifies the dynamic nature of managing for connectivity conservation, the importance of a strong, binding vision, and the critical role of leadership.On such very large scales, CCM is achieved through a netcentric style of management (rather than hierarchical) with leadership by many individuals and organisations, agreed protocols, and good communication; and such management influences approaches to biodiversity management.


212


212

Figure 1: a conceptual framework for connectivity conservation management

Source: Worboys et al. 2009 (in prep)


213

Connectivity approaches to biodiversity management

The process of managing connectivity conservation is significantly influenced by the characteristics of the three settings (Figure 1). Some of these influences are described further.

Science and managing for biodiversity

Conservation of biodiversity is one of the principle purposes of managing for connectivity conservation. With the identification and establishment of CCAs, several science- based actions are recognised as being important.

Assessing the ecological landscape, its baseline values, and conservation planning context•Assessing the protection and conservation landscape and key threats•Identifying priority connectivity lands using systematic conservation planning techniques•Identifying focal conservation targets and conservation goals and a purpose for the CCA•

Quality of establishment management ensures that those aspects of biodiversity to be managed by the CCA are adequately dealt with. Beyond establishment, there are CCM needs, which include the following.

The constant evaluation of change in the condition of biodiversity values (from baseline)•Forecasting through climate (and other) models the nature of biome shifts influenced by climate •change and predicting changes for species’ population, abundance, and distribution

For large-scale CCAs, this work may be undertaken by many institutions guided by the vision and through informal collaboration. At transboundary sites, such work would be considered as international scientific collaboration and may invoke collaborative responses to deal with issues such as:

migratory wildlife;•transfer of fauna and flora; and•international wildlife treaties and agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in •Endangered Species (CITES).

People and biodiversity

Connectivity management recognises the prominent role of people in CCAs. Understanding their needs, values, and aspirations is critical in the management of biodiversity with regard to matters such as:

the sustainable use of people’s biodiversity needs; and•wildlife impacts on crops and the health and wellbeing of people.•


214

The sectoral, policy, planning and regulatory setting and biodiversity

management

Connectivity areas include lands with a range of tenure types and uses. There are a range of legislative, policy, and planning settings – all of which influence how biodiversity is managed. In addition, there are different attitudes within communities about how land should be managed ranging from development to conservation. This CCA ‘management’ setting influences how biodiversity management is undertaken. It directly influences how an integrated connectivity conservation management landscape is achieved and managed. Some legislative and policy approaches in relation to biodiversity management include the following.

Establishment of national connectivity conservation legislation•Recognition of connectivity conservation at the national policy level•Laws that protect wilderness, native species, wild rivers, and natural scenery•National incentive programmes that favour biodiversity conservation•National policies (and incentives) based on water yield and carbon management that favour •retaining naturally functioning landscapesNationally sponsored research programmes that favour biodiversity conservation•Legal covenants for land that protect natural values including biodiversity•Development of approval processes that recognise the legitimacy of biodiversity values•Processes to settle land use disputes that provide legitimacy to biodiversity values•

At transboundary sites, such considerations still apply, but can also change substantially, depending on the nature of the ‘management’ setting at these sites.

Transboundary considerations

Connectivity corridors transcend international boundaries, and management of this transboundary situation is required (Sandwith et al. 2001; Braack et al. 2006; Mittermeir et al. 2005). Commonly, such management is in the mountains, with borders running along watersheds or cutting across mountain chains, or both (such as in South America along the Andes Mountain Chain). Interest in the management of these transboundary areas has grown, as has the number of sites. Worldwide, the number of Transboundary Protected Areas (for example) has grown from 59 in the 1970s; to 666 in 2001; to 818 in 2005; and to 3,043 protected areas in 2007 (Jefferies 2008).

The CCM Framework (Fig.1) is appropriate for these sites, but there is a prominence of and a new level of consideration for the ‘management’ setting. Biodiversity management (for example) for these sites would also need to consider (and deal with) the following (Sandwith et al. 2001; Braack et al.2006)

Transborder movement of managers, scientists, and other people involved in biodiversity •management (including using techniques such as the aerial census of fauna) and the involvement of (depending on the situation)


215

customs’ officials (international visas), –law enforcement (smuggling), –the military (cross-border conflict), –agricultural departments (disease control), and –wildlife officials (disease management). –

Transborder differences in standards used by science for biodiversity management such as•baseline flora and fauna data classification systems, –indicators used for change in condition (from baseline) measurements, and –computer systems and methods used for storing and analysing data. –

Transborder methods for responding to major incidents affecting biodiversity such as wildfires, •extreme weather, climate change phenomena such as glacial melt water, and human incidents such as poaching and conflict.Positive transboundary biodiversity management considerations such as (Hamilton et al. 1996) •cooperative:

management of whole ecosystem, –biodiversity management projects, –threat management projects, –ex situ species conservation projects, –science and research projects, –cross-border wildlife conservation management, –biodiversity conservation capacity building and training including staff exchanges, and –application for financial resources for biodiversity management. –

Transboundary connectivity approaches to biodiversity management

Connectivity conservation management is focused on working with people across a very large landscape to achieve a common vision of biodiversity conservation, particularly through minimising habitat destruction and fragmentation, dealing with threats, and preparing for climate change impacts. These same approaches are relevant to transboundary sites. Approaches especially relevant to the management of biodiversity at transboundary sites include:

the CCM Conceptual Framework, which helps articulate the nature of connectivity •management;the dominance of the ‘management’ setting at transboundary sites, and the need to clearly •understand this;the importance of an agreed (single) ‘vision’ for an entire connectivity corridor to maximise •chances of an agreed single approach (including science methods) to biodiversity conservation;the importance of science and modelling to achieve a single, whole of corridor response to •climate change and the anticipated biome shifts and species’ movements; andthe importance of a netcentric style of management in which small groups of scientists and •managers may play critical leadership roles in helping to achieve the connectivity conservation vision.


216

Conclusion

Approaches to connectivity conservation management for biodiversity on transboundary sites may be guided by the conceptual framework for connectivity conservation, with a particular emphasis on additional ‘management’ considerations. Approaches such as a single vision are critical, as is the promotion of a range of situational arrangements that help achieve biodiversity conservation across international borders

References

Bennett, AF (2003) Linkages in the landscape. The role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. Gland: IUCN

Bennett, AF; Crooks, KR; Sanjayan, M (2006) ‘The future of connectivity conservation’. In Crooks, KR; Sanjayan, M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Braack, L; Sandwith, T; Peddle, D; Petermann, T (2006) Security considerations in the planning and management of transboundary conservation areas. Gland: IUCN

Crooks, KR; Sanjayan, M (eds) (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Damschen, EI; Haddad, NM; Orrock, JL; Tewksbury, JJ; Levcey, DJ (2006) ‘Corridors increase plant species richness at large scales’. Science 13: 1284-1286

Hamilton, LS; Mackay, JC; Worboys, GL; Jones, RA; Manson, GB (1996) Transborder protected area co-operation. Gland: IUCN, Australian Alps Liaison Committee

IUCN (2004) 2004 IUCN Red List of threatened species. A global species assessment. Gland: IUCN Species Survival Commission

Jefferies, B (2008 in preparation) Guidelines for transboundary protected areas. Wanaka, New Zealand: ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity

Lindenmayer, DB; Fischer, J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change. An ecological and conservation synthesis. Melbourne: CSIRO

Locke, H (2009 in preparation) ‘Yellowstone to Yukon: An outstanding example of connectivity conservation management’. In Worboys, GL; Francis, W; Lockwood, M (eds) Connectivity conservation management: A global guide. Gland: IUCN (to be published by London: Earthscan in 2009)

Mackey, B; Watson, J; Worboys, GL (2008 in press) The Alps to Atherton connectivity conservation initiative concept. The scientific basis. Queanbeyan: The Australian National University, Department of Conservation and Climate Change

Mittermeier, RA; Kormos, CF; Mittermeier, CG; Robles GP; Sandwith, T; Bescançon, C (2005) Transboundary conservation: A new vision for protected areas. Mexico: CEMEX-Agrupacion Sierra Madre, Conservation International

Mountain Forum (2007) ‘The Papallacta Declaration. IUCN/WCPA Mountain Biome Workshop-Ecuador 2006’. Mountain Forum Bulletin, January 2007. www.mtnforum.org


217

Sandwith, T; Shine, C; Hamilton, L; Sheppard, D (2001) Transboundary protected areas for peace and co-operation, Best practice series No 7. Gland: IUCN WCPA

Worboys, GL; Francis, W; Lockwood, M (2009 in preparation) Connectivity conservation management: a global guide. Gland: IUCN (to be published by London: Earthscan in 2009)

Plenary Session IVReports of Group Work

7

7: Plenary Session IV

221

Plenary Session IV

Summary

During this session, the facilitators for the group discussions on the five sub-themes summarised the discussions that took place in their groups on the Hindu Kush-Himalayan regional experience. Each summary was followed by a further discussion, and a question and answer session.

Chair: Dr Douglas McGuireRapporteur: Ms Brigitte Leduc

Group 1: Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity and Mountain PAs

Discussion

Evidence of climate change It is happening; warming effects are felt.•There are changes in precipitation.•It is drier in winter and in the dry season.•There are benefits from changes in the middle mountains. •Scarcity of water resources is increasing. •

Impacts of climate changePastoral species survive better.•Vegetative species are more at risk than animal species (they cannot move).•The habitats of many species are shrinking, species in the Himalayas very much affected.•

Implications for PAsFeasibility of moving boundaries•Flexible barriers for PAs to benefit protected areas•Coping mechanisms for people – alternative livelihoods, migration•Conservation and functions (for livelihoods) – both have rights•

Questions and Answers

Q. Did the group discuss how much information we have or do not have: how much do we know about climate change? And how much do we know about where species are?

A. There was a lot of discussion, but the information is very patchy. Broad generalisations cannot be made at the regional level. There are human dimensions to be considered and measures have to be taken to protect as many resources as possible.


222

Many changes happen, but not all changes are the results of climate change. We do not know to what extent climate change is having affects on the environment, it is difficult to evaluate. Variations in global changes affect the situation.

Q. Did you discuss what the key indicators are for monitoring biological changes?A. We did not reach that point. In each PA some species are identified for measuring impacts of

climate change because they are more vulnerable to it.

Group 2: Land Use Change Trends and Impacts on Mountain Biodiversity

Discussion

Livelihood and ecological processes needs to be looked at jointly.•Disconnected and/or conflicting policies•Examine the Eastern and Western Himalayas apart from above and below tree lines.•


Comment: Land use changes: The composition of livestock has changed and this has an impact on land use. Comment: One thing is missing: Fragmentation of habitat, wildlife disappearing, human and animal conflict is rising – elephants and monkeys conflict with humans in BangladeshComment: Pamir Alai: We cannot change anything; the land is changing us because it is degrading too rapidly. Biodiversity is disappearing; people’s survival is challenged. Different approaches are needed for different mountain contexts.

Group 3: Wetland Ecosystem Functions and Services – Implications of Climate Change

Discussion

Wetlands always influence the water regime.•How do we link ecosystem services, wetlands, and climate change – the knowledge gap is •important.There is evidence of climate change in some regions.•Experiences and observation should be shared among different countries in the region.•Resilience of ecosystems and the people•How to restore wetlands?•Payments for ecosystem services – a lot of research needed to show if it is really working •because nobody monitors. There is no inventory of wetlands in Myanmar.•

7: Plenary Session IV

223

To fill research gaps more efficiently interdisciplinary research is needed.•Research has to be linked to the real world and to the policy/decision makers who should •participate in setting the research agenda.A framework should be put in place for research into different dimensions of wetlands. •


Q. Comment on resilience: systems are not resilient. A. The talk is more about ecosystem levels than about specific species.Q. The carbon dimension of peat lands is disappearing: it is important to consider this.A. This was not discussed much during group work, but our institution has started working on that.

Link with the programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). There is a lack of understanding about this.

Group 4: Balancing Biodiversity Conservation with Community Livelihoods

Discussion

Can humans achieve a balance with nature? Debates at international level.•As it is people’s livelihoods that challenge natural resources, it is people’s livelihoods that have •to be adapted for conservation.There is no universal answer to whether livelihoods can be balanced for biodiversity •conservation: there is great diversity. Conflicts between culture and animal protection•Loss of agricultural biodiversity because of commercial agriculture•Ecotourism as an alternative livelihood in some regions•Use of medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs) and non-timber forest products (NTFPs)•Branding agrobiodiversity products•Organic agriculture is mentioned, but is it possible in poor countries?•Diversified approaches are necessary.•Water needs should be addressed.•Community-driven and resource ownership: conservation initiatives work better.•Supporting policies and institutions are necessary.•Livelihoods and conservation cannot achieve balance themselves.•Market changes, technology changes, and climate changes all influence the situation.•An interdisciplinary approach is necessary to address conservation issues.•The concept of agro-biodiversity has been discussed.•


224

Group 5: Biodiversity Transects and Transboundary Connectivity Approaches Long-term Monitoring and Regional Cooperation in Mountains

Discussion

Dealing with uncertainties: support resilience and adaptive practices.•Do not spend too much time on research – the need for intervention is urgent.•Instead of spending too much time on building something new, it is better to build on existing •practices.The concept and scale of corridor transects need to be clarified.•

Recommendations

The concept of transects must be taken forward.•The framework needs to be simpler.•A committee to monitor implementation is needed.•


Q. The Western and Eastern Himalayas meet – one of the richer areas for biodiversity: study this area. Think about community management of resources.

A. There are significant differences between the Western and Eastern Himalayas, but there is a gap and the transect approach can help bridge the gap.

A. Academic thinking – no dispute on the topics of transboundary and biodiversity transects. It needs a simple approach for implementation. The challenge is how to coordinate at the regional level. ICIMOD could work as a facilitator, notably in transfer of technologies.

Q. How about a water basin approach for this transect approach?A. Water is a very political issue: we may not succeed using a river-basin approach for the

transboundary approach.

From the Chair

Suggestions need to be plausible.•There is wide diversity in the region.•A narrative is needed.•An interdisciplinary approach is essential.•More research is needed. •Local communities have to be involved.•

Plenary Session V (Part 1)Responses from the Global Programmes

8

8: Plenary Session V: (Part 1)

227

Plenary Session V (Part 1)

Responses of the Global Programmes – Summary

This plenary gave each of the global programmes an opportunity to respond to the HKH regional experiences by providing global perspectives and ideas and suggestions on how their particular programme could contribute. As the background papers on the global programmes had been previously circulated, the presenters were asked only to respond to the regional experiences. The global programmes discussed how they are presently involved in the HKH and how they intend to respond to the challenges of the region, what they see as a role for partners, and how ICIMOD can be involved. The edited background papers are included at the end of this section.

Chair: Professor Bruno MesserliRapporteur: Dr Isabella Bassignana Khadka

Towards Addressing the Issues of Global Climate Change

Dr LMS Palni, GB Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development (GBPIHED), India

Dr Palni presented the Prime Minister of India’s recently announced ‘Action Plan on Climate Change’, which focuses on establishing an effective, cooperative, and equitable global approach based on the principle of common, but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, as enshrined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The action plan highlights eight areas of action or ‘national missions’, namely: solar, enhanced energy efficiency, sustainable habitats, water, sustaining the Himalayan ecosystem, green India, sustainable agriculture, and strategic knowledge for climate change. The details can be found on the website http://pmIndia.nic.in/.

These eight national missions simultaneously focus on multiple fronts by promoting understanding of climate change, adaptation and mitigation, energy efficiency, and natural resource conservation. The Indian Government is committed to achieving key goals through multi-pronged, long-term integrated strategies and effective and accelerated implementation of time-bound plans through change in direction and enhancement of scope.

Dr Palni pointed out that, of the eight missions outlined, seven are sectoral and only one is site specific, namely, the mission on ‘sustaining the Himalayan ecosystem’. This mission will encompass evolving management measures for sustaining and safeguarding Himalayan glaciers and the mountain ecosystem. The four approaches to this include: 1) enhanced monitoring of the Himalayan ecosystem with a focus on the recession of Himalayan glaciers and its impact on river systems;


228

2) establishing observation and monitoring networks to assess freshwater resources and ecosystem health; 3) promoting community-based management incentives for protection and enhancement of forested lands; and 4) strengthening regional cooperation by exchanging information with countries sharing the Himalayan ecology.

The mission on sustaining Himalayan ecosystems will focus on the principles laid out in the National Action Plan on Climate Change and will encompass: 1) protecting vulnerable sections of society through resource management and livelihood options; 2) enhancing ecological sustainability within disturbance regimes for native and endemic elements and for glaciers and river systems; and, lastly, 3) deploying technologies for hazard mitigation and disaster management, ideal human habitats and agriculture, and forest sector innovations.

The mission on sustaining Himalayan ecosystems would link with the other missions to achieve the goal in a holistic manner. Possible approaches incorporating many aspects include solar and micro-hydel energy, forest-based economies, watershed management and ideal Himalayan landscapes, eco-based tourism, protected unique landscapes, local organic agriculture, and energy efficient infrastructure.

After his presentation, Dr Palni, commented on the importance of having input from all the regional member countries and said that this input would be highly appreciated. In the face of growing globalisation and mounting cross-boundary environmental challenges, intergovernmental cooperation at the regional level cannot be avoided; and doors should be opened to allow this to happen. The question remains as to what role ICIMOD should play in this regional cooperation.

EV-K2-CNR

Dr Gianni Tartari, EV-K2-CNR, Italy

Ev-K2-CNR has activities in the Hindu Kush-Karakoram-Himalayan (HKKH) region in the Pakistan Karakorum Trust area, and in Nepal’s Sagarmatha National Park and China’s (Tibet Autonomous Region [TAR]) Qomolungma National Park (QNP). They share high-altitude research systems, including geographical information systems (GIS). EV-K2-CNR also has integrated management plans and climate change impact assessment programmes and, as part of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan partnership, are studying issues of forest management, water pollution, and impacts of climate change on forests and glaciers.

EV-K2-CNR has made a concrete contribution: it has had a network in the Khumbu Valley since 1994. The data collected are free of charge to all genuine researchers and are available either in Excel or pdf formats. The data collection stations are located at >5,000 and 8,000 metres. Contact Dr Tartari at: [email protected].


229


Q: Dr Ukesh Raj Bhuju (Nepal National Committee of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature [IUCN] members) asked if there were any similar stations that were collecting the same type of data as Ev-K2.

A: Yes, there are two stations in Pakistan (one is in Baltoro) and there are plans for expansion. Dr Tartari appreciated the question and said that this is a critical area of research and that there is a lack of quality data collection at high altitudes. Stations can be established initially for about 15,000 Euro, but then they need to be maintained.

Q: Dr Gregory Greenwood (Mountain Research Initiative [MRI]) asked what Ev-K2 could contribute to the transect idea.

A: Dr Tartari said that Ev-K2 had worked in this area for the past 20 years and would be happy to share their experience and data. In places where socio-political and economic conditions were difficult, they had made a special effort to involve the local population.

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the Mountain Partnership Secretariat

Dr Douglas McGuire, Forest Management Division, FAO, Italy

FAO has had technical programmes dealing with 1) food security and nutrition; 2) livelihood support and rural development; 3) Integrated watershed management; and 4) emergency support, a recent example being the latest earthquake in Pakistan. FAO has been active in offering technical assistance for many years; it has responded to challenges in areas such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), agrobiodiversity, the Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS), and others, as well as capacity building and policy support.

The Mountain Partnership (MP) was established as a voluntary alliance and is now comprised of over 150 organisations, which collaborate on sustainable mountain development; it is effective on the ground. Mountain Partnership HKH members include four of the eight Himalayan countries, namely, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal, and Pakistan, as well as many international/non-governmental organisations (INGOs/NGOs). The MP has a decentralised hub for Asia and the Pacific hosted by ICIMOD (Zaya Batjargal). The MP biodiversity initiative had been involved in ‘twinning’ the Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal with the Gran Paradiso National Park in Italy.

The MP can respond to challenges by providing a framework for cooperation on mountain biodiversity within the Biodiversity Initiative. It can also provide support to develop collaborative action with key stakeholders (such as project formulation, resource mobilisation, and so forth) and form linkages with other regions as well as providing networking, information, and knowledge management support through Mountain Forum.


230

In conclusion, Dr McGuire said that ICIMOD should play a key role at the regional level by providing expertise. What is most needed is technical, financial, and political support in an integrated approach that also takes human aspects and livelihoods into consideration.

GLORIA

Dr Harald Pauli, GLORIA, Mountain Research Unit, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria

GLORIA studies pristine versus anthropogenically altered environments at high elevations (subnival); some boreal and arctic mountains in North America and New Zealand. Through GLORIA’s simplicity and the large number of sites it has, it has excellent potential for synergistic interaction with the Long-term Ecological Research Network (LTER), Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA) activities, Mountain Invasion Research Network (MIREN), ethnobotany, and the European Environment Agency (EEA)

GLORIA master sites also have additional activities on other organism groups (e.g., arthropods, amphibians, climatology, vegetation, and species modelling). GLORIA is an open process – it can be joined at any time. GLORIA coordinates and communicates with more than 50 groups on standardisation, advice on methodology, training, publication strategy, data ownership issues, central database and website, method testing, master sites, public relations (PR), and policy.

How can GLORIA contribute to this region? By establishing mountain biodiversity observatories that are long term: the first thing being to focus on pristine areas, but these are difficult to find and most areas are strongly impacted by land use such as grazing. It is necessary to keep in mind that observatories would be in different cultural situations.

Implementation of GLORIA: South America, the first sites through the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s Man and Biosphere programme (UNESCO-MAB), then Peru and Chile, now eight transboundary reserves (TRs)—a further 11 are planned (Proyecto Páramo Andino – CONDESAN [Consortium for Sustainable Development of the Andean Ecoregion], Conservation International, Herbario Nat. Bolivia, Com. Andina de Naciones). The network is narrowly focused on mountain biodiversity, but it has excellent potential for interdisciplinary cooperation with other programmes, structures, and initiatives. Vegetation often grows slowly, so this kind of work is long term. It is important to have regional nodes to establish national sites: in Latin America there is already a regional node between Ecuador and Bolivia.

Ongoing work in the HKH area is in the Saipan region (Jumla-Rara area); Kanchenralba/Kanjiroba Himal area; Annapurna Himal Area; Gosaikunda and Langtang Himal area; and Sikkim’s Kanchenjunga Himal area. Collaborative work is being carried out with the Missouri Botanical Garden and Nepalese partners as a West-East arrangement across Nepal to Sikkim, in Bhutan with the Edinburgh Botanical Garden and Nepalese partners, and in the Annapurna region (humid South and arid North).


231


Q: Who are your partners in Sikkim? A: Dr Puna in Oxford.Q: Data availability and on-line sharing? A: This is not the initial idea, but will be a requirement in the long term. It has to be discussed with

the contributors, because we are not allowed to share data without their consent. Q: How are Nepalese botanical gardens involved, except for individual scientists? A: This cooperation will soon be strengthened. Q: Can you confirm whether or not temperature monitoring also takes place? A: Yes, on four points; each of the summit sites monitors temperature.

GMBA/DIVERSITAS

Dr Eva Spehn, University of Basel, Switzerland

Dr Spehn discussed the outcome of the Pre-Conference Workshop, 15-16 November 2008, ICIMOD, Kathmandu: Linking Geodata with Biodiversity Information in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas, Creating a Regional HKH Biodiversity Information Hub and Linking it to Global Initiatives.

Dr Spehn stated that ICIMOD has expertise in biodiversity and the Mountain Environment and Natural Resources Information System (MENRIS) and that GMBA forms a cross-cutting network of the International Programme of Biodiversity Science (DIVERSITAS). It actively explores and synthesises mountain biodiversity research, it links science and policy, as in the case of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). It links biodiversity databases with geographic data to select mountain-relevant data and combine ecologically relevant information with biodiversity patterns in order to model species’ distributions (niche models) and ecosystem boundaries. Data are available from data portals by species, country, or data collector. GMBA has kept a catalogue of who has which data and how well they fit mountain biodiversity research. ICIMOD already has a thematic portal for Nepal for protected areas, and this can be searched for data on biodiversity.

Dr Spehn said that GMBA‘s Mountain Data Portal at the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) features an annotated catalogue of electronic geo-referenced mountain biodiversity databases. Specific search criteria for mountains include altitude, slope, ruggedness, and mountain life zones (below or above the tree line).

ICIMOD-GMBA: A way forward

It was thought that there is an urgent need to increase the amount and quality of geo-referenced data on mountain biodiversity provided online to meet the challenges of global change. Data sharing and harmonisation includes adoption of international standards for HKH data (Darwin


232

Code, the Integrated Taxonomic Information System [IT IS], Metadata National Biological Information Infrastructure [NBII] standards). The next step would include data sharing, harmonisation, and standardisation of taxonomic names. ICIMOD should become a regional Global Diversity Information Facility (GBIF) node. There should be a regional training workshop for regional member countries (RMCs) on data sharing and collection methods. Once the mountain portal is in place, it will be easy to access the data.

Biodiversity data standards, metadata, geo-referencing tools and methods (BioGeomancer); capacity building and training (hands-on workshop with GMBA/GBIF) are the way forward.

A list of HKH biodiversity data should be compiled by feeding the geo-referenced data available into GBIF (e.g., Flora Tibetica), GMBA Mountain Portal, and the Mountain Geo-Portal of ICIMOD; easy and open access to biodiversity information from the HKH region will be provided through a global portal.


Q: A more detailed discussion on data sharing is needed because presenting data in international journals takes years: the Internet Security and Acceleration Server (ISA) standard is used, and it is important to regulate data properly. Several projects have an idea about data sharing and property rights.

A: This is a critical bottleneck, but it has already been solved by GBIF; without all this nothing can happen. ICIMOD should also pay attention to this and remind the RMCs. Yes, material on this is available on the web. There are recommendations for GBIF regulations and sharing space. It is a template with a fixed column and is readily available.

IUCN WCPA (Mountains Biome)

Dr Graeme L. Worboys, Vice Chair (Mountains Biome), IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA)

IUCN, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, is a non-governmental organisation governed by a council of elected representatives. It consists of 1,000 government and NGO members in 160 countries, 11,000 volunteer scientists, and 1,000 professional secretariat staff working in 60 countries. The IUCN WCPA is one of the six commissions of IUCN and has approximately 1,300 protected area specialists. The WCPA Mountains Biome was pioneered by Emeritus Professor Dr Larry Hamilton in 1993: it currently involves about 350 active mountain protected area professionals. WCPA facilitates connectivity conservation initiatives around the world as it is involved in connectivity conservation work, especially in the mountains, a key direction of the WCPA Strategic Plan and a key target of the Convention on Biological Diversity Programme of Work on Protected Areas (CBD PoWPA).


233

WCPA facilitates connectivity conservation initiatives in the HKH as determined by the 2008 Connectivity Conservation Workshop at the IUCN World Council on Climate Change (WCC), Barcelona, and the 2008 Connectivity Conservation Workshop in partnership with ICIMOD and WWF in Dhulikhel, Nepal, from 11 to 15 November 2008.

Context for managing connectivity conservation: The realisation that a shared connectivity conservation vision is critical; people, nature, and management settings are critical; connectivity management is situational; and connectivity management is complex and dynamic.

People from the HKH (especially Nepal) were present and influential in earlier meetings and involved in the big picture around the world. Small, focused workshops had been held to build the concept of connectivity conservation and protected areas.


Q: There was a shared vision about such a workshop here in Kathmandu, and it was realised, why?

A: It was a strategic reaction to global change. Q: How to manage these complex areas, including conceptual frameworks on how to manage

them? A: The workshop gave feedback on a prepared framework and about what action should be

taken. Three contextual pathways first needed to be understood: people, management setting, and shared vision. This conceptual model was adopted and improved and will be published later this year.

Q: So how is it actually managed? A: Leadership (at multiple levels and different people) is essential, as is evaluation and other things.

Work has been undertaken in three corridors (Altai Sayan, Brahmaputra-Salween, and Pamir-Karakoram), and there is a special interest in working at the transboundary interface. The programme wishes to maintain contact as a voluntary, low-key international network.

Q: What is the role for ICIMOD and partners? A: The role for ICIMOD and its partners is to continue to help facilitate these connectivity initiatives,

particularly at the transboundary interface. At the request of the Dhulikhel participants, an informal, voluntary network of connectivity conservation people will be established by IUCN WCPA. ICIMOD and IUCN WCPA can work together as part of a low-key, voluntary, international network of connectivity conservation initiatives.

Q: Does this cover the Terai Arc landscape? A: Yes, with good feedback and participation.


234

MRI/MAIRS

Mountain Research Initiative (MRI)

Dr Gregory Greenwood, Executive Director, Mountain Research Initiative (MRI), University of Berne, Switzerland

MRI is different from Global Change in Mountain Regions (GLOCHAMORE) and GLORIA, which are well focused research projects. MRI only deals with interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. Some of the activities of MRI include networking meetings for synthesis and adaptation of the GLOCHAMORE strategy of research in various regions. In the HKH, MRI has worked through partners. MRI’s approach to research is often expedient and tangential, making the most of what is already available; for example, MRI has started working with the Monsoon Asia Integrated Regional Study (MAIRS), which already has an established research strategy. For the same reasons, MRI expressly did not do this in the HKH-Tibet as there already were many previous claimants to global change research in the region. Notwithstanding, MRI has been involved in discussions with Chinese researchers in Beijing, who have indicated their interest in working with MRI, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Such an alliance will help MRI to take a look at the whole system of mountain regions in Asia. Several proposals have been submitted to the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN) for funding, because funding is most important.


Q How will MRI deal with challenges? A: It will pursue partnerships, and new opportunities are coming up at this meeting. The transect

project will provide MRI with a framework within which it can bring in researchers. Q: How can ICIMOD be involved? A: ICIMOD can be involved in the formal vetting of the GLOCHAMORE research strategy and use

it as a yardstick for the kind of research that is happening in the region. The establishment of transects in the HKH will change the game plan for MRI. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) blank spot should be eliminated. ICIMOD can be the convener here, as it has been in other regions.

Monsoon Asia Integrated Regional Study (MAIRS) Mountain Zone Science

Priority research areas for MAIRS include hydrology and water availability; ecosystems and biodiversity; agriculture, forestry, and food security; natural disaster management; energy and transport; and air quality and human health. MAIRS has worked with the Asia Pacific Network funding (two cycles); the Chinese Academy of Science is funding an office and staff; and MRI participates in project planning and provides links to European and North American expertise.


235

MAIRS has worked with ICIMOD in the Cryosphere and Hazard Workshop (April 2007), during which several potential collaborative projects were identified, and there is perhaps a role for the University of Nebraska and the United States’ National Science Foundation(US NSF). Water supplies are a critically important area.


Q: How can MRI respond to the challenges of the region?A: Barring new funding, MRI will continue to pursue partnerships that facilitate progress towards

research. New opportunities from this meeting: the Mountain Biosphere Reserve (MBR)-based network (from the UNESCO meeting) and, for GLOCHAMORE implementation, transects to fill in ‘blank spots’ for the International Panel on Climate Change’s 5th Assessment Report (IPCC AR5). The necessary requirements are networking, funding, and coordination.

Q: How can ICIMOD be involved? A: Perhaps by adoption/adaptation of the GLOCHAMORE research strategy; coordination of

efforts to create a network of interdisciplinary research sites (e.g., MBRs); and coordination of efforts to create transects of mountain observatories: all aimed at eliminating the ‘blank spot’ for IPCC AR5.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Mr Subrata Sinha, UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand

An understanding is needed of 1) the uncertainty of ecological data and collection, hence the need to invest more effort; 2) the impacts of climate change on the mountains and at the local level; 3) the importance of the landscape approach and that the focus will be on this; 4) the importance of regional cooperation and the need to bring countries and agencies on to a platform for regional cooperation; and 5) the need to build capacities so that communities can deal with climate change with resilience.

As far as programming is concerned, the UN is undergoing reforms, as is UNEP. This year UNEP formulated a new work programme, which will be implemented from 2010 onwards, and it is no longer at the activity level. The governing councils have given the following directions for action: climate change, ecosystem management, governance, disaster, and resource efficiency; and the first three are directly relevant to the HKH.


Q: How will UNEP be involved in the HKH and with ICIMOD? A: 1) UNEP has a long standing partnership with ICIMOD. For example, UNEP was involved in

the glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) study. This was well received and now needs more


236

investment (2002-2007). 2) UNEP was involved in the Mountain Environmental Knowledge Hub, for which ICIMOD is the host. 3) UNEP worked with ICIMOD and DATA Nepal (on the World Bank site: www.worldbank.np) on the Biodiversity Yearbook for Nepal. This is now available on the Mountain HKH portal. 4) The Kailash landscape programme, which focused on the collection of both data and information on ecological and climate change and on the assessment of the impacts of climate change, as well as regional cooperation on these topics. 5) In the Karakoram area, UNEP has been involved in data collection, climate change, impact assessments, and promoting resilience and capacity building.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s Man and Biosphere Programme (UNESCO MAB)

Dr Thomas Schaaf, UNESCO’s MAB Programme, Paris, France

The Mission of UNESCO is to build peace in the minds of men through education, science, and culture. There are 50 field offices worldwide, including in Kathmandu, Delhi, Dhaka, Beijing, and Islamabad.

Dr Schaaf stated that climate change in mountain areas is a key priority for UNESCO. In terms of land use changes and trends, UNESCO focuses mainly on biosphere reserves. Balancing conservation with livelihoods is an area in which UNESCO can demonstrate how environment and economic development can go hand in hand. UNESCO has a number of transboundary-linked biosphere reserves, as well as a transcontinental biosphere reserves between Europe and Africa. In the HKH there is huge potential, and the banner of UNESCO could help to strengthen it, especially in sensitive border areas. Nanda Devi (India), Quomolongma (TAR), and a new one in Sikkim have potential for corridors and transboundary collaboration. UNESCO is also involved in capacity building, education, and outreach. ICIMOD will remain a privileged partner institution for UNESCO for everything related to the HKH. UNESCO has also produced a teaching resource kit.

Chair: Professor Messerli stated that three UN organisations (UNESCO, FAO, and UNU) were very much involved, so we should keep that in mind.


Q: Are these teaching kits also available for translation into regional languages? A: Yes, we already have good examples of this, and there is hope for a new kit too.


237

United Nations University

Dr Libor Jansky, United Nations University (UNU), Bonn, Germany

Dr Jansky gave a short presentation in which he highlighted UNU’s involvement in the Pamir-Alai (Altai) – a region with very similar geomorphologic and climatic conditions as the HKH. UNU’s interest is in targeted research and capacity development through various projects. It is also interested in sharing knowledge and expertise among local, regional, and international partners, as well as in collaborating through open global mountain partnership programmes. UNU would also be interested in an umbrella programme incorporating existing and future projects, and offering basic activities in methodology, institution building, social empowerment, and the dissemination of knowledge.

UNU’s interest in research is in the areas of: 1) maintaining peace and security in complex political environments; 2) supporting the coexistence of people with different cultures, languages, and social systems; 3) seeing that issues of human rights and gender equity are an integral part of local development options; 4) the economic and social aspects of transformation in the context of globalisation and global climate change; 5) the vulnerability and adaptation of coupled human-ecological systems in the mountains; 6) seeing that science and technology are applied for the benefit of mountain regions and the people who live there; and 7) using human values to improve quality of life.

UNU is also interested in capacity building when it is specifically related to: 1) building a knowledge base and bringing about awareness to facilitate better decision-making; 2) improving individual health, literacy, and other skills required to adapt to differing and changing circumstances; 3) integrating laws, policies, and strategies to encourage sustainable development and promote environmental integrity; 4) improving management practices and techniques; 5) fostering institutions that encourage and support partnerships and cooperative arrangements; 6) developing appropriate infrastructure and technology to support sustainable development; and 7) identifying and promoting sustainable financing mechanisms.

Several decades of mountain programmes in collaboration with Professor Messerli and others, and particularly programmes in different regions, has shown that, as far as UNU is concerned, sustainability – in any and all aspects – is crucial. The mountains closest to the Himalayas are the Pamir-Alai and here UNU has had experience with local researchers and pilot sites. Key issues for mountain areas, including the Himalayas, were discussed and recommendations were summarised in a publication ‘Mountains of the World: A Global Priority’ (edited by Bruno Messerli and Jack D. Ives) in 1997. This publication contributed to a much-needed worldwide awareness of mountain issues. There are already several types of partnerships that could be used under a type of umbrella project. Research should be linked to the local people and local expertise, in spite of the fact that sometimes it might not be what the scientific community or peer-reviewed journals want.


238


Q: Professor Martin Price asked: Do you mean that a UNU umbrella or some other existing mountain partnership umbrella should be used?

A: Definitely not a UNU umbrella; the existing Mountain Partnership umbrella can be used, but efforts should be made to see that it is not overly bureaucratic. Care should also be taken to see that the process does not stay at the political level: it should be made concrete and have a good operating mechanism.

Wetlands International (WI)

Dr Chris Baker, Wetlands International, The Netherlands

Wetlands International (WI) is an NGO that focuses exclusively on wetland conservation, but, in the past, it also focused on biodiversity in general. WI has tried to encourage sound science as much as possible. Its current activities include the HKH, but it was previously active in India and China. Its recent initiatives are on the Regional Wetland Initiative and the International Waterbird Census.

WI will need to strengthen linkages with available knowledge bases. WI’s future plans include continuing its present work, especially with ICIMOD and especially on the Himalayan Initiative.

From this meeting it was understood that it will be necessary to improve linkages and that wetlands need to be in the overall picture in terms of linkages between practice and policy, and knowledge-based development. The landscape approach must include wetlands. The partnership needs to be broadened to include development agencies and water and agriculture-related organisations.

WWF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Eastern Himalayan Programme (CEPF)

Dr Sarala Khaling, Regional Coordinator, CEPF (based at WWF-Nepal) Kathmandu, Nepal

The focus of WWF’s Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is on the Eastern Himalayas, not the whole of the HKH. Investment is centred on biodiversity hotspots in the Eastern Himalayas. The programme has a unique partnership for funding with many contributors, including, L’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation, and the World Bank.

The coordinator for the Eastern Himalayas is WWF Nepal. WWF Nepal gives grants to civil society organisations for biodiversity conservation projects, because such organisations are usually effective, but lack funds. Local groups are at a disadvantage as they normally cannot access large


239

amounts of funds. Grants are targeted at hotspots that have a profile, each based on scientific findings.

Bhutan, India, and Nepal’s Kanchenjunga complex forms the main focus and some parts of the Terai Arc Landscape. Species, sites, and landscapes receive attention, especially through local-level linkages where the action happens. Examples of projects are policy advocacy, involving the media, social forestry in corridors, and civil society networks. Small grant are used to fund such projects, which are very effective for individuals, universities, and local organisations. Work is focused on particular species for which there are no other monitoring resources.

WWF makes grants to target biodiversity hotspots in developing countries. The use of the grants is guided by strategies developed with stakeholders and the funds go directly to civil society; moreover, these grants create alliances combining skills, eliminating duplication of efforts, and achieving results through an ever-expanding network of partners.

The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund in the Eastern Himalayas invests in 1) Bhutan Biological Conservation Complex; 2) India in the Kanchenjunga-Singhalila Corridor North Bank Landscape; and 3) Nepal in the Kanchenjunga-Singhalila corridor of the Sacred Himalayan Landscape and Critical Areas of the Terai Arc Landscape. The Fund carries out policy-level work on promoting corridors and the role they can play; work on how species’ level projects can be implemented is also in the pipeline.

In India, restoring corridors and transboundary collaboration among local communities receives priority, as well as projects in Sikkim and North East India. In Nepal, there are ongoing projects focusing on livelihoods, education, capacity building, and traditional knowledge, as well as forest management in the Ilam and Darjeeling corridor.

Partners are involved in networking and upscaling, innovations, documenting, policy advocacy, and learning and feedback. ICIMOD has been a partner in this.


Q: How much funding is available from these small grants? A: The maximum is $20,000 per project.

Chair: Very interesting, but very short. Now how do we include transects in all these activities. The paper gives a list of those involved in the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) programme. How can they be included?


240

The Ev-K2-CNR Contribution to Mountain Ecosystem Conservation and the Study of Climate Change BethSchommer,ChiaraBelotti,ElisaVuillermoz and Gianni Tartari, Ev-K2-CNR Committee, Bergamo, Italy

Abstract

Everest-K2-Council of National Research (Ev-K2-CNR) is a 20-year old institution carrying out multidisciplinary, high-altitude scientific and technological research built upon a tradition of Italian exploration in the Karakoram and the Himalayas. Ev-K2-CNR’s mission is to provide specialised scientific support for sustainable development in high-altitude areas, promoting environmental conservation and a better quality of life for local populations.

Recent years have seen Ev-K2-CNR focusing more on the tangible outputs of its research efforts, moving beyond the generation of knowledge to the application of that knowledge on a management and decision-making level. Thus, contributions can be made to the resolution of major global or local problems such as the impact of climate change on fragile mountain ecosystems and the urgent need for the sustainable management of the world’s precious resources like water, energy, and food.

Ev-K2-CNR is promoting the following integrated research projects. • StationsatHighAltitudeforResearchontheEnvironment(SHARE),aprojectwhichgeneratesunique

information to help face the challenges posed by climate change. Interdisciplinary environmental monitoring is carried out in high-altitude areas in the fields of Environmental and Earth Sciences (atmospheric and climate change; glaciology, hydrology, and limnology in high-altitude areas; geophysics; and natural hazards).

• KarakoramTrust(KT),whichisamultisectoralinterventiontocontributetosustainableeconomicdevelopment and environmental protection in the Northern Areas of Pakistan. The key focus is on implementation of the Central Karakoram National Park as a major opportunity for improving the standard of living of the local populations while safeguarding the precious resources of Pakistan’s vulnerable Karakoram Range.

• TheHinduKush-Karakoram-Himalayan(HKKH)Partnershipproject,carriedouttogetherwiththeInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), and Cooperazione E Sviluppo (Cooperation and Development) (CESVI). This project aims to facilitate systemic planning and management at local, national, and regional levels, focusing on poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation in the HKKH region. Ev-K2-CNR is particularly proud of the ground being broken in the promotion of management-oriented research and the local institutional capacity being built in this framework.


241

Introduction

Ev-K2-CNR (www.evk2cnr.org) is a 20-year old institution carrying out multidisciplinary high-altitude scientific and technological research built upon a tradition of Italian exploration in the Karakoram and the Himalayas. It was one of the past century’s most renowned scientists and explorers, Professor Ardito Desio, who founded the organisation and who, at the age of 90, personally inaugurated the famous International Pyramid Laboratory-Observatory located in Nepal near Mt Everest (5,050 masl) run by Ev-K2-CNR and the Nepal Academy of Science and Technology.

The specialisation of Ev-K2-CNR lies in its capacity to work systemically using knowledge generated within a multidisciplinary framework while promoting the dissemination of science. Ev-K2-CNR combines lessons learned through science with innovation to promote sustainable strategies for safeguarding the environment and improving quality of life with a special focus on one of the world’s most vulnerable and most valuable resources: mountains.

The main objective of Ev-K2-CNR is to improve understanding of high-altitude ecosystems, their processes and interactions with the human component, and the effects of global changes at the local level, so as to contribute to sustainable development and enhanced management of natural resources. Specific objectives include the following.

Improve and expand its monitoring network in order to develop an integrated system of scientific •measurements for improving knowledge in the fields of environmental and Earth sciences.Contribute to the mitigation of the impacts of climate change and promote sustainable •adaptation strategies with particular regard to water resources, biodiversity, ecosystem conservation, and food security. Create electronic information systems and databases that are accessible to governments and •scientific research institutes to facilitate the dissemination of knowledge, thereby helping to improve understanding of climate change. Help build institutional capacity for systematic planning and management of fragile high- •altitude ecosystems.Promote the preservation and valorisation of the environmental, cultural, and architectonical •heritage of the HKKH region.

Background and context

The HKKH region is comprised of extraordinarily high mountain chains, spanning thousands of kilometres and encompassing an extensive diversity of flora and fauna, unparalleled natural beauty, and many varied cultures. These mountains feed most of the major river systems in the region, which are a lifeline for approximately 10% of the world’s population. Despite their importance, mountain regions are some of the least monitored regions in the world, primarily due to difficult accessibility and limited, local scientific capacities.


242

According to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (www.ipcc.ch), climate change will have major impacts on glaciers and ecosystem services, with long-term implications for food and water security, as well as for the livelihoods of local communities. Mountain areas are thus particularly vulnerable in this respect, especially with regards to their role in hydroclimatic systems and the fact that they provide essential fresh water for downstream populations, especially in the world’s arid and semiarid zones. Furthermore, mountain areas have been recognised as sensitive early indicators of the effects of climate change. Recently, the United Nations General Assembly (Resolution No. 62/196 2008) called for an enhancement of research efforts in mountain areas in order to understand how climate change influences hydrology, cryosphere, geomorphology, ecosystems, human livelihoods, and so forth, given that they are ideal and vastly representative locations for the study of climate change (www.un.org). Meeting this objective will require collection of high quality, long-term environmental data to support modelling and long-term prediction.

So far, the majority of mountain regions lack such datasets, primarily because of the extreme topography, harsh climate, lack of appropriate technical equipment, and a general under-appreciation of the scientific benefits of the data. Nonetheless, fragile mountain ecosystems, which provide essential natural resources such as water, energy, wood, and food, are at stake. Furthermore, the role of high elevations in influencing global climatic processes is not understood, but it is clear that there are significant effects on monsoons and pollution transport that need to be clarified within the efforts to understand global climate change.

Other critical issues in the HKKH mountain area arise from the lack of baseline information on biodiversity, resource use, and availability, and the need for sustainable management programmes and infrastructures in fragile areas. One such example is the Central Karakoram National Park (CKNP) in Pakistan’s Northern Areas. This 10,000 km landscape, endowed with rich floral and faunal biodiversities, natural beauty, and key resources such as forest products and fresh water, was declared a protected area in 1993, yet it does not have a sustainable management plan in place as yet. Such a plan requires a wide range of reliable scientific information on all aspects of the environment, development, and socioeconomic spectra, and these are not available yet.

Ev-K2-CNR projects dedicated to mountain ecosystem conservation and the study of climate change

SHARE (Stations at High Altitude for Research and Environment) Ev-K2-CNR is responsible for the implementation of the SHARE project, in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and with the participation of several Italian and international research institutions. This programme aims to facilitate study of the effects of climate change on mountain ecosystems and improve our understanding of ongoing climate processes and phenomena by using an integrated approach based on long-term observations and appropriate climate modelling. The scientific research carried out within the SHARE framework includes topics such as:

analysis of the influence of regional anthropogenic and natural processes;•


243

study of the interaction between mountain ranges and global atmospheric circulation;•characterisation of physical, chemical, and optical properties of aerosol and their variations;•study of seasonal variability of atmospheric pollutants and climate-altering compounds;•characterisation of wet deposition chemistry;•evaluation of glacial energy and mass balance and consequent risks (glacial lake outburst •floods – GLOFs) and study of debris-covered glaciers and the role of debris in ablative processes;monitoring of surface variations of glaciers, rock glaciers, and moraines;•creation of hydro-geological models for analysis of risk factors;•study of lacustrine trophic chains and biomass accumulation in response to natural or •disturbance factors; andidentification of areas at risk of natural hazards through geodetic environmental monitoring. •

Given the high standards and distinctiveness of the data collected through the SHARE network (Table 1), the SHARE project has become an international point of reference. Contributions are made through SHARE to other monitoring networks that collect climate, atmospheric, and terrestrial data, among which are the following.

Project Atmospheric Brown Clouds (ABC) – UNEP•AErosol RObotic NETwork (AERONET) – National Aeronautical and Space Agency (NASA) •Coordinated Energy and Water Cycle Observation Project (CEOP) – World Meteorological •Organization (WMO) Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) – WMO•International Long-term Ecological Research Network (ILTER)•

Preliminary scientific results of SHARE regarding the HKKH region were presented in 2005 at the Rome conference: ‘Mountains Witnesses of Global Changes. Research in the Himalaya and Karakoram: SHARE-Asia Project’. The proceedings of the conference were published in a book edited by Springer (Baudo et al. 2007).

Taking advantage of the SHARE network, a new component of ‘regional focus’ dedicated to High Elevations (HE) (www.ceop-he.org) was recently implemented by Ev-K2-CNR within the Coordinated Energy and Water Cycle Observation Project (CEOP) of GEWEX (Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment). The HE project aims to identify a worldwide network of high elevation climatic stations, including, but not limited to, CEOP reference stations and to help facilitate dialogue amongst researchers concerned with these stations. Scientific priorities of the HE initiative include detection of the main factors affecting the water, energy, and material cycles at high elevations in diverse climates and locations, studying the effects of such factors on glacial areas, and understanding the hydrological regime in surrounding lower-altitude areas.


244

Table 1: Sites currently included in the SHARE network

Installation site Nation/Continent Station Characteristics altitude

(masl)

Mt Cimone (Northern Appennines) Italy Europe “Ottavio Vittori” Research Station

Atmospheric monitoring station 2,165

Forni glacier (Central Alps, Valtellina) Italy Europe - Automatic

weather station 2,669

Dosdè Glacier (Central Alps, Valtellina) Italy Europe - Automatic

weather station 2,740

Gigante Glacier (Mt Bianco, Alps) Italy Europe - Automatic weather station 3,500

Pyramid Laboratory Observatory (Lobuche, Khumbu Valley) Nepal Asia

Nepal Climate Observatory-Pyramid(ABC-Pyramid)

Atmospheric monitoring station 5,079

GPS* Master GPS station 5,050

AWS0, AWS1; AWS CEOP*

Automatic weather stations 5,050

DORIS* Orbitographic station 5,050

Pheriche (Khumbu Valley) Nepal Asia AWS2 Automatic weather station 4,258

Namche Bazaar (Sagarmatha National Park Headquarters, Khumbu Valley)

Nepal Asia AWS NP Automatic weather station 3,560

Lukla (Khumbu Valley) Nepal Asia AWS3 Automatic weather station 2,660

Kala Patthar (Khumbu Valley) Nepal Asia AWS-KP Automatic weather station 5,600

Mt Everest South Col Nepal Asia AWS-CS Automatic weather station 8,000

Urdukas (Baltoro glacier, Baltistan) Pakistan Asia AWS PK1 Automatic weather station 3,926

Askole (Baltistan, Pakistan) Pakistan Asia AWS PK2 Automatic weather station 3,015

Mt Rwenzori (Elena Glacier) Uganda Africa AWS RW Automatic weather station 4,700

Key:* CEOP = Coordinated Energy and Water Cycle Observation Project; DORIS = doppler orbitography and radiopositioning integrated by satellite; GPS = global positioning system


245

In order to help overcome the objective difficulties of carrying out continuous high-altitude measurements in remote mountain areas, SHARE also intends to produce a sophisticated technological system called ‘Nano-SHARE’ to facilitate installation and maintenance of monitoring stations in such regions. Nano-SHARE will be innovative in that it will be the world’s only modular and adaptable, high-tech, integrated environmental and geophysical monitoring system. Important measurements will thus be made possible where installation of a permanent laboratory or standard station would otherwise be too difficult or expensive. The system will be developed to run exclusively on renewable energy and will ensure a low environmental impact.

SHARE furthermore intends to generate an electronic information system dedicated to mountain environments. Data collected will be organised within a synergic and integrated framework allowing researchers to optimise their investments, harmonise databases, and improve collaboration. The system will also be made accessible to relevant stakeholders concerned with the environment and sustainable development such as governments, institutions, policy makers, and protected area managers.

Finally, SHARE also intends to continue supporting the sustainable development of mountain regions and improving local environmental management systems by promoting institutional capacity building and transferring technology and knowhow in the fields of environmental and geophysical sciences.

HKKH partnership project

Recent years have seen Ev-K2-CNR increasingly focused on the tangible outputs of its research efforts, moving beyond the mere generation of knowledge to the application of that knowledge at management and decision-making levels. The best example of such management-oriented research is manifested within the HKKH Partnership being executed in collaboration with IUCN, ICIMOD, and CESVI. This programme builds on cutting-edge approaches and experiences in contemporary ecosystem management practices, successfully bridging the gap between research and management. Within this framework, Ev-K2-CNR is coordinating the execution of research on important, environmental issues relevant to management in Nepal, Pakistan, and China, e.g., forest conditions, solid waste management, water pollution, biodiversity, energy, wildlife, and climate change. All research is guided by the identification of crucial knowledge gaps for adaptive socio-ecosystem management, as identified during a modelling process which forms the basis for a Decision Support Toolkit being produced for local stakeholder institutions.

A few examples of the management-oriented research being carried out within the HKKH Partnership are listed below.

Study on the impact of climate change and anthropogenic activities on high-altitude forests and biodiversity in Sagarmatha National Park (SNP), Nepal. A dendrochronology laboratory is being


246

installed at the Nepal Academy of Science and Technology as an output of this study. Researchers from several Nepali scientific organisations will be trained in dendrochronology techniques, which are key to monitoring the effects of climate change on forests in Nepal, thus allowing Nepal to contribute to and share data with regional networks and initiatives concerned with climate change, biodiversity, and forest conditions and to monitor changes in the condition of essential resources in its various national parks.

Sustainable forest management (SFM) in the CKNP, Pakistan. Training courses have been organised in Pakistan to promote sustainable forest management in the CKNP. Key local stakeholders involved include the Bagrot Community, Northern Areas’ (NAs) Forest Department, World Wildlife Fund-Pakistan (WWF-P), Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP), IUCN, and Karakoram International University (KIU). Through such training, collaboration among relevant organisations is promoted at various levels to develop awareness about the importance of SFM and to develop the local capacity to implement an SFM plan. This will ultimately ensure the sustainable use of natural resources in the CKNP and increase the skills of the Pakistani forest managers to perform a sound inventory of their forest resources.

Biodiversity research. Studies particularly focused on the large and small fauna in Sagarmatha National Park (SNP) and CKNP are ongoing. Ev-K2-CNR is carrying out a project aimed at assessing the effects of the return of the snow leopard to Nepal’s Sagarmatha National Park. The project is concerned with understanding the numbers, movements, habitat use, and prey of the snow leopard, while developing initiatives to improve coexistence with the local human community (i.e., management measures to prevent or discourage predation on livestock and steps to reduce poaching). In CKNP, research has been aimed at increasing baseline knowledge of local biodiversity. Researchers have been particularly concerned with the distribution of large mammals, herpetofauna, and invertebrates, and with recording the existing species; such data is used to identify conservation priorities for the CKNP.

Karakoram Trust

After an initial implementation phase of coordinated activities aimed at laying the groundwork for the implementation of the CKNP, Ev-K2-CNR and UNEP have jointly developed a new Karakoram Trust proposal, which consists of a multisectoral intervention contributing to sustainable economic development and environmental protection in the Northern Areas of Pakistan. The key focus is on the implementation of the Central Karakoram National Park as a major opportunity for improving the standard of living of the local populations while safeguarding the precious resources of Pakistan’s vulnerable Karakoram Range.

A knowledge base on natural resources and the cultural heritage of the Central Karakoram region will be developed for the benefit of the local administration, communities, development cooperation organisations, and local and international research institutions. The project will be particularly


247

concerned with carrying out an assessment of the impacts of climate change on the Central Karakoram ecosystem such as glaciers, water, and biodiversity. Based on the findings, capacity building support will be provided to the local communities and institutions regarding possible adaptation measures. The project will also undertake pilot projects in order to demonstrate the adaptation measures at local level, showcasing particularly successful strategies to decision makers and managers.

Conclusions and way forward

As can be seen from this rich framework of multidisciplinary, sustainable development-based projects, Ev-K2-CNR is dedicated to optimising its expertise in high-altitude scientific research, ensuring its outputs are increasingly management-oriented. To summarise, Ev-K2-CNR’s future priorities include:

helping understand global climate processes and the effects of climate changes on fragile •mountain ecosystems; as well as paying particular attention to water resources, biodiversity, ecosystem conservation, and food security; promoting the sustainable management of mountain environments, the conservation of •biodiversity, and the unique cultural heritage in mountain regions; and building the capacity of local institutions to study, monitor, and sustainably administrate mountain •resources and protected areas.

Unable to meet such objectives alone, Ev-K2-CNR will continue to expand its national and international collaborative network. Expertise is drawn from numerous institutes of the Italian National Research Council (CNR) and Italian universities, international organisations, non- governmental organisations (NGOs), and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs). With regards to ICIMOD, Ev-K2-CNR and ICIMOD signed an MoU in 2007 for the promotion and coordination of research and cooperation initiatives in the HKKH. This collaboration, although already manifest through participation in numerous joint initiatives, will be consolidated through the participation of ICIMOD in the new phase of the ‘Karakoram Trust’ project supported by UNEP. Ev-K2-CNR also intends to contribute to the work of GEO (Group on Earth Observation – www.earthobservations.org), a voluntary partnership of governments and international organisations arising out of the G8. GEO is principally concerned with the creation of a Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) in which Ev-K2-CNR hopes to participate with the SHARE high-elevation environmental monitoring network and through the data collected within the CEOP-HE initiative. A proposal in this respect has been submitted to GEO.

Considering its presence in Uganda with a SHARE station on Mt Ruwenzori, Ev-K2-CNR is also exploring the possibility of participating in a project led by the Mountain Research Initiative (MRI) aimed at the establishment of High Altitude Global Change (Climate) Observatories in the African Mountains.


248

Ev-K2-CNR intends to promote its commitment to management-oriented research in mountain areas in institutional and political arenas, as well as in scientific contexts. To this end, Ev-K2-CNR is planning to closely collaborate with the Milan Expo 2015, ‘Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life’ (www.milanoexpo-2015.com), given key themes of the event are in line with Ev-K2-CNR’s main objectives: the preservation of biodiversity, environmental protection, fresh water, sustainable development, food security, and renewable energies. In this context, a conference on the contributions of the SHARE project to understanding the impacts of climate change on mountain resources, such as energy, water, and food, is being planned for 2009 in collaboration with the Scientific Committee of Expo 2015. The goal of this event will be to promote awareness about the effects of climate change on the environment, economy, and society.

References

Baudo, R; Tartari, G; Vuillermoz, E (eds) (2007) ‘Mountains, witnesses of global changes. Research in the Himalaya and Karakoram’. SHARE-Asia project. Developments in Earth Surface Processes, 10. Rome: Elsevier

IPCC (2007) ‘Summary for policymakers, contribution of working group II on climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability’. Fourth assessment report of the IPCC – climate change 2007. Geneva: IPCC

United Nations General Assembly (2008) ‘Sustainable mountain development’. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly number 62/196. New York: UNGA

Weblinks

www.evk2cnr.org www.ceop-he.orgwww.earthobservations.orgwww.ipcc.chwww.un.org www.milanoexpo-2015.com


249

FAO and Sustainable Mountain DevelopmentDouglas McGuire and Thomas Hofer, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Forest Management Division (FOM), Rome, Italy

FAO’s focus on mountains is an integral part of its responsibility as the UN specialised agency devoted to raising levels of nutrition, improving agricultural productivity, and alleviating poverty and hunger. It also plays the role of Task Manager for Chapter 13 of UNCED Agenda 21, the blueprint for sustainable mountain development that arose out of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and was the lead agency for the International Year of Mountains 2002 (IYM).

The scope of FAO’s work in the mountains is broad and extensive. Throughout its technical departments, FAO is addressing the needs of mountain people and mountain environments with its normative work, field programmes, direct country support, and contribution to global processes and initiatives. Starting in 2003, FAO was given the task by the UN General Assembly to advocate for the International Mountain Day on 11 December. FAO has also been the host institution for the Mountain Partnership Secretariat since its inception in 2003 and presently hosts the Secretariat’s Central Hub, responsible for global activities and overall coordination.

FAO’s focus on mountains covers the following four areas of work.

Normative work

FAO’s regular programme work on mountain development has included sustainable agriculture and rural development in the mountains (SARD-M); watershed management; policy and law; mountain products; focusing on information generation and dissemination; the development of methods, approaches, and guidelines; and networking and capacity-building. This has involved, inter alia:

documenting best practices in sustainable mountain development undertaken by FAO and •partners;undertaking a comprehensive global review of current watershed management practice and •becoming engaged in follow-up, as well as devising technical guidelines, methodologies, and tools for watershed management and conservation (References 1);servicing the European Forestry Commission Working Party on the Management of Mountain •Watersheds;encouraging the protection and promotion of high-quality mountain products to improve •mountain livelihoods (References 2);


250

strengthening communication and research networks;•improving the policy environment for sustainable agriculture and rural development in mountain •regions, including through the Project for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development in Mountain Regions (SARD-M project) (References 3);investigating food insecurity and malnutrition in mountain areas and carrying out vulnerability •assessments;charting trends in mountain legislation and assisting countries to improve mountain policies and •laws; andpromoting inland capture fisheries and aquaculture in mountain areas.•

Field programmes

FAO provides support to countries in the form of project identification, formulation, and technical backstopping related to mountain conservation and development. It assists countries to tackle mountain issues through capacity-building, institutional strengthening, and pilot field activities.

Projects are currently underway in Cuba (TCP- technical cooperation programme), Kyrgyzstan (TCP), Poland (TCP), Pakistan (Swedish International Development Agency-SIDA), and Tajikistan (World Bank-WB). Projects were recently completed in Armenia (TCP) and North Korea. Projects are about to start in the Fouta Djallon Highlands of West Africa (Global Environment Fund-GEF) and in Turkey (TCP). Work has also included the creation of a database that brings together information on all the FAO field projects in mountain and highland areas around the world since 2003. In addition, FAO implements programmes and projects related to the mountains in Africa, Asia, and Latin America through the FAO Special Programme for Food Security.

Communications and advocacy

FAO is a leading advocate for mountain issues at the international level and plays a key role in the collection and dissemination of knowledge and information on mountain issues to a wide variety of stakeholders. In this role, FAO has done and is doing the following.

FAO served as the lead coordinating agency for the International Year of Mountains (IYM) in •2002 which was dedicated to protecting mountain ecosystems and improving the wellbeing of mountain people. The IYM Coordination Unit prepared and implemented a global communications’ campaign and supported the development of 78 national committees to promote country-level action for sustainable mountain development.FAO is the lead coordinating agency for UN International Mountain Day. The UN General •Assembly designated 11 December, from 2003 onwards, as ‘International Mountain Day’ to highlight the global importance of mountain ecosystems and to promote ongoing attention to the unique needs of mountain communities. (References 4)


251

FAO prepares regular reports to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on sustainable mountain •development, reporting on IYM activities (UNGA session 57, 2002), IYM achievements and follow-up (UNGA session 58, 2003), and sustainable mountain development (UNGA 60th session, 2005 and UNGA 62nd session, 2007).

Contribution to global partnerships, processes and initiatives

FAO contributes to a number of global processes and mechanisms such as the Mountain Partnership, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the International Consortium on Landslides, and the Mountain Research Initiative.

Mountain Partnership Secretariat

The Mountain Partnership was launched at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) as a new collaborative mechanism to strengthen cooperation and more effectively address the needs of mountain peoples and protect mountain environments. Since then, the Mountain Partnership has steadily grown to encompass more than 150 members, including governments, civil society groups, and intergovernmental organisations. Members are working in several thematic areas of mountain development, such as watershed management, mountain biodiversity, livelihood improvement, policy and law, governance, and others, to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and other agreements related to sustainable mountain development. The goals and priority areas of the Partnership are those listed in paragraph 42 of the WSSD Plan of Implementation.

The Partnership is supported by a long-term Secretariat, established at FAO in 2003, which the governments of Italy and Switzerland have continued to jointly support.

The Secretariat has recently undergone a decentralisation process. The new structure includes FAO (host of the Central Hub, which is responsible for overall coordination and global-level activities), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (host of the Mountain Partnership’s Environmental Reference Centre), the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) (host of the Asia Pacific Hub), International Potato Centre (CIP) and Consortium for the Sustainable Development of the Andean Eco-region (CONDESAN) (Latin America Hub), and the Banff Centre (North America Hub). The Secretariat plays a very active role in brokering new collaborative initiatives among the members and facilitating the mobilisation of needed resources, advocating for mountain issues at the highest political level, and reporting to and keeping alive political support in the UN context (Commission on Sustainable Development-CSD and UNGA).


252

FAO and biodiversity

Biodiversity is a very important topic in all technical units of FAO. FAO provides intergovernmental fora where biodiversity-related policy is discussed and relevant agreements negotiated and adopted by member countries. The Organization manages a broad range of programmes and activities to enhance sustainable agricultural systems and management practices, for example, the promotion of mixed agricultural systems such as rice-fish farming and agroforestry; participatory training for integrated pest management; pollination management; advice on soil and water conservation; and promotion of technologies and management options for grasslands and forage resources in arid, semi-arid, and humid tropical ecosystems. FAO also addresses legal and economic aspects of agricultural biodiversity and seeks to capitalise on its multidisciplinary expertise through an integrated approach to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Through its work as a specialised UN organisation, FAO assists countries in the implementation of biodiversity-related agreements of relevance to food and agriculture. These include the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD).

Mountain biodiversityThe conservation of mountain biological diversity has always received considerable attention in FAO’s mountain programme. For example, FAO was strongly involved in the shaping of the Programme of Work on Mountain Biological Diversity of the CBD, which was approved by the Conference of the Parties in February 2004: FAO participated in the relevant Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) meetings and was a member of the ad hoc technical expert group for formulation of the work programme. With the slogan “managing mountain biodiversity for better lives”, mountain biodiversity was the topic of the FAO-led International Mountain Day 2006. In very close collaboration with the Centre for Development and Environment (CDE) of the University of Berne and the Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment Programme (GMBA), FAO produced and widely disseminated communication materials (information leaflets, flyers, and posters) on mountain biological diversity for that day. The material was used by many countries and institutions to observe the International Mountain Day and to raise awareness about the critical importance of biodiversity in mountain areas for life on Earth.

In the context of the Mountain Partnership, a relatively new initiative on mountain biodiversity was recently established to address the interest and needs of several members. This has led to a twinning arrangement for international mountain parks between the Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal and the Gran Paradiso National Park in Italy, and this will serve to facilitate the exchange of information regarding experiences and knowhow about the conservation, management, and use of biodiversity, especially between stakeholders from the two parks.


253

References

1. See more information on the new generation of watershed management: http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/36420/en/

2. Mountain Products Programme website: http://www.mountainpartnership.org/mpp/index.html

3. See more information on the SARD-M Project at: http://www.fao.org/sard/en/sardm/home/index.html

4. UNGA Resolution 57/245, December 2002. Since then, FAO has prepared and distributed communication materials for observance on the Day’s themes: ‘Mountains: Source of freshwater’ (2003); ‘Peace: Key to sustainable mountain development’ (2004); ‘Sustainable tourism for poverty Alleviation in Mountain Areas’ (2005); ‘Managing Mountain Biodiversity for Better Lives’ (2006); ‘Facing change: Climate change in mountain areas’ (2007)


254

Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine EnvironmentsHarald Pauli, Michael Gottfried, Christian Klettner, Sonya Laimer and Georg Grabherr, GLORIA coordination: Austrian Academy of Sciences – Mountain Research Unit: Man and the Environment and University of Vienna, Department of Conservation Biology, Vegetation and Landscape Ecology, Vienna, Austria

The purpose of GLORIA

The purpose of Global Research Initiative in Alpine Environments (GLORIA) is to establish and maintain a worldwide long-term observation network in alpine environments. Data on vegetation and temperature collected at the GLORIA sites will be used for discerning trends in species diversity and temperature. The data will be used to assess and predict losses in biodiversity and other threats to these fragile alpine ecosystems, which are being subjected to the accelerating pressures of climate change. The basic approach is aligned to alpine summit areas (Multi-Summit Approach). Within each GLORIA target region (a mountain area with a consistent climate), four summit observation sites at different elevations represent an altitudinal gradient (Figure 1).

The focus on summit areas

The summit observation site includes the area from the highest summit point downwards to the 10-metre contour line. There are several good arguments for using such summit habitats as reference sites. First, they are well defined topographical units that can provide comparable conditions by comprising all exposures (north, east, south, and west) within a small area. Thus, the summit area not only includes the habitats more exposed to the wind, but also the leeward and intermediate habitats. Short gradients from windward to leeward sides, as well as, at least at middle and higher latitudes, gradients from northerly to southerly habitats include narrow transition zones between vegetation types. This can enable rapid recognition of climate-induced boundary shifts. Secondly, on summits, shading effects from neighbouring land features are minimised. It is difficult to find such comparable sites in any other topographical positions where diurnal and seasonal variations in insolation much depend on the slope aspect and on neighbouring features. Further, summits may act as climate warming traps for cold-adapted species with weak competitive abilities due to the absence of escape routes. Finally, summits are prominent landmarks that can easily be relocated for reinvestigation.


255

The design and sampling method

The sampling design is aligned along the main geographical directions around the summit and consists of permanent plots on different scales at the following spatial levels: 0.1 x 0.1 m, 1 x 1 m, and 10 x 10 m, and of larger summit area sections of variable size covering the area down to the 10-m contour line (Figure 2). In each main direction a 3 m x 3 m plot cluster is established, with four 1 m² permanent quadrats in the corner positions. The detailed species’ cover sampling within the quadrats provides the baseline for detecting changes in species composition. Frequency counts within the same quadrats, carried out using a grid frame divided into 100 dm²-cells, are used to detect changes in vegetation patterns. A 10 x 10 m square in each cardinal direction that includes the area of the 3 x 3 m cluster is established for line-pointing with 400 points. Eight summit area sections cover the entire summit site and are used for detecting species’ immigration.

Continuous measurements of soil temperature at 10 cm below the surface in the centre of each 3 m x 3 m cluster are used to compare temperature and snow regimes. A detailed description of the design and recording methods is given in the GLORIA field manual (see www.gloria.ac.at).

Figure 1: GLoRIa target region

Treeline ecotone

Lower alpine

Upper alpine

Sub-nival


256

a

10mb

Figure 2: The summit design a: side view with 3 x 3 m clusters and summit area sections

b: top view showing the 10 x 10 m squares for point recording along lines


257

Implementation of the network

Active GLORIA target regions (Nov. 2008)

Europe N-America S-America Asia Australasia Africa

30 14 8 6 3 0

Europe

The first main step in the implementation of GLORIA was reached through a European Union FP-5 project (GLORIA-Europe) with the establishment of 70 summit sites in 18 target regions throughout Europe in 2001. Since then the European network has grown to 30 active regions. The additional sites were funded by local or national grants. A method testing campaign in 2007 and the first resurvey of the 2001-sites carried out in 2008 was mainly financed by the Swiss Foundation for Nature Conservation (MAVA) and by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research. The Austrian GLORIA master site, Schrankogel-Tyrol, and the central coordination of GLORIA are mainly funded by national institutions.

North America

The first sites were set up in Montana (Glacier National Park) and California in 2003 and 2004. Currently 14 sites (target regions) are active in the USA including those in Alaska and Canada. All funding came from North-American sources. More sites are planned for 2009. GLORIA Master Sites are operating in California (White Mountains) and Montana.

South America

GLORIA experienced a rapid growth in the Andes where the first sites in two target regions were set up with support from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s Man and Biosphere Programme (UNESCO MAB) in 2005. Now eight target regions are active and a further 11 are planned for 2008/2009. Funding and support came from various sources such as Proyecto Paramo Andino and the Consortium for Sustainable Development of the Andean Eco-region (CONDESAN), Herbario Nacional de Bolivia, Conservation Internacional, and the European Union (EU) Framework Project 6 (FP-6), Assessing Large Scale Environmental Risks with Tested Methods (ALARM). More recently, support came from the Comunidad Andina de Naciones (CAN), the Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (AECID) and from Conservation International. The second inter-Andean GLORIA workshop will be held in Ecuador in November-December 2008.


258

Asia

Compared to the vast high mountain regions on the continent, GLORIA is still underrepresented. Among the first target regions were Altai (Katunskiy Biosphere Reserve; UNESCO MAB 2005) and three regions in Hengduan Shan, Yunnan (Missouri Botanical Garden, the Nature Conservancy, and Zhongdian Botanical Garden 2005–2006). This year sites were set up in Alborz, Iran (Alborz), and Taiwan (Taiwanese Ministry of Forestry). A Japanese team has concrete plans for 2009. Some ongoing GLORIA activities in the Himalayan region will be reported on at the conference.

Australasia

Sites in New Zealand and in the Snowy Mountains, Australia, were set up in 2004.

Africa

Sites have not yet been established, but there are several expressions of interest.


259

Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment: The Mountain Biodiversity Research Network of DIVERSITAS Eva Spehn and Christian Körner, GMBA, C/o Institute of Botany, University of Basel, Switzerland

Introduction

The Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA) is a cross-cutting network of DIVERSITAS, embracing issues addressing all four core projects: bioGENESIS, bioDISCOVERY, ecoSERVICES, and bioSUSTAINABILITY. The GMBA aims to provide the scientific basis for conservation and sustainable use of mountain biodiversity by encouraging and synthesising the often hidden and fragmented results of research on high-elevation organismic diversity, its regional and global patterns, and its causes and functions (Körner and Spehn 2002; Spehn et al. 2006). A central paradigm is that functional insight and theory will only emerge from large-scale comparisons. These include cross-continental comparisons of the upper montane zone, the treeline ecotone, and the alpine regions, as well as elevational transects. GMBA is dedicated to shaping a global corporate identity in the widely scattered research community, which will also help to increase the visibility of mountain biodiversity issues. GMBA also investigates the policy implications of biodiversity science, and communicates these and engages in dialogues with national and international policy fora, including the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The primary means by which GMBA carries out its mission is through engaging scientists in the following activities:

developing research agendas on important mountain biodiversity themes;•forming research networks to tackle focused scientific questions;•promoting standardised methodologies;•guiding and facilitating the construction of a global mountain biodiversity databasel; and•undertaking analysis, synthesis, and integration of activities on particular mountain biodiversity •themes.

GMBA as an information platform for mountain biodiversity researchers and stakeholders

The Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA) is DIVERSITAS’ first and oldest international cross-cutting research network, and it was founded in Glion, Switzerland, in 1999.


260

GMBA serves as an information platform, to provide access to activities, research results, and publications related to mountain biodiversity to researchers from all mountain regions of the world and, most importantly, those from developing countries (north-south transfer of knowledge). The GMBA office coordinates a global network of researchers working on GMBA issues (ca. 700 experts worldwide), holds a database on mountain diversity experts, and publishes news and research agendas in journals. The GMBA website (see References) is an important tool for informing and linking mountain biodiversity researchers, offers possibilities for subscriptions and feedback, and manages a list of news and events, which is updated regularly.

GMBA activities are overseen by an international Scientific Steering Committee (SSC), which provides guidance to the programme as a whole for evaluation and endorsement of research projects in order to facilitate international and national funding. In collaboration with the GMBA office the SSC initiates new and collaborative research projects and organises workshops on specific mountain biodiversity themes. The aim of all workshops is to encourage the exchange of experts, to synthesise results on specific mountain biodiversity themes, to make these results available to the public by publishing executive summaries and syntheses, and to initiate comparative research projects.

The GMBA office is funded by Swiss and international sources (DIVERSITAS, Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]), but mainly, since 2004, by the Swiss National Science Foundation with a renewed grant until the end of 2010.

GMBA projects

I. bioDISCOVERY core project of DIVERSITAS: identifying existing mountain

biodiversity, understanding how it is changing and why?

The first assessment of mountain biodiversity published by GMBA in 2002 (Körner and Spehn 2002) contains a collection of studies from all the major mountain regions of the world. A direct cross-comparison of mountain diversity was not always possible, however, because studies had been carried out on different scales and had different objectives. Since 2006, a new tool has been developed.

A new tool for understanding mountain biodiversity: geo-referenced electronic biodiversity

archives

Sharing electronic data on biodiversity records is a novel approach to understanding and managing mountain biodiversity, allowing for the development of reliable and science-based management strategies. Geo-referenced archive databases on mountain organisms are promising tools for achieving a better understanding of mountain biodiversity and predicting its changes.


261

GMBA, in cooperation with the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), encourages a global effort to mine biodiversity databases on mountain organisms, to build new biodiversity databases, and to link them with geophysical databases. The amplitude of climatic conditions and topographies of the world’s mountains offers an unparalleled opportunity for developing and testing biodiversity theory. Enhancing awareness of the central role of geo-referencing (Chapman and Wieczorek 2006) in building and using databases is a central task of this GMBA-GBIF collaboration. Once achieved, this will facilitate linkages of biological information with other geophysical information, particularly climate data.

There is an urgent need to increase the amount and quality of geo-referenced data on mountain biodiversity provided online, in order to meet the challenges of global change in the mountains. The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) has already established biodiversity information networks, data exchange standards, and information architecture that enable interoperability and facilitate data-mining of biodiversity data. We are currently developing a specific GBIF data portal on mountain biodiversity in collaboration with the F. Hüttmann University of Fairbanks, Alaska. Through its network, GMBA will encourage mountain biodiversity researchers to share their data within GBIF in order to increase the amount and quality of geo-referenced data on mountain biodiversity provided online, gathering often hidden or fragmented data to prevent their destruction and allowing for a synthesis of regional mountain biotic richness from various parts of the world (e.g., the Flora Tibetica Project with the B. Dickoré, University of Göttingen, on > 160,000 geo-referenced plant vouchers from the Himalayas). These tasks are also in line with the implementation of the programme of work (PoW) for the Global Taxonomy Initiative (GTI) and for the mountain biological diversity of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). GMBA will contribute mountain biodiversity knowledge to the GEO Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), an initiative led by DIVERSITAS and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The GMBA office held two workshops on ‘Geo-referenced biological databases – a tool for understanding mountain biodiversity’ (Kazbegi, Republic of Georgia in June 2006, with GBIF in Copenhagen in September 2007), to show the value of openly accessible, interconnected electronic databases for scientific biodiversity research. Results are published in ‘Research Agenda on Mountain Biodiversity Data Mining’, which contains exciting new research fields and questions that can only be answered using large biodiversity databases with geo-referenced data (Körner et al. 2007). In early 2009, the third GMBA synthesis on ‘Data mining for global trends in Mountain Biodiversity’ will be published by CRC-Taylor and Francis, with examples of successful data-mining of biodiversity by mountain regions or by major organismic groups, methodological approaches, and comparisons of mountain regions on a continental scale.


262

II. ecoSERVICES core project of DIVERSITAS: understanding relationships

between mountain biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and services

Land use change and mountain biodiversity: a synthesis

The GMBA’s main synthesis project in 2002–2005 on ‘Sustainable Use and Biodiversity of (sub-) tropical Highlands’ was in cooperation with FAO and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. It resulted in two workshops (in Africa and the Andes in order to link experiences of mountain research across continents) and a synthesis of land use change and mountain biodiversity (Spehn et al. 2006). The synthesis publication brought together observations and experiences of anthropogenic influences on the biological richness of high-elevation ecosystems around the world. Fire and pastures are the logical focal points of such an assessment, given their dominant role over vast highland areas. All other human activities that might severely affect ecosystems locally are less significant on an area basis and on a global scale. The absence or presence and the abundance of certain plant species, plant life-forms, and plant functional types are very sensitive indicators of the quality of land management (Spehn et al. 2006). These organisms integrate mismanagement or sustainability over long periods. The quality of highland management should be assessed (and paid for by lowlanders) based on such biological indicators to benefit the local population and those who profit from catchment value and conservation. The GMBA synthesis highlights the major trends and processes, presents a variety of assessments on the impact of fire and grazing in tropical highland ecosystems, and offers management guidelines. In addition, major gaps in the knowledge about land use change effects on mountain biodiversity and suggesting further research are published in the Moshi–La Paz research agenda of the Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment programme (Spehn et al. 2006).

A global network of Bio-CATCH research sites on mountain biodiversity and catchment value

The integrity of ecosystems on steep mountain slopes and in high elevation landscapes is in general a question of soil stability, which in turn depends on plant cover and rooting patterns (Körner 2004). In steep terrain, more than anywhere else, catchment quality is intimately linked to ecosystem integrity. The provision of sustainable and clean supplies of water is the most important (and increasingly limited mountain resource). The long-term functioning and integrity of the mountains’ ‘green coat’ depends on a multitude of plant functional types and their interaction with animals and microbes. The richer these biota, the more likely system integrity and functioning will be retained in the event of unprecedented impacts — the ‘insurance hypothesis’ of biodiversity (Yachi and Loreau 1999; Körner and Spehn 2002; Körner 2004). Although intuitively plausible, this is a research field that is poorly supported by data and the insurance hypothesis is, therefore, a prime topic in the research promotion agenda of the Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment.

The GMBA office organised a research consortium (BioCATCH, Alpine Biodiversity and Catchment value in a land use context) in the Pyrenees, European Alps, and the Caucasus, which aims to


263

document the significance of biodiversity and land use for the hydrological catchment value. The single experimental sites were established in 2006 and 2007 from various, mainly national, sources. Similar projects in two other main mountain regions of the world, in the Andes (Bolivia) and in the Himalayas (Tibet), form a global network of research sites evaluating the effects of land use change on mountain biodiversity and catchment value in fulfilment of the GMBA-DIVERSITAS research agenda on land use changes and mountain biodiversity (GMBA 2003; Spehn et al. 2006).

III. bioSUSTAINABILITY core project of DIVERSITAS: finding ways to support

conservation and sustainable use of mountain biodiversity

Research agenda for Mountain Biosphere Reserves

In recent decades, recognition of the global responsibility for managing mountain biodiversity has increased. The United Nations Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organization’s (UNESCO’s) Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme is successfully integrating sustainable use of biodiversity with conservation. Due to their broad environmental and biological diversity, mountain biosphere reserves are ideally suited for research into global change research. UNESCO’s mountain biosphere reserve managers, and scientists working on global change issues in the mountains participated in Framework 6 of the European Union’s research programme on ‘Global Change and Mountain Regions (GLOCHAMORE)’ of the Mountain Research Initiative. The aim was to guide managers of UNESCO’s mountain biosphere reserves and scientists in planning and implementing research into global change. The GLOCHAMORE research strategy is the result of four workshops and an open science conference (2004–2005) on global change in mountain regions. GMBA had been part of the project consortium and co-organised an international workshop on elevational gradients held in Samedan, Switzerland, in 2005 (Becker et al. 2007).

Global assessments of biodiversity: scientific input into policy

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) was launched by the UN in 2001 and published in 2005. It is an international assessment of the capacity of global ecosystems to provide goods and services that are important for human development, in order to improve the management of the world’s natural and managed ecosystems by helping to meet the needs of decision makers (in governments and the private sector) and the public for peer-reviewed, policy-relevant scientific information on the condition of ecosystems; consequences of ecosystem change; and options for response. Chapter 24 of the MEA, ‘Conditions and Trends’, assesses how changes in mountain ecosystems affect the provision of ecosystem services: GMBA coordinated the authors of the mountain chapter of the MEA under the lead of Christian Körner (proponent) and Masahiko Ohsawa (University of Tokyo) and contributed to the chapter with a synthesis of global mountain biodiversity.


264

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

GMBA is one of the key organisations in developing and implementing the Programme of Work on Mountains (UNEP/CBD/COP7/4). Many of the actions and goals proposed for CBD’s Programme of Work on Mountains are consistent with the goals and work of GMBA to synthesise knowledge about the biological richness of the mountains of the world and changes brought about through human influences.

Preparation of the International Mountain Day 11 December 2006 on ‘Managing Mountain

Biodiversity for Better Lives’

The UN General Assembly declared 11 December as ‘International Mountain Day’. ‘Managing Mountain Biodiversity for Better Lives’ was the theme of the International Mountain Day in 2006, and GMBA prepared an information note about the importance of sustainable management of biodiversity in mountain regions and communities to enhance human wellbeing in collaboration with the CDE Bern (Centre for Development and Environment). The information can be accessed on the Internet (International Mountain Day 2006, see References)

References

Chapman AD; Wieczorek, J (eds) (2006) ‘Guide to best practices for georeferencing’. Copenhagen: Global biodiversity information facility. www.gbif.org/prog/digit/Georeferencing (accessed on 17 February 2009)

Becker, A; Körner, C; Brun, JJ; Guisan, A; Tappeiner, U (2007) ‘Ecological and land use studies along altitudinal gradients’. Mountain Research and Development 27(1): 58-65

GMBA website: www.gmba.unibas.ch (accessed on 17 February 2009)

GMBA (2003) ‘Moshi-La Paz research agenda on land use effects on subtropical and tropical mountain biodiversity’. DIVERSITAS Newsletter 5:12-14

International Mountain Day 2006 website: http://www.fao.org/mnts/archive/2006/intl_mountain_day_en.asp (accessed 17 February 2009)

Körner, C (2004) ‘Mountain biodiversity, its causes and function’. Ambio Special Report 13:11-17

Körner, C; Donoghue, M; Fabbro, T; Häuser, C; Nogués-Bravo, D; Arroyo, MTK; Soberon, J; Speers, L; Spehn, EM; Sun, H; Tribsch, A; Tykarski, P; Zbinden, N (2007) ‘Creative use of mountain biodiversity databases: The Kazbegi research agenda of GMBA-DIVERSITAS’. Mountain Research and Development 27(3): 276-281

Körner, C; Ohsawa, M (2005) ‘Mountain Systems’. In Ash, N; Scholes, R (eds) Ecosystems and human well-being: Volume I. Current state and trends: pp 681-716. Washington DC: Island Press

Körner, C; Spehn, EM (eds) (2002) Mountain biodiversity: A global assessment. New York: Parthenon

Spehn, E; Libermann, M; Körner, C (eds) (2006) Land use change and mountain biodiversity. Boca Raton, (USA): CRC Press/Taylor and Francis

Yachi, S; Loreau, M (1999) ‘Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: The insurance hypothesis’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA) 96:1463-1468


265

Global Change and Mountain Regions: The Mountain Research InitiativeClaudia Drexler, Gregory B. Greenwood, and astrid Björnsen Gurung, the Mountain Research Initiative, Switzerland

The Mountain Research Initiative (MRI) promotes and coordinates research on global change in mountain regions around the world. In its seven years of existence it has actively participated in the design of the international research agenda. Its important role is mentioned in the Report of the UN General Secretary on Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions in August 2007: “The MRI promotes and coordinates global change research in mountain regions (...) and produced a long-term framework for research (...)”. Through its regional networks MRI catalyses the interdisciplinary research needed to fill current knowledge gaps.

Origins and mission of the Mountain Research Initiative

The first milestone in the history of MRI was the International Geosphere Biosphere Programme (IGBP) workshop on mountain issues at the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) in Kathmandu, Nepal, from 30 March to 2 April 1996 (Becker and Bugmann 1997). The International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP), IGBP, and the Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) collaborated during the following years to define the objectives, approach, and activities of this new research programme – the Mountain Research Initiative. The final product of this effort – a joint report of IGBP, IHDP, and GTOS – was published in 2001 (Becker and Bugmann 2001) and lists four dimensions of research within the new initiative.

Long-term monitoring of environmental change in mountain regions1. Integrated model-based studies of environmental change in different mountain regions2. Process studies along altitudinal gradients3. Advice on sustainable land use and natural resource management4.

The notion was never that MRI as an institution would direct such a programme, but rather that MRI – both as an institution and as a community of researchers – would facilitate the emergence of such research through the promotion and coordination of research funded and conducted by a myriad of agencies and individuals around the world.


266

Actions on the global level: design of an international research agenda

The MRI Coordination Office in Berne, Switzerland, was established in 2001 at the Swiss Academy of Sciences using funding from several Swiss agencies and the Eidgenössiche Technische Hochschule (ETH), Zurich. The MRI team, led by Dr Mel Reasoner, set off to foster and coordinate research in the four avenue types listed above. Dr Greg Greenwood succeeded Dr Reasoner as Director in 2004.

The first major product was the publication of ‘Global Change in Mountain Regions – An Overview of Current Knowledge’ (Huber et al. 2005). This 700-page compendium provides an overview of what is known and what directions research should take in the future in five research areas – paleoenvironmental changes, cryospheric changes, hydrological changes, ecological changes, and human dimensions – with over 70 contributions from all continents.

The GLOCHAMORE (Global Change and Mountain Regions) project, is coordinated by MRI and the University of Vienna, and was a Specific Support Action of the European Union’s (EU’s) Sixth Framework Programme on ‘Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems’. It translated the global goals of the IGBP Report 49 into much more specific disciplinary objectives coupled with a recommendation for inter- and transdisciplinary research approaches targeted at the United Nations Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organization’s (UNESCO) Mountain Biosphere Reserves (MBRs) around the world.

The GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy (Björnsen Gurung 2005), the project’s final product, is an integrated and implementable research strategy to improve understanding of the causes and consequences of global change in mountain regions around the world. The strategy is a consensus document developed through consultation with the international community of scientists and managers of biosphere reserves at five workshops and one final conference, structured according to the four core activities of MRI listed above. For more information see http://mri.scnatweb.ch/projects/glochamore/.

Actions at the regional level: how to fill the scientific gaps

In 2006 the MRI moved from strategy development to implementation through the initiation and support of regional networks of researchers into global change. As MRI is a promotional and coordination effort, it cannot simply ‘do’ the research necessary in a region, but must induce research groups and individual scientists to fill the scientific gaps defined by the GLOCHAMORE Strategy.


267

Thus, the four programme activities at MRI’s core are the following. MRI strives to enlist key scientists who, in their turn, promote inter- and transdisciplinary research 1. through their national or multinational research funding agencies. By engaging these champions of global change in mountain research, MRI can vastly improve its effectiveness. MRI supports the formation of new research partnerships and catalyses groups and individuals 2. to develop project proposals for funding agencies. This is a direct and efficient way to create the kind of research defined in the GLOCHAMORE Strategy.MRI facilitates the development of peer-reviewed papers on specific key scientific issues such 3. as the carbon cycle in mountains, the transfer of hydrologic knowledge from scientists to managers, and the food security of mountain inhabitants under climate change. These contributions to the literature focus the community’s attention on some of the most important issues in mountain regions. MRI distributes relevant information to researchers on global change in the mountains. By 4. increasing the flow of information to these researchers, MRI seeks to promote additional interaction and a more solid sense of community among them.

Scientific networks and their outputs

A large part of MRI’s activities occurs through the three regional networks: MRI Africa, MRI American Cordillera, and MRI Europe. Research networks in Monsoon Asia and in Central and Northern Asia are in the planning stages. Within these regional networks MRI attempts to catalyse research into global change in the thematic fields defined in 2001 and specified in the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy. It does so principally through the development of new funding proposals, but also through the engagement of regional leaders and the development of regionally specific communication products.

The functioning of MRI’s regional networks and their scientific output can be illustrated with the example of an individual network.

MRI Europe

The Mountain Research Initiative initiated the ‘Global Change Research Network in European Mountains’ in 2006. It aims to connect and support global change researchers working in different mountain regions in Europe. Networking meetings convened by MRI and its regional partners allow participants to exchange ideas and to identify opportunities for collaboration. By autumn 2008, MRI Europe had grown to almost a thousand active scientists. For more information see http://mri.scnatweb.ch/networks/mri-europe/.

MRI is the information clearinghouse for network members: the MRI Europe database, website, and bi-monthly Newsflash are day-to-day tools of the network. The scientific outputs of MRI Europe include proposals to funding agencies and regional research agendas.


268

Proposals

MRI allocates considerable time to the implementation of the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy through the development of research proposals, either as an initiator or partner. In 2007 and 2008, seven proposals were presented to European funding agencies (e.g., Cooperation in Scientific and Technical Research [COST] and Framework Programme 7 [FP7]) from MRI Europe. Among them was the proposal to the European Science Foundation (ESF) for a ‘Network for Integrated Assessment of the Dynamics of Mountain Catchments under Global Change’ (NET-DYNAMO). It was submitted by Professor Dr Martine Rebetez of WSL (the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow, and Landscape Research), Dr Rüdiger Grote of IMK (Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research, Germany) and Professor Dr Ulrike Tappeiner of the University of Innsbruck, Austria, with assistance from MRI in October 2007. This research network programme aims to produce policy-relevant integrated assessments under global change scenarios in selected mountain catchments by means of existing models. The ESF recommended this programme for funding in June 2008 and is currently seeking funding from its member organisations.

Working towards a research agenda for the Carpathians

The Science for the Carpathians (S4C) initiative developed within the European network at an unprecedented speed. In spring 2008, a group of researchers with a mandate from the Interim Secretariat for the Carpathian Convention, United Nations Environment Programme (ISCC, UNEP-Vienna) requested MRI’s assistance in organising Science in the Carpathian Region. MRI worked with the Jagiellonian University, the European Academy Bolzano (EURAC), Joanneum Research, the University of Applied Sciences Eberswalde, and the Humboldt University zu Berlin to organise the first S4C meeting in May 2008 in Krakow, Poland. The goal was to set the first milestones for a new science network for global change research in the Carpathian Mountains. The workshop aimed at defining the current status of global change research in the Carpathians, drafting a research agenda for topics relevant to the region, and establishing an active science network. The S4C initiative received the support of the Conference of Parties of the Carpathian Convention at their meeting in Bucharest in May 2008.

During the 2007-2010 funding period MRI will continue to work within all three regional networks in Africa, the Americas, and Europe. By 2010 the MRI will also expand these activities to the Asian mountains.

The history of MRI is a move from abstract ideas towards concrete activities and real people. Whereas the compilation of the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy was an intellectual challenge – defining and evaluating compelling global change research topics – the challenges now are much more human and entrepreneurial. How can we build active and growing communities, and how can we make sure that their members turn out the products that we need? This move epitomises the IGBP-IHDP relationship inside the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP): while the


269

natural world studied by IGBP scientists is the basis of our life: human actions determine what we make of it, the products, and the future.

References

Becker, A; Bugmann, H (eds) (1997) Predicting global change impacts on mountain hydrology and ecology: Integrated catchment hydrology/altitudinal gradient studies. IGBP report 43. Stockholm: IGBP

Becker, A; Bugmann, H (eds) (2001) Global change and mountain regions: The Mountain Research Initiative, IHDP Report 13, GTOS Report 28 and IGBP Report 49. Stockholm: IHDP, GTOS, IGBP

Björnsen Gurung, A (ed) (2005) Global change and mountain regions research strategy. Zürich: MRI; UNESCO-MAB; IHP

Huber, U; Bugmann, H; Reasoner, M (eds) (2005) Global change and mountain regions. An overview of current knowledge, Advances in global change research. Berlin: Springer MRI EUROPE http://mri.scnatweb.ch/networks/mri-europe

Weblinks

GLOCHAMORE – Global change in mountain regions. http://mri.scnatweb.ch/projects/glochamore/


270

UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme with its World Network of Biosphere Reserves

Thomas Schaaf, UNESCO-MAB, Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences, Paris, France

Abstract

This global programme background paper gives a brief overview of the United Nations Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) and its Programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB), in particular with regard to its activities in research on mountain environments and conservation and its role in launching the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) as an international organisation. It then discusses the World Network of Biosphere Reserves as a tool for environmental conservation, sustainable development, and research on human-environment interactions. Biosphere reserves also serve as study and monitoring sites for the ‘Global Change and Mountain Regions’(GLOCHAMORE) Research Strategy.

Introduction

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was established in 1945 to build peace in the minds of humanity. The organisation is deployed in the fields of education, natural sciences, social and human sciences, culture, communications, and information. Today, UNESCO functions as a laboratory of ideas and a standard setter for universal agreements on emerging ethical issues. The organisation also serves as a clearinghouse – for the dissemination and sharing of information and knowledge – while helping member states to build their human and institutional capacities in diverse fields. In short, UNESCO promotes international cooperation among its 193 Member States and six Associate Members through its headquarters in Paris and its over 50 field offices, including its office in Kathmandu (Nepal).

Within the natural sciences, three scientific intergovernmental and international programmes are particularly concerned with the promotion of mountain research and development: the International Hydrological Programme (IHP), the International Geoscience Programme (IGCP), and the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme.

The MAB Programme is a scientific research programme on the structure, functioning, and dynamics of ecosystems. It uses an ecosystemic approach (e.g., focusing on mountain ecosystems, on drylands, or on humid tropical ecosystems). The hallmark of the MAB Programme is its holistic and


271

interdisciplinary approach to study: in order to assess the interrelationships between people and the environment, use is made not only of the classical natural sciences (e.g., biology, soil sciences, forestry, and so forth), but also of the social and economic sciences (e.g., economics, human geography, and sociology).

Soon after the official launching of UNESCO's MAB Programme in 1972, an expert panel was established in 1973 to elaborate upon the scientific content of projects to be proposed under the MAB Programme. One such project came to be known as ‘MAB Project Area 6: Impact of Human Activities on Mountain and Tundra Ecosystems’, and this provided a framework for international scientific collaboration in major mountain ranges such as in the Alps, the Andes, the Carpathians, the Caucasus, and the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region.

As regards the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region, one of UNESCO-MAB’s greatest accomplishments was the establishment of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD): in 1975, UNESCO-MAB organised a ‘MAB Regional Meeting on Integrated Ecological Research and Training in the South Asian Mountains, in particular the Hindu Kush-Himalayas’, which was held in Kathmandu. At this meeting, the Government of Nepal proposed the hosting of a Regional Centre for Integrated Mountain Development in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas in Kathmandu. Based on the meeting’s recommendations and proposals, the 19th Session of the UNESCO General Conference (1976) authorised technical support under the MAB Programme for the creation of such a Centre. With financial assistance provided by the governments of Germany and Switzerland, feasibility studies were worked out by UNESCO, which resulted in the signing of an agreement in 1981 between UNESCO and the Government of Nepal, thus providing the legal basis for this international autonomous centre. ICIMOD was finally inaugurated in December 1983 and its work began from September 1984 onwards.

Since its inception some 35 years ago, the MAB Programme has kept pace with new scientific, environmental, and societal developments. Since the early 1990s, the MAB Programme has shifted its focus to the realisation of three important thrusts: (a) environmental conservation, (b) scientific research, and (c) sustainable development. In bringing together these three components physically on the ground, one can speak of a ‘biosphere reserve’. Biosphere reserves try to demonstrate that environmental conservation can be used for the promotion of sustainable development through partnerships with local people on natural resource management and based on scientific research and findings. This is realised through a specific land use system that takes into account the topographic, biological, economic, and sociocultural specificities of a site. Biosphere reserves have three different, but interrelated, functions.

a) Conservation function: Biosphere reserves provide protection for indigenous genetic resources, plant and animal species, ecosystems, and landscapes of value for the conservation of the world's biological diversity.

b) Development function: Biosphere reserves seek to combine conservation concerns with the


272

sustainable use of resources of ecosystems through close cooperation with local communities, and by taking advantage of traditional knowledge, indigenous products, and appropriate land management.

c) Logistic function: Biosphere reserves are linked through a global network; they provide facilities for research, monitoring, education, and training for local purposes as well as for international or regional comparative research and monitoring programmes.

The articulation of these three functions is translated on the ground through a zonation pattern. The zonation includes a core area (or areas) devoted to strict environmental protection according to pre-established conservation objectives. The core area is surrounded by or contiguous to a delineated buffer zone (or zones) where only activities compatible with the conservation objectives can take place. Finally, a broadly-defined transition area encircles the core and buffer areas where cooperation with the population takes place and sustainable resource management practices are developed.

Biosphere reserves, collectively referred to as the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, are much like laboratories where new and optimal practices for managing nature and human activities are tested and demonstrated. They outpace traditional, confined conservation zones, combining core protected areas with zones where sustainable development is fostered by local inhabitants and enterprises.

Today (November 2008), there are 531 biosphere reserves in 105 countries. About 40% of all biosphere reserves are located in the mountain areas of the world.

A worldwide network to study global change processes in the mountains was established in October 2003. It is based on some 25 mountain biosphere reserves in all continents, which serve as monitoring and study sites. A ‘Global Change and Mountain Regions (GLOCHAMORE) Research Strategy’ has been worked out to:

• detectsignalsofglobalchange;• identifytheconsequencesoftheimpactsofglobalchangeonmountainenvironmentsand

human livelihoods; and• suggestresponsestoglobalchangeimpactsonlocalandregionalscales.

The structure of mountain biosphere reserves provides ideal global change ‘testing sites’ with core protected mountain areas surrounded by lower-elevation buffer zones that are more strongly influenced by human activities. The GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy is adapted for implementation in mountain biosphere reserves in both developed and developing countries. This was achieved by actively involving biosphere managers in the development process of the strategy. UNESCO-MAB and its partners are in the process of implementing the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy the world over. Several biosphere reserves in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region and


273

adjacent mountain ranges are already part of the GLOCHAMORE initiative: additional sites are welcome to join in.

Weblinks

UNESCO’s homepage (portal): http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=29008&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme: http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-URL_ID=4793&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Biosphere Reserves: http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-URL_ID=4801&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO-MAB’s work on mountain-related issues: http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-URL_ID=6804&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Global Change and Mountain Regions (GLOCHAMORE): http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-URL_ID=6944&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy (pdf file for download): http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-URL_ID=6891&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html


274

Mountain Research and Development: An Adaptive Institutional Response to Evolving Knowledge and Needs

Libor Jansky1, Nevelina Pachova1, Luohui Liang2

1 United Nations University, UN Campus, Bonn, Germany 2 United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan

Introduction

The United Nations University (UNU), an independent research institution in the United Nations’ system, works towards contributing to the resolution of pressing problems facing the global community through network-based research, multistakeholder policy dialogues, and capacity development. Mountain research and development have been core themes of UNU’s work since the time of its establishment in the 1970s. During the first two decades of engagement with mountain research and development issues, UNU focused on supporting the generation of scientifically-based knowledge on mountain ecosystems and resource use and management practices in a highland-lowland interactive context; raising public awareness and understanding of mountain development issues; and placing these issues on the international policy agenda. Over the past decade, UNU has shifted its efforts towards initiating and facilitating the implementation of innovative knowledge-based approaches to bring policy commitments to bear on local realities in targeted highland hotspots around the world. An overview of UNU’s institutional and programmatic response over the past three decades to the changing policy realities and needs in the field of mountain development and also to the evolving understanding of research and the role of knowledge in supporting sustainable development is presented below.

Reversing global myths and policies: knowledge generation for sustainable mountain development

UNU’s efforts to contribute to mountain research and development began with an innovative project on Highland-Lowland Interactive Systems within the framework of a broader research and training programme on the ‘Use and Management of Natural Resources’. This programme included three other components, namely, agroforestry systems, rural energy systems, and water-land interactive systems. The programme focused initially on humid tropical and subtropical regions, but subsequently grew to embrace arid and semi-arid areas. Similarly, the Highland-Lowland Interactive project started from the subtropical northwestern hills of Thailand. Under the leadership of renowned


275

mountain science authorities from research centres in Switzerland and Canada, the initiative moved on to establish partnerships with research institutes in developing countries and to launch research and training activities in the Himalayan region in India and Nepal; in Yunnan, China, in the Pamir mountains in Tajikistan; in the Highlands of Ethiopia and East Africa; as well as in the Andes and Madagascar. Field excursions and conferences were also held in Papua-New Guinea, Tibet, the Tien Shan and western Szechwan, China, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, Switzerland, Japan, and the United States. The outreach of the project in most continents of the world indicated the global scope of mountain research and development concerns, and the need for institutionalised channels for the exchange of knowledge and strengthening cooperation among institutional partners.

In response to this need, UNU supported the establishment of the International Mountain Society (IMS) in 1980, an association encompassing the major international agencies concerned with mountain research and development issues, for the purpose of advancing knowledge and disseminating information about mountain research and mountain development throughout the world. The main objective of the IMS is to promote sustainable mountain development through improved communications among institutions and individuals with a particular focus on mountain eco-regions in the developing world. In 1981 UNU also co-founded the quarterly journal ‘Mountain Research and Development’ (MRD 2008), with IMS as the copyright holder. MRD, which is currently based at the Centre for Development and Environment (CDE) at the University of Berne, became a major platform for communication on mountains, emphasising both research and development, and including special sections devoted to the exchange of experience among institutions and individuals. In addition to these global initiatives, UNU supported the establishment of the African Mountain Association and the Andean Mountain Association as regional vehicles for cooperation and information exchange.

The strengthened knowledge base and opening of channels for communication and cooperation on mountain research and development issues in like-minded research and development agencies were important achievements, which provided the basis for taking mountain research and development issues a step further from the field of international research to that of international policy making. The budding concept of sustainability provided an impetus for mobilising conceptual and institutional efforts to place mountain research and development issues in the domain of emerging global environmental governance. Critical in facilitating this next step proved to be the interdisciplinary theoretical basis underpinning UNU’s project on Highland Lowland Interactive Systems, renamed Mountain Ecology and Sustainable Development, to reflect the expansion of its scope; Project 6 on the impact of human activities on mountain ecosystems under the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO’s) Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme; as well as the work of the Commission on Mountain Geoecology of the International Geographical Union and the newly established IMS. This work set the basis for the evolving theoretical framework on coupled human-environmental systems in mountain regions and placed them within the broader framework of sustainable development.


276

Alongside theoretical advances, applied research on selected mountain development issues, such as what came to be known as the ‘Himalayan Dilemma’, played a critical role in raising public awareness and attention and profiling mountain development issues in the international policy-making arena. Throughout most of the final thirty years of the last century the major multilateral, bilateral, and national aid and development agencies had contributed much of their investments in the Himalayas to the pursuit of policies based on an unsound assumption. This presumed that the Himalayas were facing an environmental crisis driven by massive deforestation of mountain slopes caused by the rapidly expanding population dependent on subsistence agriculture and forest products. This was causally linked to soil erosion and landslides, as well as increasingly severe flooding in Gangetic India and Bangladesh. An international conference co-organised by UNU in 1986 brought this predominant paradigm under critical scrutiny. It was found to be unsound and supporting arguments were published in book form in ‘The Himalayan Dilemma: Reconciling Development and Conservation’ (Ives and Messerli 1989) and further elaborated upon by Ives (2004) and Hofer and Messerli (2006). This process of fundamental research followed by critical discussion exemplified the unique opportunity that academic status provides for UNU. The Himalayan controversy was one of several tackled by the UNU mountain project. It was the critical one, however, that provided much of the initiative leading to the inclusion of Chapter 13 (Managing fragile environments – sustainable mountain development) in Agenda 21 during the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992. This impetus continued through to the special General Assembly of the UN on the occasion of Rio-Plus-Five (Messerli and Ives 1997) and helped facilitate the declaration of 2002 as the International Year of Mountains (IYM).

The IYM brought out the relevance of the accumulated knowledge on mountain development to policy and UNU played a leading role in this respect by synthesising the lessons learned from its research (Ives et al. 2002) and by organising a series of public debates leading up to the signature of the Tokyo Declaration for the International Year of Mountains (Jansky et al. 2002). UNU also facilitated the dissemination of outputs from the Bishkek Global Mountain Summit (BGMS), the closing IYM event, through the publication of an edited volume of the key BGMS contributions and results (Price et al. 2004). Furthermore, UNU became a core member of the Mountain Partnership launched during the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002, as well as of a number of regional and thematic partnership networks that supported the initiation of a selected number of mountain development projects, (these are discussed in more detail in the following sections). The IYM served as a time for recapitulation, setting new priorities and devising new means for achieving them for the agencies involved in mountain research and development. UNU also took the opportunity to reset its strategy with regards to the mountains. While foundations for change had been set out earlier, the IYM helped to crystallise the shift to new mountain initiatives at UNU


277

that were intended to catalyse the implementation of global policy commitments in specific highland hotspots around the world. This entailed a shift from an inter- to a transdisciplinary concept of research as part of the broader process of re-conceptualising the notion of knowledge as an integral part of the development process, and development as a process of knowledge generation and learning.

Changing local realities: sustainable mountain development as a process of knowledge generation

Drawing upon its disciplinary expertise in a range of resource-specific fields over the past decade, and also on its innovative work on coupled human-ecological systems, UNU has devised and undertaken a range of initiatives aimed at addressing the capacity and knowledge gaps constraining the sustainable development of mountain regions. Among the issues the UNU seeks to address are the loss of indigenous knowledge in the highlands of developing states; the brain drain; inadequate state support for modernising resource use and management; education and research in transition countries; and barriers to knowledge generation and information exchange among multiple stakeholders: the latter being caused by political borders and top-down sectoral policies cutting across the spatial integrity of highland ecosystems, communities, and their resource use and management practices. The focus and approaches employed in these initiatives are outlined below.

Agrobiodiversity: in situ conservation through experimentation and

demonstration

In the late 1990s, a project on ‘People, Land Management and Environmental Change’ (PLEC) was introduced as an offshoot of UNU’s earlier work on interactive agroforestry systems. The project brought the indigenous knowledge of farmers to the forefront in the process of developing sustainable technologies for conservation, particularly in the context of biodiversity, in marginal lands such as the highlands and in the semi-arid and subtropical regions of Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, China, Thailand, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, and Jamaica (Liang et al. 2001). The project established multi-disciplinary cluster groups at key research institutions in each country. Field research, experimentation, and training were based at selected demonstration sites on small farmers’ agricultural plots, within which profitable and biodiversity-rich management systems and techniques were identified and demonstrated through farmer-to-farmer training. Over 30 demonstration sites on agricultural lands, located in priority ecosystems and managed by farmers and pastoralists, were established by the project. From 1998 to 2001, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) provided financial support to activities in eight of the project countries.


278

Tokyo Declaration for the International Year of Mountains 2002

“We, the participants in the UNU International Symposium on the Conservation of Mountain Ecosystems, held in Tokyo (Japan) on 1 February 2002,

Acknowledging with gratitude the United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/1. RES/53/24 to declare the year 2002 as the International Year of Mountains, thus drawing the world’s attention to the need to foster sustainable mountain development;

Recognizing that mountains are fragile ecosystems with unique natural and human resources, 2. as stipulated in Agenda 21, Chapter 13;

Noting with concern that human pressure on mountain resources from extraction of mineral 3. resources, soil erosion, touristic exploitation, etc. continues to affect the mountain environment adversely, particularly with regard to endemic, rare and endangered species of wild fauna and flora in mountains, and also depletes mineral resources;

Noting further, with concern, that climate change can seriously affect water regimes in 4. highlands as well as lowlands, which can pose problems with the quality and quantity of available freshwater resources for human consumption and agriculture and increase competition between different interest groups, in which mountain dwellers are usually the disadvantaged members, leading to an increase in the potential vulnerability of mountain people;

Noting also that ca. 500 million people in mountains live below the poverty line (80 per cent 5. of the world’s mountain population);

Recognizing that environmental management of mountains needs to take holistic approaches in 6. conserving the environment, while at the same time providing sustainable incomes for mountain dwellers, including appropriate compensation for their services;

Affirming that scientific studies on mountain systems, management of natural resources and 7. monitoring of mountain environments are essential for fostering sustainable development in line with conservation and development objectives;

Conscious that mountain dwellers, especially women, are the main stakeholders and often the 8. true managers who ensure the sustainable development of mountain environments and participate in the utilization and management of mountain resources;

Conscious also that mountain dwellers safeguard important cultural diversity that needs to be 9. maintained and allowed to evolve further in a world moving towards globalization;

Aware that there is a considerable gap in knowledge and perception of mountains between 10. academia and the general public, for whom the mass media serve as the main source of information regarding mountains;

Aware also that mountains and areas under the influence of mountains accommodate and 11. provide a livelihood not only for poor communities, as often perceived, but also for a significant proportion of the urban population of the world, whose resource consumption has a heavy impact on utilization and management of mountain resources; and


279

Realizing that mountains, including the human inhabitants and the natural environments in 12. mountain areas, especially in developing countries, are highly susceptible to serious and increasing physical violence and destruction, for example from armed conflicts, due to their particular geographical features;

Declare that:

UNU should continue its work with mountain populations to appraise their situations, to identify 13. gaps in knowledge, needs and constraints, and to help them work towards more sustainable development;

Every effort should be made to support mountain research and monitoring in the field of 14. environmental conservation and sustainable mountain resource use;

Capacity-building and education targeted at all levels and segments of mountain populations 15. and minorities traditionally dependent on mountain resources must be further strengthened so as to counteract the looming marginalization of mountain dwellers;

Cultural diversity in mountains needs to be maintained and developed, as it can be a powerful 16. means for counteracting social, economic and environmental degradation in mountains;

Holistic and transdisciplinary management schemes for environmental conservation and 17. sustainable development should be applied in mountain regions (as is the case in biosphere reserves);

More efforts should be made to disseminate proper and correct information to the public by 18. working with the mass media as well as by improving the coordination of activities between researchers and practitioners;

Greater attention should be given to the urban aspect of mountains, through additional 19. research and monitoring of highland-lowland interactions;

Empowerment of poor local communities, especially of women, should be supported in order 20. to facilitate sustainable development of mountains in a self-supporting manner;

The issue of conflicts and resulting destruction of mountain ecosystems and livelihoods should 21. receive more serious consideration from academia and policy makers; and

The possibility of new approaches to mountain issues should be explored, for instance, by 22. identifying hot spots and creating and discovering successful approaches applicable to different problems and contexts of sustainable mountain development.

We therefore call upon UNU, UNESCO, FAO, UNEP, UNDP and other concerned international and national organizations and NGOs to facilitate mountain research, monitoring, capacity building, sustainable development, conservation of mountain ecosystems, and maintenance of cultural diversity in mountains so as to create linkages and synergies among mountain scientists, mountain communities, policy/decision makers, practitioners and the general public”.


280

Forests: strengthening capacities for forest education and research in the

Western Balkans

In 1996, the United Nations University, the Finnish Forest Research Institute (METLA), and the European Forest Institute (EFI) started a global research programme on ‘World Forests, Society and Environment (WFSE)’, and this project subsequently grew into a network of over 200 scientists from across the world (Wardle et al. 2003). In 2002, building upon the knowledge and institutional partnerships established through WFSE, UNU, EFI, and its Silva Network carried out an applied project on ‘Strengthening the Capacities for Forestry Policy and Economics Education and Research (FOPER)’ in the mountainous Western Balkan states (Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Albania). Despite the long tradition of forestry in the former socialist countries, the brain drain and limited funding available for education and research in the process of ongoing market and political reforms made sustaining and upgrading forest management difficult. The changing global policy and economic context required a re-consideration of the multiple values of forests, a critical challenge constraining the sustainable development of rural highlands in the Western Balkan states (Jansky et al. 2003, 2004). In response, FOPER established a regional MSc. programme on Forest Policy Economics and Research and developed a modern vocational training system on forest policy and economics in the participating countries with funding from the Finnish Government.

Headwaters: generating shared knowledge through dialogue and research

with multi stakeholders

Drawing upon its earlier work on transboundary water management, in 2002, UNU, together with a consortium of partners, organised an international conference on the ‘Sustainable Management of Headwater Resources’ in Nairobi, Kenya. The conference provided an international forum in water resource management for multi-level stakeholders to share their perspectives on the best approaches to the promotion, development, and evaluation of land management strategies for sustainable development of headwater regions. The conference resulted in the ‘Nairobi Headwater Declaration’, one of the first contributions to the International Year of Freshwaters 2003, and in the publication of ‘Sustainable Management of Headwater Resources: Research from Africa and India’ based on conference outputs (Haigh et al. 2004, Jansky et al. 2005). The knowledge generated through the conferences highlighted the closely interlinked issues of mountain development and water resource management and placed them on the international policy-making platform. Subsequent work undertaken by UNU on the micro-foundations of water conflicts and disputes at local and transboundary levels has increased understanding of the interlinkages (Pachova et al. 2008)


281

Land: integrated and transboundary approaches to sustainable land

management in Central Asia

A project on ‘Sustainable Land Management in the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai in Central Asia’ was a result of the Bishkek Global Mountain Summit in 2002. The project objectives are to address the interlinkages between land degradation and poverty in one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots, containing water towers of regional importance (Jansky and Pachova 2006). The Global Environment Facility financed the project and, with a consortium of national and international partners, an integrated transboundary approach was designed to improve the technological, institutional, policy, and legislative environment and enable mountain communities to undertake the primary responsibility for the productive and sustainable management of local ecosystem resources. In the course of this project a regional strategy and action plan for sustainable development in the Pamir Alai Mountains will be developed through participatory multi-level, multisectoral stakeholder consultations. To ensure the effective implementation of the regional strategy, participatory community-based resource assessment, land use planning, and implementation of micro projects will be undertaken in selected hotspots in the context of the transboundary framework. In addition to enhancing the knowledge and capacities of multi-level stakeholders, the project is to generate a replicable ‘model’ for an integrated development strategy to address the problems of land degradation in similar mountain environments. The project is implemented by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and executed by UNU together with the governments of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Conclusions

The overview of the history of the UNU’s involvement in mountain research and development indicates an evolution in its focus and approach in responding to the changing policy environment that perceives knowledge and research as important components of sustainable development. To sum up, the first two decades of UNU’s work on mountain research and development were guided by the need to profile mountains as an integral concern of global policy debates on sustainable development. The last decade has focused on bringing about global recognition of the role and importance of the mountains and the inclusion of this recognition in national policies, local resource use, and management in the context of selected global hotspots.

In light of the complexity of mountain development issues and their differential role in the national development of individual states, a number of diverse approaches were undertaken to building the knowledge base and research capacities to support the development of endogenous solutions to the challenges facing mountain regions in developing and transition states. Approaches vary depending on the critical resources under pressure in specific geographic regions and on socioeconomic and political systems, as well as on the needs of stakeholder groups. While in some cases capacity building focused on specific themes as priorities, in others an integrated approach


282

addressing the capacity and knowledge gaps of stakeholders involved was deemed necessary to make a tangible contribution to sustainable mountain development.

Measuring the relative effectiveness of alternative approaches or identifying appropriate responses is beyond the scope of this paper. It is notable, however, that a clear trend underlies UNU’s activities in the field of mountain research and development; namely, recognition of the importance of different types of knowledge beyond traditional disciplinary categories to enable the generation of sustainable solutions to mountain development challenges. These include the level of knowledge and capacity of individual stakeholders and their ability to innovate in, and adapt to, a changing mountain development context, as well as the systemic capacity of existing institutions to generate new knowledge in response to emerging challenges.

Indeed, many of the barriers to sustainable mountain development remain the same as those spelled out in the policy declarations made during the IYM. Globalisation and climate change, as well as recent developments in global environmental governance regimes, have not only added to traditional mountain development challenges, but have also given rise to new opportunities. Many of them are being increasingly recognised by researchers and other stakeholders in developing states as indicated by the issues taken up, e.g., in the Journal of Mountains Science (JMS 2008) launched by the Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences with the support of UNU.

Strengthening individual, institutional, and systemic capacities of stakeholders to generate knowledge and learn from their experiences is essential to respond and adapt to emerging challenges and opportunities. The establishment and strengthening of new knowledge hubs and platforms for information dissemination and exchange based in developing states and managed by them could help further these efforts. These are critical tasks around which the efforts of national and international agencies concerned with mountain research and development need to converge if sustainable solutions to the development of mountain regions are to emerge.

References

Haigh, JM; Jansky, L; Hellin, J (2004) ‘Headwater deforestation: A Challenge for environmental management’. Global Environmental Change, Human and Policy Dimension (14)1: 51-62

Hofer, T; Messerli, B (2006) Floods in Bangladesh: History, dynamics and rethinking the role of the Himalayas. Tokyo: UNU Press

Ives, JD (2004) Himalayan perceptions: Environmental change and the well-being of mountain peoples. London and New York: Routledge

Ives, JD; Messerli, B (1989) The Himalayan dilemma: Reconciling development and conservation. London and New York: Routledge and UNU Press

Ives, JD; Messerli, B; Jansky, L (2002) ‘Mountain research in South-Central Asia: An overview of 25 years of UNU’s mountain project’. Global Environmental Research 6(1): 59-71


283

Jansky L; Ives JD; Furuyashiki, K (2002) Mountain momentum: Agenda for today and policy beyond IYM 2002. Tokyo: UNU/ESD

Jansky, L; Tikkanen, I; Pelkonen, P (eds) (2003) Forest in transition: The role of research and higher education in developing national forest programmes in countries with economies in transition. Tokyo: UNU Press

Jansky, L; Nevenic, R; Tikkanen, I; Pajari, B (eds) (2004) Forests in transition II: Challenges in strengthening of capacities for forest policy development in countries with economies in transition. Tokyo: UNU Press

Jansky, L; Haigh, MJ; Prasad, H (eds) (2005) Sustainable management of headwater resources: Research from Africa and India. Tokyo: UNU Press

Jansky, L; Pachova, NI (2006) ‘Towards sustainable land management in mountain areas in Central Asia’. Global Environmental Research 10(1): 99-115

Liang, L; Stocking, M; Brookfield, H; Jansky, L (2001) ‘Biodiversity conservation through agrobiodiversity’. Global Environmental Change 11(1): 97-101

Messerli, B; Ives, JD (eds) (1997) Mountains of the world: A global priority. New York: Parthenon

Pachova, NI; Nakayama, M; Jansky, L (2008) International water security: Domestic threats and opportunities. Tokyo: UNU Press

Price, FM; Jansky, L; Iatsenia, AA (eds) (2004) Key issues for mountain areas. Tokyo: UNU Press

Wardle, P; Jansky, L; Mery, G; Palo, M; Uusivuori, J; Vanhanen, H (eds) (2003) World forests, society and environment – Executive summary. Tokyo: UNU/ESD

Weblinks

United Nations University, http://www.unu.edu (accessed October 2008)

United Nations University Vice-Rectorate in Europe, http://www.vie.unu.edu (accessed October 2008)

Journal of Mountain Research and Development, http://www.mrd-journal.org (accessed October 2008)

Journal of Mountain Science, http://www.imde.ac.cn/journal/index.htm (accessed October 2008)


284

Wetlands International’s Global Programme and its Priorities in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region

Chris Baker, Head of Wetlands and Water Resources Programme Chaman Trisal, Director, Wetlands International South Asia Office Chen Kelin, Director, Wetlands International China Office Ward Hagemeijer, Head of Biodiversity Programme

Background

Wetlands International works at all levels from global to local to achieve the conservation and wise use of wetlands, as a contribution to sustainable development. WI is an independent, not-for-profit, global organisation supported by government membership from around the world. WI works through 16 offices in Africa; South America; South, East, and North Asia; Central and Eastern Europe; and Oceania and has a head office in Wageningen, the Netherlands. Our work is supported by extensive Specialist Group networks and tens of thousands of volunteers.

We are a science-based global conservation organisation producing tools and information to assist the development and implementation by governments of relevant policies, conventions, and treaties that are required to achieve wetland conservation. We are a source of ‘best-informed’ opinion on key issues affecting wetlands and priority actions for their conservation and wise use, drawing on scientific analyses and our own experience in global and national conservation and natural resource management programmes. In doing this work, we are responsive to the needs expressed by governments, industrial sectors, local communities, and other stakeholders. Addressing major global wetland conservation needs, we act as a catalyst for intersectoral cooperation, partnership, and network development. We aim to combine our competencies with those of others through building capacity, partnerships, and cross-regional collaboration and multisectoral field programmes to demonstrate innovative solutions to wetland management problems.

Partners and networks

We develop and manage multisectoral, global, regional, and national programmes that are implemented through partnerships with locally-based non-governmental organisations (NGOs), governments, industrial groups, and scientific institutions. In this way, we are able to develop lasting local partnerships and act as a catalyst for conservation and natural resource management. Over


285

2,000 participants currently support our programme with scientific and technical advice, specialist groups focus on 21 species and themes and we have a large working group focused on issues related to livelihoods in wetland areas. We work closely with the other International Organisation Partners (IOPs) of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, including World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF), Birdlife International, the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). At the global level we have formal partnership agreements with the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). We have active Memoranda of Understanding and cooperative programmes to support the conservation and wise use of wetlands with a number of national governments, agencies, civil society, and private sector organisations such as the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK, the State Forestry Administration of China, WASTE (a Dutch based development NGO), and with a Netherlands-based consortia of organisations that support international programmes for wetland capacity building.

The way we work

Wetlands International’s mission is to “to sustain and restore wetlands, their resources and biodiversity for future generations”. This mission is the 'umbrella' for our activities. The main areas we work in that are most relevant to the Himalayan region can be summarised as follows.

Improved wetland information

Good policy development and decision making need to be underpinned by information on wetlands – where they are, their characteristics, status, and values. Wetlands International aims to ensure that stakeholders and decision makers are well informed about the status and trends of wetlands, their biodiversity, and priorities for action. We develop and implement innovative ways of collecting and analysing wetland information so that we can support both policy making and decision making related to wetlands. We have pioneered new inventory techniques, such as the Asian Wetland Inventory, and worked with experts in remote sensing and geographical information systems (GIS) to develop innovative approaches to collecting information on extent and status. We support the development of policy at international, national, and regional levels supported by this information.

Wetlands as part of sustainable development

Development poses many threats to wetlands, often resulting in the degradation of their ability to support biodiversity and the services they provide to people. Wetlands International is working to ensure that the functions and values of wetlands are recognised and integrated into sustainable development. A key component of this work is that of understanding the linkages between local community livelihoods and wetland services. Much of our work is focused on ensuring that these relationships are captured and included in policy and planning to ensure win-win situations for


286

stakeholders and the environment. We work in many different ways – ranging from practical on the ground demonstration of sustainable resource management practices, to the development of micro-finance mechanisms that empower local people to develop and maintain their local environment, to influencing policy and its implementation in different sectors. Through these efforts we aim to mainstream sustainable use of the wetlands into the development sector and to stimulate changes at the grass roots in the relationship with wetlands and their use.

Wetlands conserved through integrated water resource management

Wetlands are part of the water cycle and, therefore, particularly vulnerable to the implementation of water policy and management practices from basin to local levels. Furthermore, wetlands often provide services that, if sustainably managed, can make them important tools in water management. Application of the principles of integrated water resource management (IWRM) holds the key to balancing competing uses and exploitation of wetlands against their values. Wetlands are frequently overlooked, however, in water resource management. We have developed tools and approaches from the basin to the local level to ensure that wetland services and values are taken into account in water resource management and have used these to influence the construction of infrastructure and the management and regulation of rivers. Furthermore, we seek to work with basin authorities and water management ministries and agencies to influence policy development and implementation through raising awareness, advocacy, and capacity development.

Improved conservation of wetland species

Wetlands International is recognised as a world authority on migratory waterbirds. For 50 years the organisation has coordinated the International Waterbird Census – believed to be the longest running biodiversity census of its kind in the world. Every year more than 15,000 volunteers around the world contribute to this annual winter census that underpins the global population estimates of these species and supports the implementation of global agreements such as the Ramsar Convention and the CMS African-Eurasian Flyway Agreement. Built on this, we undertake large-scale strategic initiatives focused on waterbird flyway conservation that take in the geographical range of wetlands that these species need to complete their life cycles. Through this work we seek to raise awareness amongst the key stakeholders of the importance of these species and approaches to the maintenance of the wetlands they need. We seek to influence policy at national and international levels. We have also become involved in supporting the health sector in understanding the mechanisms of transmission of avian influenza. Recently, we have also begun to focus on freshwater-dependent fish species and the role of water management in their conservation.

Wetlands and climate change

Climate change is one of the major challenges to wetland conservation. Its impact will be pervasive across all regions and in all wetland contexts. We believe that the relationship between


287

wetlands and climate change needs to be considered from several standpoints. Firstly, certain wetland types, especially peat lands, play a significant role in mitigating the process of climate change driven by greenhouse gases: they are stores and sources of carbon that need to be conserved and are under intense pressure from conversion and degradation. We are working intensely with governments, civil society, and private sector organisations to try and raise awareness of this role and reduce pressure on this important resource. Secondly, wetlands are increasingly under pressure from the effects of climate change and this will affect their capacity to support biodiversity and maintain services to dependent communities. Wetlands International is undertaking activities to help restore resilience to these ecosystems by addressing existing threats and drivers of degradation and developing innovative tools for restoration and management. Finally, we believe that there is a role for wetland services to help build resilience to climate change for people and for nature. For instance, many wetland types (e.g., lakes, floodplains, and peat lands) can play a significant role in regulating river flow and, therefore, if well managed or even restored, can be used as part of a wide-ranging toolkit to reduce the effects of drought and flood.

Key areas of activity and aims in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region

Wetlands International is represented in the region through two offices: Wetlands International, South Asia (WISA) and Wetlands International, China.

WISA’s office is based in Delhi, India, and plays a regional role in addressing wetland issues in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan. Its core strength is in water management and livelihoods. It works with the international, national, and state-level governments and non-governmental organisations to restore wetlands in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region, the current focus being on the wetlands of Jhelum, Manipur, and Koshi River basins. It also focuses on mainstreaming wetlands into development planning by application of economic valuation tools and integrated management planning, balancing conservation and development objectives. Furthermore, it plays a regional role in coordinating waterbird work within the Central Asian Flyway region and providing interim coordination for the development of the Central Asian Flyway Initiative with the Convention on Migratory Species.

The Wetlands International China office is based in Beijing, China, and focuses almost exclusively on activities in that country. It has a particular focus on high-altitude wetlands and specifically on the conservation of peat lands on the Tibetan Plateau and in the Altai mountains. This work is addressing the restoration of these threatened ecosystems by developing an information base, technical capacity, and techniques in partnership with local governments and communities. Furthermore, the Wetlands International China office is working to raise awareness in different Chinese government ministries at various levels of the importance of these ecosystems and the need to cooperate to achieve sustainable use. In addition the office also plays a strong role at the national and regional levels in supporting work on migratory waterbirds, promoting education, and raising awareness.


288

Key issues in the region

Wetlands are central to the livelihoods of 250 million people in the Himalayas. Communities commonly live on the valley floors and plateau areas where lakes, floodplains, and peat lands support agriculture and industry. Rice cultivation, grazing, fish farming, collecting fuel and building materials, and tourism, together with local spiritual and religious activities, are vital to the region’s poorest communities.

One and a half billion people in lowland regions downstream from the Himalayas are connected to the Himalayas via ten major river basins. Their livelihoods are also supported through service provision by high-altitude wetlands. These maintain water quality, regulate water flow (floods and droughts), and, in the case of high-altitude peat lands, regulate the global climate (storage of greenhouse gases in peat).

Furthermore, wetlands are a unique and valuable resource supporting both regional and global biodiversity. Many species living within the region depend on these wetlands for their survival. Of particular importance are the migratory species that also use these ecosystems. Waterbirds migrating from Siberia and Mongolia must cross this region to reach tropical Asia to winter and the wetlands here provide important stopping points for refuelling and rest en route.

Despite their value, wetlands in the region are degrading rapidly. In some parts of the Himalayan region some 30% of the lakes and marshes have disappeared during the past 30 years from the effects of overexploitation of wetland resources and climate change. This figure is a conservative estimate when it is considered that high-altitude peat lands, a major component of the region’s rangelands, are not included: there is limited information on high-altitude peat lands making it very hard to estimate the true nature and extent of this problem.

The loss of value for people and nature is increasingly contributing to severe and even catastrophic consequences for biodiversity and sustainable development. Many wetland related species are in decline and increasingly problems that can be related to degraded wetland service provision, such as diminishing supplies of drinking water, loss of local community livelihoods related to wetland produce, increased downstream flooding, and drought are being observed. Wetlands International, together with its partners, is working in many different fields to try and address both the drivers of these problems and their consequences.

Integrated river basin management (IRBM)

The integration of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan wetlands into river basin management is a key element in achieving their conservation and wise use and mainstreaming their ecosystem services into wider conservation and development contexts. WISA conducted a review of the water and wetland sector policies and strategies in four countries (Bhutan, China, India, and Nepal). This


289

indicated that there was a sectoral approach that limited integration of wetlands into water resource planning and management. This is driving changes in water regimes that are highly detrimental to high-altitude wetland ecosystems. Reflections on this during a regional workshop led to the Delhi Declaration on ‘High Altitude Wetlands and River Basin Management in the Himalayan Region’ (2008), which was drafted by governmental and non-governmental organisations from the region and coordinated by WISA.

Lack of effective capacity within the region to assess the intersectoral linkages and their integration into water resource planning and management is one of the key factors limiting harmonisation of these sectors. The basis for a regional strategy for capacity development has been developed by WISA based on a regional consultation process led by and involving governmental and non-governmental organisations from Bhutan, China, India, and Nepal. Key needs identified include i) an IRBM framework for the Himalayan Region balancing the sociopolitical contexts and management planning requirements; ii) approaches and tools for inventory and assessment, planning and management at river basin level, water allocation for human and ecological purposes, valuation of ecosystem services, incentive systems for balancing conservation and development needs, and modelling impacts of climate change at relevant locations; and iii) at the institutional level, access to and sharing of data and multistakeholder and multisectoral communication and cooperation.

Wetlands International is also demonstrating practical integration of wetlands into river basin management. Working with national governments and wetland managers in specific river basins, such as the Jhelum Basin, WISA has illustrated the role of wetlands in the regulation of hydrological regimes, especially in the context of climate change. In the Manipur River Basin, WISA is working with the lake authority on implementation balancing water allocation for human and ecological purposes.

A further limitation in the region is the poor understanding of the relationship between high-altitude wetlands and basin hydrology. Until recently, high-altitude peat land systems were thought of more as grazing lands. This masked recognition of their role in water regulation. Work in the last decade has shown that there are in fact peat systems of considerable extent located at the head of some of the region’s major rivers. The capacity of peat to store and release water means that it is of the highest priority to understand its role in river regulation. The China office of Wetlands International has been working in an international partnership under the European Union-China Biodiversity Programme (ECBP) to improve the information base and develop the capacity of Chinese researchers in this field.

Regional cooperation towards wetland and biodiversity conservation

Wetlands International is working in partnership with ICIMOD and WWF and other local NGOs to support governments in the region to establish the ‘Himalayan Initiative’ within the framework of


290

regional cooperation under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands’. The initiative is aimed at the establishment of a regional forum for integrated wetland conservation and wise use, and provides a basis for regional cooperation. This cooperation has led to the development of a regional strategy for the conservation of wetlands (recently endorsed by the Ramsar Contracting Parties), which emphasises the development of a capacity-building framework, tools for wetlands, and the wetland information system referred to above.

Contribution of wetland ecosystems towards livelihood support

Lack of integration of wetlands into development planning has led to enhanced vulnerability of community livelihoods through degradation of the resource base and associated wetland services. Assessments carried out by WISA in the Jhelum and Manipur basins indicates a close correlation between poverty and wetland degradation. For instance, communities living in and around Wular Lake dependent on wetland resources for livelihoods have distinctly higher rates of poverty incidence and lower quality of life compared to other communities. This is primarily due to the degradation of wetlands as a result of unplanned development. Unsustainable livelihood systems within the catchments of these wetlands have a major impact on their values and functions through accentuating siltation, thereby reducing the capacity of the lake to regulate hydrological regimes. Increasing populations and related economic development pose a distinct challenge to the maintenance of ecological characteristics and the ecosystem services of wetlands in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region and, hence, to people’s livelihoods.

Wetland management and restoration

Lack of recognition of the value of wetlands in development planning promotes the adoption of measures that ultimately lead to wetland degradation and loss. There is limited experience in wetland management planning and of its integration into wider development planning measures in the region. Wetlands International has, therefore, been focusing strongly on establishing and demonstrating approaches to planning for wetland management in several key wetland areas in the region. WISA has developed integrated management plans for the restoration of Wular Lake, Rudrasagar Lake, and Loktak Lake: key wetlands in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region in India. The management plans have been formulated based on an extensive inventory and assessment, leading to the development of specific action plans with clearly measurable results. The involvement of stakeholders, particularly local communities, and the integration of the traditional knowledge base are key features of these plans. At the same time, restoration measures are needed as part of these plans to rejuvenate and re-establish lost wetlands or lost wetland services. Experience in the region is also very limited in this respect. Wetlands International has, therefore, been active in pioneering innovative approaches to restoration that fit within local development scenarios. For instance, the local level restoration of peat lands on the Tibetan plateau has been carried out with local materials and communities to block gullies and drainage ditches to preserve rangelands and biodiversity.


291

Furthermore, these approaches have been advocated to local decision makers and the demonstrations have been upscaled with Chinese government funding.

Water bird conservation

The Central Asian Flyway, covering the area from Northern Russia down into South Asia, experiences a lot of issues in relation to threats to wetlands and their biodiversity, including to migratory water birds. International collaboration to address this and to work towards interconnected and healthy wetlands in the flyway is currently underdeveloped, and this undermines the effectiveness of conservation and efforts at sustainable use undertaken by individual countries and stakeholders. Wetlands International, as the global leader in Flyway work and the authority on water bird conservation, is involved in providing the region with technical and strategic support to establish and implement such international collaboration as is necessary for the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands and their biodiversity resources, including migratory water birds. Furthermore, Wetlands International, as a leading member of the Task Force on Avian Influenza and Wild Birds, will coordinate the activities on Avian Influenza for the region. Currently, the action plan for the Central Asian Flyway has been developed and an interim secretariat for its implementation is under development. Avian Influenza work is being undertaken in 2008 and will be followed up on in 2009.

Climate change resilience

Climate change effects in the Himalayas are complex and regionally variable. It is clear, however, that there will be significant unavoidable impacts on the region and wetlands. This will cut across all aspects of life and biodiversity and is, therefore, an issue of the greatest importance. Wetlands International is currently focusing its main efforts on how to improve wetland resilience to climate change effects, both as a means of biodiversity conservation and as a means of allowing wetland services to be maintained or re-established as important tools in building the resilience of local people’s livelihoods, health, and safety.

Plenary Session V (Part 2)Responses of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Countries

9


295

Plenary Session V (Part 2)

Comments from Global Programmes and Responses of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Countries

Synthesis of Global ProgrammesProfessor Martin Price, Centre for Mountain Studies, UK

Synthesis of HKH Institutions’ Reactions Dr Robert Zomer, Environmental Change Specialist, ICIMOD

Chair: Professor Xu JianchuRapporteur: Ms Elisabeth Kerkhoff

Summary

The Chair of this session, Professor Xu Jianchu, set the tone by saying that the objective of the session was to ensure that the voices of the regional member countries were also heard.

Professor Martin Price presented a synthesis of the global programmes presentations. The key themes expressed by the global programmes can be summarised by asking who is doing what where. Research on climate is being carried out by Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments (GLORIA), they have data loggers, and Everest-K2-Council of National Research (Ev-K2-CNR) has also been collecting data for a long time. Biodiversity is being studied by Ev-K2, GLORIA, and Global Biodiversity Assessment/Global Biodiversity Information Facility GMBA/GBIF. Ecosystem management is being studied by Ev-K2. The United Nations University (UNU) has done a lot of work on capacity building, but it is not clear how this applies to the HKH region. Data compiling and sharing are essential, but there are issues about whether access would be ‘open’ access or whether there would be limitations to access etc. One key UN organisation that was not present was the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and it deals with climate issues. Who does capacity building? Many organisations are able to provide links to other regions and global programmes. GMBA deserves a special mention in this context. It is important to note that organisations that are working together are already working with ICIMOD.

How did the global programmes respond to the transect idea? In general, the global programmes were supportive and concurred that many of the projects they were already working on clearly fit into the transect framework. A few specific comments: Mountain Research Initiative (MRI) responded very positively and noted the importance of addressing the serious lack of data known as the ‘white spot’ on the Earth’s ecological map. They also noted that it would be necessary to formally vet Global Change in Mountain Regions (GLOCHAMORE) and asked whether or not the transect idea


296

was intended to be a platform for global action. Active collaboration is already taking place, but the Mt. Kailash transect could be the first concrete realisation of the transect idea.

Many global programmes had been having ongoing interactions with ICIMOD through its Mountain Environment and Natural Resources Information System (MENRIS) and this could be a knowledge-sharing hub for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) commented that it had many linkages, but that it was important for all to be on target. The biodiversity transects fell right into the mainstream, thereby filling many of the other categories. Wetlands International was a good source of information for profiling wetlands, and this was an ongoing Himalayan initiative. The issue of carbon was also mentioned. The idea of flyways was cited as an interesting proposition. WWF already has a strong regional presence and link with civil society: there could be an opportunity for focusing on species that received relatively less attention.

Discussion

Comments from Global Programmes

The present listing of actors is limited. Only the larger global programmes were invited to this conference for initial discussion of the transect concept. Should the transect concept prove viable, it will be necessary to include the numerous smaller organisations that also work in these areas. For example, the Mountain Institute and several others need to be included. Professor Christian Körner and Professor Martin Price both commented that this list was perhaps limited and that, for the sake of the proceedings, a longer list would have to be compiled. Possibly this could be circulated for comment.

The Chair, Professor Xu Jianchu, commented that capacity building is a long-term process which could involve global programmes, ICIMOD, national partners, and others. Information was much more than just databases, and on-site, in-country training is essential.

Responses of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Countries

Once the global programmes had presented their syntheses, ICIMOD’s regional member countries were requested to comment on what they thought the global programmes could contribute to their countries.

Afghanistan

Er Latif Ahmad Ahmadi stated that, in 2001, the government of President Hamid Karzai had created the National Environmental Protection Agency of Afghanistan (NEPA). NEPA is working to protect the country’s natural resources and rehabilitate the land; however, NEPA is a new


297

organisation and Afghanistan/NEPA needs help with environmental policy, in general, as the country was in the early stages of national reconstruction. ICIMOD presently has a field office in Kabul and this could help. Afghanistan would need to have separate meetings to discuss a strategy and development plans.

Professor Xu Jianchu commented that ICIMOD’s field office could help facilitate networking between NEPA and international agencies in areas such as forestry, rangelands, and others.

Later, Er Latif Ahmad Ahmadi went on to say that much of the conservation work that had been carried out in Afghanistan in the past had been disrupted by war for 25 years. The Ministry of Agriculture used to do much of this work, but now most of the knowhow had been lost. The Environmental Protection Agency had established legislation and added protected areas. Several agencies were already supporting this, but the need was much greater than the current support. Afghanistan supported collaboration on the Wakhan corridor, but would need assistance to make it happen.

Bangladesh

Dr M Khairul Alam (Bangladesh Forest Research Institute [BFRI]) noted that, of all the global programmes present at this meeting, some (such as UNEP and UNESCO) were already active in Bangladesh, but many were not. There were some activities in wetland areas, but not in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Bangladesh had received small grants from WWF. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) could take initiative through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The ICIMOD initiative on livelihoods could work and, if possible, WWF could give grants for lesser-known species.

Professor Xu Jianchu commented that, while much of Bangladesh is not mountainous, upstream-downstream linkages are important and that one could look at the effects that the economic corridor posed to biodiversity.

Professor Bruno Messerli commented that Bangladesh and, especially, the Chittagong Hill Tracts plays an important role in the monsoon system of South Asia. It is important to study this system as any changes can have a severe impact in this part of the world; they should not be neglected.

Bhutan

Mr Karma Jigme (Ministry of Agriculture) said that, at present, Bhutan received substantial support from international organisations: Bhutan is actively working with them and obtaining positive results. However, there is still scope for more research and capacity building support because Bhutan has a lot of biodiversity. He asked if there is any sort of platform through which young minds could


298

actively participate to share innovative ideas for environmental conservation. The next generation need to be groomed so that they can eventually take over.

Dr Thomas Schaaf commented that there is support for the younger generation from UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere (MAB) programme through its young scientist research grants. These are available for researchers of up to 35 years of age to study environmental conservation and sustainable community-based approaches. Application forms were available on the website.

Professor Xu Jianchu commented that, in this context, the work to be done by the Himalayan University Consortium will be very important for training young leaders in this area.

Dr Douglas McGuire commented that the International Programme on Research and Training on Sustainable Management of Mountain Areas (IPROMO) initiative of the Mountain Partnership offered a two-week course for young professionals interested in mountains.

PR China

Professor Ruijun Long (International Centre for Tibetan Plateau Ecosystem Management) stated that in China there was much discussion about the Tibetan Plateau which comprises one quarter of the country’s territory and is the source of important rivers such as the Yellow River. The Current Research Information System (CRIS) and local universities have done a lot of research in this area in recent years. The government was promoting good policies by which herders share their lands with neighbours to increase the amount of land available for grazing. The government has initiated a number of projects for grass supplements and backyard feeding in these areas: thus, the government is engaged and work at the policy level is good. At the technical level, there has been a great deal of research on cross-border grazing, wetlands, rangelands, and forestry. It is likely that within the next five years the government will pay herders for environmental services to reduce herd sizes and improve ecological benefits. The area of land might be vast, but economic activities only account for 4% of the total GDP. ICIMOD could be involved at the research level by working out a way ahead for local herders and their livelihoods.

Professor Xu Jianchu commented that China is the biggest country in the HKH and international organisations are very welcome to work there. The Xinjiang group already had a large terrestrial carbon project in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). The National Science Foundation of China is also discussing how to work through ICIMOD on regional cooperation.

India

Dr LMS Palni (GB Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development [GBPIHED]) stated that the GBPIHED is an influential institution: it networks by sharing data with centres throughout India. Lead institutions that compile scientific data on various themes to make them available to managers


299

and communities have been designated. Producing data that can be understood and used by local communities remains a continuing challenge. Nowadays, all information is made available through the website.

Dr S Vanuatu Reddy (Ministry of Environments and Forests, India) commented that the previous day’s presentations showed that there is interest in the economic development of local communities and that this is important. Global programmes such as IUCN, WWF, Wetlands International, and UNEP are interested in this and India has a lot of experience with self-help groups for this purpose. The Indian Research Councils and Institutes are very important players as well. They could help implement the projects of global organisations for the socioeconomic development of India’s mountain communities. India already has 15 biosphere reserves and other protected areas. In India, communities are strongly involved in biodiversity monitoring. We should look for the gaps in research and think how organisations can help to fill them.

Professor Xu Jianchu commented that India has very strong national programmes and is already working with ICIMOD on many aspects.

Myanmar

Ms Naw May Lay Thant (Ministry of Forestry) stated that Myanmar does not have any programmes of its own in the area of mountain biodiversity. A biodiversity database on flora was previously published on CD. Perhaps the Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA) programme could standardise this and make use of it within their own or other databases. IUCN activities in Myanmar had already been discussed with India and Myanmar, and these would continue.UNEP and UNESCO already provide support, maybe biodiversity activities could be mainstreamed into these if there was more support. Myanmar needs training in the HKH context.

As for conservation activities in wetland areas, Myanmar would like a RAMSAR (International Convention on Wetlands) site. At present, Myanmar has no collaboration with WWF, but it would be interested in collaborating. Myanmar has 30,000 sq.km protected under the protected area (PA) system, namely the Hkakaboraji National Park and other wetland areas. It is supported by various organisations: Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Harvard University’s plant project, and a Japanese university. There are also both lowland and highland wetlands sites. Myanmar is also in a good position to collaborate in conservation with China and India in transboundary biodiversity in the Eastern Himalayas. The government also needs to be involved because there might be issues of illegal logging and trade.

Participants commented that Myanmar has tremendous potential for transboundary conservation, as well as being part of the Mekong region. The Chittagong Hill Tracts’ border area also has potential. Unfortunately, much of the expertise on Myanmar is in institutes based in the US. National-level capacity building is very important for Myanmar.


300

Professor Bruno Messerli commented that Myanmar is very important for biodiversity conservation because of its rivers, but that it is also important to look at the mountain areas as they are the sources of the rivers. At present, Myanmar has three stations in the plains, but none in mountain areas – at least one should be established in mountain areas. Myanmar is the only country that does not have a station in the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) programme for long-term data logging.

Nepal

Professor Ram Prasad Chaudhary (Tribhuvan University) observed that global programmes have been working with many government departments, the National Planning Commission, and non- government organisations (NGOs) in Nepal. Nepal has five strategic focus areas: protected areas, forests, mountain areas, agricultural biodiversity, and wetlands. It is important for Nepal to have policy interventions during this transitional phase in its history – this is especially important in the context of understanding biodiversity conservation. Research and collaboration are needed. Nepal has had many endeavours in terms of long-term stations; in addition, interdisciplinary stations are required.

• TheHimalayanUniversityConsortiumcouldbeveryimportantforbringingtogethermanyuniversities in one forum and developing a curriculum specifically for biodiversity conservation.

• Localcommunitiescurrentlyfeelmarginalised,butitiscommunityforeststhathavecontributedsignificantly to biodiversity conservation; they need to be assisted. Very specific monitoring tools are needed to help farmers.

• TheworkthatICIMODisdoingwithhighland-lowlandlinkagesisimportant–water-downandfood-up links are essential.

• TourismisalsohavingtremendousimpactsonNepalesemountainslopes,andtourismisaveryimportant economic activity. ICIMOD could take the initiative to educate the upper tiers of policy makers.

• Thechallengesofanemergingdemocracyaremany.Forexample,someofthetechnocratswho are trained in infrastructural development tried to overrule national financial and environmental regulations. How can this be controlled?

• NepalhasmanyNGOs:theyareveryactiveandareastrongforceinthecountryandcouldbe important partners. This conference did not discuss how to make best use of them to address issues of biodiversity conservation and in working with global programmes. One of the challenges for international organisations is how to develop local indicators and how to involve local NGOs.

• Supportfromglobalprogrammesisimportantforthegrowthofenvironmentallyresponsibletourism.

• OneoftherolesoftheMountainForumistohelplinkNepaliNGOswithglobalprogrammes.• TheDepartmentofNationalParksandWildlifehasbeensuccessfulinconservationatthe

landscape level through participatory conservation approaches—this has been achieved with


301

help from many international organisations. Climate change could now be incorporated and opportunities for local communities could be included.

• Onmountainbiodiversityconservation,thereisstillalotofworktodo.Forexample,researchdatabases need to be made more accessible to those who need to use them – they are still very academic. Additional wetland sites are needed, even though Nepal already has four RAMSAR sites.

Mr Ukesh Raj Bhuju (Nepal National Committee of IUCN Members) commented that tourism is really impacting on mountain slopes all over Nepal, and is a threat to the mountain environment. Policy makers need to be educated.

Mr Tara Lama of Local Initiatives for Biodiversity Research and Development (LIBIRD) supported the statement that NGOs play a very important role, but pointed out that they were not well represented at this conference. NGOs are very important for penetrating those sectors that government and global programmes cannot.

Professor Christian Körner commented that the footprint tourism has on the landscape is usually quite small and that tourism could be very beneficial.

Pakistan

Dr Ashiq Ahmad Khan (WWF-Pakistan) stated that there are many active programmes in Pakistan; and that although some were very small and had no impact on the overall magnitude of the programme, others had been very successful and could be used as a model for programmes elsewhere.

Pakistan needs international support in connectivity corridors, especially in the vicinity of the Karakoram where it connects with the Himalayas. For example, the Karakoram, Tibetan Plateau, and Pamir could be connected, through various protected areas (PAs). As it is one strip, it could easily be connected to Wakhan and Central Asia as well. This would be a big project and would have a tremendous impact on the local environment; but, in order to succeed, it would need international support. UNESCO had helped the People and Plants’ project in Pakistan, and this had been very successful. If the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) could also support this, the collaboration would be beneficial. Pakistan has a wetland programme but, although some areas are well represented, others remain neglected. ICIMOD and Wetlands International (WI) could join hands with Pakistan in this programme. The MAB programme could be important in Pakistan; here, again, it would be beneficial if ICIMOD could facilitate.

For participants from Pakistan, the focus is on connectivity, and connecting four countries is very interesting. The People and Plants’ programme has been a great success and its publications could be used in curricula as well.


302

Discussion

• AnelectronicdatabaseforflorainAfghanistanisinthepipeline.Thisisverycomplexsohelpfrom partners and links with donors would be much appreciated.

• Universitiesshouldalsobeconsideredforcollaborationbecausetheyhavethecapacity.Thepossibility for distance learning opportunities should not be forgotten.

• DrAmbikaGautam(ICIMOD):Afghanistanisinarebuildingphaseaftermanyyearsofsocialupheaval. Two main government institutions are directly engaged in biodiversity conservation. The first is the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA), an autonomous body mandated to develop policies and strategies. It works on planning for national protected areas. The NEPA is very interested in establishing the Wakhan transboundary system. It is working on wildlife conservation in a working group in which ICIMOD is also a member. The other institution is the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Livestock. The UNEP policy development programme and others are also engaged there.

• DrLMSPalni(GBPantInstituteofHimalayanEnvironmentandDevelopment)suggestedlookingat the types of programmes that are funded: some are very focused, while others are broad. Those programmes should decide on common priorities to which everyone could contribute. Otherwise, the money which is available will become insufficient for doing anything in an in-depth manner.

• Knowledgetransferandjointfundingmechanismsarealsoveryimportant.Theglobalprogrammes are not donors, but donors should help in such mechanisms.

• UkeshRajBhuju(NepalNationalCommitteeofIUCNMembers)commentedthatprohibitingthe illegal trade of wildlife, medicinal herbs, and so on should be considered as part of conservation strategies. Several members commented that, in principle, mechanisms already existed to address this.

Professor Xu Jianchu summed up the session by saying that national ownership is very important for global programmes and that coordination among them is needed in order to avoid the exercise becoming excessively demanding for both ICIMOD and national governments. Both human resources and financial resources are needed because what is being proposed will be a lot of work.

Plenary Session VIThe Way Forward

10


304

10: Plenary Session VI: (Parts 1 and 2)

305

Plenary Session VI

Part I: Strategy on Development of Coordination and Cooperation for the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region

Chair: Dr Madhav KarkiRapporteur: Dr A Beatrice Murray

The two sessions that closed the meeting were designed so that participants could reach agreement on an overall strategy, common elements, and a way forward for activities. In the first of these sessions, Dr Karki briefly reflected on all that had gone before, looking at elements contributing to a ‘Strategy and way forward’, ‘What to monitor and why’, ‘Networking and partnership’, and ‘Harmony of policy and legal framework’.

He noted that the overall approach was designed to answer the challenges of reducing scientific uncertainty, facilitating regional ownership and participation in global change research, coordinating research, and achieving a synergy of results by focusing on selected representative areas on different scales. The Global Earth Observation System of Systems’ (GEOSS) network would provide a good base, and identification and research into keystone species by using a network of field sites would be important. Various relevant international programmes have been introduced to monitor and improve understanding of land use change, mountain biodiversity, and ecosystem services. These include the Global Change in Mountain Regions’ (GLOCHAMORE) research strategy and the Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments (GLORIA) and Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA) networks. All indicate the need for partnership and establishment of linkages with their strategies and work. National partners had highlighted their priorities and action plans, stressing the need for integrating trade agenda, poverty reduction strategies, and other relevant factors into biodiversity conservation. ICIMOD emphasised the need for the development of tools for the valuation of biodiversity services for providing more benefits to people. The key elements of the `Strategy and Possible Way Forward’ were presented as follows: a framework based on transboundary transects; an approach based on landscape conservation with emphasis on connectivity and management of existing conservation or protected areas; and the objective being to carry out multi-partnership and multi-locational research for long-term monitoring of species and ecosystems in order to obtain early warning indicators. Consideration of livelihood aspects and knowledge management were also considered important. ‘What to monitor’ in these transects was answered mainly by variables that would help in understanding and developing responses to long-term change, especially change related to climate and ecosystems. Networking and partnership are a prerequisite for effective work and a core base of the partners and key programmes present at the Conference. It is important to promote a


306

harmonised approach to the implementation of international conventions among the countries of the region through regular regional consultations and the sharing of good practices, especially in policy development and implementation. The promotion of the use of traditional knowledge and local species for sustainable livelihoods is an important factor in linking conservation with livelihoods.

Following this overview, the floor was opened to an interesting and lively discussion, the main points of which are summarised below.

The approach of multiple transects/transboundary transects, and harmonising

the policy and legal framework

Most of the discussion focused on the overall approach.

Participants generally agreed that the main focus here of ‘global change’ was actually climate change and its effects on species, habitats, and landscapes, while recognising that elements of globalisation would be captured in any socioeconomic factors included in the protocol.

There was general agreement that it is important to have a longer-term approach that could identify meaningful change. Examples were provided of previous transboundary studies that were very good, but for which there is no continuing longitudinal research to help us to assess changes.

The participants strongly supported the transect approach for focusing research efforts on representative areas. In particular, the GMBA programme thought that it could facilitate global assessments, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s Man and Biosphere (UNESCO MAB) programme saw strong advantages in having transboundary transects to study climate change effects and would like to set up transect research sites in the existing Biosphere Reserves. They also encouraged the regional countries to apply for Biosphere Reserve status so that there would be more sites to facilitate this cooperation. There was a comment that it would be interesting to see how water management could be built in as water is usually dealt with nationally and not in a transboundary manner. It would be easier to include wetlands in a landscape approach.

There was considerable discussion about the need to consider the impact of biodiversity conservation and climate change on people – their lives and livelihoods. Overall, participants considered that the conservation of biodiversity is only possible if it is in the interests of communities. It is important to focus on livelihoods for two reasons: first, they are a major factor in climate change impact; and, second, unless people benefit they will not support (and may actually work against) conservation efforts. Examples were given of how people could benefit from the exploitation of medicinal and other plants, as well as ecotourism, trophy hunting, and others. Biodiversity conservation must focus on people to be successful. In general, though, it was felt that,


307

in this programme, research on ecosystems should come first, including research into how changes affect livelihoods and new livelihood potentials; the programme should not focus on poverty reduction activities as such, but on people as part of the ecosystem. We also need to think about what biodiversity and climate change mean for different groups of people and what people themselves think is good. There was a query as to how we are connecting water, in general, and wetlands, in particular, with livelihoods.

There was another focus of discussion on the problems arising from World Trade Organization (WTO) and intellectual property (IP) protection and the impacts on local communities. The issuing of patents for single genes sometimes led to the transfer of ownership to transnational companies, and the interests of farmers are not protected. Previously farmers’ interests and rights were considered. Similarly the WTO is trying to introduce the withdrawal of subsidies to poor farmers. If this happens conservation cannot be realised as farmers will be forced to overexploit resources in order to survive. The point was made that developing countries only give assistance to local subsistence farming communities and this should not be viewed as a subsidy. There are problems with intellectual property rights (IPR) in mountain areas. Protection of plants is a challenge as they are self replicating. Plant breeding and innovation are also ways of generating plants and should be taken into account in biodiversity discussions. Other participants noted that the access and benefit-sharing (ABS) provisions under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) did offer opportunities for communities to benefit from biodiversity, thus encouraging community-based conservation. Signatory countries should put the necessary policy and legal framework in place. The issue was to identify, capture, and generate revenue from local knowledge.

A further point was that not only biodiversity, but also indigenous communities and cultures should be a focus of conservation efforts. In some places, like the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), there is plenty of funding available, but it is not helping the indigenous population who are shifting cultivators and guardians (and to some extent developers) of the existing biodiversity. The impact and sustainability of large artificial wetlands like the Kapta and Loktak Lakes also need to be studied. It was pointed out that ICIMOD has some activities addressing issues related to shifting cultivation in the CHT areas.

What to monitor and why? The research focus

The focus is all important and some felt that although the concept was interesting it was still too wide. We need to be clear what we want to achieve. Among others, it was considered important to align with the research priorities of the regional countries. Really, we are interested in changes because they are important to people who get medicines, foods, and other essential services from the environment. The plea is to look at enough separate pieces so that we can make sense of the picture. We need to think holistically, but activities must be packaged into fundable pieces.


308

What to monitor and why and how? The research protocol

What are the critical elements involved in biodiversity research related to global change? Good protocols exist above the tree line (alpine biodiversity), but we have heard little about forest biodiversity and agrobiodiversity. The GLOCHAMORE strategy could be the basis for a joint protocol. For alpine regions, GLORIA would encourage extending the network in the HKH region, particularly to those countries without a site. There are several suitable possibilities, particularly in the west of Nepal and also in Bhutan. [A field trip on the 21st looked at one site in Nepal]. We should also remember that wetlands are often good indicators of climate change.

How? Networking and Partnership

It is important to have joint initiatives to make use of limited resources.

We need committed people, funds, and government blessings. It might be necessary to have a separate committee for each transect.

Overall, a strong ‘anchor’ is needed with a light and suitable facilitation mechanism, and ICIMOD could provide a useful basis and platform.

One possibility that should be investigated is to build stronger partnerships with universities and make use of the many graduates and postgraduates in the region.

Mountain Forum could provide a good basis for networking.

The session was concluded by the chair who commented that the overall strategy and way forward, as presented and discussed, had met the approval of the participants and that the major steps would be elaborated upon in the proceedings of the Conference.

The session was followed by a complementary session chaired by Dr Greenwood, in which partners were identified for specific tasks, especially networking, carrying out follow-up activities, and sharing information.


309

Part 2: A Way Forward

Chair: Dr Gregory Greenwood Rapporteur: Mr Karma Phuntsho

Dr Greenwood noted that it was usually the enthusiasm of individuals that made many things happen and in order to gauge this enthusiasm he engaged the audience in a show of hands ‘poll’ to see what they thought the next steps could be. He asked the following questions, the audience’s responses are given in brackets.

First was a series of questions on group demographics. • Howmanyintheaudienceareinvolvedinresearch?(about50%).• Howmanyworkforgovernmentagenciesoraregovernmentemployees?(afew,about3

people)• Howmanycontrolabudgetofanykind?(afew,about3people)• Howmanyareinvolvedinmakingpolicyatanylevel?(afew,about4people)• HowmanyworkforNGOs?(many,about12people)• Howmanywouldremaininactivecontactwithotherparticipants?(about25%)

After this show of hands, Dr Greenwood concluded that most of the participants were involved in research. He continued by stating that the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) would need to manage transects as an ‘active’ task so, defining ‘active’ as five per cent of working time over the coming six months, how many would like to stay in active contact with ICIMOD and others on biodiversity as discussed at this conference? How many would be willing to give five per cent of their time to remain in touch with each other for the promotion of biodiversity conservation in the mountains? (A large number of participants expressed their willingness.)

• Howmanywouldbewillingtocontributedataorfightforfunding?(25-30%)PleasecontactDrEklabya Sharma.

• HowmanywouldbewillingtoworkwiththeGlobalObservationResearchInitiativeinAlpineEnvironments (GLORIA)? (about 10 people). Please contact Dr Harold Pauli.

• Howmanywouldbeinterestedinthestudyofplantsinmountainareas:- Invasive plants? Please contact Dr Greg Greenwood.- Aquatic plant biodiversity? (2-3 people)- The role that biodiversity plays in maintaining slopes? (more than 50%)

• GLORIAfocusesonresearchinalpineplants,buthowmanyotherprogrammeswouldbeinterested in biodiversity programmes that contribute to ecosystem services?

• Howmanywouldbeinterestedineducationprogrammesrelatedtobiodiversity?(about5people)


310

• HowmanywillgotoThomasSchaaf’sworkshop(UnitedNationsEducational,Science,andCultural Organization’s Man and Biosphere (UNESCO-MAB) programme tomorrow? (30%)

• Howmanyareinterestedinpastenvironmentalchange,paleoclimatology,paleoecology,ordendrochronology (tree rings)?

• Howmanyareinterestedinhowclimatechangeaffectsprotectedareasandcorridors?

After conducting this informal poll, Dr Greg Greenwood went on to conclude that the audience consisted mainly of researchers and that this was good, because, most likely, transect sites would start by being interdisciplinary research sites.• CouldICIMODconsiderpromotingtheapplicationoftheGlobalChangeinMountainRegions’

(GLOCHAMORE) strategy in the HKH?• Couldtransectsbeputintooperationbysettingupobservatories?• Howmanyareinterestedinaddressinglanduseandlivelihoodissues?• PublicationsonandabouttheHKHhavebeenaroundfor50-60years.Howmanywouldbe

interested in looking at publications about the qualitative aspects of climate change?• Howmanywouldbeinterestedinparticipatingindevelopingabookaboutclimatechangein

the HKH?• HowmanyareinterestedintheMonsoon-Asiaproject?• Howmanyareinterestedinpolicyresearchontopicssuchaspaymentforenvironmental

services? (10-15%)• Tourismincomebenefitsonlyabout20%ofthemountainpopulation.Howmanyareinterested

in sustainable tourism? How to change tourism so that it can benefit more people? How many are interested in policy research to find out how income distribution can be improved?

The enthusiasm that people have is what makes things happen; a lot of enthusiasm has been shown here today.

Discussion

Comments from the audience centred on the following topics.• Paymentforenvironmentalservicesisimportantforfuturework.• Inadditiontoenthusiasm,institutionswithamandatetomaintaincontinuityofdevelopment

programmes are needed.• Creatinggeo-referencedbiodiversitydatashouldbegivendueimportance.• Itisimportanttoinvolvetheyoungergenerationofprofessionalsinbiodiversityconservation.Itis

important to involve both individuals and institutions in biodiversity conservation initiatives.

Dr Karki (ICIMOD) added that it is important to study both past trends and to look forward. In particular, it is essential to look at the valuation of environmental services for PES schemes.

The Director General of ICIMOD, Dr Andreas Schild, commented that, in the scientific community, it


311

was not uncommon to encounter great enthusiasm during the first two to three years, but after that enthusiasm wanes and projects are abandoned: there is often no continuity and consistency because initiatives are too individualised. It is necessary to secure continuity as well as enthusiasm. Professor Christian Körner supported the idea that continuity is essential and went on to say that if there is continuity in data collection, then it is also possible to overlay and link data from different fields, giving great additional value to the data collected individually.

Mr Ukesh Raj Bhuju (Nepal National Committee of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature [IUCN] Members) added that it is so important to communicate enthusiasm to youths so that they can carry on the work. Dr Ashiq Ahmad Khan (WWF-Pakistan) supported this notion and gave the example of the ‘trophy hunting’ that he had initiated many years ago as a small effort. As the idea caught on it was taken up by government and other agencies and now contributes significantly to conservation and livelihoods. It is important to propagate one’s ideas.

Concluding Remarks

Remarks by HKH Regional Representatives, Global Programmes, and ICIMOD

Chair: Dr Eklabya SharmaRapporteur: Dr Isabella Bassignana Khadka

Dr LMS Palni, G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development (GBPIHED) spoke on behalf of all the HKH regional member countries.

Dr Palni commented on the growing regional awareness of the need for conservation and gave the example of the Indian Government, which had recently allocated 1,000 crores [1 crore = 10 million rupees] for the preservation of forests in mountain areas – the target being 66% forest cover. While this amount in itself is probably only a token, it is indicative of a general attitude on the part of the Government and of a realisation on its part of the need to link biodiversity with livelihoods. Dr Palni encapsulated the need to link biodiversity conservation with the needs of real people by saying that ‘conservation without compensation is only conversation’.

This conference has shown that there is a general agreement on the real need for a long-term programme for data collection and that this needs to start now. He also commented that, in the recent past, funding for research has been decimated to such a degree that many researchers have lost interest and have not groomed a new generation for the task. How to rekindle an interest in science among a new generation? Is field-based science an endangered species? Other constraints are those of funding, available manpower, and inter-governmental issues.

Professor Christian Körner, University of Basel, Switzerland, summarised discussions on behalf of the global programmes. He commented that, often, global programmes, including those


312

represented here, did not have big funding sources at their disposal and that more often than not their offices were manned by only one person. He gave the example of Graeme Worboys, IUCN, and the World Commission on Protected Areas (Eva Spehn) where in both cases the programmes are more or less manned by a single person. While these global programmes have the know-how, the actual funding has to come from elsewhere.

Professor Körner was of the opinion that all the data that had been collected to date had been paid for by the taxpayers and, for this reason alone, should be in the public domain.

He praised ICIMOD for having produced a significant number of publications (more than 500 books over the past 25 years) and for having convened many conferences and workshops. He went on to add that ICIMOD is much more than ‘noise and paper’ and that he has witnessed for himself the real impact that ICIMOD has had through its Godavari Demonstration and Training Centre. Many farmers in the immediate vicinity of the Centre have benefited from the improved methods disseminated by ICIMOD, and the difference they have made is impressive.

Dr Andreas Schild, ICIMOD, stated that changes are taking place worldwide, especially in mountain regions. These changes are due to globalisation, climate change, and other factors. There is recognition that mountains play a pivotal role and it is ICIMOD’s role to explain this at the local, national, and regional levels.

Dr Schild outlined the following important points. In taking on the challenges that change will bring, it is necessary to enthuse the youth of the region because they are the ones who will eventually be taking this on. There is a growing awareness of the changes that are taking place in the region and very specific approaches need to be taken in the mountains. Two countries in particular had been proactive in this area: China has already instituted payment for environmental services in mountain areas and India has just announced its national strategy for dealing with climate change and, within this plan, has specifically acknowledged the important role that Himalayan ecosystems play and the need to help conserve and preserve them.

What have we learnt from this conference? Professor Messerli emphasised the need for a regional transboundary approach and Professor Körner told us that we will need young people who are ready and willing to get their hands dirty. One thing is certain and that is that we will need a new generation of professionals who are enthusiastic and ready to take up research in the mountains.

The alpine region of the Himalayan region, which covers three per cent of the globe, contains four per cent of its biodiversity. There are many exciting possibilities for establishing corridors. One possibility is the Pakistan Karakorum corridor, another is the Afghanistan-Utarakhand-Nepal corridor; other exciting developments included developments in China where the government is involved in paying for environmental services to help herders reduce the size of their herds. Dr Schild acknowledged the concrete list proposed by Dr Chaudhary of Nepal. For this we need to


313

acknowledge the role that universities can play in cooperating with the Himalayan University Consortium – this will be of strategic importance in future. In this, farmers will also have a real role to play in capturing and preserving biodiversity in the mountains. Biodiversity is an essential element for sustainability in mountain areas – to produce viable products and prevent outmigration. Here it is necessary to identify success stories to use as leverage in discourse with policy makers.

Global programmes work because of individuals. How to focus on the essential? It is important that whatever course is chosen it is realistic and feasible. It will be ICIMOD’s task to convene a committee whose job would be to prepare a concept note outlining the essential elements – this would be used as a basic menu to be shared with the regional member countries (RMCs) and discussed and refined with them. Strong national institutions are needed as partners – ICIMOD will hold discussions with them to agree upon a minimum protocol.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has indicated that it would be willing to provide funding for studies in one specific corridor. One model that we can think of is having a minimum protocol common to all transect studies: in cases where funding is greater, additional elements could be incorporated. In any event, it needs to be clear that these studies are not for the short term. Could we not provide some concrete elements for the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Report #5 in cooperation with the RMCs?

It is necessary to link biodiversity with livelihoods because it will not be possible to convince relevant funding agencies to invest in science alone – whatever course is to be taken it must be tangibly in the best interests of the RMCs. One tangible argument is that products from the mountains could help to prevent outmigration. So far, the buy-in from global sponsors was showing that ICIMOD was on the right track in its approach to climate change and biodiversity conservation. Dr Schild thanked the ICIMOD staff.

Professor Messerli reflected on how very far we have come since the 1992 Rio Summit Agenda 21 Chapter 13 on Sustainable Mountain Development. This is a remarkable development, but it has taken 16 years to materialise. Now that mountains have been included, could we look forward to having ‘livelihoods’ included in the next Summit? Much work had taken place at institutions such as the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), Global Change in Mountain Regions (GLOCHAMORE), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), but perhaps they have over defined it – it is now our task to sift through this work and choose or focus on those aspects most relevant for transects in the HKH. Focusing will make it easier for intergovernmental cooperation and for funding agencies.

ICIMOD could be instrumental here. For each particular transect or site it will be necessary to decide upon the minimum information that could be contributed. More data could be contributed from sites with greater capacity. Transect sites should be selected keeping in mind that concrete data will need to be collected for a very long time. This could be done in conjunction or


314

collaboration with the United Nations Education, Science, and Culture Organization’s Man and Biosphere Programme (UNESCO MAB), Global Change in Mountain Regions (GLOCHAMORE), Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments (GLORIA), and Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA), or an integration of these. These could all then bring data up to the global level for information sharing. What would the role of ICIMOD be? ICIMOD could work with the RMCs to help sort out what is feasible and what monitoring can realistically be expected based on potentials and limitations.

What would the time scale be? We would need to think on a very long-time scale, maybe one generation, maybe 30 years.


315

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

GPO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal

Tel +977-1-5003222 Fax +977-1-5003299

Email [email protected] Web www.icimod.org

© ICIMOD 2009. All rights reserved

ISBN 978 92 9115 117 2

This publication is available in electronic form at

http://books.icimod.org

Documents

Proceedings of the International Mountain Biodiversity