rTP04J3

WORLD13ANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER193 Nx 1&1Ct) ASIATECHNICAL DEPARTMENT SERIES

. = a-~~t f -er-f:t.

Public Disclosure Authorized Conserving Biological Diversity A Strategy for Protected Areas in the Asia-Pacific Region

Susa:n Braatz in coElaboration with Gloria Davis, Susan Shen, and Colin Rees Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS

No. 129 Berkoff,Irrigation Management on the Indo-GangeticPlain No. 130 Agnes Kiss, editor, Living with Wildlife:Wildlife Resource Management with LocalParticipation in Africa No. 131 Nair, The Prospectsfor Agroforestryin the Tropics No. 132 Murphy, Casley, and Curry, Farmers'Estimations as a Sourceof ProductionData: Methodological Guidelinesfor Cerealsin Africa No. 133 Agriculture and Rural Development Department, ACIAR, AIDAB,and ISNAR,Agricultural Biotechnology:The Next "GreenRevolution"? No. 134 de Haan and Bekure, Animal Health in Sub-SaharanAfrica: Initial Experienceswith Alternative Approaches No. 135 Walshe, Grindle, Nell, and Bachmann, Dairy Developmentin Sub-SaharanAfrica: A Study of Issues and Options No. 136 Green, editor, CoconutProduction: Present Status and Prioritiesfor Research No. 137 Constant and Sheldrick, An Outlookfor FertilizerDemand, Supply, and Trade,1988/89-1993/94 No. 138 Steeland Webster,Small Enterpises under Adjustment in Ghana No. 139 Environment Department, EnvironmentalAssessment Sourcebook, vol. I: Policies,Procedures, and Cross-SectoralIssues No. 140 Environment Department, EnvironmentalAssessment Sourcebook, vol. II: SectoralGuidelines No. 141 Riverson,Gaviria, and Thriscutt, RuralRoads in Sub-SaharanAfrica: Lessons from WorldBank Experience No. 142 Kiss and Meerman, IntegratedPest Management and African Agriculture No. 143 Grut, Gray, and Egli, ForestPricing and ConcessionPolicies: Managing the High Forestof West and CentralAfrica No. 144 The World Bank/FAO/UNIDO/Industry Fertilizer Working Group, Worldand RegionalSupply and DemandBalances for Nitrogen,Phosphate, and Potash,1989/90-1995/96 No. 145 Ivanek, Nulty, and Holcer, ManufacturingTelecommunications Equipment in Newly Industrializing Countries:The Effectof TechnologicalProgress No. 146 Dejene and Olivares, IntegratingEnvironmental Issues into a Strategyfor SustainableAgricultural Development:The Caseof Mozambique No. 147 The World Bank/UNDP/CEC/FAO, Fisheriesand AquacultureResearch Capabilities and Needs in Asia:Studies of India,, , , the ,and the ASEAN Region No. 148 The World Bank/UNDP/CEC/FAO, Fisheriesand AquacultureResearch Capabilities and Needs in LatinAmerica: Studies of Uruguay,Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru No. 149 The World Bank/UNDP/CEC/FAO, Fisheriesand AquacultureResearch Capabilities and Needs in Africa:Studies of Kenya,Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Mauritania, Morocco, and Senegal No. 150 The World Bank/UNDP/CEC/FAO, InternationalCooperation in FisheriesResearch No. 151 The World Bank/UNDP/CEC/FAO, TropicalAquaculture Development: Research Needs No. 152 The World Bank/UNDP/CEC/FAO, Small-ScaleFisheries: Research Needs No. 153 The World Bank/UNDP/CEC/FAO, Small PelagicFish Utilization:Research Needs No. 154 EnvironrmentDepartment, EnvironmentalAssessment Sourcebook, vol. III: Guidelines for EnvironmentalAssessment of Energy and Industry Projects No. 155 Belot and Weigel, Programsin IndustrialCountries to PromoteForeign Direct Investment in Developing Countries No. 156 De Geyndt, ManagingHealth Expenditures under National Health Insurance: The Caseof Korea No. 157 Critchley, Reij,and Seznec, WaterHarvesting for Plant Production,vol. II:Case Studies and Conclusionsfor Sub-SaharanAfrica No. 158 Hay and Paul, Regulationand Taxationof CommercialBanks during the InternationalDebt Crisis (List continues on the inside back cover) WORLDBANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 193 ASIATECHNICAL DEPARTMENT SERIES

ConservingBiological Diversity

A Strategyfor ProtectedAreas in the Asia-Pacific Region

Susan Braatz in collaboration with Gloria Davis, Susan Shen, and Colin Rees

The World Bank Washington, D.C. Copyright X 1992 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/TmEWORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433,U.S.A.

All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing November 1992

Technical Papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank's work to the development community with the least possible delay. The typescript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibility for errors. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. Any maps that accompany the text have been prepared solely for the convenience of readers; the designations and presentation of material in them do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Bank, its affiliates, or its Board or member countries concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area or of the authorities thereof or concerning the delimitation of its boundaries or its national affiliation. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to the Office of the Publisher at the address shown in the copyright notice above. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally give permission promptly and, when the reproduction is for noncommercial purposes, without asking a fee. Permission to copy portions for classroom use is granted through the Copyright Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,U.S.A. The complete backlist of publications from the World Bank is shown in the annual Index of Publications, which contains an alphabetical title list (with full ordering information) and indexes of subjects, authors, and countries and regions. The latest edition is available free of charge from the Distribution Unit, Office of the Publisher, Department F, The World Bank, 1818H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433,U.S.A., or from Publications, The World Bank, 66, avenue d'Iena, 75116Paris, France.

ISSN:0253-7494

Susan Braatz was a consultant to the World Bank and is now an agroforestry specialist with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),Rome. Gloria Davis is division chief, Cohn Rees is principal ecologist, and Susan Shen is ecologist with the Asia Environment and Social Affairs Division in the Asia Technical Department of the World Bank. Foreword

Loss of biologicaldiversity through the extinc- require kistitutionalstrengthening, particularly tion of species,the conversionand degradationof in staff training and effective staff deployment, natural habitats,and the disruption of ecological and there is an urgent need to establish funding processes,is occurringthroughout the world at mechanismsto sustain the managementof pro- an unprecedentedrate. As speciesand their hab- tected areas. In addition, it will be criticalin the itats disappear, so do products of present and immediatefuture to enlist local communitiesin future value, geneswith which to improve crop the conservationof biological diversity and to varietiesand livestock,and the naturalresiliencies demonstratethat this can be achieved on a scale of the world's livingresources to respond to cli- commensuratewith current threats. matic and environmentalchange. Nowhere else Clearly,both public awareness and political is the loss of biodiversityexpected to be higher commitmentarenecessaryforbuildingasustain- during the coming decades than in the Asia- able levelof development that does not deplete Pacificregion. the biologicalresources on which it depends. To- The loss of biodiversityis irreversible.Recog- ward that goal,the strategy defined in this paper nizing this,the Asia EnvironmentDivision of the is intendedto complementexisting national and World Bank has prepared a paper intended to internationalinitiatives and to build partnerships identifypriority areas for investmentin the Asia- in conservationfor the 1990s.It is also intended Pacificregion. The paper acceptsthe importance to demonstrate the commitment of the World of lbiodiversityconservation and suggests that Bank to the conservationof biologicalresources policy changecoupled with the establishmentof and to the support of those engaged in such crit- protected area systemswill be criticalto success. ical work. A wide range of interventionswill be needed to support these efforts toward conserving biodiversity-interventions involving national ancl local governments, national and interna- Daniel Ritchie tionialnongovernmental organizations and, most Director importantly, local people. Nearly all countries Asia TechnicalDepartment Acknowledgements

This strategypaper was prepared with the as- The paper was reviewed by delegatesattend- sistance of a grant from the Royal Norwegian ing the Indo-Malayan RegionalWorkshop on Ministry of Development Cooperation,whose ProtectedAreas and Biodiversity(Bangkok, De- support is greatly appreciated. Susan Braatz cemberl991).IntheWorldBank,MalcolmJansen wrote the originalpaper and GloriaDavis, Colin and Hemanta Mishra of the Asia Environment Rees,and SusanShen contributed substantially to Division,and Sandy Davis, Robert Goodland, its elaboration.Eric Dinersteihand David Hulse Scott Guggenheim,Jan Post, MarioRamos, and (WWF-U.S.);Jeff McNeely,Jeff Sayer,Pat Dugan, KatrinaBrandon of the EnvironmentDepartment and VitusFernando (ucN);Svin Batvik(Director- also provided useful suggestions.The cover de- ate for Nature Management,Norway); and Chip sign was produced by Bill Fraser;the maps, by Barber (WRO)offered critical comments,as did JeffreyLecksell; and the typesetting,by Cynthia many others from conservation organizations Stock. Michael Wells, Pat Blair, and Charlotte around the world. Maxey undertook editing and final preparation of the paper for publication. Contents

Abbreviations, Acronyms,and Data Notes vii

Executive Summary ix

1. Introduction 1 The Nature of Biodiversity 1 The Significance of Biodiversity 1 The Decline of Biodiversity 2 Flameworksfor BiodiversityConservation 3 Note 6

2. BilodiversityStatus and Trends in the Asia-PacificRegion 7 Slecies Diversity and Endemism 7 Diminishing Natural Ecosystems 9 Notes 11

3. BiiodiversityConservation in the Asia-Pacific Region 12 ProtectedAreas in the Asia-PacificRegion 12 Factors Affecting Protected Area Management 16 Prospects for Improving Management of Protected Areas 21 Notes 22

4. Key Elementsof BiodiversityConservation 23 Improving the Policy Environment 23 Integrating Conservation and Development 25 Mobilizing Financial Resources for Biodiversity Protection 28

5, The World Bank and Biodiversity Conservation 32 Existing Bank Policies 32 Economic and Sector Studies 34 The Global Environment Facility 34 World Bank Projects with Biodiversity Components 37 Notes 37

6. A Regional Strategy for Biodiversity Conservation 38 General Considerations 38 PrioTitiesfor Conservation 38 Demonstration Effects 44 Gaps and Regional Priorities 45 vi Contents

Appendixes A. Data Tables 48 B. Lists of Important Sites for Biodiversity Conservation 51 C. The Global Envrionment Facility 60

References 63

Maps 1. The Asia-PacificRegion 2. Habitat Remaining in Indo-Malayan Realm 3. Priority Areas for Conservation

Tables Table 1. Major Ecosystems in the Indo-Malayan Realm 9 Table 2. Cover in the Asia-PacificRegion 10 Table 3. Wetlands in the Asia-PacificRegion 11 Table 4. Protected Area Systems in the Asia-PacificRegion 14 Table 5. Number and Area of Important Wetlands under Protection in the Asia-Pacific Region 15 Table 6. Priority Areas for the Conservation of Marine Biodiversity 17 Table 7. National Conservation Legislation and its Enforcement 18 Table 8. Government Agencies Responsible for Biodiversity Conservation 19 Table 9. National Conservation Budgets for Protected Areas 20 Table 10. Annual Funding of Biodiversity Conservation in the Asia-PacificRegion from International Sources 20 Table 11. International Conventions and Number of Sites Listed Under Them 22 Table 12. World Bank Projects with Biodiversity Components 35 Table 13. Priorities for Conservation 39

Boxes Box 1. Functions and Benefits of Natural Ecosystems 2 Box 2. Major Conservation Conventions and Agreements 4 Box 3. Wildlife Trade in Asia 5 Box 4. Functions and Benefits of a Protected Area System 13 Box 5. Studies on Priority Biodiversity Conservation Sites 16 Box 6. Integrating Conservation with Agricultural Policy and Planning 25 Box 7. Tools for Integrated Conservation and Development 26 Box 8. Three Integrated Conservation-Development Projects in Asia 27 Box 9. Nature-Based Tourism 30 Box 10. Genetic Property Rights 31 Box 11. Selected World Bank Economic and Sector Studies Covering Biodiversity Concerns 33 Box 12. Selected World Bank Projects with Biodiversity Components 36 Box 13. Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in the Island of Southeast Asia 40 Box 14. Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in Mainland Asia Megadiversity Countries 41 Box 15. Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in Small Countries with Species Richness 42 Box 16. Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in Mainland Southeast Asian Countries 43

Figure Figure 1. Estimated Numbers of Endemic Speciesand Total Speciesfor Asian and South Pacific Countries 8 Abbreviations,Acronyms, and DataNotes

AWB Asian Wetland Bureau BAPPENAS National Development Planning Bureau (Indonesia) CGIAR Consultative Group on Intemational Agricultural Research CIDA Canadian Intemational Development Agency CITES Convention on Intemational Trade in Endangered Species CNPPA Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas EAP Environmental Action Plan ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GEF Global Environment Facility IBPGR Intemational Board on Plant Genetic Resources ICBP Intemational Council for Bird Preservation ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Projects IPAS Integrated Protected Area System IRRI Intemational Rice Research Institute IUCN Intemational Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources IWRB Intemational Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau MAB Man and Biosphere Program (Unesco) NGO Nongovemmental organization SECAL Sector Adjustment Loan SPREP South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme TDRI Thailand Development Research Institute TFAP Tropical Forest Action Plan TRAFFIC Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme Unesco United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization USAID United States Agency for International Development WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre WRI World Resources Institute WWF World Wildlife Fund viii Abbreviations,Acronyms, and Data Notes

Data notes

Billion is 1,000 million. Dollars is U.S. dollars.

The budget figures for Tables 9 and 10 were obtained in local currency figures. To convert to the U.S. dollar equivalent, exchange rates from the International Financial Statistics 1990 (International Monetary Fund 1990) were used. The U.S. dollar equivalent was then divided by the country's GNP for 1988, the figure for which was obtained from Trends in Developing Countries (World Bank 1989), to derive the percentage of GNP that goes to conservation. Executive Summary

This strategy paper accepts the position that vive,or affluence,with its pressures to consume, setting up comprehensive and well-managed ultimatelyleads to greater environmentaldegra- protected area systems is likely to be the most dation, it is obviousthat poor people cannot con- practicalway to preserve the greatestamount of servenatural resourcesif this is in conflictwith the world's biologicaldiversity and the ecological their immediate survival needs. The greatest processesthat defineand mold it. Forthis reason, challengethen is to reconcilepeople's needs with it suggeststhat initialefforts should help support nationaland globalinterests in conservation. the establishmentand maintenanceof protected In Asia, as elsewhere, biodiversity loss is area systemsby promotingpolicy change,incor- caused by habitat destructionfrom clearingand porating local people into protected area man- burning , logging and agricultural en- aigernent,and mobilizingfinancial resources for croachment,draining and filling wetlands, de- conservationand protection. stroying coastal areas for development, and convertingnatural ecosystems for agriculture,in- Status and Trends in the Asia-Pacific dustry, and human settlement.South and South- Region east Asia togetherhave lost about 67 percent of their original wildlifehabitat. This includes the Biologicaldiversity, or biodiversity,encompasses loss of about two-thirdsof forest areas and over the varietyand abundanceof plants,animals, and half of wetlands, mangroves, and grasslands. microorganismsas well as the ecosystemsand Only the island of New Guinea (Irian Jaya and ecologicalprocesses to which they belong. Papua New Guinea) has large expanses of rela- The Asia-Pacificregion is markedby great geo- tivelyundisturbed habitatunder littleimmediate graphic and biologicaldiversity. It includes the threat. Poaching,hunting, collectionof valuable world's highestmountain system, the secondlarg- plants, introductionof exoticspecies, and pollu- estrainforestcomplex,more than half of theworld's tion also pose major threats to many wildlife coral reefs, and tens of thousands of diverse is- speciesand natural habitats. land systems.The region encompassessegments of three of the world's eight biogeographicdivi- Biodiversity Conservation in the Region sions,as wellas the Indianand the Pacificoceans. These characteristics account for tremendous Basicknowledge of conservationneeds in the speciesdiversity and high levelsof endemism. Asia-Pacificregion is fairly extensive.Biological Pressure on the region's biologicaldiversity is surveysand naturalarea assessmentsof the exist- intense,stemming from rapidly increasingpopu- ing protectedarea systemshave been carriedout lations (60 million annually) and demands for in most Asiancountries to identifysites of biolog- economicgrowth. Asia is the world's most pop- ical significanceand priorities for conservation. ulated region,with 13percent of the earth's land Theseprovide sufficientinformation on whichto area and 50 percentof its people, and it includes base effortsto strengthen national conservation someof the world's poorestcountries. More peo- systems. Informationis seriouslylacking only in ple live in povertyin Asiathan in Africaand Latin Papua New Guinea, the Maldives,and Cambo- jAmericacombined. Although it is by no means dia, and is not easilyaccessible for China.Various clear whether poverty, with its pressures to sur- regional studies by international nongovern- x ExecutiveSummary mental organizations (NGOs)provide, or will and illegal hunting of wildlife, logging, and agri- soon provide, lists of sites of regional or global cultural encroachment in parks and protected importance for conservation that will be useful in areas are common. Also, membership in interna- further defining priorities. tional conventions and treaties concerning biodiversity conservation is relatively low, partic- Status of Protected Areas. Protected areas are ularly among the Pacificisland nations. obvious sites for conserving biodiversity, and many countries in the region have made substan- InstitutionalStructures. Conservation in many tial efforts over the last two decades to improve countries is limited by administrative structures. their protected area systems. Nonetheless, the Generally, the responsibility for conservation re- protection of biological diversity in the region is sides with the Forestry Department where prior- weak, particularly in the Pacific island nations. ities have traditionally been on production, not Although 3.8 percent of Asia's total land area is protection. Most institutions are overcentralized designated as protected areas, a proportion equal and relate poorly to local governments. In addi- to the world average, many habitats are unrepre- tion, political support for conservation often is sented or under-represented. Even countries limited; thus the institutions lack the necessary with extensive systems have gaps in coverage, authority to carry out their responsibilities effec- and protection of wetlands and marine areas is tively and low morale becomes a problem. especially limited. While some countries have quite extensive protected area systems either in FinancialResources. Existing government ex- absolute size (China, Indonesia, and India) or in penditures are inadequate to assure the long- proportion to their total land area (Kiribati, term survival of protected areas. Although Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and Thailand), a number of estimates are difficult to verify, direct expendi- countries in the region have very weak systems tures range from $30 million to $35 million annu- or none at all (Lao People's Democratic Republic, ally, most of which is for acquisition of lands, , the Maldives, the Solomon Islands, preparation of management plans, and capital and Vanuatu). expenditures for infrastructure. Funds are se- Another more serious problem is that many of verely lirnited for operation of the protected the areas in the region designated as protected areas, including staff salaries, administrative areas are not adequately managed. A large num- costs, maintenance, law enforcement, education, ber are "paper parks," which although protected research, and monitoring. It is estimated that a by law, are unprotected, unmanaged, and lacking tenfold increase in the current levels of invest- in park infrastructure and on-site staff. Some ment is required to establish and maintain a sys- havebeen so degraded and theirbiological diver- tem sufficient for conserving biodiversity, and sity so depleted, that they are no longer worth that a minimum of $100 million per year is designation as parks. needed to cover only the recurring expenses of protected areas. Since many countries in the re- Factors in Protected Area Management. Re- gion do not have the absorptive capacity to effec- gardless of the comprehensiveness of a country's tively handle a large influx of capital, slow protected area system, biological diversity cannot sustained funding will be needed. be preserved unless there are adequate legal and institutional structures capable of managing the Human Resources. One of the most critical protected areas. The paper discusses the essential problems facing conservation agencies in Asia is elements of sound conservation. the lack of well-trained staff, including field staff, mid-level managers, and top-level conservation LegalFramework. Although all governments, planners and administrators. This is particularly with the exception of Cambodia, Lao P.D.R., and acute in Bhutan, China, Indonesia, Nepal, the the Maldives, have basic legislation related to Philippines, and Sri Lanka, countries with rela- wildlife protection and the establishment of con- tively well-developed systems that need im- servationareas,muchofitisweakandisfocused proved management. It is also a serious on particular species or types of organisms rather bottleneck for countries that wish to establish than on habitats. A more critical problem is that protected area systems, suchas Lao P.D.R.,Papua enforcement of conservation legislation is poor, New Guinea, Viet Nam, and the Pacific island ExecutiveSummary xi nations. Thus, there is a criticalneed to develop try. One of the policies that negatively affects conservation training programs in the Asia- biodiversityis the transferof forestland to public Pacificregion, including in-servicetraining for ownership, leading to the breakdown of tradi- field staff, graduate and post-graduatetraining tional regulation under customary law. This is for mid- and upper-level staff, and training of further compounded by the inability of most conservationeducators. Training is needed not Asian governments to enforce forestry regula- only in the more traditional conservationsub- tions.Forestry policies that promotewood extrac- jects, but also in working effectivelywith local tion and wood processingindustries, may result communities. in more logging and wasteful and destructive practices.Agricultural policies may acceleratethe TheRoleofNGOS. Nongovernmentalorganiza- conversionof forests,rangelands, and wetlands tions contributeto biodiversityconservation by to agriculture,and encouragethe overuseor mis- playingan advocacyrole, implementing projects, use of pesticides and fertilizers. Development encouraginglocal support and participation,and policiesmay allowlevels of effluentsfrom power mobilizingfinancial resources from the interna- plantsandindustriesthatadverselyaffectaquatic tional donor community.However, only a few ecosystems. Asiancountries (India, Nepal, the Philippines,Sri Lanka,and Thailand)have large NGOcommuni- Integrating Conservation and Development. ties,and relativelyfew NGOsare involvedin con- Enforcementis unlikelyto be a long-term solu- servation.Strengthening local and nationalNGOs tion to the protectionof parks and reserves,par- in the region,therefore, will be an important step ticularly in poor and densely populated areas. in rnaking links between conservationand the Consequently, the successful management of needs of local communitiesand increasingna- protected areas will depend ultimately on the tionalcapabilities and absorptivecapacities. cooperationand support of localpeople. It is not justifiableto ask communitieswithin or adjacent PoliticalCommitment. Throughout Asia, gov- to a conservation area to bear the costs of protec- ermnent commitmentvaries widely, and there tion without providing adequate alternative appears to be little correlation between a meansof livelihood. country's ability and its willingnessto pay for However,despite discussionfor at least a de- conservation.For example, Bhutan, one of the cade, there have been few initiativesto reconcile poorestcountries in the region,has devoted more the needsof localpeople with conservation.Inte- than 0.2 percent of total public expendituresto grated conservationand development projects biodiversityconservation. Another indicator of (ICDPs)are stll experimental,and mosthave been commitmentis membershipin internationalcon- small and highly dependent on external re- servationconventions. India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri sources. Promoting these activitieson a larger Lanka,and Viet Nam are activemembers in such scalewill be necessary. organizations,but generallyAsian participation Womenarecritical to biodiversityprotection in in these effortshas been limited. developingcountries. They often do most of the work of gathering medicines, firewood, and Key Elements in Biodiversity growing subsistencecrops. Becausewomen typ- Conservation ically make economicuse of a wider range of productsthan men, theyhave a greaterinterest in This paper focusseson three elementsthat are sustainingbiological resources. Accordingly, the criticalto conservationprograms. participation of women in planning and im- plementing projects that involve natural re- Improving the Policy Environment. A wide sources will be a necessarystep in biodiversity range of policies, laws, and regulations result conservation. directly or indirectly in the depletion of biodiv- ersity or work at cross-purposesto its conserva- MobilizingFinancialResources. A number of tion. These "perverse"policies include economic options exist to increasefinancing for biodiver- and fiscal policiessuch as land ownership and sity conservation.Most important are those in- resource tenure policies,and sectoralpolicies in tended to mobilizeresources domestically, such agriculture,forestry,fisheries,energy,andindus- as taxes and levies on natural resource usage, xii ExecutiveSummary tapping revenue streams from development pro- A Regional Strategy for Biodiversity jects that have an impact on biodiversity, or Conservation charges for private sector use (tourism and ge- netic property rights, for example). New channels Programs and Country Priorities. Since every for intemational assistance (for example, trust country in the region has protected areas of inter- funds and endowments) will also be important. national significance, most of which are under Although experience with these mechanisms is threat, and since virtually all countries require limited in the region, the paper highlights some additional technical and financial support to con- of their benefits and risks. serve their biological resources, national pro- grams will need to be supported in all countries The World Bank and Biodiversity of the region. However, a regional strategy must Conservation give highest priority to the countries with the greatest wealth of diversity (Indonesia, China, The Wildlands Operational Note and the Envi- India, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and the ronmental Assessment Operational Directive Philippines). It should also give priority to those provide the framework for World Bank support with high numbers of species or endemics per of biodiversity conservation. In addition, the re- unit area (Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Pa- cent Bank publications The Forest Sector (1991) cific island nations of Fiji and Solomon Islands). and Strategyfor Forest SectorDevelopment in Asia Secondary emphasis should be given to the coun- (1992b) reflect expanded emphasis on conserva- tries of Indochina that have moderate species tion in tropical forests. richness and endemism but substantial natural Developing biodiversity conservation compo- habitat under threat (Cambodia, Lao P.D.R., nents in investment projects has been supported Myamnar, and Thailand). by the Technical Assistance Grant Program for Where sites of worldwide significance are the Environment, by funds from the Japanese and identified, a major effort should be made to pro- Norwegian governments, and most recently, by tect them; however, in Asia the focus needs to be the Global Environment Facility (GEF). These fa- on developing and maintaining systems rather cilities provide funds for preparation activities than single sites. Investment in the region would and, in the case of the GEF, will finance investment generally be more effective through conservation activities in biodiversity conservation. measures that have an impact beyond protected The GEF is a pilot program to help developing areas. Such measures include supporting policy countries address global environmental prob- change, promoting linkages between small- lems. Since the first GEF proposals in December holder development and conservation, mobiliz- 1990, governments, implementing agencies, and ing financial resources,strengthening institutional NGOShave proposed a wide variety of projects capacity,and developing model projects. related to biodiversity protection. To date, thir- teen biodiversity proposals for the Asia-Pacific Demonstration Effects. Of these wide-ranging region, totalling over $100million have been pro- conservation measures, three have been identi- visionally accepted or are under review. If this fied as critical for protecting biodiversity in the pipeline develops as expected, there will be at Asia-Pacificregion: modifying policies that have least one biodiversity initiative supported by the adverse impacts on biodiversity; demonstrating GEF in most countries in the region. new ways of reconciling the needs of local people Other biodiversity activities currently under with the need to protect areas; and ensuring the way in the Asia-Pacific region with World Bank sustainablity of investments through domestic support, involve establishing and maintaining resource mobilization. The Bank can help by protected areas as components of larger agricul- designing projects demonstrating new ap- tural and natural resource projects. The project proaches to these issues. components include compiling biological inven- tories and databases, developingtraining programs, Analytical Work. Environmental action preparing management plans and providing infra- plans and other country and economic sector structure for specificprotected areas. The compo- studies will be essential to analyzing the policy nents also include studies of needed policy forces behind biodiversity loss, to identifying changes and guidance on the establishment of specific reforms for reducing the threat or creat- buffer zones and new financing mechanisms. ing incentives to conserve, and to mobilizing ExecutiveSummary xiii public support for protection.There is also an gionalstrategy is needed for the mainland south- urgent need to establishor strengthenin-country east Asian countries of Cambodia, Lao P.D.R., biodiversitydatabases for analysisof conditions Myamnar, and Viet Nam, taking into account and trends and use in decisionmaking. their ecologicalconditions and stage of economic development. Gaps. To date, attempts to conserve bio- diversity have concentratedon promotingcom- The Bank's Role. Given its comparative ad- prehensive protected area systems. However, vantage in policy analysis and sector work, the parallel efforts should be made to conserve Bank can contribute to biodiversity protection biodiiversityin the context of agricultural and throughcountry and economicsector studies and other landuse activities.A study of how ex-situ through national biodiversityaction plans. The methods can best support biodiversityconserva- Bank is also well placed to support efforts to tion in protected areas alsowould be useful. reconcile people's needs with conservation. A Concerted efforts by governments and local foundation has been laid by the early ICDPs, and international NGOs are also needed to in- which should be expanded where there is the crease public awarenessof the importance and greatest potential for success. Further projects value of biodiversity.To enhance these efforts,it should strengthen the institutions required, en- will lbeessential to strengthendeveloping coun- sure that the policy and legal environment is t:ry NGOS and promote their participation in favorable,provide long-termfunding, and pro- biodiversitypolicymaking and planning. mote popular awarenessand support for conser- A regional strategy is needed to protect wet- vation initiatives.The GEFcan play a supportive lmndsand marine ecosystems,and also a subre- role for theseendeavors.

1l Introduction

lJnless immediate, decisive steps are taken to The Nature of Biodiversity coumterthe effectsof deforestationand other forms of natural resource destruction in the Asia-Pacific Biological diversity, or biodiversity, encom- region, much of Asia's biodiversity will be irre- passes the variety and abundance of plants, ani- versibly lost within this generation. Most of these mals, and microorganisms as well as the losses will take place in species-rich lowland ecosystems and ecological processes to which tropical rainforests, few of which are expected to theybelong. Biodiversitvis usually considered at rernain undisturbed, other than those in pro- three levels: genetic, species, and ecosystem di- tected areas. But losses will also be high in many versity. Genetic diversity is the total genetic infor- of the region's dry forests and grasslands, as well mation contained in the genes of individual as :infreshwater, coastal, and marine ecosystems. organisms. Species diversity refers to the variety Over the next quarter of a century, the Asia-Pacific of living organisms. Ecosystem diversity relates region is expected to lose a higher proportion of to the enormous diversity of habitats and biotic its species than any other part of the world. communities, as well as to the variety of ecologi- The objective of this strategy paper is to identi- cal processes within ecosystems (McNeely and fy the countries and areas in the Asia-Pacificre- others 1990). gion that should receive priority for the Remarkably little is known about species di- conservation of biodiversity, taking into account versity in quantitative terms. Estimates of the the value of their biological diversity and the total number of species on earth range from 2 urg,ency for their protection (the degree of threat million to 100 million, of which less than 1.5 and the existing level of protection). The paper million have been named, and only a small frac- focuses on actions required to protect a large tion of these have been considered for their eco- representativesampleof theregion'snaturalhab- nomic value (Reid 1992).Reid and Miller (1989), itat, on the assumption that habitat conservation among others, have estimated that 5 to 10 percent will be the most effective means to protect most of these species are presently being lost each de- species, genetic variability, and ecological diver- cade, a rate not seen since the dinosaurs died out sity and processes. In proposing the strategy, the 65 million years ago. Population growth and cli- paper indicates which countries have demon- matic changes could accelerate such extinctions strated political commitment to conservation and even beyond these figures. have built institutional capabilities, and identifies actions needed to strengthen institutional frame- The Significance of Biodiversity works for conservation. It also discusses issues related to the financing and management of pro- Economic Benefits. The most politically ap- tected areas in the region and describes policies pealing and economically attractive argument in that have had adverse impacts on biodiversity in favor of maintaining biodiversity is that it pro- general. Finally, the report discusses the role of vides enormous direct economic benefits in the the World Bank in supporting conservation ef- form of food, medicines, and industrial raw forts in the region and outlines a regional strategy materials, and has the potential for generating for conserving biological diversity, particularly many more (Ehrlich and Wilson 1991;McNeely in protected areas. 1988). Thus, tropical forests produce timber, as 2 ConservingBiological Diversity well as an extraordinary range of plant and ani- mal products that do not, for the most part, pass Box1. Functions and Benefits of Natural through formal economic markets (de Beer and Bosystems McDermott 1989). The genetic richness of wild Ecosystems plants is indispensable for developing new agri- * Photosyntheticfixation of solar energyand cultural and medicinal varieties. In addition, transferenceto naturalfood chains. many countries earn substantial foreign ex- * Regulationof water cycles,including re- change from natural ecosystems with touristic charging groundwater, protecting water- values. These direct economic values of sheds,andbufferingtheeffectsoffloodsand biodiversity are, conceptually at least, rather easy droughts. to quantify and value, even though relevant sci- * Regulationof climateat macro-and micro- entific and economic data are lacking in all but a levels,including influences on temperature, handful of examples. precipitation,and air turbulence. * Productionof soilsand protectionof soils Services to Humanity. Biodiversity supplies fromerosion. the working ingredients for natural ecosystems * Storageand cyclingof essentialnutrients- that provide an array of essential services to hu- especiallynitrogen, and maintenanceof the gaseouscomposition of the atmosphere,in- manity: keeping the air clean, modifying climatic cluding the oxygen-carbondioxide balance. extremes, degrading wastes, recycling nutrients, * Absorptionand breakdown of pollutants, creating soils, controlling diseases, regulating hy- including the decomposition of organic drological cycles, and so on (seeBox 1). Although wastes, pesticides,and air and water con- these services have yet to be systematically eval- taminants. uated and quantified, they are clearly basic to * Preservationof species critical to pollina- economic growth and development; and scien- tion, pest control,gene flow,cross-fertiliza- tists and conservationists fear that destruction of tion, and maintenance of evolutionary natural ecosystems and their associated species processes. in the long run undermine the earth's ability Directbenefits to humanity-for food, med- may allty. icies and indstia raw materials.arn to support diverse forms of life, including human icies, and mdustrialraw matenals. life. Source: Adapted from McNeely 1988 and Ehrlich and Wilson 1991. Ethical and Aesthetic Justifications. Despite the fact that they are the least quantifiable, for many people ethical and aesthetic arguments in favor of biodiversity conservation are the most Other reasons for loss include the overexploita- compelling of all. The ethical viewpoint is that tion of plants and animals, invasion by intro- plants and animals have an intrinsic value that is duced species, air and water pollution, and the independent of their value for humanity and, prospect of climate change. Ultimately, however, therefore, that monetary valuations are not the the current threat to biodiversity results from a most appropriate criteria on which to base complex variety of underlying social, economic, biodiversity conservation decisions. The aes- political, and cultural forces and trends operating thetic justification is that many species of wild on local, national, and international scales. These plants and animals, and the ecosystems of which influences are so complex that it is probably not they are integral parts, are a source of irreplace- an overstatement to refer to them as being able wonder, spirituality, and inspiration to hu- "rooted in the contemporary human condition" manity (Ledec and Goodland 1988). (Soule 1991). Economic externalities, adverse govermnent policies, human population growth, The Decline of Biodiversity and poverty are among the most powerful of these influences, and these factors are themselves In Asia, as elsewhere, the most important direct strongly interconnected. cause of biodiversity loss is habitat destruction Rapid population growth is often cited as the from clearing and burning forests, draining and basic cause of habitat destruction, with accom- filling wetlands, destroying coastal areas for de- panying loss of biodiversity. This is of funda- velopment, and converting natural ecosystems mental importance in Asia, where 13 percent of for agriculture, industry, and human settlement. the world's land area supports 50 percent of the Introduction 3 world's population, and where 60 million people as a whole. Because of this conflict, the socially are added to the region's population each year desired outcome-conservation of ecosystems (Appendix Table A.1). But the relationship be- yielding valuable services to humanity-will not tween population growth and environmental be reached by the operation of market forces that degradation is complex and variable. It is clearly depend on private values. The promise of long- mediated by social, economic, and institutional term economic benefits to countries and the inter- factors that influence how people use natural national community can appear abstract to the resources as well as by the technologies em- people, politicians, and corporations who are plo:yed, more concerned with short-term economic gains, Poverty isasecond factor affectingbiodiversity particularly where poverty is widespread. Even loss in the Asia-Pacific region. Although it is by wealthy countries continue to justify the conver- no means clear whether poverty, with its pres- sion and degradation of their natural areas to sures to survive, or affluence, with its pressures satisfy short-term econonmicinterests. Until eco- to consume, ultimately leads to greater environ- nomic systems take into account the value of mental degradation, it does seem clear that poor biodiversity, these conflicts will remain. people will not, indeed, cannot, conserve biodiversity if this requires looking beyond their Frameworks for Biodiversity Conservation imrnediate needs. Those in poverty have limited acciessto resources and few income-generating The arguments in favor of slowing habitat and opportunities, and usually their living conditions biodiversity loss are powerful, but they provide are affected by laws, policies, social changes, and little guidance on how much biodiversity should economic forces over which they have little or no be conserved, where it shoulklbe conserved, and con,trol. what alternatives are worth pursuing. However, Poorly conceived and inconsistent govern- a number of documents and conventions have mental policies are another root cause of biodi- laid the basis for such prioritization. Several of versity loss. For example, one governmental the most important recent initiatives are dis- agency may be charged with halting deforesta- cussed here. tion, while another attempts to encourage crop The GlobalBiodiversity Strategy, published in exports by subsidizing farmers to clear land (WRI February 1992, is an internationally sponsored 1992). Policies that award titles to settlers or attempt to clarify some of the issues. This docu- ranchers to 'improve" land by clear cutting for- ment was developed by more than 500 scientists, ests generally lead to the loss of biodiversity, as community leaders, and representatives of gov- do modem land laws that destroy the community emient and industry from around the world, property systems of the few remaining hunting who were brought together under the auspices of and gathering societies. Furthermore, the activi- the World Resources Institute (WRI),the Interna- ties and policies of industrial countries and mul- tional Union for Conservation of Nature and Nat- tin,ational companies may ultimately cause as ural Resources (IUCN), and the United Nations much, if not more, of the biodiversity loss in Environment Programme (UNEP), in collabora- developing countries as do factors originating tion with the Food and Agriculture Organization within the countries themselves (Stone and Ham- (FAO) and the United Nations Educational, Scien- ilton 1991). tific, and Cultural Organization (Unesco). The Market forces tend to undermine biodiversity Strategy indicates that the goal of biodiversity by undervaluing the use of environmental re- conservation is to support sustainable develop- sources, whether by the poor or the rich. Indeed, ment by protecting and using biological re- biodiversity is almost totally ignored in national sources in ways that do not diminish the world's economic accounts because of the difficulty of variety of genes and species or destroy critical placing an exact value on the services it provides habitats. It sets forth basic principles to guide (Repetto and others 1989).Furthermore, there is biodiversity planning at local, national, and often a basic conflict between private resource intemational levels over the next decade, and use and long-term social and environmental suggests actions that could postpone a species- goals. Private costs and benefits guide the deci- extinction crisis and stabilize key genetic re- sions made by the users of natural resources, but sources. Locally,the strategy calls for community the costs of that resource use are frequently borne organizations, local governments, and other tra- by someone other than the user, often by society ditional users of natural resources (such as 4 ConservingBiological Diversity

Box 2. Major Conservation Conventions and Agreements

The Man and the Biosphere Program (1970).MAB is authorities must be designated by each state to grant a long-term program on research,training, and infor- and review theConvention permits; records of permits mation exchange among states concerning environ- granted are supposed to be sent annually to the Con- mental management; it was organized by the Unesco vention Secretariat for review (though many parties General Conferencein November1970. The program are not complyingwith this provision).The Secretariat provides for the protection and scientificstudy of a is provided by UNEP. globalnetworkofbiosphere reserves.Research focuses The Conventionon the Conservationof Migratory on the relationshipbetween conservation and sustain- Speciesof WildAnimals(Bonn 1979). The Convention, able use of natural resources. in force since 1983,obligates parties to protect endan- The Convention on Wetlands of International Im- gered migratoryspecies and to try to conclude interna- portance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar tional conservation agreements for vulnerable species 1971).Contracting parties undertake to use wisely all that are not yet endangered. No such agreementshave wetland resources under their jurisdictionand to des- come into force, but several are likely to be im- ignateforconservationat leastone wetland of interna- pleimentedbythe mid-1990s.The thirty-sixcontracting tional importance under criteria provided by the parties do not yet include several countries of major Convention. By 1990, the 61 contracting states had importancefor migratorybirds. Somefifty-one migra- designated over 421 sites coveringmore than 300,000 tory speciesare listed as "endangered"by the Conven- squarekilometers. Nations facing economicconstraints tion, including four species of whales, severalspecies have had difficultyin meeting their obligations.As a of antelopes,twenty-four bird species,and six marine consequence,in 1990parties voted to establish a Wet- turtles. The Convention precludes commercialtaking land ConservationFund, built on mandatory and vol- of listed species;it also encourages member states to untary contributions, with an annual budget of conserve and restore habitat areas for migratory spe- approximately $660,000.Parties meet at least every cies.The Secretariatis provided by UNEP. three years, and the Secretariatis provided by IUCN. The FAOInternational Undertaking on Plant Ge- The Convention Concerning the Protection of the netic Resources (Rome 1983). This voluntary agree- WorldCultural and NaturalHeritage (Paris 1972).The ment among nations is based on the principle that plant Convention,in forcesince 1975,recognizes the obliga- genetic resources are the common heritageof human- tion of all statesto protect unique natural and cultural kind. A Commissionon Plant GeneticResources was areas and recognizestheobligationof theinternational also establishedin 1983 to pursue actions pursuant to community to help pay for them. A World Heritage theInternationalUndertaking.Atits 1987meeting,the Committee, drawn from the 111 State Parties, Commissionestablished an internationalFund for the establishes and publishes the World Heritage List of Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic Re- sites of exceptional cultural or natural value; as of sources,based on voluntarycontributions. The Under- January 1991,337 sites were on the list, of which only taking initiallyattempted to ensure the full exchange 79 are natural, and a further 13 combine both natural of genetic resources (includingbreeding lines an fin- and cultural values.Each party must contribute to a ished varieties).However, at the 1987 meetingof the fund to support these sites and related research;con- Commission,the right of plant breeders to protect their tributions are set at 1 percent of contributions to the breeding lines was recognized, as were "Farmers annual budget of Unesco,currently totallingapproxi- Rights" to compensationfor their contribution to the mately$2 million.The "List ofWorld Heritage in Dan- selectionand conservationof genetic diversity ofcrops ger" covers sites threatened by serious and specific and livestock.As of 1991,111countries are membersof dangers. Its Secretariatis provided by Unesco. the Commissionand 101have adhered to the Interna- Theon Conv.ntion InternationalradeinEndange tional Undertaking. The Secretariat for the Commis- 7TheConvention on International TradeinEndangered so shue tFO Species of WildFauna andFlora (Washington 1973).The sion is housed at FAO. Convention (CITES)has been in force since 1975 and is Convention for the Protection of the Natural Re- currently ratified by 111 States; it establishes lists of sources and Environment of the South Pacific Region endangered species for which internationalcommer- (Noumea1986). The Noumea Convention,as a UNEP cial trade is either prohibited or regulated via permit RegionalSeas Convention, promotes regional cooper- systems to combat illegal trade and over-exploitation ation in the environmentalprotection and natural re- (seeBox 3). Inclusionof species in the most restrictive sources managementof marine and coastal areas.The categoriesrequires a two-thirdsmajority of the Parties signatoriesrecognize the economicand socialvalue of to the Convention;the least restrictiveinclusions may natural resources in the region, while addressing the be made by a single party. A Conferenceof Parties (at threats to the marineenvironment and ecologicalequi- whichNGOs have been well-represented)is held every librium that are posed by pollutionand development. two years. The Convention has financed population The Conventionwas enforced in 1990. studies of particular speciesto attempt to curb further endangerment. National management and scientific Source:WRI/IUCN/UNEP 1992. Introductfon 5 women and indigenous people) to participate in establish methods to conserve at the site of origin decision-making and biodiversity protection. It and elsewhere, to regulate access to genetic re- urges nlational biodiversity action plans, policy sources, and to transfer technology relevant to the reforms, better management, and more invest- conservation and sustainable use of biological ment in biodiversity conservation. At the interna- diversity on mutually agreed terms. The country tional level, the strategy calls for the adoption of studies that were produced in preparation for the a convention on biodiversity as well as other Convention have proved useful to documenting con,servation agreements. The Convention on Bi- the status of biodiversity and the benefits and ological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro 1992) was draft- costs of conservation (UNEP1992 a and b). ed by international working groups, facilitated by Existing international agreements already pro- UNEP, and signed by 157 countries at the United vide some mechanisms for identifying and pro- Nations Conference on Enviromnent and Devel- tecting sites of global biodiversity significance, opment (UNCED).The principal objectives of the along with some funds for their support (see Box Conveintion are the conservation of biological di- 2). These include the World Heritage Convention, versity, the sustainable use of its components, which has named eleven natural sites in the de- ancl the sharing of the benefits that come from the veloping countries of Asia as being of global sig- use of genetic resources. To achieve these objec- nificance; the Ramsar Convention, through tives, the Convention requires the signatories to which twenty-six regional wetland areas have identif importantareasofbiologicaldiversity, to been listed; and Unesco's Man and the Biosphere

lBox 3. Wildlife Trade in Asia

Hunting and trapping for trade can endanger endangered). Musk deer, native to Bhutan, India, individual species. It is estimated that total trade in and Nepal, also is a protected species; but musk oil wildlife and wildlife products worldwide amounts is a valuable 'medicinal product in Asia, and in the to a minimum of $5 billion annually, and that 25-33 first third of 1987 alone, nearly 55,000were killed to percent of that trade is illegal (wRI1988). The Con- supply the musk oil imported to Japan (WRI1988). vention on International Trade in Endangered Spe- The Asian consumption of rhinoceros products, cies--through a system of export, import and however, is perhaps the most serious problem of re-export permits-forbids trade in listed endan- illegal trade in wildlife. Though rhino horn is the gered species and restricts trade in species at risk of most valuable part, rhinos are killed for various becoming endangered (seeBox 2). Although crrEsis products, and since only 1970, 84 percent of the regarded by many as successful, major problems world's rhinoceros population has disappeared. include the behavior of nonparticipating nations About 2,400Asian rhinos and only about 55 of the and lax enforcement. Only two Asian developing Javan species are left. Rhino horn is used in tradi- countries are signatories, although a further eleven tional Asian pharmacology throughout China, have ratified the treaty (seeTable 11). Korea, Taiwan, and elsewhere in East Asia. Substi- Illegal trade is monitored for cITEsby the Trade tutes are apparently available but they have not Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce found broad acceptance. (TRAFFRCOnetwork, affiliated with wwF-Interna- Sustainable and regulated trade in wildlife prod- tional and rucN.According to TRAFfJCreports, Asia ucts has the potential to yield significant economic continues to be the leading consumer of four valu- benefits to developing countries. But the current able restricted wildlife products: ivory (though Af- pattern and scale of illegal trade in wildlife products rican elephant ivory sales have recently been seems likely to drive some species to extinction. banned), tortoise shell, musk oil, and rhinoceros Both rich and poor Asian countries have played a horn. For example, wRI (1988)-quoting various disproportionately large role in this trade. Greater sources-reported that Japan consumes, for its jew- support for and compliance with CITEsby all Asian elry and ornament industry, more tortoise shell nations would make an important contribution to from the hawksbill turtle than any other nation. biodiversity conservation. Japan can continue its trade because it took a reser- vation on the hawksbill when it joined CITESand so is not bound by the prohibitions that apply to a species listed in Appendix 1 of cUTEs(imminently Source:WRI 1988. 6 ConservingBiological Diversity

(MAB) Program, which has recognized twenty- constraints needingto beaddressed. However,as five biosphere reserves in the region. Appendix B protected areas represent only 3.8 percent of the shows the location of protected sites listed under land area in the Asia-Pacificregion, maintenance each agreement. Other international agreements of biological diversity on the 96 percent of land include the 1973 Convention on Intemational outside protected areas is also essential. This Trade in Endangered Species (CITES),which cov- theme is developed in Chapter 4. Chapters 5 and ers wildlife trade in Asia (see Box 3), and the 6 focus on the role the World Bank can play in Convention on the Conservation of Migratory supporting biodiversity conservation efforts in Species of Wild Animals (Bonn 1979).These can region, including the promotion and im- provide useful frameworks for cooperation in plementation of a regional strategy. protected area management or the conservation of threatened species. Note The following chapter outlines the state of biodiversity in the Asia-Pacific region and the 1. See also, Ehrlichand Ehrlich1981; Johnson and factors that threaten biodiversity over the next Alcorn1989; Ledec and Goodland1988; McNeely and decade. Chapter 3 concentrates on the urgent Miller1984; McNeely and others1990; Morowitz 1991; need to establish and maintain nationally desig- Norton 1987;OTA 1987;Reid and Miller 1989;and nated protected areas, and reviews some of the Wilson1988 and 1992. 2 Biodiversity Status and Trends in the Asia-Pacific Region

The Asia-Pacificregion is marked by great geo- ber of endemic species in the region are also graphic and biological diversity. It includes the found in China and Indonesia, with India, Papua world's highest mountain system, the second New Guinea, and the Philippines also having largest complex, more than half of the large numbers. world's coral reefs, as well as tens of thousands An analysis of species and endemism accord- of islands. The region encompasses segments of ing to biogeographic provinces and sub-units tiree of the world's eight biogeographic divi- produces a somewhat different picture of biodi- sions the Palaearctic, Indo-Malayan, and Ocean- versity in Asia, one that is less biased in favor of ien realms, as well as the Indian and the Pacific large countries. Thus, in the Indo-Malayan realm, oceans (see Map 1). These characteristics taken the greatest biological richness is found in the together-the biogeographic range, geographic tropical rainforests of Indochina (Viet Nam, Lao isolation, climate and altitude variation, and P.D.R., and Cambodia), south China, Indonesia, large number of diverse and isolated islands- Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and the Philip- account for Asia's tremendous species richness pines. Key areas for endemism indude (the number of species in an area) and high levels (Kalimantan, , and ), the Philip- of endemism (the occurrence of a species in a pines, Sulawesi (for mammals), and parts of In- certain locality or region only). dochina (MacKinnon and MacKinnon 1986; National Academy of Sciences 1980). In South .Species Diversity and Endemism Asia, the richest areas in terms of numbers of species and endemism are in India (the Westem Estimates of the number of species and en- Ghats, as well as Assam and other northeastern demic species for Asian and South Pacific coun- states), the eastem Himalayas (including eastern tries are shown in Figure 1. China and Indonesia Nepal and Bhutan), and the lowland moist forests are the most biologically diverse. Along with of southwestern Sri Lanka. India and Malaysia, they are among the twelve In the Oceanian realm, there is a gradient of so-called "megadiversity" countries which to- diminishing diversity from west to east. In the gether account for 60 percent of the world's spe- west, 75 percent of the 200 mammal species and cies (Mittermeierand Werner 1990). China spans 90 percent of the 11,000plant species in Irian Jaya the Palaearctic and Indo-Malayan realms, and and Papua New Guinea are endemic. The smaller has over 10 percent of the world's flowering island nations to the east have fewer absolute plants and about 10 percent of its mammals, numbers of species but have high levels of ende- birds, reptiles and amphibians. Indonesia, with mism, eitherperunit area or in proportion to their several thousand islands scattered across the total numbers of species (Dahl 1986).The islands ]hdo-Malayan and Oceanian realms, has more of highest conservation importance are: Viti Levi species of plants and birds than the entire African (Fiji);Rennell (the Solomon Islands); New Britain, continent, the highest number of mammals and Goodenough, and Bougainville (Papua New swallowtail butterflies in the world, and is among Guinea); New Caledonia, and Lord Howe Island. the top ten countries in the world for numbers of The waters of the central and westem Pacific flowering plants, birds, reptiles and amphibians and the Indian oceans together have the world's (BAPPENAS,Indonesia, 1992). The greatest num- highest diversity of fish and shellfish, several 8 ConservingBiological Diversity

Figure 1. Estimated Numbers of Endemic Species and Total Species for Asian and South Pacific Countries

Number of Endemic Species Total Number of Species

20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000

China . - E Indonesia MISl_Sm India T

* Malaysia ..

Thailand '

Papua New Guinea VietNam_ Philippines

Lao P.D.R.

Myanrunar_ Cambodia Nepal _

Bhutan

Pakistan

Bangladesh

. 11 Sri Lanka

SolomonIslands * Fiji

Vanuatu

Tonga

Maldives

Source: WCMC1992 times higher than that of the Eastern and Western world's, most pristine reefs are found in the Cen- Atlantic and the Eastern Pacific. Coral reefs, con- tral Pacific, particularly off the Solomon Islands sidered the marine equivalents of tropical and Vanuatu, while the marine resources of the rainforests because they support such diversity, Maldives and Papua New Guinea are also excep- are extensive, with eastern Indonesia (the tional. Despite the importance of marine re- MoluccasandIrianJaya)accountingforthegreat- sources, marine conservation in the region, as in est biodiversity. The region's, and possibly the the rest of the world, is still in its infancy. BiodiversityStatus and Trendsin theAsia-Pacific Region 9

D,iminishing Natural Ecosystems mated that only about one-third is still under forest cover. Bhutan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua Asia's biological wealth is fast diminishing (see New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands have re- Map 2). Overall habitat losses have been most tained large portions of their natural forest, but acute in the Indian subcontinent and China. The many of these areas are now threatened with rmajorecosystems in the Indo-Malayan realm are logging and agricultural encroachment. In addi- estimated to have lost almost 70 percent of their tion, excessive poaching, hunting, and nontimber original vegetation. Dry and moist forest have forest product collection, as well as introduction suffered 73 percent and 60 percent loss, respec- of exotic species and increasing pollution, all pose tively, while wetlands, marsh and mangrove major threats to specific species and habitats in have lost 55 percent of their original coverage (see the region (Raven 1988). Table 1). Bangladesh, India, southwest Sri Lanka, Much of this deforestation is recent. For exam- Viet Nam, coastal , -south and central ple, the proportion of forested land decreased Pakistan, Thailand, the island of Java in Indone- from 44 percent to less than 25 percent in Sri sia, and the central islands of the Philippines have Lanka between 1963 and 1981 (FAO1986), and experienced extensive conversion of their natural from 50 percent to 21 percent in Yunnan Province habitats. Coral reefs cover an area of 450,000 of China between 1949and 1988 (China Conser- square kilometers, of which 30 percent are con- vation Strategy, 1990).Thailand's forest cover de- sidered degraded. creased from 53 percent of the country's total area Although serious disturbances have taken in 1961 to 28 percent in 1988 and, by some esti- place on some islands, biological destruction has mates, will decrease to 20 percent in the early been less severe, on the whole, in the Oceanian 1990s(FAO 1981a and TDRI1987). Sixty percent of realrn. Nevertheless, lowland rainforests have Indonesia's land (about 1 million square kilome- been destroyed in Western Samoa and Tonga, ters) remains under natural forest, but 10,000 and are threatened in Fiji, the Solomon Islands, square kilometers per year are lost through a and parts of Papua New Guinea. Moreover, the combination of logging, forest fires, and shifting rate of species loss in the Pacific is among the cultivation (World Bank 1990a).About 90 percent highLestin the world, exacerbated by the high of lowland forests in the Philippines have disap- proportion of endemics in the area and the small peared in the past thirty years, causing massive population sizes. Only on the island of New losses in biodiversity, and only 5 percent of the Guinea are there large expanses of relatively un- land area remains under mature natural forest distiurbed habitat, including wetlands, which ap- (World Bank 1989a). parently face little immediate threat. This high rate of deforestation has changed hydrological regimes in the hills and caused ero- Forests. Deforestation is a serious problem in sion which, in combination with the loss of man- most of the region. Nearly all of Southeast Asia groves and destructive fishing practices, has led was forested a century ago, but now it is esti- to degradation of coral reefs and the depletion of coastal fisheries. In Viet Nam, forest cover was halved during the war years, with 20,000square kilometers of forests lost to chemical defoliants Table 1. Major Ecosystems in the alone. Uncontrolled logging, high population Indo-Malayan Realm growth in forested areas, and slash-and-burn Original Remainin, Percentage agriculture have also contributed to accelerating Ecosystem Area (km2) Area (km) Lost deforestation. Remote sensing data indicate that DryForest 3,414,064 940,145 72.5 about 20,000square kilometers of primary forest MoistForest 3,645,827 1,462,698 599 remain, with current losses estimated at 2,500 Grassland 106,250 40,025 62.3 square kilometers a year (Collins, Sayer, and Scrub/Desert 816,102 118,610 85.5 Whitmore 1991).Lao P.D.R. retains large tracts of Wetland/Marsh 463,596 210,474 54.6 relatively undisturbed forest cover (roughly 30- Mangrove 98,628 44,181 55.2 35 percent), but these forests are under increasing TOTAL 8,544,467 2,816,133 67.1 pressure from commercial exploitation and, in some locations, a growing population (Lao Forest Source:WRI 1990. Inventory and Management Office 1991). 10 Conserving BiologicalDiversity

The region-wide forestry statistics from FAQ'S of these factors can contribute to increased loss of global inventory compilation (FAO 1981b and biodiversity. 1988)provide a useful starting point for assessing Tropical forests vary in their biodiversity sig- the state of Asia's forests, even though the data nificance,and national deforestation statistics can are known to be somewhat inaccurate (FAOex- provide only general guidance to the most im- pects to publish a more reliable worldwide inven- portant areas for conservation. Myers (1988 and tory in 1992). In 1988, FAO reported extremely 1990)has identified areas of the world where the high deforestation rates (defined as more than 1.5 disappearance of already-threatened moist trop- percent annually) in China, Nepal, Sri Lanka, ical forests would cause the greatest losses of Thailand, and Vanuatu (seeTable 2). Subsequent biodiversity (see Map 3). In Asia, these "hot- data published by WRI in 1990 suggest that rates spots" include the remaining forests in the Phil- of deforestation are higher than previously ippines, , northwestern thought in several countries and that India, Bomeo (, Sabah, and Sarawak), the eastern Myanmar, the Philippines, and are also Himalayas (Nepal, Bhutan, northeast India, and losing their forests at more than 1.5percent a year. part of Yunnan Province in China), the Western Furthermore, biodiversity losses in forest areas Ghats in India, and southwestem Sri Lanka. In are likely to be greater than these figures suggest, Oceania, "hot-spots" include New Caledonia. because deforestation data do not usually include cases where forests are degraded but not cleared Grasslands. Overgrazing by livestock and and do not indicate the degree to which forests conversion to cropland are the principal threats are fragmented into relatively small areas. Both to Asia's natural grassland ecosystems. Between

Table 2. Forest Cover in the Asia-Pacific Region Land UnderNatural Forest Percentageof Total Annual Deforestation Country (thousandsof squarekilometers) LandArea in Forest Rate(percent) Solomon Islands 24.4 90 Papua New Guinea 381.8 82 0.1 Cambodia 126.5 70 0.2 Malaysia 210.0 64 1.2 Indonesia 1,169.0 61 0.5-0.8 Lao P.D.R. 136.3 58 1.0 Korea, Republic of 48.0 48 Myanmar 319.4 47 0.3-2.1 Western Samoa 1.4 47 Bhutan 21.4 46 0.1 Fiji 8.1 45 0.1 Philippines 95.1 32 1.0-1.5 Viet Nam 101.1 31 0.6-2.0 Thailand 156.8 31 2.4-2.5 Sri Lanka 16.6 25 3.5 Vanuatu 2.4 20 1.7 India 572.3 17 0.3-4.1 Nepal 21.2 15 4.0 China 1,150.6 12 3.9 Tonga <1.0 6 Bangladesh 9.3 6 0.9 Pakistan 24.8 3 0.4 Maldives Kiribati

Negligible. - Datanot available. Source:FAO 1988 for all figures,except the higher annual deforestationrates for Indonesia,Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam, Thailand,and India,which are fromWRI 1990. BiodiversityStatus and Trendsin the Asia-PacificRegion 11

1970 and 1985, the total area of permanent crop- Table 3. Wetlands in the Asia-Pacific Region land increased by 3.3 percent, whereas perma- nent pasture decreased by 2.8 percent. Large oflnternational areas of China's grasslands have already been Importance Percentage converted to agriculture and an estimated 30 per- (thousands of Sitesunder cent of those that remain are degraded (Chinese ofsquare Moderate Academy of Sciences 1990).On the Tibetan Pla- Country kilometers) to High Threat teau, traditional patterns of human migration be- China 163.0 39 tween the uplands and lowlands have been Papua New Guinea 101.0 15 dlisrupted, leading to overgrazing and serious Indonesia 87.8 57 degradation of grasslands. Virtually all grass- Bangladesh 67.7 82 liandson the Indian subcontinent are described as Viet Nam 58.1 26 overgrazed (wRI1988). Myanmar 54.9 56 Many pristine grassland habitats have been CambodiaIndia 36.554.7 6745 replaced by low-intensity agricultural ecosys- Malaysia 31.2 86 tems which are of considerable value, especially Thailand 25.1 47 to birds and small mammals; these too are threat- Philippines 14.1 69 ened by intensification and require considered Pakistan 8.6 50 management to maintain their character and Sri Lanka 2.7 68 worth (ICBP1991). Lao P.D.R. 2.2 67 Korea,Republic of 1.0 58 Nepal 0.4 36 Wetlands. Mangroves, marshes and inland Bhutan 0.1 40 bodies of fresh, brackish, and salt water support Maldives - - large numbers of aquatic and terrestrial organ- PacificIslands isms as well as waterfowl and shorebirds. More Note.The sites or areasgiven represent only thosesites iden- Ithan half of Asia's wetlands have been lost and tifiedin A Directoryof AsianWetlands (Scott 1989) as beingof imore than half of the mangroves in the Indo- internationalimportance and urgentlyin need of study; not .Malayan realm have been cleared, many for con- allofthewetlandsinanygivencountryorregionarereflected. version to aquaculture ponds (Scott 1989, and - Datanot available. Scott and Poole 1989). About 80 percent of the Source:Scott and Poole1989. remaining wetlands are in seven countries: Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, and Viet Nam (see Table 3). though the reefsof the IndianOceanand Western Of the wetland sites of international significance, Pacific are more degraded than those of the Cen- more than half are reported to be under pressure, tral Pacific (IUCN1988). More than half the coral with those in Bangladesh,coastal China, Malaysia, reefs in the Philippines and Indonesia are in ad- the Philippines, and Sri Lanka the most threat- vanced states of destruction, and comparable stud- ened. At least 50 percent of all sites are moderately ies would probably indicate similar, if not worse, or severely threatened in Cambodia, Indonesia, conditions in Thailand and Malaysia (White 1988). Lao P.D.R., Myanmar, and Pakistan. Relatively untouched wetlandsare found only in New Guinea, Notes where less than 20 percent are considered at risk. 1. Thebiogeographic system referred to here is that Marine Areas. The marine areas of the region of Udvardy (1975and 1984),the classificationsystem are under significant threat from the effects of most widely used for conservation planning. urbanization, industrialization, off-shoremining, MacKinnonand MacKinnon(1986), in theiranalysis of agricultural growth (increased soil erosion and the Indo-MalayanRealm, used a slightmodification of use of agricultural chemicals),overfishing and oil Udvardy's systemand further divided the provinces pollution. Sand and coral mining and destructive or units intosubunits. fishing practices (particularly overfishing, dyna- 2.The other eight "megadiversity"countries are Bra- miting, and poisoning) are threats in Southeast zil, Colombia,Ecuador, Peru, Mexico, Zaire, Madagas- Asia as well as in the Pacific island nations, al- car,and Australia. 3 BiodiversityConservation in the Asia-PacificRegion

Establishment of a system of national parks, are large or are a high proportion of their total wildlife sanctuaries and other kinds of protected land area, many others have ill-defined systems areas is the single most important tool available or no protected areas at all. In others, systems for biodiversity conservation (see Box 4). Many remain incomplete, particularly in the Pacific is- species and ecosystems would not have survived land nations and Indochina. The coverage of wet- in their natural environments without them. Al- lands and marine areas is extremely limited though new or modified approaches to throughout the region. biodiversity conservation are receiving increas- ing attention (seeChapter 4), no viable alternative Terrestrial Protected Areas. The countries to conserving genes, species, and ecosystems in- with the highest percentage of land gazetted for situ-thal is, in their natural state-has yet protected areas are Bhutan (19.4 percent), Sri emerged. It is important to note, however, that Lanka (11.9 percent), Thailand (10.7 percent), In- no single site can ever meet all the objectives of donesia (10.0percent), and Nepal (8.0percent). At conservation; to bemosteffective, protected areas the opposite extreme, Cambodia, Lao P.D.R., and must be planned and managed within the context the Maldives have no legally protected areas; and of national, regional, and international networks. Papua New Guinea, six Pacific island nations, Bangladesh, and Myanmar have formally ga- Protected Areas in the Asia-Pacific Region zetted 1 percent or less of their total land area (see Table 4). The developing countries of the Asia-Pacific These protected areas vary significantly in region contain about 1,200of the 6,940 protected terms of their value for biodiversity conservation. areas of the world. These areas encompass some Some have been established primarily for recre- 774,000 square kilometers or 3.8 percent of the ation and tourism and have limited biodiversity total land area of the region-a proportion sim- value; others are either too small or too degraded ilar to that under protection worldwide (see Ap- to contribute effectively to conservation. An pendix Table A.2). Protected areas in China, alarming number are "paper parks," areas that, India, and Indonesia account for about 80 percent despite their designation, receive little or no effec- of the total protected land area in the region. tive protection or management and derive no However, many important habitats are either un- benefits from their special status. Frequently, represented or under-represented. In Sri Lanka, boundaries are not marked and are unclear to for example, even though about 12 percent of the local people, who may even be unaware that land area has been protected, the most biologi- there is a protected area at all; infrastructure is cally valuable areas-the moist forests in the nonexistent; staffing is insufficient; fauna and southwest-are inadequately covered. The In- flora have not been surveyed; there is no conser- dian protected areas system, Asia's third largest, vation management plan; and human activities has major gaps-induding Ladakh, the eastern incompatible with conservation continue un- Himalayas, northeast India and the islands of checked. In some cases, protected areas are sub- Andaman, Lakshadweep, and Nicobar. While ject to so much human activity that they have some countries have protected area systems that little left that is worth protecting. In the Philip- BiodiversityConservation in the Asia-Pacific Region 13

Box 4. Functions and Benefits of a ProtectedArea System

A system of protected areas is the core of any Protected areas can be especially important for program that seeks to maintain the diversity of development when they: ecosystems, species, and wild genetic resources, and to protect the world's great natural areas for * conserve water and soil in zones that are highly their intrinsic, inspirational, and recreational erodible if the original vegetation is removed, values. notably the steep slopes of upper catchments A protected area system provides safeguards for: and river banks; * regulate and purify water flow, notably by pro- * natural and modified ecosystems that are es- tecting wetlands and forests; sential for maintaining life-support systems, * shield people from natural disasters, such as conserving wild species and areas of particu- floods and storm surges, by protecting water- larly high species diversity, and supporting shed forests, riverine wetlands, coral reefs, scientificresearch; mangroves, and coastal wetlands; * culturally important landscapes (including * maintain natural vegetation on soilsof inherently places that demonstrate harmonious relation- low productivitythat would,if transformed,yield ships between people and nature), historic littleof value to human communities; monuments, and other heritage sites in built- . maintain wild genetic resources or species im- up areas; portant in medicine; * sustainable use of wild resources in modified . protect species and populations that are highly ecosystems; sensitive to human disturbance; * traditional, sustainable uses of ecosystems in * provide habitat that is critical to harvested, sacred places or traditional sites of harvesting migratory, or threatened species for breeding, by indigenous peoples; and feeding, or resting; and * recreational and educational uses of natural, . provide income and employment, notably modified, and cultivated ecosystems. from tourism.

Source:IUCN, UNEP, and WWF1992.

pines, for example, many of the protected areas sented by at least one, and many of the provincial avreso seriously degraded that they make little or governments have identified additional areas no significant contribution to the conservation of they wish to protect. However, most of China's biological diversity. Illegal wildlife hunting, log- protected areas are located in the east, while the ging, and agricultural encroachment are preva- west and north-the temperate grasslands and lent throughout much of Asia's protected areas. deserts, and the high-altitude ecosystems of the MacKinnon and MacKinnon (1986) analyzed Qinghai-Tibet Plateau-have few (Li and Zhao protected area coverage by biogeographical 1989). province and found that virtually all units in the Protected area habitat coverage is considerably Indo-Malayan realm have at least one protected less comprehensive in the Oceanian realm, al- area, with the exception of parts of Myanmar and though the threats are often less immediate. Only south China (Appendix B). But many habitat about 0,15 percent of total land area is included, itypesare under-represented or absent, a notable representing less than 20 percent of ecosystem example being the lowland dipterocarp forests of types. Three of the twenty biogeographical prov- Malaysia. The protected areas systems in Ban- inces have no protected areas, and only two are gladesh, Indochina, and the Philippines have considered adequately represented (Dahl 1986). poor coverage of habitat types. Coverage is strongest in parts of India and northeast Sri Wetland and Marine Protected Areas. About Lanka. half of the wetlands of international importance Although China's protected areas are not in the Asia-Pacificregion, representing nearly 15 evenly distributed across the country (WcMc percent of the total wetland area, are included in 1990), all biogeographic provinces are repre- protected area networks, although many coun- 14 ConservingBiological Diversity

Table 4. ProtectedArea Systems in the and Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Asia-PacificRegion Thailand have initiated marine park programs. AreaProtected Percentageof China and India have the greatest number of Country (squ"r ometers)Land Protected marine parks, but overall habitat coverage is poor. Virtually all reviews acknowledge a dearth Kiribati 266 38.9 of informnationabout inland and coastal wetlands Bhutan 9,061 19.4 and marine areas. This information gap needs to SriLanka 7,837 11.9 be corrected as a matter of urgency, since these Thailand 55,140 10.7 Indonesia 192,309 10.0 areas are facing increasing threat. Nepal 11,260 8.0 Korea,Republic of 7,568 7.7 Site-Specific Priorities. Basic knowledge of Pakistan 36,550 4.5 conservation needs in the Asia-Pacific region is Malaysia 137,701 43 reasonably good. National-level analyses of Mongolia 61,678 349 biodiversity, which assess the existing protected China 8,975 2.9 area systems and identify additional areas need- VietNam 283,578 2.7 ing protection, have been prepared or are under Philippines 5,729 1.9 preparation for every Asian country except Cam- Bangladesh 968 0.7 bodia and the Maldives; some coverage has also Fiji 53 0.3 been afforded the South Pacific islands. For exam- Myanmar 1,733 0.3 ple, India's National Wildlife Action Plan (Rod- PapuaNewGuinea 290 <10 gers and Panwar 1988)is a comprehensive review SolomonIslands 0 <1.0 of conservation needs and priorities. The Inte- Tonga 0 <1.0 grated Protected Area System (IPAS)project in the Vanuatu 0 <1.0 Philippines is in the process of identifying prior- Cambodia 0 0 ity protected areas (World Bank 1989a).A study LaoP.D.R. 0 0 of the status of biological diversity and the cover- Maldives 0 0 age of the conservation system in China is cur- Note:Figures represent only those protectedareas over 10 rently being carried out by WWF-International, square idlometersand listed in IUCNcategories I-V. Al- although the large amount of information avail- though Western Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, and able has yet to be consolidated. FAO has assisted Vanuatuhave no suchprotected areas over 10square kilome- in carrying out national assessments in India (FAO tersotheydohavesmallerareasasreflectedlnthepercentage 1988), Indonesia (UNDP/FAO 1981 and 1982), Sofrce:Wandprot . Myanmar (FAO1985 a,b) and Thailand (FAO1981 a,b). Other studies have addressed biodiversity conservation needs in environmental contexts; tries in South and East Asia are under-repre- these include Tropical Forest Action Plans (with sented (seeTable5). Greater protection has gener- FAOassistance), Environmental Profiles (spon- ally been provided in South Asia, where Bhutan, sored by USAID),and Environmental Action Plans Nepal, India, SriLanka, and Pakistanhave a sig- (EAPS)(UNDP and World Bank). These assess- nificant proportionof theirwetlands under some ments generally provide sufficient information form of protection.In Southeast Asia only Indo- for devising national conservation strategies and nesia has a reasonableproportion of its wetlands initiating efforts to strengthen biodiversity con- protected.The Asian countrieswith the least wet- servation systems. Information is seriously lack- land protectionare Cambodia, LaoP.D.R., Mon- ing only in Cambodia, the Maldives, and Papua golia, Myanmar,and Viet Nam (Scott and Poole New Guinea, though it is not easily accessible in 1989). China. Protectionof marine areas in the Asia-Pacific Many studies have attempted to identify the Region is variable;for example, although protec- sites in the region that are most urgently in need tion legislation or de facto protectionis in place, of protection (see Box 5). Two updated lists will island countries such as the Maldives and the be published during 1992, one as part of the Solomon Islandshave no coastalor marine parks Convention of Biological Diversity, the other (see Appendix Table A.2). Some countries have by lUCN'sPlant Conservation Office (see Appen- proposed sites for new marine protected areas, dix B). BiodiversftyConservation Inthe Asia-Pacffic Region 15

Table5. Number and Areaof ImportantWetlands under Protection in the Asia-PacificRegion Area Under Area SomeForm Percentage AreaTotalk of sites of Protection Area Under Protected Percentage Number (square (square SomeForm (square Area Totally Country of Sites kilometers) kilometers) of Protection kilometers) Protected (China 192 163,000 20,500 13 20,000 12 P'apua New Guinea 33 101,000 6,000 6 6,000 6 Indo:nesia 137 87,800 30,300 35 29,000 33 E3angladesh 12 67,700 6,150 9 355 <1 Viet :Nam 25 58,100 698 1 495 <1 Myanmar 18 54,900 -248 <1 40 <1 India 93 54,700 16,200 30 15,300 28 Cambodia 4 36,500 20 <1 20 <1 Malaysia 37 31,200 16,600 53 64 <1 Thailland 42 25,100 1,910 8 410 2 Mongolia 30 15,500 S0 <1 0 0 I'hilippines 63 14,100 942 7 761 5 P'akistan 48 8,580 5,210 61 1,380 16 Sri Lanka 41 2,740 825 30 766 28 Lao P.D.R. 4 2,220 0 0 0 0 Korea, Republic of 21 1,070 131 12 58 5 Nepal 17 356 275 77 261 73 :'hutan 5 85 65 77 5 6 TOTAL 822 724,650 106,125 14.7 74,915 10.3 Note:The sites or areas given representonlythose sitesidentifiedin A DirectoryofAsianWetlands (Scott 1989) as beingofinternational importanceand urgently in need of study. Source:Scott and Poole 1989.

The WorldBank has initiateda projectwith the speciesof animalsand plants. In the Asia region, marine section of IUCN'sCommission on Na- endemicbird areas that are of highestpriority for tional Parksand ProtectedAreas (CNPPA)to iden- conservation include the Eastern Himalayas, tify arndmap all marine protected areas in the Luzon and Mindoroin the Philippines,and the world. Backgroundinformation on the biodivers- LesserSundas in Indonesia.Overall, these studies ity of each of these areas is being used to deter- showed that Indonesia has more birds of re- mine priorities for investment in conservation, stricted range, more threatened species(12 per- especially in terms of strengthening existing cent of world total),and more endemicbird areas areas and establishingnew ones. Recommenda- (11percent of world total)than any other nation. tions are being made for researchwhere informa- These various studies should provide useful tion is lacking. CNPPAhas divided the marine and important information to guide biodivers- realminto eighteenbiogeographic regions, fiveof ity planning at local, national, and regional whichcover Asia-Pacificcountries. Table 6 pres- levels,and could serveas a basis for site-specific ents priority marine protected areas in the juris- conservationefforts. In spite of such efforts,it diction of these countries as identified and will sometimesbe necessaryto proceed without mapped by the project(see also AppendixB). comprehensiveinformation on a range of ques- In a new assessmentof biodiversity,the Inter- tions about economic value and ecosystem natioinal Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP dynamics. 1992),has shown that remarkableconcentrations of bird specieswith restrictedranges are confined Er-Situ Protection. Ex-situprotection plays a to very smallareas (seeAppendix B). These cen- role by conservinga smallbut often criticalpart ters of endemism additionally embrace three- of total diversity(Ashton 1988;Hoyt 1988).India quarters of all threatenedbird speciesand are of and Indonesia,for example,have important bo- great importance for other rare and threatened tanical collectionsand most countries in Asia 16 ConservingBiological Diversity

Box 5. Studies on Priority Biodiversity Conservation Sites

A number of studies that have attempted to iden- resentative system of conservation areas to en- tify the highest priority sites for biodiversity conser- sure effective conservation of island ecosys- vation in the Asia-Pacificregion could serve as a tems and species.This is to be achieved through basis for site-specificconservation efforts: the identification and conservation of the most unusual ecosystems and species; the identifica- * Corbett Action Plan (iucN 1985).The Corbett tion of good indicator species for monitoring Action Plan provides a regional overview of the condition of conservation access; and the actions needed for more effective planning and evaluation of the management conditions and management of protected areas in the Indo- objectives of protected areas. Malayan realm. It spells out general guidelines * A Status Overview of Asian Wetlands (Scott for action, as well as specific requirements for and Poole 1989). The Overview contains de- each country. Some forty-four areas are identi- scriptions of a total of 947wetland sites, includ- fied as fragile and threatened and in need of ing their legal protection, threats, effectiveness special protection. of conservation measures, and wetland types * Review of the Protected Areas System in the and sites in urgent need of protection (see Ta- Indo-Malayan Realm (MacKinnon and bles 3 and 5). MacKinnon 1986). The Review identifies 173 * IucNDirectory of South Asian ProtectedAreas protected areas of global importance in the (IucN 1990). The Directory covers the pro- realm and the best protected examples of each tected areas systems of Bangladesh, India, Pa- major biological community or sites of other kistan, and Sri Lanka. Summary data are special interest. The review also identifies presented forall protected areas known to exist major gaps in the protected areas system, not- in these countries but only 100are described in ing that ten of the twenty-six biounits in the detail. realm are inadequately covered in the current * Action Programfor the Conservation of Wet- system. The study also identifies priorities for lands in South and West Asia (IWRBand AWB current strengthening of protection and species 1992). This Action Program is concerned pri- conservation (seeAppendix B). marily with activities required to conserve the * Review of Protected Areas System in Oceania natural functions and values of wetland eco- (Dahl 1986).A group of 226 Pacificislands that systems through sound management and sus- are known to have features such as endemic tainable use of resources, and to develop the speciesor protected areas are ranked according tools by which this goal might be achieved to conservation interest, risks to that interest, (national policies and legislation, monitoring and the conservation actions needed for each and research, exchange of information, train- major type of ecosystem. ing, education, public awareness, and interna- * ActionStrategyforNature Conservationinthe tional cooperation). High priority is given to South Pacific Region (sPRu.1989). The Action development of comprehensive national strat- Strategy recognizes the need to establish a rep- egies and action plans.

have zoos. Botanical gardens and zoological tropical rice. Germplasm facilities continue to ex- parks have international networks to help co- pand worldwide, reflecting the increasing aware- ordinate conservation efforts, such as maintain- ness and appreciation of maintaining plant ing databases on species kept in zoos, to facilitate genetic resources for modern agriculture and for- breeding and species recovery efforts. The Con- estry. In July 1992, India's National Bureau of sultative Group on International Agricultural Re- Plant Genetic Resources announced a seven-year, search (CGIAR)set up the International Board on $23.9 million project to build a bank for conserv- Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR)in 1974 to encour- ing over 800,000 seed samples. age and coordinate the development of a network of crop genebanks in developing countries. The Factors Affecting Protected Area International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)in the Management Philippines, the Central Rice Research Institute in India, and the Central Research Institute for Food Legal Framework. Most Asian countries have Crops in Indonesia maintain major collections of basic conservation legislation related to wildlife BiodiversityConservation in the Asia-PacificRegion 17

Table 6. Priority Areas for the Conservation of Marine Biodiversity MarineRegion Country Name SoutheastAsia Indonesia BunakenMarine Park Indonesia SebagianKep. Aru BagainTenggara Marine Park Indonesia TelekCenderawasih Marine National Park Indonesia KepulauanKarimun Jawa MarinePark Indonesia KepulauanSeribu Marine National Park Malaysia KualaGula-Matang Malaysia KualaSelangor Mangroves Malaysia PalauTioman Malaysia TanjongDungun, Rantau ABang, Merchang Malaysia PalauRedang Marine Park/Palau LangTengah Malaysia PalauPerhentian Malaysia PalauSemperna Malaysia Palau Philippines TubbatahaReefs National Marine Park Thailand Khao LaemYa National Park Thailand Mu Ko SurinNational Park Thailand TarutaoNational Park Viet Nam Cat Ba Islandsand HalongBay Viet Nam SinhTon Atoll Viet Nam Con DaoIslands NorthwestPacific China,Hong Kong Deltaof the XijanRiver China HainanIsland China BoHai Bay China,Viet Nam, Philippines Xi-Nan-Zhongsha Republicof Korea,Japan KoreanStrait

protection and the establishment of protected Responsibility for wildlife conservation in Asia areas, although many of the laws are weak and usually lies with forestry ministries or depart- airned at conserving species rather than habitats. ments (seeTable 8), which have traditionally em- Legislation is most comprehensive in China, phasized timber production and have given India and Sri Lanka, and new legislation is being limited attention to conservation. In China, Ma- draf ted or enacted in Bhutan and the Philippines. laysia, Sri Lanka, and many South Pacific coun- However, conservation legislation is virtually tries, the responsibility for protected areas is nonexistent in Cambodia, Lao P.D.R., and the divided among two or more national agencies. Maldives, which do not have protected area sys- This complicates efforts to develop and imple- tems, and is weak in many of the Pacific island ment national conservation plans. countries. An attempt to describe the comprehen- In India and China, the main responsibility for siveness and enforcement of conservation legis- conservation lies with state or provincial author- laitionis shown in Table 7. ities, and while decentralized management in these large countries is appropriate, the commit- Institutional Capacity and Responsibility. ment of institutions at the state level varies. In By and large, the government agencies responsi- India, for example, although the national govern- ble for protected area management in the Asia- ment strongly supports conservation, the com- Pacific region have extremely limited operational mitment and level of activity in many states is caLpabilities and political influence. They fre- poor or indifferent. In China, local govemments quently lack the authority necessary to perform also differ widely in terms of commitment, capac- their roles effectively,and staff morale tends to be ity, and financial resources for protected area low. Most agencies, including those in management. In Malaysia, thedivisionofrespon- Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nepal, the Philippines, sibility between federal and state govemments Sri Lanka, and Thailand are overcentralized, and also poses difficulties for conservation initiatives. many have hostile relationships with local The state govemments of Sabah and Sarawak are governments or communities. responsible for natural resource management, 18 ConservingBiological Diversity

Table 7. National Conservation Legislation search, and monitoring programs (Dixon and and its Enforcement Sherman 1990). In addition, about $65 million Country Compre)hnsivenessEnforcement was committed by international sources in the late 1980s(seeTable 10),of which an estimated $10 Bangladesh 2 1 million-$15 million was expended annually. Bhutan 1 1 However, much of thishasbeen used for research Cambodia 0 0 and other studies carried out by expatriates, and India 3 1-2 not for protected area management. Indonesia 2 1 IUCN,among others, has attempted to define Korea,Republic of 1 1 the level of expenditure that is required for ade- LaoP.D.R. 0 0 quate management of protected areas. It esti- Malaysia 2 2 mates that one park official, whose salary, Maldives 0 0 housing, and subsistence averages $5,000 per Myanmar 1 1 year, is required for every 50 square kilometers of Pakistan 3 1 park land. This estimate combined with other Philippines 2 1 attempts to derive annual costs for park manage- Sri Lanka 2-3 2 ment suggests that a bare minimum of $100 rnil- Thailand 2 1 lion per year is needed to support only the routine VietNam 1 1 expenditures of protected areas in the Asia- Papua NewGuinea 1 1 Pacific region. To carry out necessary im- longa 1 1 provements in protected area planning and oanuatu 1 1 management-including providing adequate in- Kiribati 1 1 frastructure, equipment, and supplies, to conduct Fiji 1 1 resource surveys and monitoring, and to increase WesternSamoa 1-2 1 staffing levels would multiply this cost several- 0 = Virtualy Nonexdstent fold. Significantly increased funding is also 1 = Weak needed for education, training, and other institu- 2w= Moderate tion-buildingeffortsinbiodiversityconservation, 3 = Comprehensive as well as for public awareness campaigns at national, state, and local levels. Given these figures, it is reasonable to estimate including agriculture, forestry, and water that at least a tenfold increase over existing levels resource management. In all such cases, efforts of investment would be required to establish a must be made to strengthen institutions directly protected area system sufficient for conserving responsible for protected areas. biodiversity in the Asia-Pacificregion. Appropri- ate levels of expenditure for each site would vary Financial Resources. The existing level of according toavariety of factors, for example, area government expenditure is inadequate to assure size and management objectives, type and inten- the long-term survival of protected areas. A sam- sity of threats to plants and animals, fragility of pling of operating budgets for protected area key species and habitats, and tourism potential. management in Asia suggests that annual expen- ditures range from $54,000to $364,000per park Human Resources. In general, the staff of (seeAppendix Table A.3),or $5 to $794 per square most government conservation agencies in the kilometer. In total, although the estimates are Asia-Pacific region are inadequately trained, or difficult to verify, direct government expendi- are trained in production forestry or silviculture tures for protected area management in the re- rather than conservation. This is true at all levels, gion appear to be about $30 million-$35 million from field staff to mid-level managers to top-level annually (see Table 9), most of which involves administrators, and presents a particular prob- outlays for acquisition of the lands to be pro- lem for countries beginning their protected area tected; preparation of management plans; and systems, such as Lao P.D.R., Papua New Guinea, capital expenditures for developing roads and VietNam, and the Pacific island nations. It is also facilities and for operation of the protected area, a problem for Bhutan, China, Indonesia, Nepal, including staff salaries, admninistrative costs, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, all maintenance, law enforcement, education, re- countries with extensive protected area systems.

18 BiodiversityConservation in the Asia-Pacific Region 19

Table 8. Govemment Agencies Responsible forBiodiversity Conservation

Country Agmency CountrV Agency Bangladesh * Forest Directorate, Ministry Nepal * Department of Forests, Ministry of Environment and Forests of Forests and Environment Bhuitan * Wildlife Division, Department Philippines * Protected Areas and Wildlife Bu- of Forestry, Ministry of reau, Department of Environment Agriculture and Natural Resources Cambodia * Directorate of Forest and Sri Lanka * Department of Wildlife Hunting, Ministry of Agriculture Conservation, Ministry of Lands, Irrigation and Mahaweli China * Ministry of Forestry Development * National Environment Protection * Forest Department Agency * Coast Conservation Department, * State Oceanographic National Aquatic Resources and Administration Research Agency a Ministry of Agriculture * Central Environment Authority * Ministry of Construction Thailand * National Parks Division and India * Department of Environment, Wildlife Conservation Division, Forests and Wildlife, Ministry Royal Forest Department of Environment and Forests e Office of the National Indonesia * Directorate General of Forest Environment Board, Ministry of Protection and Nature Scienceand Technology Conservation, Ministry of Forestry Viet Nam * Forest Protection Department, * Ministry of Environment Ministry of Forests

Lao P.D.R. e Wildlifeand Fisheries * Ministry of Agriculture ConservationDivision, Depart- * Ministry of Water Resources ment of Forestry and Environment, * State Committee for Sciences Ministryof Agricultureand Forestry Fiji * Department of Forests, Ministry Malaysia * Departmentof Wildlifeand of Forests Federal and NationalParks, Ministry of Science, * National Trust for Fiji Peninsular Technology and Environment * Environment Unit, Department * Forestry Department of Town and Country Planning * Federal Fisheries Department * Fisheries Department, Ministry of Primary Industries Sabah * Department of Wildlife, Ministry of Tourism, Environment, and Kiribati * Ministry of Line and Phoenix Development Groups * Forest Departmrent * Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Development Sarawak * National Parks and Wildlife Office * Forest Department Papua New * Department of Environment and Guinea Conservation, Ministry of M[aldives * National Environment Council Environment and Conservation * Ministry of Planning and Environment Solomon * Environment and Conservation Islands Division, Ministry of Natural Myanmar * Wildlife Conservation and Resources Sanctuaries Division, Forest Department Tonga e Parks and Reserves Authority, * National Commission for Ministry of Lands, Survey and Environmental Affairs Natural Resources Nepal * Department of National Parks Vanuatu * Department of Agriculture and and Wildlife Conservation, Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture Ministry and Fisheries and Forestry (MAFF) of Forests and Environment e Department of Fisheries, (MAFF) * Department of Soil and Water * Department of Physical Planning Conservation, Ministry of Forests and Environment, Ministry of and Environment Home Affairs 20 ConservingBiological Diversity

Table 9. National Conservation Budgets through graduate and nondegree programs at for ProtectedAreas national or regional universities. The Wildlife In- Approximate Percentage stitute of India at Dehra Dun, Mahidol University Budgetfor of Total Per in Bangkok, the School for Environmental Con- Conservation Annual Capita servation and Management in Bogor, Indonesia, (thousands National GNP and the University of the Philippines at Los Country of dollars) Budget (dollars) Baiios, all offer graduate or postgraduate conser- Bhutan 1,900 0.29 150 vation training. However, since these facilities do Thailand 15,100 0.19 1,000 not have the capacity to meet all the training Tonga 30 0.17 800 needs of the region, additional facilities are re- Myanmar 1,400 0.10 <500 quired. In addition to training in the traditional Papua NewGuinea 925 0.10 770 conservation skiUls(for example, park planning

Nepal 475 0.07 15870 and management, resource assessment, and Indonesia 6,000 0.06 430 wildlife management), field staff must also ac- Malaysia 5,000 0.06 1,870 quire the ability to work effectively with local Viet Nam 225 0.05 <500 communities. Training in areas such as the man- Sri Lanka 635 0.04 420 agementof marineparksand wetlands also needs India 4,000 0.03 330 to be strengthened. Bangladesh 645 0.01 170 Philippines 645 0.01 630 RoleofNongovernmentalOrganizations. Itis Data not available for China, Fiji,and Republic of Korea. no coincidence that national commitment to Kiribati,Vanuatu,Solomonlslands,Maldives,Cambodia,and biodiversity conservation tends to be strongest in Lao P.D.R.have negligible budgets. countries with strong NGOs that can play an ad- vocacy role vis-a-vis governments. India, Nepal,

This limits a country's ability to plan and manage Table 10. Annual Fundingof Biodiversity effective conservation programs, to carry out re- Conservation in the Asia-pacific Region search, and to monitor its capacity to absorb ad- from InternationalSources ditional funds. In addition to the shortage of trained staff, most Total Asia Region countries do not have enough trainers and edu- (millions (millions cators for the planning and management of pro- FundingSource of dollars) of dollars) tected areas. They lack institutions, programs, U.S.-BasedEfforts and materials for training, as well as facilities to (bilateral,NcOs, provide students with practical field experience. foundations)(1989) 62.9 6.5 International donors have often responded to OECDcoUntries other thant these constraints by sending local officials and U.S. (1989) 9.4 3.0 their staff to foreign universities or training pro- WorldBank (1988) - 30.0 grams; but this has the disadvantages of being AsianDevelopment Bank - - expensive, limiting the number of people to be FAOConservation trained, providing training that may be inappli- ofTropical Forest cable to conditions in developing countries, and Ecosystems(1986) 41.4 13.7 carrying the risk that trainees will not return to Interational Trpical work in their respective countries. (1989)Timber Organization 0.2 0.1t There is a critical need to develop conservation Commonwealth training programs in Asia, including in-service Secretariat(average per trainingfor field staff,graduateand postgraduate year 1984-89) 0.1 0.1 training for mid- and upper-level staff, and train- t Estimate. ing of conservation educators. Training for - Datanot available. lower-level staff should be developed through Sources:Markandya 1990,for all data except those for U.S.- national and state training programs. Training based efforts (derived from Abramovitz 1991) and for the for mid- and upper-level staff is best carried out World Bank. BiodiversityConservation in the Asia-Pacific Region 21 the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand have biodiversity by a country. However, with the relatively strong and active environmental move- exception of India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, ments, as do to a lesser extent, Indonesia and and Viet Nam, Asian participation in interna- Malaysia. In addition, the presence ofNGOS capa- tional conventions has been limited. There are ble of implementing conservation initiatives at many reasons for reluctance to ratify interna- the local level can expand a country's absorptive tional conventions, including a concern that a capacity for international funds and increase the convention's provisions cannot be met; or as in effectiveness with which these funds are used. the case of the Pacific island nations, for exam- Those directly involved in protected area man- ple, a concem that the benefits would not jus- agement include the King Mahendra Trust for tify the investment. Table 11 sunmnarizes the Nature Conservation in Nepal, the Haribon current participation of countries in the region Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Re- in intemational biodiversity conventions and sou:rces in the Philippines, Wildlife Fund Thai- the number of conservation sites listed under the land, numerous community organizations in conventions. India (which has by far the strongest network of grassroots organizations working effectively at Prospects for Improving Management the local level), and the local affiliatesof the larger of Protected Areas international conservation NOos. For political reasons, however, some regional governments Taking all these previous factors into consid- have discouraged, or even prohibited, the devel- eration, it would seem that Bhutan, India, Nepal, oprnent of local NGOS. and Sri Lankahavehigh comrnitmentto improving their conservation systems, while Bangladesh, 'olitical Commitment. India and Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Maldives, Myanmar, Solomon Is- with long traditions of wildlife conservation, lands, and Western Samoa are lower. The remain- have the strongest conservation ethic and the ing countries fall in between. most developed legal and institutional frame- What, then, are the possibilities of improving works for conservation among Asian countries. the management of the national protected area This is reflected in a relatively high degree of systems in the Asia-Pacificregion within the next social and political commitment to biodiversity ten years? Based on past and currentperformance conservation. Most of the other Asian govem- of national governments in the region (their po- ments have yet to institute policies or devise land litical and legislative commitment, levels of ex- management systems that will secure the con- penditures, institutional capabilities, human servation of protected areas in the future. Gov- resources, relations with local people, and emment commitment varies widely, and there strength of environmental NGOS),the following appears to be little correlation between a rough topology of the probability of improving country's ability and willingness to pay for con- conservation systems can be made: servation. Only Bhutan, one of the poorest coun- tries irk the region, has devoted more than 0.2 * Low probability over the short term because percent of total public sector expenditures to of low commitment or poor institutional biodiversity conservation (Table 9), virtually all structure: Bangladesh, Cambodia, Maldives, of which goes to protected area management. and Myanmar. Most countries devote far less. * Fair probability (but slowly) because of insti- Other indicators of commitment include the tutional weakness, political or social con- degree to which recommendations are im- straints, or low absorptive capacity: Bhutan, plemented to strengthen protected area systems; Lao P.D.R., Pacific island nations, Papua pu1blicstatements indicating high level support New Guinea, the Philippines, and Viet Nam. for conservation; levels of conservation expendi- * Fair probability of rapid improvement tures relative to national income; monitoring the because constraints are being addressed: effectiveness with which conservation funds are China, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, and spent; and use of international organizations for Thailand. conservation assistance. Membership in interna- * Good probability of rapid improvement if tional conservation conventions is also an im- financial resources available: India, Malay- portant indication of the attention given to sia, and Sri Lanka. 22 ConservingBiological Diversity

Table 11. InternationalConventions and Number of Sites Listed under Them

Country Ramsar WorldHeritage CITES Bonn (MIGR) MAB

Bangladesh R(1) R R - - Bhutan Cambodia - - S - China R(6) R(2) R - (8) India R(6) R(5) R R - Indonesia R(1) R(2) R - (6) Korea, Republic of - R - - (1) Lao P.D.R. - R - Malaysia - R R - Maldives - R - - - Myanmar - _ _ _ - Nepal R(1) R(2) R - Pakistan R(9) R R R (1) Papua New Guinea * R - Philippines - R R S (2) Sri Lanka R(1) R(1) R R (2) Thailand - R(1) R - (3) Viet Nam R(1) R S - Pacific Island Nations - - - R Ratified. S Signatory. -Neither signednor ratified. ) Numberof sitesdesignated. * PapuaNew Guineais currentlytaking stepsto jointhe World Heritage Convention. 11No internationalconventions have been signedor ratifiedby the six smallPacific island nationsexcept CITES, which has been ratifiedby Vanuatu. Source:WCMC 1992 and other sources.

Notes

1. For reviews and evaluations of different ap- 2. IUcN categories I-V and greater than 10 square proaches to conserving biodiversity, see McNeely and kilometers in size (WCMc1992). The categories are others 1990,OTA 1987, Reid and Miller 1989,Soule 1991, under revision and guidelines are expected to be ap- and Wilson 1992. proved by the IUcN Council in 1993. 4 KeyElements of Biodiversity Conservation

Effective biodiversity conservation can be Land Tenure Policies. Changing property achieved only through a combination of actions. rights and land use laws can have a significant Chapter 3 discussed the importance of establish- impact on biological diversity. For example, in ing and effectively managing a network of pro- the past fifty years, most governments have na- tected areas and described the current situation tionalized forest lands and given forestry depart- in the Asia-Pacificregion. This chapter focuses on ments the legal responsibility for managing them, three critical elements of any program to protect a task formerly carried out by local communities biodiversity: improving the policy environment; relying on customary law. This has often led to meeting local needs by integrating conservation ecologically destructive and economically ineffi- and development; and finally, mobilizing the cient exploitation of vast tracts of forest land, both financial resources needed to support these by forest departments and concessionaires and initiatives. by local people. Timber concessionaires seldom have a long-term interest in conserving forests, Improving the Policy Environment and local people who no longer have legal rights to harvest timber or forest products have few A wide range of national policies, laws and incentives to protect trees and strong incentives regulations can create "perverse" incentives that to clear the land for agriculture. discourage conservation, even as other policies Insecure land tenure also contributes to forest are intended to provide incentives to conserve. destruction. In the Philippines, Thailand, and In- For example, the conversion of natural areas and donesia, the lack of tenurial security has acted as loss of biodiversity has often been accelerated by a disincentive to land improvements and en- economic policies that encourage production for couraged expansion of agriculture onto upland export markets, promote population resettle- watersheds and marginal lands (Poffenberger ment, or open up remote areas to road construc- 1990).Programs in the Philippines and Thailand tion and logging. Policies aimed at increasing are providing land titles on the assumption that agriculture, forestry, fisheries,energy, and indus- this will help slow the movement of people to trial production can have similar effects. Pro- new lands, but this can also create problems if posed policies in such sectors as energy, industry, titles are provided to smallholders only for forest and infrastructure development can induce im- lands that have been "improved." In Sabah, for pacts on biodiversity as well as those in natural example, any native of the state can obtain title to resource sectors like forestry, agriculture, and forest land by clearing and cultivating it. In the fisheries. While appropriate policies provide the Philippines, claims to cleared land have been basis for national development and for meeting made by both smallholders and the owners of the economic needs of people, inappropriate poli- large livestock operations. cies can result in unsustainable and inefficient Such policies encourage destruction and natural resource use, and contribute unnecessar- conversion of the forests even on lands that are ily to the loss of biologically significant natural unsuited for agriculture. They are based on the habitats and species. Policies related to land ten- mistaken notion that agricultural land is always ure, forestry, and agriculture are particularly crit- more valuable than natural forest, a view that ical in this respect. often assumes that biological diversity and the 24 ConservingBiological Diversity ecological services generated from natural forests and actively promoted clearing and agricultural have little or no value. This view is increasingly settlement on land in the Outer Islands, much of challenged by economists (for example, Pearce which is forested. Between 1980 and 1986, the 1987;Peters, Gentry, and Mendelsohn 1989;and transmigration program moved more than two Repetto and others 1989). million people from Java and Bali to the Outer Islands, reduced logged-over primary forest Forestry Policies. Most Southeast Asian and areas by at least 3,000 square kilometers, and Pacific island countries regard their forest lands reduced secondary regrowth by an equal amount primarily as resources for timber production and (World Bank 1990a).Thai government subsidies agricultural expansion. Forestry policies reflect to tapioca farmers in the late 1970sand 1980s,to this, by placing low value on intact forests and increase exports of cattle feed to Europe, contrib- providing few incentives for sustainable timber uted to the decline of Thailand's eastern forests harvesting. However, by encouraging unsus- (Snidvongs 1989).Targets for crop and livestock tainable timber harvests, governments sacrifice production have similarly encouraged the expan- long-term economic and ecological benefits for sion of agriculture into previously forested areas short-term financial rewards. Even short-term that are in some cases unsuitable for agriculture. benefits can be dissipated through inefficienthar- Subsidies provided by governments for the vesting or processing, or through loss of benefits conversion of forest lands to agriculture include: to internationally owned timber companies direct financial support for infrastructure devel- (Repetto and Gillis 1988). As a result, the eco- opment; provision of grants to settlers; low- nomic benefits accruing to the country from for- interest loans and tax deductions to private est exploitation have often ended up as a mninute agricultural investors; and manipulation of farm fraction of the real economic value of the forest, output and input prices. Subsidies for agricul- even before taking biodiversity values into tural inputs such as pesticides and chemical fer- account. tilizers can also lead to overuse, with resulting Low rents and royalties contribute to the prob- loss of beneficial insect predators, fish, and other lem. Many Asian countries with large areas of forms of wildlife. natural forests have forest revenue collection sys- Sustainable development of agricultural land tems that fail to capture reasonable rents for the was addressed in one of the UNCEDagreements, public treasury. Indeed, despite a variety of fees, Agenda 21 (UNCED1992). According to Agenda royalties, taxes and other charges, total forest 21, priority must be given to maintaining and revenues have fallen far short of their potential in improving the capacity of higher potential agri- most timber exporting countries. The Philip- cultural lands to support expanding populations. pines, for example, lost both forest cover and However, conserving and rehabilitating natural potential revenue as a result of the financial resources and biodiversity on lower potential incentives that were given to Philippine timber lands is also required to maintain sustainable companies. These incentives contributed to a log- human/land ratios (seeBox 6). ging boom from the early 1960s until the mid- 1980s and the near elimination of the country's Policies in Other Sectors. Although forestry natural forests. The pattern of low revenue collec- and agriculture provide the most obvious exam- tion and high windfall profits has been repeated ples of how national policies can negatively affect in many other countries in the region. Repetto biodiversity, examples can be cited in many other and Gillis (1988) indicate that only Sabah mnan- sectors as well. A drive to increase fish exports ages to collect a high percentage of potential rev- from Thailand, for example, has resulted in over- enue through aggressive taxation. Sound policies fishing in the country. Forest degradation in cen- in the forestry sector are therefore critical to tral Myanmar can be attributed in part to both economic development and biodiversity economic decline and limitations on imports of protection. petroleum products, which forces poor people to substitute fuelwood for kerosene. Infrastructure Agricultural Policies. Many national policies and hydropower development, while critical to supporting agricultural development also repre- economic growth, have also had an adverse im- sent direct or indirect threats to biodiversity. For pact on the terrestrial and aquatic habitats of example, the Indonesian government has long many Asian countries. KeyElements of BiodiversityConservation 25

Box 6. Integrating Conservation with Agricultural Policy and Planning

Agenda21 recognizes that majoradjustments are . "Landconservation and rehabilitation; neededin agricultural,environmental, and macro- . "Water for sustainable food production and economicpolicy at both nationaland international sustainablerural development; levels to integrate biodiversityconservation into . "Conservationand sustainable utilizationof agricultural practice. To begin the processes plant genetic resourcesfor food and sustain- needed, the followingprogram areas have been ableagriculture; identified: . "Conservationand sustainableutilization of animal geneticresources for sustainableagri- * "Agriculturalpolicy review, planning, and in- culture; tegrated programming,in light of the multi- a 'Integratedpest managementand control in functionalaspect of agriculture,particularly agriculture; with regard to food security and sustainable . "Sustainableplant nutrition to increasefood development; production; * "Ensuringpeople's participationand promot- . "Ruralenergy transition to enhanceproductiv- ing human resourcedevelopment for sustain- ity; and able agriculture; . "Evaluationof the effecton plantsand animals * "Improvingfarm production and farmingsys- of ultravioletradiation caused by thedepletion tems through diversificationof farm and non- of the stratosphericozone layer. farmemployment; * "Landresource planning information and ed- ucationfor agriculture; Source:UNCFD 1992.

Clearly, protected areas alone will not be suffi- (Dixon and Sherman 1990).These costs are likely cient, and governments are encouraged to exam- to increase as human populations grow and open ine a range of economic policies to ensure that lands outside of protected areas are depleted or their adverse impact on biodiversity is mini- converted. niized and that any losses in future value are fully Damage caused by protected wildlife is an- justified. Institutions supporting economic othercommon cost to local populations. InNepal, development can play a critical role in protecting for example, establishment of the Royal Chitwan biodiversity by focusing their analyses on the National Park caused the large-mammal popula- environmental impacts of important economic tion to increase dramatically; as a consequence, policies and by helping governmnentstake these villagers living just outside the park have suf- issues into account in their mcro-economic plan- fered injury and death from bears, tigers, and ring and sectoral analyses (seeBox 7). rhinos; losses of livestock to tigers and leopards; and crop destruction by rhinos (Mishra 1984). Integrating Conservation and Damage to crops from wild animals, particularly I)evelopment pigs and elephants, is common throughout trop- ical Asia (Seidensticker 1990,and Santiapillai and Human Issues in Protected Area Management. Jackson 1990). Over the past ten years, the realization has grown As people in the communities around pro- that communities occupying lands in and adja- tected areas tend tobe poor, politically powerless, cent to protected areas, along with local or nation- and lacking in government services, a large part al industries, bear substantial opportunity costs of the costs of conserving biological diversity is as a result of lost access. The benefits foregone being bome by those least able to pay. Further- fromn forest-products collection and livestock more, when local people perceive that the estab- grazing, for example, may be significant. The lishment of protected areas will restrict their benefits that could have been gained from con- ability to earn a living, they have no incentive- version of the protected area to an alternative use, indeed, they have a disincentive-to cooperate such as agriculture, mining or hydroelectric with park authorities. This can lead to rapid ex- power generation, may be of even greater value ploitation of resources before parks are estab- 26 ConservingBiological Diversity

servation can be achieved (Wells, Brandon, and Box 7. Tools for Integrated Conservation Hannah 1992). Assessing biodiversity in relation to past and present land and resource use offers opportuni- Nationalconservation strategies and environ- ties for maintaining and restoring biological di- mental action plans have been developedfor versity in threatened areas. Consequently, special manyof the countriesof the region,and country efforts must be made to understand the history of reports on sustainabledevelopment have been human impacts on the distribution of species, preparedby virtuallyall countriesin the region habitats, and ecosytems, notably the different in the UNCED process.These reports provide a ways in which people value, use, manage, and means for countriesto integrate conservation affect biodiversity (Nelson and Serafin 1992). and developmentthrough adoption of a com- prehensive,cross-sectoral approach to conserva- Meeting Human Needs. Integrated Conser- tion and resourcemanagement. By focussing on vation and Development Projects are one recent national planning and public-sectordecisions concerningthe use of biologicalresources, these attempt to lik the conservation of blological di- strategies and action plans can address many versity in protected areas with local social and policy issues faced by governmentsseeking to economic development. Where combined with a use their biologicalresources on a sustainable strong emphasis on the participation of local peo- basis. In addition,they usually providefor par- ple, they can help address the problems arising ticipationof varioussectors and interestgroups from adversarial people-and-park relations. in reachingnational consensus about policies on Most ICDPstry to stabilize land use outside park the use of biologicalresources. boundaries and to increase local incomes, with Consistentand integratedland useplanning is the ultimate objective of reducing the pressure for another effectivetool for biodiversityconserva- further exploitation of natural resources within tion. Few, if any, countries in Asia, however, protectedareas.lnadditiontotheirdevelopment have well-developedland use planningcapabil- and conservation components, many ICDPS ities, although effortsare being made by some and conservation entsmny A Coth governments. For example, Sri Lanka and Indo- pemphase coseraon tedu ati pofthe nesia have land use planning projects, through projects are based on the premise that protected the Asian Development Bank, for land classifica- area management must reach beyond traditional tion and planning based on land capability stud- conservation activities inside park and reserve ies; and Sri Lankaand Thailandare developing boundaries to address the needs of local com- and implementingNational Coastal Resources munities outside. ManagementPlans, with assistance from the Reconciling the needs of conservation and UnitedStates Agency for InternationalDevelop- those of local people will not be easy (West and ment.These programs have one drawback,from Brechin 1990;Machlis 1992).So far, most efforts the viewpointof biodiversityconservation,how- to involve local people in protected area manage- ever, in that many of their most imnortantcon- ment have been small in scale and have had in- tributions will benefit areas that are not tensive technical and financial input (usually particularlydiverse biologically, from intemational NGOs),while efforts to ad-

Source: McNeely and others 1990. vance working knowledge of incentives and to refine methods of economic analysis have been .__ __largely theoretical. Some promising initiatives do exist, however. For example, in a 70-square- lished, or careless exploitation of resources kilometer area of rainforest in the "Bird's Head" within existing protected areas. Overemphasis on region of Irian Jaya, an agreement has been rigorous law enforcement is unlikely to provide reached between the local Hatam people and the a long-term solution to this problem. Successful Forest Directorate under which the local people management of protected areas is more likely to participate in thirteen village-level management depend on gaining the cooperation and support committees that make decisions about reserve of local people. Unless local people gain eco- boundaries, regulations, and future plans, with nomic benefits from the protected area or are the purpose of maintaining a naturally regener- compensated for their loss, there is little likeli- ating rainforest. Hatam landholders, who are al- hood that effective long-term protected area con- lowed to continue their traditional forest KeyElements of Biodiversity Conservation 27 activilies, have agreed in writing to uphold re- has an impact on the targeted park or reserve, serve regulations and to act as a "guard force" for making replicability questionable. reporting illegal forest cutting and other infringe- In summary, the ICDPapproach is innovative mrents of regulations by outsiders. There have and experimental. Programs often involve orga- been no known infringements by the Hatam or nizations with little experience in development, others to date (Craven 1990).Other examples of so a period of learning and gradual expansion has integrated conservation and development pro- been unavoidable. In some cases, design and jects are shown in Box 8. implementation flaws have led to problems sim- Although these and other initiatives have ilar to those experienced by the earlier generation promising components and have enlisted a mea- of integrated rural development projects (Wells, sure of local support for their goals, two factors Brandon, and Hannah 1992). have constrained ICDPSfrom making substantial progress. First, most of the projects have taken a Women and Biodiversity. Women in devel- long time to prepare and are at a relatively early oping countries often do most of the work of stage of implementation (most have been opera- gathering medicines and firewood, drawing tional for less than five years). Second, many of water, and growing subsistence food for their the projects have operated on a very small scale families. Over generations, they also have often in relation to the size of the local population that developed extensive knowledge of forest prod- ucts and local plants. Because women typically make economic use of a much wider range of ______products than men, they have a greater interest in sustaining the diversity of biological resources. Box 8. Three Integrated Conservation- Furthermore, evidence suggests that women's Development Projects in Asia traditional work may be even more sensitive to policy changes than their community in general. Annapurna Conservation Area SVepal).The For instance, the introduction of new farm ma- 2,600-square-kilometer,multiple use area was chinery or agricultural development plans that establishedin 1986under the jurisdictionof the push women into marginal land or forests, or, on KingMahendra Trust for Nature Conservation the other hand, the introduction of solar-powered to mitigatethe impactsof tourism on the envi- stoves that may take pressure off the forests, ronmentand to promotelocal development. The show clear connections between policy and 1986-89cost was $450,000;$2.4 million is avail- women's opportunity to affect biodiversity able for expansionduring 1990-94. (Abramovitz and Nichols 1992). Recognizing this linkage, the Asia-Pacific Re- Dumoga-Bone National Park (Indonesia). gional Assembly on "Women and the Environ- The3,000-square-kilometerparkwasestablished ment: Partners in Life" in Thailand (March 1991), in 1982to protectthe forestedupland watershed ment: Paterie" thailand (march 191) of riverssupplying two irrigationprojects used called for strategies that promote women's par- by 8,000farmers to grow paddy rice.Punding of ticipation in planning, implementation, evalua- the irrigation projects was provided by a $60 tion, and benefit-sharing. It is essential in the million World Bank loan, about $1 million of future that women specifically be included in the whichwas used to establishthe park. making of policy that has biodiversity implica- tions if sustainable development is to be (Thailand). The achieved. 2,200-square-kilometerpark, an important tour- ist attraction, is seriously threatened by logging Using Productive Areas for Biodiversity Pro- and hunting. Two Thai NGosbegan a project in tection. Another approach to integrating con- one of 150 villages on the park border in 1985 to promote conservationthrough development, servation and development iS to maximize the later expandinginto severalother communities. protection of biodiversity in areas intended for The 1985-89cost was $500,000. other economic purposes. From a biological point of view protected areas that become isolated "is- Source:Wells, Brandon, and Hannah1992. lands" amid agricultural land and human settle- ments, invariably result in a progressive erosion J _ i of genetic diversity. This is because human activ- 28 ConservingBiological Diversity ity sets up barriers against the normal mixing and amount to over $22 million. To judge from the outbreeding of species populations in the pro- Brazilian experience, setting up viable extractive tected area. However, multiple-use agriculture or reserves will involve a great deal of ecological, improved management of watersheds and for- social, and economic research, complicated land ests around protected areas, can offer opportuni- and resource rights agreements, development of ties for extending the range of biodiversity transportation and marketing mechanisms, pro- protection while achieving economic objectives vision of infrastructure, development of local (Pimentel and others 1992). production and marketing organizations, as well A number of countries (for example, India and as effective regulation and management. In Asia, Malaysia) have working plans to link multiple- the potential for extractive reserves is probably use forests and plantations with core zones of greatest in the countries with more developed protected areas to reduce the "island" effect. For infrastructure and international marketingmech- example, it may be possible in some cases to anisms, such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and reduce this effect by linking adjacent protected Thailand. Since their primary function is produc- areas with wildlife corridors, permitting the tion-albeit on a limited and sustainable basis- movement of organisms between "ecological is- and not conservation, extractive reserves should lands." Measures indude maintenance of natural be used as complements to rather than substitutes forest strips along streams, other water courses, for protected areas (Browder 1990). and migratory routes, and preservation of selec- tive old growth stands. Silvicultural techniques Mobilizing Financial Resources for enhancing biodiversity protection in man- for Biodiversity Protection aged forests include selective thinning to favor species characteristic of natural forests, staggered Domestic Resource Mobilization. Although harvesting to suppress weed growth and favor international resource transfers will be important maintenance of habitat diversity, and controlling in promoting biodiversity protection, most coun- the size of the management unit and rotational tries will have to rely on internal resource mobi- interval of harvesting. lization for at least a part of their conservation The extractive reserves concept is also gener- expenditures. In the case of countries with large ating increased interest as a possible approach to forest estates or protected systems (such as Indo- conserving biodiversity in-situ in combination nesia and Papua New Guinea), these expendi- with economically viable, yet ecologically sus- tures may be considerable. In such cases natural tainable, levels of resource extraction (Fernside resource taxes or levies on development or pri- 1989, Allegretti 1990,and Browder 1992).This is vate sector use can provide promising avenues particularly attractive in buffer zones outside for generating financial support. protected areas. The concept has so far been tested primarily in the Amazon rainforest, where Taxes and Levies. Natural resource levies are the Government of Brazil has established the already used by most countries to capture excess legal foundation for setting up extractive forest rents or profits from timber extraction and to reserves that would be open only to traditional channel them to other uses. In Indonesia, for ex- rubber tappers, whose livelihood has been threat- ample, the government has a surcharge of $4 per ened by timber harvesting and conversion of for- cubic meter of timber that is used to subsidize the ests to cattle pasture. The Canadian International development of timber plantations. A surcharge Development Agency (CIDA)is providing $8.5 of this type could also be used to finance million in assistance to a project to develop the biodiversity protection in part, or to compensate first such reserve in the Acre River Valley in local governments for revenues foregone when western Brazil. forest resources are set aside for biodiversity and Extractive reserves in Asia could potentially be watershed protection. Through such levies and based on nontimber forest products such as rat- resource transfers, the incentives for extraction tan, which already have large commercial value. and protection canbe graduallybrought into bal- The export trade of finished rattan products from ance. Papua New Guinea has discussed an even Asia, mainly from Indonesia and Malaysia, broader natural resource levy in which all natural amounts to $2.7billion annually. Exports of other resource extraction would be taxed and a fund nontimber forest products (including oils, gums, established to promote environmentally and so- spices, bamboo, medicinal, and animal products) cially sound natural resource management by KeyElements of BiodiversityConservation 29 local clans. Support for the development of such gradual degradation of these watersheds appears a fund and the design of mechanisms to make it inevitable. An intensified dialogue between de- work is under consideration by the GEF. velopers and conservationists would be helpful in clarifying options for all parties. DevelopmentLinkages. Development projects frequently modify natural environments and UserCharges. Nature tourism has only begun may be opposed by concerned environmental to be developed by a few countries in Asia, and groups; but such projects can also be used to careful planning, as well as additional financing, obtain leverage and financial resources for will be required to build up the capacity to tap its biodiversity protection. In Sabah, Malaysia, for potential (seeBox 9). Only relatively small num- example, World Bank support for an oil palm bers of parks and reserves in developing coun- development on the Dent Peninsula was used as tries attract the very large numbers of foreign a:n opportunity to upgrade adjacent protected tourists that are needed to generate substantial a:reas and to significantly improve their protec- foreign exchange eamings and make significant tion and management, as well as strengthen the contributions to national economic development. wildlife department and develop a state conser- In Asia, the leading examples include Royal vation strategy. Coal mining and oil companies Chitwan National Park and the Himalayan parks in Indonesia have expressed interest in providing of Nepal and Khao YaiNational Park in Thailand. resources to protected areas, such as Kutai Most protected areas have limited tourism poten- NsationalPark in Kalimantan,but a major obstacle tial due to lack of infrastructure, difficulty of is the absence of a mechanism for govemment access, political instability, ineffectivemarketing, agencies to accept such resources and integrate or simply the absence of spectacular or readily t'hem into the budget for the purposes intended. visible natural features. Large multinational and national companies The investments required to develop nature can often contribute managerial know-how as tourism will depend on the place, type of experi- wvellas financial resources for biodiversity con- ence offered, and tourists targeted. At most sites servation, and international organizations with the development of basic infrastructure, facilities high visibility may be among the most willing to for visitors, interpretive programs, and systems offer this support. Scott Paper, for example, pro- for collecting entrance fees in the parks will have posed to assist conservation in Irian Jaya while to be set up, and mechanisms to evaluate the developing timber plantations for pulp and environmental and socioeconomic impacts of paper. Under public pressure, Scott withdrew tourism should also be established. Infrastruc- from this arrangement and local companies are ture outside of protected areas, such as trans- now proceeding with pulpwood development portation and communication links, are also without conservation investment. important. Additional financing will be required Large dams, which may have adverse environ- to build up Asia's capacity for nature tourism. mental consequences, can also be tapped to pro- Boo (1990)and Whelan (1991)are useful sources vide a sustainable revenue stream for of further information. conservation, particularly of surrounding water- Similarly, genetic resources, including medici- sheds. Such opportunities require serious consid- nal plants, varieties of crops and livestock, and eration. For example, the Kaeng Krung dam in their wild relatives that may be valuable because southern Thailand has strong NGO opposition as of the genes they contain, could make significant iitaffects a relatively pristine forest. The Electricity contributions to local and national economies (see Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT)favors Box 10). At present, the benefits from these re- the site because land is virtually free and hydro- sources go almost exclusively to private, often power is a renewable energy source where costs multinational, companies (Reid 1991), but they are not subject to oil price fluctuation. If this could be a valuable source of financing for pristine land were assigned a scarcity value and biodiversity conservation. costed appropriately, and if the revenue stream from power generation were tapped for conser- International Transfers. Debt-for-nature vation, resources could be mobilized to protect all swaps and endowments or trust funds represent remaining forested watersheds in southern Thai- innovative means for funding biodiversity con- land. Without such resources and the improved servation activities, though they are likely to be management and awareness they could bring, of limited applicability in Asia. 30 ConservingBiological Diversity

Box 9. Nature-Based Tourism

Nature tourism or ecotourism has long been ($100,000-$150,000),with a supplement for con- recognizedas a potentiallysignificant source of structionandothercapitalexpendituresthatranged revenuesfor conservation.Such tourism can gener- from171,000 baht ($7,000)in 1984to 1.6million baht ate support for conservationin severalways: (a) by ($62,000)in 1986-87.Total tourist expenditures providing financial return, it can justify setting exceededmanagement costs by 200to 600 percent aside large areas of land for conservation;(b) park at Khao Soi Dao WildlifeSanctuary and by 300 entry feescan generate substantial funds to support percentat ThaleNoi Nonhunting Area. These appar- park and reserve management; and (c) tourist entlyclear demonstrations of economicbenefits from expenditures in and around parks (on lodging, someof Thailand's protected areas have not yet per- transportation,food, guides,and souvenirs)can be suaded the governmentto establishadequate man- an important source of incomefor communities agementto ensureprotection and continuity. near protected areas, compensatingthem for the Althoughecotourism has manyfinancial benefits loss of accessto traditional resourcesand giving it also generates problems. For example,unless them an incentiveto conservethe protectedareas. managed carefullyincreased tourist visitationcan For example,the Nepalesegovernment has passed degradeprotected areas. Sagarmatha(Mount Ever- speciallegislation permitting entry fees collected for est) National Park in Nepal attracts tens of thou- the Annapurna ConservationArea to be used for sands of visitors each year for trekking and localconservation and to benefitlocal communities. climbing,leading to seriousgarbage accumulation, Dixon and Sherman(1990) have quantifiedthe waste disposaland excessivefirewood collection. economicbenefits of tourismin someof Thailand's In Nepal,as elsewhere,the developmentof nature protectedareas. In all casestourists' total expendi- tourismhas been basedon private sectorinitiatives tures were substantial and far exceeded the with littlegovernment regulation to protectthe bi- Government's direct management expenditures. ologicalresources that draw visitors.The Action Tourist spending at Khao Yai National Park Strategyfor Nature Conservationin the South Pa- amountedto between100 million and 200 million cificRegion (SPREP 1989) has proposedthat govern- baht ($3.8 million-$7.7million) per year during mentscharge a speciallevy on the tourist industry 1982-88.The government's annual management to provide low interest loans for small-scalelow costsfor the park totalled3 millionto 4 millionbaht impacttourism programs.

Debt-for-natureswaps.A debt-for-nature swap trading and exploitation of wildlife, for carrying is a financial mechanism that can leverage conser- out plant surveys, and for helping finalize a plan vation funds for many highly indebted develop- for an integrated system of protected areas. ing countries. A swap involves the purchase of The World Bank cannot become directly in- developing country debt at a discount by volved in debt-for-nature swaps because legal conservation organizations, and its redemption limitations prevent it from eliminating Bank- in local currency and use for conservation activi- owed debt in this way (Hansen 1988),but it can ties. The first debt-for-nature swap took place in provide complementary financial support to 1987in Bolivia.Since then there have been sixteen countries directly involved in such swaps. swaps in eight countries, mostly in Latin Amer- ica, totalling about $100 million. Trust funds and endowments.The distinction Due to relatively good financial management between endowments and trust funds is that an in most Asian countries and the absence of dis- endowment may be given as a grant without counted debt, the only swap made in Asia to date terms stipulating how it is to be used, whereas a has been in the Philippines. In this case, the World trust fund has clear terms and is held for the Wildlife Fund-US. agreed to acquire $2 million beneficiary by a trustee who has a legal respon- in Philippine debt, with the proceeds to be credit- sibility to adhere to those terms. Trust funds and ed to a local currency account managed by the endowments have several advantages as means Haribon Foundation, a Philippine conservation of funding biodiversity conservation activities NGO.The funds are to be used for planning and (Wells 1991). The majo. advantage is that they managing two parks on the island of Palawan, for provide a guaranteed, long-term flow of financial helping the government enforce laws on illegal resources for conservation. An assured flow of KeyElements of BiodiversityConservation 31

Box 10. Genetic PropertyRights.

Manyplants and animalscontain valuable genes. the individualswho are the custodianswill receive 'Thesegenetic resources differ from biologicalre- equitablebenefits from their use (Reidand Miller sourcesbecause their value liesin the information 1989). containedin theirgenes, not in theirphysical attrib- Asan exampleof the potentialeconomic value of utes.Thus,a riceseed is a biologicalresource if eaten genetic resources to developingcountries, Costa but a geneticresource if usedas a sourceof a disease- Ricahas signedan agreementwith a multinational resistantgene for breeding (Reid and Miller1989). pharmaceuticalcompany under which a newly es- Tlheconsiderable uncertainty over the potential tablishedCosta Ricaninstitute, INBio, will collect valueof genetic resources hasbeencompounded by plant speciesand carry out preliminaryscreening the emergenceof new biotechnologies,and contro- for their potentialpharmaceutical use. As a part of versy surrounds geneticresource ownership and this contract,Costa Ricawill receive a 5 percent access.At the root of currentdebates is the knowl- share of the revenuesof any commercialproduct edge that the genetic resourcesfound in many that might eventually result-a potentiallyenor- developing countriesare assets that, if managed mous sum. Theimportance of derivingvalue from properly,could make significantcontributions to and adequatelyprotecting genetic, as comparedto local and national economies.But both govern- biological,resources in still a relativelynew area. ments and NGOs have argued that under current It could, however, represent an innovative and systemsof ownership and accessto theseresources valuable source of financing for biodiversity neither the countriespossessing the resourcesnor conservation.

funds would help cover the costs of operating conduct surveys and develop an ecological infor- and nmanaging protected areas on a long-term mation base in Bhutan. basis. With a guaranteed source of income, The U.S. Agency for International Develop- conservation agencies also could increasetheir op- ment (USAID)has helped establish a trust fund in erating capacity through training and increased Sri Lanka to support and facilitate education, staffing. technical assistance, fund-raising, and innovative Given the amount of capital needed and the public-private approaches to sustaining wildlife relatively small annual flows, trust funds and in Sri Lanka. The $500,000start-up funding pro- endowments are likely to be most appropriate in vided by USAIDwill be used to leverage addi- poor countries with government comnmitment tional resources through profit-generating but low absorptive capacities and limited bud- investments in conservation. gets. For example, a trust fund has been estab- Given the scale of the resources needed to pro- lished in Bhutan with GEFresources of $10million tect biodiversity in the region, endowments or that will be used to leverage an equivalent trust funds cannot be expected to be major vehi- contribution from other donors. The Royal cles for conservation funding. But there are sev- Government of Bhutan (RGOB)will also contrib- eral countries in addition to Bhutan whose access ute funds equivalent to 10 percent of the trust to local resources and foreign exchange is so lim- fund's disbursements each year, over and above ited that these mechanisms could be considered, the RGOB'scurrent level of funding for environ- for example, Cambodia, Lao P.D.R., Sri Lanka, mental programs. The interest generated from Viet Nam, and selected South Pacific islands. the principal will be spent on developing hurnan Trust funds might also be appropriate in Asia resources and institutional capacity to carry out under very specific circumstances for the protec- and manage conservation programs, as well as to tion of individual sites of global significance. TheWorld Bank and Biodiversity Conservation

Although the Bank's biodiversity conservation Wildiands Policy. The Bank's wildlands pol- activities are still in early stages of development, icy paper states that "the World Bank will not the past five years have seen substantial growth finance any project that would convert wildlands in policies and sector work related to biodiversity of special concern." This includes existing and and in the preparation and implementation of proposed protected areas, endangered ecosys- biodiversity components within larger natural tems, habitats containing rare or endangered spe- resource projects. This growth has resulted from cies, and areas that are important for wildlife increasing international recognition and concern breeding, feeding, or resting. This policy also for the importance of biodiversity conservation, states that the Bank prefers to site projects on evolving Bank policies, and an increasing avail- already-converted natural habitat such as logged ability of grant funds for project preparation and forests, cultivated lands, and degraded lands. In implementation. The recent establishment of the exceptional situations where conversion of GEF is expected to contribute significantly to fu- wildlands is justified, it is suggested that a wild- ture support for biodiversity activities. land management component supporting the conservation of areas similar to that being con- Existing Bank Policies verted be included in the project as compensation (Ledec and Goodland 1988). As the Bank's interest in supporting environ- mental projects has grown, so has its interest in Environmental Assessment. The World biodiversity conservation. A Bank-wide Bank's Environmental Assessment Operational biodiversity task force was formed in 1987, and Directive requires the systematic screening of all since 1988 regular meetings, which included both World Bank projects for environmental impacts. the AsiaEnvironment Division of the World Bank Project screening and subsequent environmental and conservationNGOs,have been held on Invest- assessments must consider the possible negative ment Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in effects of projects on biodiversity, and where such the Asia-Pacific Region. impacts exist, mitigating actions must be pro- In support of general policy guidelines in- posed. Environmental assessments have led to cluded 2in "Environmental Aspects of Bank the inclusion of biodiversity protection compo- Work,' a number of Bank directives have been nents in many projects. For example, special mea- issued to guide project preparation and im- sures are being taken to protect fish and wildlife plementation in the area of biodiversity conser- as part of large dam projects in China, India, and vation. The most important of3these are the Nepal; and an oil palm development project in Wildlands Policy Paper of 1986, and the 1989 Papua New Guinea contains a component to pro- Envi onmental Assessment Operational Direc- tect an endangered species of birdwing butterfly tive, which was reissued in 1991. The recent and its habitat. Forest Sectorpolicy paper is also expected to have a significant impact on the Bank's contribution to Forestry Policy. The recent Bank publica- natural forest management (World Bank 1991). tions, TheForest Sector (1991) and Strategyfor For- TheWorld Bank and Biodiversity Conservation 33

Box 11. Selected World Bank Economic and Sector Studies Covering Biodiversity Concems

Philippines Environment and Natural Resource SriLanka EnvironmentalAction Plan (1991).The ManagementStudy (1989).This report analyzes pol- Plan analyzes the factors contributing to deforesta- icies related to logging and land use that have tion and loss of biologicaldiversity and recommends contributed to the massive loss of forest cover specificpolicy reforms and institutionalstrengthening and accompanying biodiversity in the Philippines. as well as programs for training, research, education litrecommends expansion and strengthening of the and public awareness, possibly with GEF financing. protected area system, which now covers only Specific initiatives for biodiversity protection are 2 percent of the land area, and stresses the underly- recommended, including improved protected area ing need for significant policy changes, more coverage, particularly for moist forest and coastal equitable landdistribution, and increased participa- habitats, incentives for community resource man- tion of local communities in protected areas agement, enhanced private-sector participation in management (World Bank 1989a). These recom- nature-based tourism, and specific programs for rnendations have formed the basis of a World Bank conservationand managementof the elephant.These SECAL for Natural Resources Managemcnt, which are now embodied in a recently published National includes a component on the establishment and Environmental Action Plan 1992-1996,the first com- implementation of an integrated protected areas prehensive time-phased environmental planning system. document for Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka Ministry of En- vironment and Parliamentary Affairs 1991). Indonesia Sustainable Development of Forests, Land and Water (1990). The Indonesian govern- China Environmental StrategyPaper(1992). This rnent: has legally set aside some 10 percent of its report concludes that much of China's natural eco- forest land as reserves and 30 percent for watershed systems outside protected areas, particularly wet- protection (nearly 500,000square kilometers). Very lands and grasslands, may be lost during the next little of this, however, is under secure or effective few decades as a result of population increases and management. The Bank paper makes a number of acceleratingeconomic development. Protected areas recommendations to improve logging practices and that are poorly managed could also disappear. The stimulate plantation development to reduce pres- report examines the causesand consequences of this sure on the natural forest,and recommends policies situation, assesses responses, and offers recommen- to encourage more intensive land use in the less dations. Given the institutional complexity of the densely-populated Outer Islands (World Bank country,whichhasbeenamajorobstacletoresource 1990a). It also recommends institutional changes mobilization,it recommends development of a bio- and more effective funding for a nation-wide con- diversityaction plan to identifythe prioritiesfor con- servation effort. Some of these recommendations servation,including appropriate institutionalsupport; are reflected in the Second Forestry Institutions and it also recommendsthe immediate strengthening of Conservation Project and in the National Biodivers- existing protected areas (World Bank 1992a).A bio- ity Action Plan, financed by the Norwegian govern- diversity action plan is now being developed with ment (BAPPPENAS1992). financingfrom the GEP.

est Sector Development in Asia (1992b), reflect a and will highlight the need to consider the re- greatly expanded Bank emphasis on biodiversity quirements and welfare of forest-dwelling peo- conservation in tropical forests. Under these pol- ple. Experimental programs will also be financed icies the Bank will support initiatives to expand to test alternative approaches to the participation forest areas allocated as parks and reserves and of local people and to test the promotion of non- to institute effective management and enforce- wood products of natural forests to benefit such ment in new and existing areas. In particular, the people. Bank will assist governments in the preparation Strategy for Forest Sector Development in Asia and implementation of conservation plans. The emphasizes the need for comprehensive reforms Bank will stress new approaches to management in the institutional and incentive framework in of protected areas that incorporate local people which forest resource allocations are made in into protection, benefit sharing, and planning, Asia. The Bank describes how it will assist gov- 34 ConservingBiological Diversity ernments to recognize the range of values- The World Bank led the TFAPpreparation exer- economic, environmental and social-that are cise in Papua New Guinea and has participated served by the forest resource and to put into place in TFAPsin Lao P.D.R.and Viet Nam that were led improved policies and procedures in the sector. by the United Nations Development Programme Reduced pressure on the resource base will be (UNDP).The Bank has also undertaken major sec- achieved by enhanced rent capture by govern- tor work on forestry in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Ma- ments, improved control of forest land and agri- laysia, and India, and in all cases biodiversity cultural intensification outside of forest areas, protection was considered. thus supporting efforts to protect biodiversity. In parallel with the formal Bank sector work in The Strategy recognizes that the broad demands the region, biodiversity profiles-which identify now being placed on forestry for conservation, the status of biological resources and evaluate for protection of forest-dwelling people, and for options for their conservation-have been pre- improvements in the lives of women and chil- pared for Myanmar, the Philippines, Sabah and dren, will require the forestry sector to draw on Sarawak, and a number of South Pacific island new and nontraditional implementation skills. countries by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). These studies are complemented Economic and Sector Studies by a number of Biodiversity Action Plans that have been initiated under the GEF. As noted in Chapter 4, economic policies are critical to effective biodiversity protection and The Global Environment Facility international agencies can play an important role by helping governments analyze the impacts of The GEF is a pilot program to assist developing these policies on the environment, including countries to contribute toward solving global en- biodiversity. The Philippine Sector Adjustment vironmental problems (see Appendix C). The Loan (SECAL), which was approved by the World three-year experiment provides grants for invest- Bank in 1992, is a recent example of this kind of ment projects, technical assistance, and to a lesser analysis. extent, research on protecting the global environ- World Bank sector studies in the Asia-Pacific ment and transferring environmentally friendly region have also addressed biodiversity issues in technologies. The facility's work falls into four the Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, China, and main areas: biological diversity, global warming, the South Pacific. The coverage and main find- international waters, and depletion of the ozone ings of four of these reports are shown in Box 11. layer. Responsibility for implementing the GEF is Although the Tropical Forest Action Plan shared by UNDP,UNEP, and the World Bank. (TFAP) has not lived up to the expectations of the Since the call for GEFproposals in December founding parties (Winterbottom 1990),the TFAP 1990, governments, implementing agencies, and process has highlighted the need for biodiversity NGOS have proposed a wide variety of technical conservation in the context of overall forest man- assistance, training, and investment projects, par- agement. For example, in 1989the government of ticularly in the area of biodiversity protection. At Papua New Guinea requested a forest sector re- this time, ten biodiversity proposals totaling $100 view and action plan, and based on the findings million-$1 10 million have been provisionally ac- of the resulting TFAP Forestry Sector Review, a cepted or are under review in the Asia-Pacific National Forests and Conservation Program region and three more may be submitted (see (NFCAP) was implemented. The program pro- Appendix Table C). If this pipeline develops as poses a challenging agenda for forest protection planned, there will be at least one biodiversity and conservation: establishing a national forestry initiative in most countries in the region, with the authority, strengthening the capacity of the De- exceptions of Bangladesh, Cambodia, and the partmentof Environmentand Conservation, con- Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the ducting an initial survey of forest and biological Republic of Korea (both eligible for GEF).Projects resources, and developing mechanisms for in- such as the Bhutan Trust Fund, Viet Nam Pro- volving NGOs and landowners in the manage- tected Areas Conservation, Philippines Conser- ment of forests and biological diversity. The plan vation Management of Priority Protected Areas, has also mobilized technical and financial sup- and Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation and Protec- port of donors and intemational NGOs(Srivastava tion were identified before GEF resources be- and Butzler 1989). came available and all are well advanced. TheWorld Bank and Biodiversity Conservation 35

Table 12. World Bank Projects with Biodiversity Components Conservation Total Component Project Region Cost Cost or Fiscal (millions (millions Country Year Project Component of dollars) of dollars) Bangladesh 1992 Forestry III Protection of Sundarbans mangrove 4.0 58.7 forests and establishment of a wildlife conservation unit in the central government.

China 1992 Tarim Basin Establishment of ecologicalsurveys 4.6 216.6 and protection of natural forests. Indonesia 1988 First Forestry Strengthening the management of five 29.7 63.0 Institutions and protected areas. Conservation Indonesia 1991 Second Forestry Strengthening the management of ten 3.0 33.1 Institutions and nationalparks; wetlands conservation; Conservation and provision of an advisory team to the Ministry of Forestry. Indonesia 1993-94 Integrated Swamps Protection of key wetland sites. up to 10.0 55.0 India 1992 Maharashtra State Establishment of a protected areas 7.2 124.0 Forestry system; institutional strengthening; ecodevelopment; notification and legal settlement for priority protected areas. India 1992 West Bengal Forestry Conservation of biodiversity, including 1.0 65.0 protection of rhino, leopard, and wetlands. India 1993-94 Narmada Basin Management planning for wildlife 2.0 160.0 Development sanctuaries. Malaysia 1990 Sabah Land Settlement Strengthening of wildlife reserve 1.8 216.0 and Environmental management and wildlife Management department; preparation of Sabah Conservation Strategy. Pakistan 1993-94 Environmental Institutional strengthening of federal 1.5 62.3 Protection and and provincial environmental Resource protection agencies and natural Conservation Project resource rehabilitation, including rangelands and wildlife populations. Papua New 1992 Oro Smallholder Oil Protection of the endangered Queen 2.5 36.8 Guinea Palm Development Alexandria butterfly habitat and strengthening of Department of Environment and Conservation. Sri Lanka 1990 Forest Sector Establishing an environment unit 1.3 31.4 Development within the Forest Department; developing a database; drafting environmental guidelines for conservation areas. Regional 1988-92 Strengtheningthe Strengthening training and 0.6 0.6 Conservation establishing of a regional post- Management of graduate training program in Critical Ecosystems in biodiversity conservation. the Asia-PacificRegion Not:eSee also Appendix Table C for GEPbiodiversity projects in whichthe World Bank participates. 36 ConservingBiological Diversity

Box 12. Selected World Bank Projects with Biodiversity Components

Indonesia: Forestry Institutions and Conserva- rangelands, and wildlife populations. Nongovern- tion Projects I and 11(1988 and 1991).The conserva- mentalorganizations have contributed to thedesign tion component in the first project is intended to of several subprojects, some of which emphasize strengthen the management of five existing national community involvement and monitoring and eval- parks. It supports technicalassistance, staff training uation of inputs, outputs and effects. and facilitiesdevelopment, as well as a study of the feasibility of developing buffer zones around Papua New Guinea: Oro Smallholder Oil Palm Indonesia'sprotected areas.The second project sup- Development Project (1992). A conservation pro- ports revision of the existing National Biodiversity gram for the purpose of ensuring the survival of the Conservation Plan; development of management Queen Alexandra birdwing butterfly has been pre- plans, with buffer zones included, for ten national pared in collaboration with international and na- parks; improvement of wetlands conservation; and tional NGOS concerned with biodiversity strengthening of conservation institutions, particu- conservation, and after consultations with land- larly at the local level. owners. The program also will provide a replicable model for integrating conservation with develop- Malaysia: Sabah Land Settlement and Environ- ment in Papua New Guinea. The project's conserva- mental Management Project(1990). The project pro- tion component provides for critical short-term vides technical assistance to implement an measures to ensure that new smallholder oil palm environmental management plan for the Dent Pen- development does not further endanger the butter- insula, which consists of dryland tropical rain forest fly and its associated ecosystem. It would consist of with a broad fringe of swamp forests. It also mapping the distribution of the Alexandra bird- supports, with the state wildlife department, wing, advising oil palm extension staff onthe selec- strengthening the management of two wildlife re- tion of land for oil palm development, promoting serves occupied by rhino, elephant, and wild cattle. the establishment of permanent conservation areas The project is also assisting the preparation of a that would remain under traditional land owner- conservation strategyfor Sabah, and establishing an ship but be subject to a ban on forest clearance, and environmental coordinating unit in the Federal training field personnel for the Department of Envi- Land Development Authority to improve environ- ronment and Conservation. An Alexandra Bird- mental planning and management of agriculture wing Conservation Committee, consisting of NGOs, projects. external donors, landowner representatives and government agencies, would be established to mon- Pakistan: Environmental Protection and itor implementation of the program and inform the Resource Conservation Project(1993-94). This proj- government and donors on progress in achieving ect has two broad components: institutional theconservationobjectives. strengthening and environment and natural resource rehabilitation. Under the first component, Sri Lanka Forest Sector Development Project the project would help federal and provincial envi- (1990).The environmental component of this proj- ronmental protection agencies to introduce envi- ect, which is being implemented by IucN, includes ronmental policy considerations into public and establishing an environment unit within the for- private investment decisions, raisetheawareness of estry department; developing an environmental policymakers and the public regarding the loss of database; drafting environmental guidelines and Pakistan's environment and natural resources, and procedures for forestry programs; and a review of develop professional training in environmental existing management plans for 175 square kilome- planning and management. Under the second com- ters of moist lowland tropical forests to determine ponent, the project would undertake a series of whether these forests should be logged or set aside subprojects to repair damage to watersheds, as conservation areas.

Pre-investment funds have been requested for Operations vary in size from $3 million to the preparation of projects for China and Indone- slightly over $20 million and cover both technical sia; projects are still in the identification stage in assistance and investment activities. While UNDP India and Thailand. is generally responsible for technical assistance TheWorld Bank and Biodiversity Conservation 37 and the Bank for investment, many smaller pro- dress policy and institutional reform issues, thus jects are a blend of the two and the role of lead providing a basis for linking conservation and agency has been agreed on pragmatic grounds. economic development. Second, the larger proj- For example, the Bank has no significant presence ect can provide the leverage needed to encourage in the Pacific where UNDPhas the lead. governments, most of which have been reluctant Other cooperative efforts are supported by the to borrow for protected areas, to include a conser- GEF,as well. For instance, though all projects vation component. The Bank has generally been requiregovernmentendorsement,NGOparticipa- able to attract grant co-financing for these conser- tion has been actively sought. In fact, NGoshave vation components, but the crucial issue of sus- been heavily involved in the identification and tainability of the investment, particularly preparation of all ten or so operations under way, recurring costs, is only beginning to be faced. and they have been consulted in the design of The Bank's portfolio also includes one regional others, as well as on matters of policy and re- project intended to address the critical human gional and national strategies. The GEFencour- resource constraints discussed in Chapter 3. ages further cooperation with multilateral Under this program, proposals have been devel- development banks and the United Nations spe- oped to strengthen conservation training in cialized agencies. Bhutan, Lao P.D.R., Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, and Viet Nam, and to establish a new World Bank Projects with Biodiversity regional post-graduate training program in Components biodiversity conservation at the Asian Institute of Technology in Bangkok. This work was financed M/ost biodiversity activities currently under- by UNDP, executed by the World Bank, and sub- way in the Asia-Pacific region with World Bank contracted to WWF-U.S.and the Economic and support, involve establishing and maintaining Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific protected area systems as part of larger agricul- (ESCAP).GEF-Funding has been obtained for the ture and natural resource projects. There are thir- Viet Nam and Lao P.D.R. proposals and other teen such project components in the pipeline in sources are being sought for the others. Once the five-year period from July 1988 through June funding is received, these projects can begin to 199.3(see Table 12). The project components in- alleviate human resource constraints in the re- clude support for work such as compiling biolog- gion and offset the shortage of training facilities. ical inventories and databases, preparing management plans, and providing infrastructure Notes for specific protected areas. The components also include studies of needed policy changes and 1. Including theTechnical Assistance Grant Program they provide guidance on the establishment of for the Environment, financed by the Government of buffer zones and new financing mechanisms. In Japan, and the Norwegian Trust Fund for the Environ- adclition, a regional training program for man- ment. agement of protected areas has been started, as 2. Operational Manual Statement (oMs) 2.36, to be well as an environmental protection project in reissued as Operational Directive (OD) 4.00, "Environ- Pakistan. Box 12 describes five World Bank pro- mentalPolicies." jects with biodiversity components and 3. Operational Note (OPN) 11.02, "Wildlands: Their illustrates the range of interventions supported to Protection and Management in Economic Develop- date. ment" (1986), to be reissued as OD 4.04, "Wildiands: Including biodiversity conservation as a com- Their Protection and Management." ponent of a larger Bank project has two important 4. Environmental Assessment OD 4.00, Annex A advantages. First, the larger project can often ad- (1989),reissued as OD 4.01 (1991). A RegionalStrategy for Biodiversity Conservation

General Considerations quently, programs developed within each coun- try will need to take into account the following: A regional strategy for protecting biodiversity must give highest priority to the countries of * importance of the resource and degree of greatest biological diversity. However, within threat, this general provision several caveats are in * availability of information, order. * institutional strength and absorptive capacity, First, since every country in the region has * local conditions, areas of international significance, most of which * ability to mobilize resources, and are under threat, national programs to protect * social and political factors. biodiversity in all countries are critical. Because the value of threatened resources and their link to National biodiversity action plans can be im- economnicactivity is uncertain and because nearly portant for identifying priority areas for protec- all countries require additional technical and tion, uncovering harmful policies, and defining financial support to protect their biological re- institutional and financial constraints. To be most sources, a regional strategy should strive to iden- effective, however, such plans should to be tify and protect resources of national importance broadly participatory, involving planning agen- within every member country. cies, line agencies, NGOs, and the private sector, Second, investment in the region should gener- and they should seek to develop a commitment ally focus on program development rather than to protection efforts. on the protection of specific sites. Obviously, when sites of worldwide significance are identi- Priorites for Conservation fied, a major effort should be made to protect them. This is particularly important in countries As noted, priority mustbe given to areas where with limited institutional capacity and limited there is both biological significance and a high commitment to protection of biodiversity, or in degree of threat. Table 13 shows the countries in areas under very severe threat. In the Asia region the Asia-Pacific region having the greatest in general, however, there is a widespread respect biodiversity and large areas of natural habitat. As for nature and an emerging willingness to sup- the table indicates, there are five countries in the port conservation if social and financial obstacles region that are conspicuous for their number of can be overcome. Therefore, primary attention species and endemics and therefore have the should be given to supporting policy change, highest priority. These include the island rain- strengthening institutional capacity, promoting forest countries of Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, linkages between smallholder development and and the Philippines. China and India are also on conservation, mobilizing resources, and pro- this list because of their vast size and variety of ducing model projects rather than simply concen- habitat. Four smaller areas are also of importance: trating on protecting single sites. the Eastern Himalayas (Nepal and Bhutan), East- Within these guidelines, countries will have em Malaysia and parts of Thailand, Sri Lanka, widely varying needs and capacities. Conse- and the Pacific Islands. Cambodia, Lao P.D.R., A RegionalStrategy for Biodiversity Conservation 39

Table 13. Priorities for Conservation High Number LargeAreas of Species of Intact High Number High Number or Endemics Natural C'ountry of Species of Endemics per Unit Area Habitat

HighestPriority: Indonesia x x e x C'hina x x India x x Malaysia x s x E'apua New Guinea x x e x Thailand x Philippines x x Nepal s Bhutan s x Sri Lanka s IPacificIslands (all countries) s Fiji e SecondaryPriority: Cambodia x l.ao P.D.R. x Myanmar x Pakistan x

lyanrtmar, and Pakistan appear on this list as Resources to accomplish conservation goals secondary priorities because their biological re- are available in varying degrees in the region, as sources and endemism are shared with a number well. Malaysia is comparatively wealthy and may of countries. However, these countries also have have considerable potential for domestic important areas for protection. resource mobilization. Indonesia could obtain significant financial resources from its own pri- High Priority Rainforest Countries. Four vate sector if key constraints were overcome. In courntries-Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New most of these countries national forests are under Guirtea, and the Philippines-illustrate the range the control of Forestry Departments; but in Papua of conditions to be found in island Southeast New Guinea and many other Pacific island coun- Asian rainforests. The forest resources of the Phil- tries, forested land remains under the legal con- ippines and Eastern Malaysia are severely threat- trol of local smallholders, thereby presenting ened. Some areas of Indonesia are under intense unique challenges and opportunities. These pressure (Java and Bali), while others are rela- physical and financial considerations countries tively untouched (Irian Jaya). Though under suggest various approaches to biodiversity pressure, Sarawak in Eastern Malaysia and protection (seeBox 13). P'apua New Guinea still have large areas that could be protected. Information on biological MainlandAsianMegadiversityCountries. In significance is reasonably accurate and available spite of highly visible intemationally financed iinIndonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, but programs to protect popular species like the Ben- unclear and not readily accessible in Papua New gal tiger and the panda, India and China receive 'Guinea. Institutions are weak throughout the re- a relatively small share of the international re- gion, but absorptive capacity is particularly lim- sources for biodiversity in relation to their size ited in Papua New Guinea. Harmful government and biological diversity. There are a number of policies can be found in all of the countries, but reasons for the disparity: in both countries, the the national land use policies of the Philippines area involved and the complexity of the problems have led to especially rapid losses of forested land. are daunting, and pressure from poverty and 40 Conserving BiologicalDiversity

Box 13. Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in the Island Rainforests of Southeast Asia

Indonesia. As Indonesia is the most important logging in sensitiveareas. This will beavery long-term country in the region for the conservation of biolog- initiativeand is tobe started with GEFfinancial support. ical diversity, it has considerable potential to mobi- lize funding from international groups and the Philippines. The terrestrial and marine ecosys- private sector. Chief constraints to conservation of tems of the Philippines have a high degree of ende- biodiversity are: incentives to local officials to ex- mism. However, the existing protected area system ploit rather than protect forests; smallholder en- suffers from poor design and lack of the resources croachment; overcentralization and low status of and personnel needed for effective management. staff; and an inability for bilaterals and the private Assistance is being provided to remedy these prob- sector to fund protected areas directly. Preparation lems. So far, priority areas for inclusion in the pro- of a national biodiversity action plan has been com- tected area system have been identified, and new pleted with broad participation of the scientific legislation for the system (now termed the Inte- community and national and international NGOs. grated Protected Areas System) has been passed by This has identified priority areas for protection, but the congress. A GEFproject has been formulated, it has not yet addressed needed policy changes. based on management plans developed for the Policy studies on incentives, institutional develop- highest priority areas in the system, in which the ment, and financing will be necessary prerequisites most pristine of the remaining terrestrial, wetland, for effective investment. and marine areas are represented.

Papua New Guinea. The biodiversity of Papua Malaysia. Malaysia has gazetted some 1.4million New Guinea is among the richest in the world but hectares for parks or wildlife sanctuaries, and only thirty or so areas are protected, and those only gazettement procedures are underway for an addi- nominally. About 85 percent of Papua New Guinea tional area of equal size.Therefore, reaching current is forested and the forested land belongs to local targets,whilesubstantiallyupgradingmanagement smallholders. Review of the TFAPwith interested capabilities is a major challenge. Preservation of NGOsand others indicates that insufficient attention biodiversity would be further served by reducing has been given to the identification and demarca- the rate of logging in the 44,000square kilomters of tion of areas of the greatest biodiversity. Therefore, remaining virgin forest. Recent sector work has an- further effortis needed to assess biologicalresources, alyzed the policy, incentive, and institutional struc- raiselandownerawarenessandinvolvetheminthe ture in the Malaysia forestry sector and has management of conservation areas, and develope proposed substantial improvements. Discussion alternative income generating activities to replace with the Malaysian govemment is ongoing.

population is overwhelming. Under these cir- In both China and India, there remains a need cumstances individual donors are likely to feel to bring various jurisdictions together at a na- they can have only limited impact. There are tional level to develop clear strategies. In China, other difficulties, as well. For example, in China as long-range plans are being worked out, imme- information about the protected area manage- diate efforts could begin on areas of known ment system is not easily accessible to the West; importance (for example, the rainforests of and in both China and India, administrative de- Xishuangbanna). Similarly, in India, investment centralization compounds the problem of proposals could be developed for protected areas prioritization and comprehensive intervention. of known global significance, for example, in the On the other hand, both countries have a Sundarbans and the Western Ghats. Then, the highly developed civil service and many skilled very serious and more general problem of human people who can be assigned to biodiversity pressure on protected areas must be addressed, protection programs. India also has numerous drawingon India'slargeNGo community and the NGOs willing to lobby for political support and experience of local people. Box 14 provides fur- many activists with a clear understanding of the ther discussion of the complexities involved in human and social dimensions of biodiversity planning biodiversity strategies for each of these protection. countries. A RegionalStrategy for Biodiversity Conservation 41

Small Countries with Species Richness. The under forest. Nepal, on the other hand, under third tier of countries in terms of their importance pressure from a population that has doubled in for biodiversity protection indudes several small thirty years, has lost 40 percent of its natural countries-Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Pa- forests and is entering a stage of crisis. Sri Lanka cijficlslands-thatneverthelesshavegloballysig- is ranked as having the second highest diversity nificant biological resources. These countries are of biological resources per unit area in the Asia vastly different in their biogeographical setting, region and for that reason, should receive priority institutional development, and availability of planning. Finally, the islands of the South Pacific human resources, but they are alike in having are important both because of their high degree very limited resources for biodiversity protec- of endemism, and also because island diversity in tion, lby virtue of their size and poverty or isola- general is among the most critically threatened in tion. Thus, institutional and financial the world. The status of biodiversity and appro- sustainability must be a major consideration in priate interventions in each of these nations is appropriate levels and types of investment. discussed in Box 15. Two countries, Bhutan and Nepal, are in the Eastern Himalayas, an area that is regarded as Mainland Southeast Asian Countries. The one of the world's biodiversity "hot-spots." countriesof Southeast Asia haveincomrnonboth Bhutan's government is strongly committed to biological resources and economic threats. The conservation and about 45 percent of its area is recent decision to halt logging in Thailand, for

Box 14. Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in Mainland Asian Megadiversity Countries

China. Due to the biophysical, socioeconomic, India. Like China, India hasalargeprotected area and institutional complexity of the country, it has system administered by state government agencies. been difficult to determine priority conservation Protected areas receive low levels of funding and all needs and identify appropriate recipient institu- are subject to human encroachment. Although tions. The lack of a comprehensive strategy for bio- much work has already been done, it will be import- logical diversity conservation has also made it ant to prepare or consolidate protected area action difficult for the government to allocate its scarce plans at the state and central levels in order to resources and has discouraged foreign assistance. mobilize donor support and GEFassistance. Prepa- (he international community has provided about ration of investment proposals should also be devel- $3 million to China over the last ten years for con- oped for areas of global significance, for example, servation activitiesotherthanforpandaprotection.) the Sundarbans, Western Ghats, and the Northeast. Since the low level of funding is a major constraint There is an urgent need to find ways to manage tc biodiversity protection in China, the Chinese protected areas sustainably in the face of current pres- need to attract support by consolidating informa- sures. Specificprograms are needed for extension tiononbiodiversity,determiningpriorityconserva- and improvement of the protected area coverage; tion needs, and identifying the responsible concerted efforts are needed for inclusion of institutions. To do this, a national biodiversity ac- biodiversity in management of multiple use forest tion plan, based on existing Chinese information is lands, particularly neighboring protected areas; and needed. Where there is already a broad consensus mechanismsare needed for increasingbenefits to the on priority areas for protection (for example, the associatedlocal communities. rainforest areas of Xishuangbanna in Southern No country in the region has more need for a Yunnan Province), detailed preparation could also strategy for dealing with people in protected areas begin. This would allow feedback from preparation than India, nor is any country better equipped to of investment activities to modify the biodiversity prepare it. For this reason, it may be particularly action plan, and it would speed up work on priority effective to give serious consideration to the prepa- areas. The plan should also address institutional ration of ICDPswith emphasison participation of local arrangements for coordinating the highly-frag- communitiesin the design and implementationof the mented protected areas system. projectand major involvementof appropriate NcOs. 42 ConservingBiological Diversity

Box 15. Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in Small Countries with Species Richness

Bhutan. Both Bhutan and Nepal are included in SniLanka. Although some 12 percent of the total an area regarded as one of the world's biodiversity land area in Sri Lanka is protected areas, only 1 "hot-spots," the Eastern Himalayas. Of the two, percent is located in the wet lowland and mountain Bhutan is far better off with about 45 percent of its regions-areas of highest diversity. Moreover, the land underforests,compared to 15 percentin Nepal. existing protected areas are mostlypaper parks.The The Royal Government of Bhutan (RGoB)is strongly major constraints to biodiversity conservation are committed to conservation and has set aside 20 the shortage of adequately trained staff and funds, percent of its land area and .29percent of its govern- both conditions worsened by recent civil strife (an- ment budget for protection-higher than any other sen and Loken 1988).To address these deficiencies, country in Asia. However, with a small population the Department of Wildlife Conservation has for- and a limited natural resources base, government mulated a five-year Wildlife Plan and a Wildlife revenues are modest, with priority investments Policy,which was recently approved by the cabinet. given to social programs. To fulfill funding needs, Financing for part of the Plan has been obtained the RGOB,with WWF-U.S.support, has established a from the GEF.In addition, the Bankis assisting in the Trust Fund to be administered by UNDP. The RGOB review of the wet tropical forest zone to determine is seeking $20 million, half from the GEF, to support which areas should be set aside and which areas can a biodiversity conservation program. Given the se- be managed sustainably for production. vere constraints on resources in Bhutan and the demonstration value of a trust fund of this type, South Pacific Islands. This area is renowned for such an approach should have strong support. its high degree of endemism, attributed to theisolat- ed evolution of island species. Species diversity is Nepal. Nepal has ecosystems similar to those in greatest on the larger continental and high islands Bhutan and India and is highly dependent on its of the western Pacific,but endemism is greatest in natural beauty and biodiversity for tourism and the east. This rich island biodiversity is among the revenue. However, in the thirty years the country most critically threatened in the world. Because of has had modem health care and development, the the small size of many of the countries of the South population has doubled and 40 percent of its for- Pacific and the lack of technical expertise and re- ests have been cleared or are seriously degraded. sources, strengthening regional cooperation-for Despite an impressive network of parks, numerous example, by financing programs coordinated by the studies, and dynamic NGOs, biodiversity in Nepal South Pacific Regional Environment Program is entering a stage of crisis. The major issues are (SPREP)-islikely to be the best means of achieving lack of financial resources; poor relations between biodiversityconservation. Also, an important factor park authorities and local people; and conflicts be- for sustaining any biodiversity conservation effort tween tourism and conservation. Effective strate- in the Pacific is the involvement of locallandowning gies include strengthening key institutions, groups. The unique patterns of customary owner- promoting local participation, and channeling a ship of land and resources, much like communal larger share of tourism revenues to biodiversity and private ownership, dictate that projects must conservation. foster close cooperation with the rural communities

example, has had a devastating effect on tion. With extremely low per capita incomes, Myanmar and a significant impact on Lao P.D.R. none of these countries have resources for and Cambodia by causing logging companies to biodiversity protection. On the other hand, the move into these countries. Under these cir- forests of Thailand and peninsular Malaysia face cumstances it is critical to evaluate logging, de- severe threat from the economic development forestation, and biodiversity protection on a that could generate the resources for conservation. subregional basis. Box 16 discusses in detail the status of pro- In other respects, however, the countries are grams in each of the mainland Southeast Asian very different. Cambodia, Myanmar, and Lao countries. P.D.R. are still reasonably forested but provide little protection to biodiversity. Viet Nam has South Asian Countries. Predominantly arid high population densities in many areas and for- and semi-arid, Pakistan has a modest forest ests devastated by war and smallholder cultiva- resource base with most of its remaining wildlife A RegionalStrategy for BiodiversityConservation 43

Box 16. Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in Mainland Southeast Asian Countries

Cambodia.Cambodia has a wide range of habitat tected area system. A GEF-funded,UNDP project of types that harbor a number of endemic plants and $3.9 million will focus on the sustainable develop- animals, notable of which is the Kouprey (a large ment of all natural resources and the conservation mammal). Very little information on biodiversity is of natural ecosystems and will include institutional available due to the continuing political unrest, but strengtheningand demonstrationprojects. with improved political conditions, biodiversity surveys should be initiated with a view to formulat- Thailand. Thailand's forest resources and associ- ing a biodiversity action plan. In parallel, to save at ated biological diversity are suffering rapid deple- least representative samples of habitat, a protected tion. Forest cover decreased from 53 percent of the areas system should be formulated along with ap- country's total area in 1961to 28 percent in 1988and, propriate legislation. Establishment of a com- by some estimates, will decreaseto 20 percent in the prehensive training program to develop early 1990s.To address this problem, the Royal Thai institutional capabilities for biodiversity conserva- Government declared a twenty-point National For- tion will also be required. est Policy in 1985,to improve the management and development of the national forest. In spite of this Lao P.D.R. Lao P.D.R. has a rich diversity of policy, substantial destruction of the forest contin- species and ecosystems representing part of four ued-with associated problems of landslides and biogeographic subunits. Unlike its neighbors, Thai- flooding. After a particularly severe storm in 1989, land and Viet Nam, Lao P.D.R. still retains large the government imposed a total ban on logging and tracts of relatively undisturbed forest cover revoked logging concessions throughout the coun- (roughly 30-35 percent). However, these forests are try. However, the problem of forest encroachment under increasing pressure from commercial exploi- has yet tobe adequately understood and is currently tationand,insomelocations,agrowingpopulation. being studied. The findings of the study will be At present, Lao P.D.R. does not have a system of incorporated into the Bank's forthcoming Forrest protected areas, nor does it have the legal, institu- Area Protection, Management and Development tional, and policy framework for establishing such Project.GEFfundingwillbesoughtforthebiodivers- a system. An IUCN study has identified sixty-eight ity component of this project. sites of high and moderate conservation priority, includingfourhistorical/culturalsitesandfivewet- Viet Nam. The natural environment continues to lands. Covering an area of 29,000square kilometers, be in a critical state in Viet Nam. Forest cover was 12.4 percent of the total land area, these sites are halved during the war years, two million hectares sufficientfor general conservation objectives.How- of forests being lost to chemical defoliants alone. ever, given the extremely limited local resources to Other large areas were cleared by bulldozers, na- establish protected areas and the severe lack of palm, and saturation bombing. Uncontrolled log- trained staff, the development of a conservation ging, high population growth in forested areas, and program in Lao P.D.R.will require long-term com- slash-and-burn agriculture have also contributed to mitments from the Lao govemment, intemational deforestation. Remote sensing data indicate that agencies, and bilateral and multilateral funding abouttwomillionhectaresofprimaryforestremain, communities. The upcoming Bank Forest Manage- with current losses estimated at 2,500 square kilo- mentandConservationProjectwillbegintoaddress meters per year. Fragmentation of forest tracts and the needs of biodiversity conservation through uncontrolled hunting have caused the extinction of training, institutional strengthening, and protected a number of rare species of birds and mammals. To areas development. save the remaining areas of ecologicaland environ- mental significance,the government has proposed Myanmar. One of the richest biological reservoirs an extensive network of forest reserves and national in Asia, Myanmar also has a history of practicing parks covering 3 percent of the total land area. The sustainable selective logging and replanting its establishment and protection of these reserves is valuable forests. Unfortunately, the conservation of severely constrained by poorly-defined institu- biodiversity has received very little attention, and tional structure and lack of adequately trained staff among this richness are many species of special and funds (MacKinnon 1990,and Vo Quy and oth- value: the wild relatives of domestic species such as ers 1991). To develop the human resources neces- jungle fowl, pig, cattle, rice, citrus, and tea. Threats sary to carry out conservation activities and to to these resourcesare loggingand population pressure identify investment opportunities, the GEFwill fund and its attendant problems.In addition,Myanmar has a comprehensive conservation training program yet to develop an environmental strategy and pro- and the development of a biodiversity action plan. 44 ConservingBiological Diversity found in the mountainous country west of the Pacific island nations, the Philippines, and Thai- Indus. The two regions of outstanding import- land). The agricultural policies of countries that ance are the Himalayan and Karakoram Massifs affect forests directly by encouraging their con- in the extreme north and the desert in the south- version to agricultural crops (including tree west. A recent review of critical ecosystems in crops) and that might have a positive impact on Pakistan identified the Indus riverine zone and shifting cultivators, should be reviewed. the Chaghai Desert and juniper forests of Baluchistan as areas of ecological interest and Participation. Three countries in the region conservation importance internationally (Rob- are particularly well suited for demonstration erts 1986).However, protected areas have been projects intended for reconciling the needs of created haphazardly, often without criteria for people and protected areas. their selection and with boundaries marked ac- cording to little or no ecological reasoning. While * Indonesia, because of its importance for most major habitats are represented within the biodiversity and its very large foreign- existing protected area system, a national review assisted development program, should have has never been conducted. Clearly, this is a prior- high priority for the preparation of ICDPS. ity in planning the further development of * India, because of its strong participatory pro- Pakistan's protected areas network. cess and active NGOs, could demonstrate a In Bangladesh, the threat to biodiversity is in- project designed by NGOs with full partic- tense. Only 6 percent of its land remains in un- ipation of the local people. modified ecosystems and even that is under a Papua New Guinea, with some 97 percent of tremendously high population pressure (Alcor its land under customary ownership, pro- and Johnson 1989).In addition, political commit- vides a unique opportunity for cooperative ment, institutional capabilities, and absorptive partnership between landowners, resource capacity of the country are very low, so achieving users, and the government. much over the short term will be extremely diffi- cult. Under these circumstances, the focus will be Sustainability of Investments. Two main ap- site-specific, concentrating on management and proaches to the problem of sustainable financial protection of the Sundarbans mangrove swamp, flows can be suggested: a site of global significance, as well as institu- tional strengthening (IucN 1991). * increase domestic resource mobilization, through natural resource taxes and levies, Demonstration Effects development and conservation linkages, and charges for private sector use; and Three major objectives have been identified as * attract intemational transfers through direct critical to anyprogram for protectingbiodiversity aid or endowments or trust funds. throughout the Asia-Pacific region: Several countries in the region have the poten- * modifying policies with adverse impacts on tial to significantly increase funding for biodiversity, biodiversity through development activities (for * reconciling the needs of local people with the example, powergeneration),forest development, need to protect areas, and and ecotourism, and through private sector sup- * ensuring the sustainability of investments. port. Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and possibly Papua New Guinea provide the best opportuni- Policy Change. Inappropriate national poli- ties to demonstrate ways to increase domestic cies, laws, and regulations can result in unsus- funding through the taxation of forestry, mining, tainable and inefficient natural resource use can and other development projects that diminish contribute unnecessarily to the loss of biologi- biodiversity, and initiativesto support this should cally significant natural habitats and species. be tried in these countries. Bhutan, Indonesia, Areas where policy change is required are in Malaysia,Nepal, and Thailand also have consider- forestry (Fiji, Indonesia, Lao P.D.R., Malaysia, able potential for partial financing biodiversity Myanmar, and the Philippines) and land use pol- protection from tourism revenues. Over the icy (Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the other next few years, efforts should be made to tap A RegionalStrategy for BiodiversityConservation 45 these resources to ensure long-range biodiversity the CGIAR,and a study of how those efforts can funding. best support in-situ methods would be useful Endowments or trusts cannot be expected to be (CGIAR 1992). a major source of conservation funding in Asia because of the large resources needed to protect Biodiversity Databases. There is an urge,," biodiversity and the large amount of capital they need to establish or strengthen in-country usez- tie up in relation to that available. However, there friendly biodiversity databases for analysis (I are several countries whose access to local re- conditions and trends and for use in development sources and foreign exchange is so limited that decisionmaking. Equally, there is a need to create consideration of these mechanisms makes sense. a network for exchanging information at the re- These countries include: Bhutan, Cambodia gional level and with international conservation (should work there be possible), Lao P.D.R., Viet bodies. Such activities would help identify gaps Nam, Sri Lanka, and selected South Pacific is- in the coverage of species, habitat and protected lands. Trust funds might also be appropriate areas and determine conservation priorities for under very specific circumstances for the protec- action at the country level. A time-related moni- tion of sites of global significance. This paper toring system should also be developed to mea- recomnmends that the GEFestablish trust funds in sure trends and to provide early warning to highly selected areas and monitor them closely; national and local level decisionmakers. otherwise, trust funds should be avoided. Public Awareness. A critical component of Gaps and Regional Priorities biodiversity protection will be the expansion of public awareness and concern about its import- Clearly, moreinformation about ecosystemdy- ance and value. This will necessitate educatioh namics and economic valuation, and in general, and awareness campaigns by governments to rnore attention to the probable loss of biological motivate people and gain their support for con- resources, is needed. servation. Extension workers and education spe- cialists should be trained to disseminate Economic Policies Affecting Biodiversity Pro- information to farmers, fishermen, forest worlk tection. Althoughthispaperhasexamninedanum- ers, the urban and rural poor, and other groups ber of national policies that have an adverse impact about the importance of sustainable use of biolog- on biodiversity, economists can provide more ical resources. expert analysis and advice. This is particularly Nongovernmental organizations and advo- true where resource deterioration may be due to cacy groups can also help governments raise pub- a combination of many factors working off-site; lic awareness and concern. To realize this ifor example, where the loss of biodiversity in objective, however, actions will be needed to coastal and marine zones or wetlands is caused strengthen developing country NGOs and to pro- by use of pesticides, industrial pollution, soil ero- mote their direct participation in decisionmaking siort in upland watersheds, and so forth. Environ- on biodiversity policy and planning. mental action plans and other country and economic sector studies will be essential to ana- Wetlands and Marine Conservation. Most lyzing the policy forces behind biodiversity loss country conservation programs indicate a grow- and to identifying specific reforms for reducing ing awareness of priorities for the conservation of the threat or creating incentives to conserve. terrestrial areas. However, nearly all reviews ac- knowledge a dearth of information about inland Ex-Situ Protection of Biodiversity. Ex-situ and coastal wetlands and marine areas which are conservation is important to protecting a small facing increasing threat. It is clear that unless a but often critical part of biodiversity through seed major program of action is initiated in the next banks (germplasm), zoos, and botanical gardens five years, a significant proportion of the wetland (Hoyt 1988). However, the nunber of species resource will be lost in many parts of the region. maintained in living collections is limited by the Equally critical is action to develop means to size of the facilities and the relatively high main- conserve marine ecosystems. Most governments tenance cost per species. The Bank is already in the region are aware of their rapidly diminish- involved in ex-situ protection through support of ing marine biodiversity, particularly coral reefs, 46 ConservingBiological Diversity but they lack the expertiseto set priorities and culture, ecologicalconditions, stage of economic guiderecovery. Thermatterisfurthercomplicated development, and the clear need for sustained by the fact that natural marine boundaries sel- long-term external assistance, a multi-country dom correspondto territorialborders, the health biodiversityprogram might be more effective. of a country's marine environment being fre- Thisprogram shouldemphasize human resource quently dependent upon the condition of its development, transboundary reserve develop- neighbor(Thorne-Miller and Catena 1991).A re- ment, establishment of collaborativebiological gional initiativeis thereforedesirable to identify inventoriesand monitoringsystems, and devel- areasof significantspecies richness and endemic- opment of funding mechanismsto sustain con- ity and to develop integratedmanagement plans servation activitiesover the long-term.Though for their sustained conservation.The participa- Thailandis far ahead of its neighborsin available tion of artisanal fishermenand other coastal in- trained staff and financial resources, its habitantsis crucialto ensuring improvementsin biodiversityis disappearingrapidly and certain local managementof coral reef and reef-related policiesof the Thaigovernment, for example,the activities(White and Savina1987). loggingban, are having a detrimentalimpact on the biological resources of its better endowed SubregionalStrategy for Mainland Southeast neighbors.A regionalstudy of the impactsof pol- Asia. For Myanmar,Lao P.D.R.,Viet Nam, and icieson biodiversityprotection would be usefulin (eventually)Cambodia, given the similaritiesin this case. Appendixes

Appendix A. Data Tables Table A.1. Country Data: Asia-PacificRegion 48 Table A.2. Protected Area Systems in the Asia-PacificRegion 49 Table A.3. Management Costs for Protected Areas 50

Appendix B. Lists of Important Sites for Biodiversity Conservation 1. Centres of Plant Diversity in Asia (IUCNPlant Conservation Office 1990) 51 2. Endemic Bird Areas (IcBP1992) 52 3. Sites in Asia Listed Under International Agreements (IUCN1992) 54 4. Sites of Highest Priority for Conservation as Identified in the Review of the Protected Areas System in the Indo-Malayan Realm (MacKinnon and MacKinnon 1986) 55 5. Marine Protected Areas in the Asia-Pacific Region 57

Apipendix C. The Global Environment Facility 60 Table C. GEF Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Portfolio 61 48 AppendixA

Table A.1. Country Data: Asia-Pacific Region Area (hundreds Population PerCapita GrowthRate of square Population Density (per GNP of Population Country kilometers) (millions) squarekilometer) (dollars) (percent)

Bangladesh 1,440 108.9 756 170 2.4 Bhutan 470 1.4 30 150 2.4 Cambodia 1,810 8.2 45 <500 2.1 China 95,610 1,088.4 114 330 1.3 India 32,880 815.6 248 330 1.8 Indonesia 19,050 174.8 92 430 1.7 Korea, Republic of 990 42.0 424 3,530 0.9 Lao P.D.R. 2,370 3.9 16 180 2.9 Malaysia 3,300 16.9 51 1,870 2.2 Maldives 3 0.2 677 410 3.4 Myanmar 6,770 40.0 59 <500 2.1 Nepal 1,410 18.0 128 170 2.5 Fiji 180 0.7 41 1,540 1.9 Kiribati 10 0.1 96 650 1.9 Solomon Islands 270 0.3 11 430 3.7 Tonga 7 0.1 144 800 1.4 Vanuatu 120 0.2 13 820 3.2 Western Samoa 30 0.2 56 580 1.0 Papua New Guinea 4,630 3.7 8 770 2.2 Pakistan 7,960 106.3 134 350 3.2 Philippines 3,000 59.9 200 630 1.9 Sri Lanka 660 16.6 252 420 1.1 Thailand 5,130 54.5 106 1,000 1.3 Viet Nam 3,300 64.2 195 <500 2.0

Source: Area.World Bank 1990bfor all countries exceptFiji, Kiribati, Maldives, SolomonIslands, Tonga,Vanuatu, and W. Samoa, for which the source is WCMC1992. Population.World Bank 1990bfor all countries except Fiji, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu, and W. Samoa, for which the source is World Bank 1989b;and Cambodia, for which the source is WRI1990. Per capitaGNR World Bank 1989b.Data are for 1988. GrowthRate: World Bank 1990b.Data represent projected growth rates of the population during the period 1988-2000. AppendixA 49

Table A,2. ProtectedArea Systems in the Asia-Pacific Region Land Area Lossof Number under Percentage Percentage Compre- Original of PAsover Protection of Country of wii under Number hensiveness Effective- Habitat 10 square (square under Some of Marine of PAS ness of PAS (percent) kilometers kilometers) Protection Protection PAs Coverage Management

Country (1) (2) (2) (2) (3) (4) (5) (5) Bangladesh 94 8 968 0.7 9 0 L L Bhutan 34 5 9,061 19.4 77 n.a. H L China - 396 283,578 2.9 13 27 L L-M India 80 362 137,701 4.3 30 22 M M Indonesia 49 194 192,309 10.0 35 8 M M Cambodia 76 0 0 0 <1 0 L L Korea, Republicof - 26 7,568 7.7 - 19 - - Lao P.D.R. 71 0 0 0 0 n.a. L L Malaysia 41 51 14,880 4.5 53 13 H M Maldives - 0 0 0 - 0 L L Myanmar 71 2 1,733 0.3 <1 0 L L-M Nepal 54 13 11,260 8.0 77 n.a. L-M M Fiji - 2 53 0.3 - 0 L L Kiribati - 3 266 38.9 - 0 M-H M Solomon Island[s - 0 0 <1.0 - 0 L L Tonga - 0 0 < 1.0 - 6 L L Vanuatu - 0 0 <1.0 - I L L Western Samoa - 0 0 1.0 - 0 L L Pakistani 76 53 36,550 4.5 61 0 L-M L-M Papua New Guinea - 5 290 0.1 6 6 L L Philippines 79 27 5,729 1.9 7 8 L L Sri 'Lanka 83 43 7,837 11.9 30 3 M L-M ThaLiland 74 90 55,140 10.7 8 15 H M Viet Nam 80 59 8,975 2.7 1 1 L L PAs Protected areas. WIl Wetlands of International Importance PAS Protected Area System. - Datanot available. n.a. Not applicable. L Low. M Moderate. H Hligh. Source: (1) MacKinnon and MacKinnon 1986;WCMC 1992. (2) IUCN1990; WcMC 1992. (3) Scott and Poole 1989. (4) World Bank data. (5) Derived from MacKinnon and MacKinnon 1986;WCMC 1990; and various World Bank country-level studies. 50 AppendixA

Table A.3. Management Costs for Protected Areas Annual Operating Annual Costs Nameof ProtectedArea Country Area (fkn2) Budget(dollars) (perkm 2)

Wolong Nature Reserve China 2,000 363,500(S & 0) * 182 (65,000- 0 only) Gunung Leuser Indonesia 10,946 232,357 21 Baluran Indonesia 279 187,172 671 Bali Barat Indonesia 772 159,527 207 Shwe Settaw G.S. Myanmar 552 144,000(S & 0) 261 Kathapa N. Park Myanmar 1,607 143,600(S & 0) 89 Dumoga Bone Indonesia 2,780 136,874 49 Chatthin G.S. Myanmar 268 134,000(S & 0) 500 Khao Yai N. Park Thailand 2,169 131,300(S & 0) 61 Cede Pangrango Indonesia 152 120,714 794 Komodo Indonesia 407 111,817 275 Cat Ba N.Park Viet Nam 150 108,000(S & 0) 720 Ujung Kulon Indonesia 786 90,274 115 Makulu-Barun Nepal 1,250 85,000(S & 0) 68 Cuc Phuong N.Park Viet Nam 2,300 83,300(S & 0) 36 Kerinci Seblat Indonesia 14,847 79,606 5 Tanjung Puting Indonesia 3,552 68,639 19 Khao Soi Dao W.S. Thailand 745 63,000(S & 0) 85 Thale Noi Thailand 457 58,087(S & 0) 127 Baishuijiang Nature Preserve China 2,000 54,300(O only) Foping Nature Preserve China 290 54,000(O only) Staffing and Operations. - Data not available. Source:See Appendix A notes. AppendixB 51

Lists of ImportantSites for Biodiversity Conservation

1. Centresof Plant Diversityin Asia (iucNPlant ConservationOffice 1990) SoutheastAsia Philippines Lowland rainforest Malaysia (Peninsular) Endau-Rompin of Sibuyan Island Malaysia (Peninsular) Limestone flora Sulawesi Limestone flora Malaysia (Peninsular) Montane flora (Possible Sulawesi Lore Lindu National Park candidates: Cameron Sulawesi Ultramaphic flora Highlands, Genting (possibly Morowali Highlands, Fraser's Hill, National Park) and Kedah Peak.) Sulawesi Mt. Ranemario Malaysia (Peninsular) Northwest Peak Region Sumatra Gunung Leuser National (Possible candidates: Park Gunung Bubuin Perak, Sumatra Mount Kerinci Pangkor Island, Kedah, Sumatra Siberut the Segari Melintang Sumatra Limestone flora Forest Reserve,part of Penang, and the Eastern Asia (China and Indochina) Dindings area.) China Tropical rainforests Malaysia (Peninsular) of Hainan Malaysia (Sarawak) China Liang Shan Mountains Mlalaysia(Sarawak) Gunung Mulu National (West Sichuan) Park China Mt. Omei Malaysia (Sarawak) Lambir Hills Lao P.D.R. Bolovens Plateau Malaysia (Sabah) Thailand Khao Yai National Park Malaysia (Sabah) Northeast Borneo Viet Nam Binh Tri Thien ultramaphic flora (Area Viet Nam Cuc-Phuong around Mt. Silam, in Viet Nam Langbian Plateau eastern Sabah, may be a Viet Nam Montane vegetation candidate.) (Candidates are the Fan Indornesia(Java) Gede-Pangrango National Si Pan area close to Park China and the Malipo Indonesia (Kalimantan) Bukit Raya region of southeast Indonesia (Kalimantan) Kutai Yunnan.) Indoniesia(Irian Jaya) Arfak Mountains Indoitesia (Irian Jaya) Kumbe-Merauke The Indian Subcontinent and Sri Lanka Indoniesia(Irian Jaya) Lowland flora and India Agastyamalai Hills foothills in the (Western Ghats) Mervlakte region India Periyar National Park Indonesia (Irian Jaya) Mount Karstenz (Western Ghats) Inadonesia(Irian Jaya) Ultramaphic flora of New India Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve Guinea (Candidate sites (including Silent Valley include Cyclops and New Mountains.) Amarambalam Reserve) lIdonesia (Irian Jaya) Waigeo (Western Ghats) FPapuaNew Guinea Ultramaphic flora of New India Nanda Devi, Uttar Guinea (Candidate sites Pradesh (Western include Bowutu Himalayas) Mountains.) India Namdapha, Arunadel papua New Guinea Lowland flora of New Pradesh (Eastern Guinea HEimalayas) E'apua New Guinea Mount Wilhelm India Nallamalai, Andhra P'apua New Guinea Owen Stanley Range Pradesh (EasternGhats) l'hilippines Sierra Madre Mountains India Great Nicobar (Andaman Philippines Limestone flora of Luzon and Nicobar Islands) E'hilippines Lowland rainforests Sri Lanka Knuckles of Samar Sri Lanka PeakWilderness l'hilippines Sanctuary and Horton P'hilippines Mount Giting-Giting Plains (Sibuyan) Sri Lanka Sinharaja Forest Philippines Mount Pulog . I Philippines Palawan PcIslands Fiji Rainforests 52 AppendixB

2. EndemicBird Areas (ICBP 1992)

Area Country Habitat(s)* Asia West China China desert, scrub Western Himalayas Afghanistan, India, Nepal, Pakistan forest Indus valley India, Pakistan wetland, scrub Western Ghats India forest Sri Lanka Sri Lanka forest Tibetan valleys China scrub, rocky South Tibet China scrub, forest Eastern Himalayas Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal forest Assam plains Bangladesh, India wetland, grassland Tirap Frontier India, Myanmar scrub, mixed Qinghai mountains China rocky, mixed Central Sichuan mountains China forest West Sichuan mountains China forest, mixed South Chinese forests China forest Yunnan mountains China, Myanmar forest Burmese plains Myanmar scrub, agricultural Andaman Islands India forest Nicobar Island India forest Annamese lowlands Lao P.D.R.,Viet Nam forest Hainan China forest Da Lat Plateau Viet Nam forest Cochinchina Viet Nam forest Shanxi mountains China forest Fujian mountains China forest Southeast Asian Islands and New Guinea Luzon mountains Philippines forest Luzon lowlands and foothills Philippines forest Mindoro Philippines forest Negros and Panay Philippines forest Cebu Philippines forest Palawan Philippines forest Samar, Leyte, Bohol, and Mindanao Philippines forest lowlands Mindanao mountains Philippines forest Sulu Archipelago Philippines forest Bornean mountains Indonesia, Malaysia forest Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia Indonesia, Malaysia forest Enggano Indonesia forest, mixed javan and Balinesemountains Indonesia forest Javan lowlands Indonesia forest, mixed Flores and associated islands Indonesia forest Sumba Indonesia forest Timor and associated islands Indonesia forest Tanimbar and associated islands Indonesia forest Talaud and Sangihe Islands Indonesia forest Sulawesi mountains Indonesia forest Sulawesi lowlands Indonesia forest Banggai and Sula Islands Indonesia forest Buru Indonesia forest Seram Indonesia forest North Moluccas Indonesia forest West Papuan Islands and Vogelkop lowlands Indonesia forest Vogelkop mountains Indonesia forest Geelvink Bay Islands Indonesia forest, mixed AppendixB 53

Area Country Habitat(s)* North New Guinean mountains Indonesia, New Guinea forest North New Guinean lowlands Indonesia, New Guinea forest Adelbert and Huon mountains New Guinea forest Central New Guinean high-mountains Indonesia, New Guinea forest, mixed Central New Guinean mid-mountains Indonesia, New Guinea forest Trans-Fly and Upper-Fly Indonesia, New Guinea forest, wetland Pacific Islands Mariana Islands Guam, North Mariana Islands forest, mixed Yap Island Micronesia mixed, forest Micronesian Islands Micronesia forest, mixed Admiralty Islands Papua New Guinea forest, mixed St. Matthias Islands Papua New Guinea forest, mixed New Britain and New Ireland Papua New Guinea forest D'Entrecasteaux and Solomon Sea Islands Papua New Guinea forest, mixed Louisiade Archipelago Papua New Guinea forest Solomon Islands Solomon Islands forest San Cristobal Solomon Islands forest Rennell Island Solomon Islands forest, mixed Vanuatu and Santa Cruz Islands Solomon Islands, Vanuatu forest, mixed Samoan Islands Western Samoa forest, mixed Fijian Islands Fiji forest, mixed Pitcairn Islands Pitcairn Islands forest

* The most important habitat is given first. 54 AppendixB

3. Sites in Asia ListedUnder International Agreements (IUCN 1992)

World Heritage Sites Pakistan Tanda Dam China Mount Taishan Sri Lanka Bundala Sanctuary China Mount Huangshan Viet Nam Red River Estuary India Kaziranga National Park India Manas National Park Man and BiosphereProgram (MAB-Unesco)Reserves India Keoladeo National Park China Changbai Mountain India Sundarbans National Park Nature Reserve India Nanda Devi National Park China Shennongjia Nature Nepal Sagarmatha National Park Reserve Nepal Royal Chitwan National China Dinghu Nature Reserve Park China Wolong Nature Reserve Sri Lanka Sinharaja Forest Reserve China Fanjingshan Mountain Thailand Huay Kha Khaeng-Thung Biosphere Reserve Yai China Xilin Gol Natural Steppe Wetlands of Internati'onalImportance (Ramsar Sites) China FujianProtected Wuyishan Area Nature Bangladesh The Sundarbans Reserve China Xianghai China Bogdhad Mountain China Zhalong Biosphere Reserve China Poyanghu Indonesia Cibodas Biosphere China Dongdongtinghu Reserve (Gunung Gede- China Niaodao Pangrango) China Dongzhaigang Indonesia Komodo National Park India Chilka Lake Wildlife Indonesia Lore Lindu National Park Sanctuary Indonesia Tanjung Puting National India Keoladeo National Park Park India Wular Lake Indonesia Gunung Leuser National India Harike Lake Park India Loktak Lake Indonesia Siberut Nature Reserve India Sambhar Lake Korea, Republic of Mount Sorak Biosphere Indonesia Berbak Reserve Nepal Koshi Toppu Korea, People's Mount Paekdu Pakistan Thanadarwala Game DemocraticRepublic of Reserve Mongolia Great Gobi Pakistan Drigh Lake Wildlife Pakistan Lal Suhanra National Park Sanctuary Philippines Puerto Galera Biosphere Pakistan Haleji Lake Wildlife Reserve Sanctuary Philippines Palawan Biosphere Reserve Pakistan Kandar Dam Sri Lanka Hurulu Forest Reserve Pakistan Khabbeke Lake Wildlife Sri Lanka Sinharaja Forest Reserve Sanctuary Thailand Sakaerat Environmental Pakistan Kheshki Reservoir Research Station Pakistan Kinjhar (Kalri) Lake Thailand Hauy Tak Teak Reserve Wildlife Sanctuary Thailand Mae Sa-Kog Ma Reserve Pakistan Malugul Dhand AppendixB 55

4. Sites of HighestPriority for Conservationas Identifiedin the Review of the Protected AreasSystem in the Indo-MalayanRealm (MacKinnon and MacKinnon1986) Bangladesh Sunderbans East India Simlipal Wildlife Sanctuary and Bangladesh Sunderbans West National Park Bangladesh Sunderbans South India Sunderbans Wildlife Sanctuary Bhuta.. Jigme Dorji India Todgarh Raoili Wildlife Sanctuary Bhutan igmeanors India Wild Ass Sanctuary Bhutar, Manas Indonesia Bali Barat Cambodia Hondrai-Sou Indonesia Baluran Cambodia Kampong Thor Indonesia Barisan Selatan Cambodia Phnom Aural Indonesia Bentayan Cambodia Phnom Kravanh Indonesia Bentuang-Karimun Cambodia Preah Vihea Indonesia Berbak Cambodia Tonle Sap Indonesia Bromo-Tengger India Bandipur National Park Indonesia Bukit Besar India Bori WildlifeSanctuary Indonesia Bukit Raya Indlia Chilka Lake WildlifeSanctuary Indonesia Danau Sentarum India Corbett National Park Indonesia DolokSembelin India Coringa Wildlife Sanctuary Indonesia Dumoga Bone India Dampa Wildlife Sanctuary Indonesia Gede/Pangrango In,dia Desert National Park Indonesia Gn. Arnau India Dhrangadhra Sanctuary Indonesia Gn. Kawi/Kelud India Dudhwa National Park Indonesia Gn. Latimojang India Eravikulam National Park Indonesia Gn. Leuser India Gir National Park and Wildlife Indonesia Gn. Mutis Sanctuary Indonesia Gn. Nuit Becapa India Great Himalayan National Park Indonesia Gn. Olet Sangenges India Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary Indonesia Gn. Palung India Hemis High Altitude Indonesia Gn. Rinjani India Indravati National Park Indonesia Gn. Tangkoko India Kaimur Bihar Wildlife Sanctuary Indonesia Gn. Wanggameti India Kanha National Park Indonesia Gunung Halimun Irldia Kaziranga Natioral Park Indonesia Ira/Lalore/Yaco India Keoladeo National Park Indonesia Kambangour Lubuk India Khangchendzonga National Park Indonesia Kambang Lubuk Niur Irndia Kishtwar National Park Indonesia Kerinci Seblat India Kolleru Wildlife Sanctuary Indonesia Kerumutan (Baru) India Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary Indonesia Komodo India Manas Wildlife Sanctuary Indonesia Kutai India Marine National Park Indonesia Lore Lindu India Melghat Tiger Resekve Indonesia Marisa Complex India Mundanthurai Wildlife Sanctuary and Indonesia Meru Betiri Tiger Reserve Indonesia Morowali tITdia Nagarjunasagar We dlife Sanctuary Indonesia Muara Sebuka India Namdapha National Park Indonesia Perluasan Leuser India Nanda Devi National Park Indonesia Rawa Opa lIdia Noradehi WildNfeSanctuary Indonesia Ruteng India Pakhal Wildlife Sanctuary Indonesia S. Kayan Mentarang India Palamau WildlifeSanctuary and Indonesia Sangkilirang National Park Indonesia Siberida India Panna National Park Indonesia Singkil Barat IndiaL Periyar National Park Indonesia Taitai Batti India Phulwari WNldlifeSanctuary Indonesia Tanjung Puting India Pulicat Waterbird Sanctuary Indonesia Ujung Kulon India Ranthambore National Park Indonesia Ulu Kayan Mutlak India Sanjay (Dubri) Wildlfe Sanctuary Indonesia Ulu Sembakung India SanjayNational Park Indonesia Way Kambas India Satkosia Gorge India ]!ndiaSilentSatksi ValleyGogey National Park Lao P.D.R. LuangLai Leng Prabang

(Tablecontinues on thefollowing pagej 56 AppendixB

Sites of HighestPriority for Conservationas Identifiedin the Review of the Protected AreasSystem in theIndo-Malayan Realm (continued) Lao P.D.R. Xe Kaman Philippines Mount Iglit/Baco Malaysia Danum Valley Philippines St. Paul's Malaysia Endau Rompin S. China Meng la Malaysia Gn. Mulu S. China Meng-yang Malaysia Kinabalu Sri Lanka Ruhuna (Yala) Malaysia Lanjak Entimau Sri Lanka Sinharaja Malaysia Taman Negara Sri Lanka Wilpattu National Park Myanmar Arakan Yoma S/N Sri Lanka Yala East Myanmar Ka Kabo Razi Thailand Huay Kha Khaeng Myanmar Khlong Saeng Thailand Kaeng Krachan Myanmar Kyaukpandaung National Park Thailand Khao Soi Dac Myanmar Nam Lang Valley Thailand Khao Yai Myanmar Pegu Yoma Thailand Mae Ping Nepal Bardia (Karnali) Thailand Nam Nao Nepal Chitwan Thailand Phu Khieo Nepal Sukla Phanta Viet Nam Ba be Pakistan Cholistan Viet Nam Bach Ma Hai van Pakistan Kachi, Sibi, Nasi Viet Nam Cuc Phuong Pakistan Kirthar National Park Viet Nam Dalat Pakistan Lasbela Viet Nam Halong Pakistan Mahal Kohistan Viet Nam Lien Son Pakistan Rann of Kutch Viet Nam Mom rai Ngocvin Philippines Leyte Mountain Viet Nam MuongTe Philippines Mount Apo National Park Viet Nam Nam Cat Tien Philippines Mount Canlaon Viet Nam Ngoc linh AppendixB 57

5. MarineProtected Areas in the Asia-PacificRegion

MarineRegion Country MarineProteded Area Name Indian Ocean India-Andaman Island Interview Island Sanctuary Indian Ocean India-Andaman Island Magrove Island Sanctuary Indian Ocean India-Andaman Island Marine (Wandur) National Park Indian Ocean India-Andaman Island Middle Butten Island National Park Indian Ocean India-Andaman Island North Butten Island National Park Indian Ocean India-Andaman Island North Reeflsland Sanctuary Indian Ocean India-Andarnan Island South Butten Island National Park Indian Ocean India-Andaman Island South Sentinel Island Sanctuary Indian Ocean India-Andaman Island Tillanchang Island Sanctuary Indian Ocean India-Andhra Pradesh Coringa Sanctuary Indian.Ocean India-Andhra Predesh Pulicat Sanctuary Indian Ocean India-Gujarat State Great Rann National Park Indian Ocean India-Gujarat State Marine (Gulf of Kutch) National Park Indian Ocean India-Gujarat State Marine (Gulf of Kutch) Sanctuary Indian Ocean India-Maharashtra State Malvan Sanctuary IndiarLOcean India-Orissa State Bhitar Kanika Sanctuary Indian Ocean India-Tamil Nadu State Marine (Gulf of Mannar) National Park Indian Ocean India-Tamil Nadu State Point Calimere Sanctuary Indian Ocean India-West Bengal State Halliday Island Sanctuary Indian Ocean India-West Bengal State Lothian Island Sanctuary Indian Ocean India-West Bengal State SajnakhaliSanctuary Indian Ocean India-West Bengal State Sundarbans National Park Indian Ocean Sri Lanka Hikkaduwa Marine Sanctuary Iridian Ocean Sri Lanka Pigeon Island Sanctuary Indian Ocean Sri Lanka Wilpattu National Park Southeast Asia Thailand Ao Phannnngnga National Park Southeast Asia Thailand Hat Chao Mai National Park So)utheastAsia Thailand Hat Nai Yang National Park (plus Ko Phuket reefs) Southeast Asia Thailand Hat Nopharat Thara-Mu Ko Phi Phi National Park SDutheastAsia Thailand Khao Laem Ya-Mu Ko Samet National Park SDutheastAsia Thailand Khao Lam Pi-Hat Thai Muang National Park Southeast Asia Thailand Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park Southeast Asia Thailand Laem Son National Park Southeast Asia Thailand Mu Ko Wng Thong National Park Southeast Asia Thailand Mu Ko Chang Islands National Park Southeast Asia Thailand Mu Ko Lanta National Park Southeast Asia Thailand Mu Ko Phetra National Park Southeast Asia Thailand Mu Ko Similan National Park Southeast Asia Thailand Mu Ko Surin National Park Southeast Asia Thailand Southeast Asia Malaysia Kepulauan Sembilan/Palau Tengah Southeast Asia Malaysia (Tempossuk Plains) Southeast Asia Malaysia Palau Besar Southeast Asia Malaysia Palau Gaya Southeast Asia Malaysia Palau Kapas Southeast Asia Malaysia Palau Mantanani Southeast Asia Malaysia Palau Perhentian SioutheastAsia Malaysia PalauTenggol Southeast Asia Malaysia Palau Tiga Southeast Asia Malaysia Palau Tinggi Southeast Asia Malaysia Palau Tioman Southeast Asia Malaysia Palau Langkawi Marine Park Southeast Asia Malaysia Palau Redang Marine Park/Palau Lang Tengah Southeast Asia Indonesia Palau Kosa Southeast Asia Indonesia Palau Senama Southeast Asia Indonesia-Irian Jaya Palau Pombo Nature Reserve Southeast Asia Indonesia-Java Kepulauan Seribu Marine National Park (Tablecontinues on thefoflowing page.J 58 AppendixB

MarineProtected Areas in the Asia-PacificRegion (continued)

Marine Region Country Marine ProtectedArea Name Southeast Asia Indonesia-Kalimanta Pulau Sangalaki Marine Park Southeast Asia Indonesia-Moluccas Pulau Banda Nature Reserve/Marine Park Southeast Asia Indonesia-Sulawesi Bunaken Menado Tua Marine National Park Southeast Asia Indonesia-Sumatra Pulau Weh Marine Park Southeast Asia Philippines Apo Island Marine Park Southeast Asia Philippines Fortune Island Marine Park Southeast Asia Philippines Fugo Island Marine Park Southeast Asia Philippines Moalboal Conservation Area Southeast Asia Philippines Panglaon Island-Balicasag Area Marine Reserve Southeast Asia Philippines Sombrero Island Marine Reserve Southeast Asia Philippines Sumilon Island Marine Park SoutheastAsia Philippines Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park Southeast Asia Viet Nam Cat Ba island and Halong Bay Central and South Pacific Papua New Guinea BagiaiWildlife Management Area Central and South Pacific Papua New Guinea Maza WildlifeManagement Area Central and South Pacific Papua New Guinea Nanuk Island Provincial Park Central and South Pacific Papua New Guinea Ndrowlowa Wildlife Management Area Central and South Pacific Papua New Guinea Ranba (Long Island) Wildlife Management Area Central and South Pacific Papua New Guinea Talele Island Provincial Park Central and South Pacific Tonga Fanga'uta Fangakafau Lagoon Management Area Central and South Pacific Tonga H'Atafu Beach Reserve Central and South Pacific Tonga Hakaumama'o Reef Reserve Central and South Pacific Tonga Malinoa Island Park and Reef Reserve Central and South Pacific Tonga Monuafe Island Park and Reef Reserve Central and South Pacific Tonga Pangaimotu Reef Reserve Central and South Pacific Guam Guam Territorial Seashore Park Central and South Pacific Guam Haputo EcologicalReserve Area Central and South Pacific Guam Orote Peninsula EcologicalReserve Central and South Pacific Guam War in the Pacific National Historical Park Central and South Pacific New Caledonia Ilot Maitre Sepcial Flora and Fauna Reserve Central and South Pacific New Caledonia Parc Provincial Du Lagon Sud: Islets Central and South Pacific New Caledonia Parc Provincial Du Lagon Sud: Marine Fauna Rot Central and South Pacific New Caledonia Yves Merlet Marine Reserve Central and South Pacific U.S.A. Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Central and South Pacific U.S.A. Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Central and South Pacific U.S.A. Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Central and South Pacific U.S.A. Johnson Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Central and South Pacific American Samoa Amkerican Samoa National Park Central and South Pacific American Samoa Fangatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary Central and South Pacific American Samoa Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Central and South Pacific French Polynesia Manuae (Scillyon Fenuaura Atoll) Reserve Central and South Pacific French Polynesia W.A. Robinson Integral Reserve and Biosphere Central and South Pacific Palau Ngerukewid Wildlife Preserve Central and South Pacific Pitcairn Islands Henderson Island World Heritage Site Central and South Pacific Vanuatu Million Dollar Point Reserve Central and South Pacific Westem Samoa Palolo Deep Marine Reserve Northwest Pacific China Shelly-DamNature Reserve Northwest Pacific China Futian Nature Reserve Northwest Pacific China Neilingting Island Nature Reserve Northwest Pacific China Donzhaigang National Nature Reserve Northwest Pacific China Tonggu Ridge Nature Reserve Northwest Pacific China Wencheng Mangrove Forest Nature Reserve Northwest Pacific China Algae Nature Reserve Northwest Pacific China Dazhou Island Nature Reserve Northwest Pacific China Nanwan Rhesus Monkey Nature Reserve Northwest Pacific China Abalone Nature Reserve . Northwest Pacific China Xinying Mangrove Forest Nature Reserve AppendixB 59 harine Region Country MarineProtected Area Name NorthwestPacific China PreciousMarine Organisms Nature Reserve NlorthwestPacific China ShellfishNature Reserve NorthwestPacific China CaigiaoMangrove Forest Nature Reserve NorthwestPacific China CoralReef Nature Reserve NorthwestPacific China LingaojiaoNature Reserve NorthwestPacific China WenlanRiver Nature Reserve NorthwestPacific China WeizhouIsland BirdsNature Reserve NorthwestPacific China DugongNature Reserve NorthwestPacific China QingzhouWan Nature Reserve NorthwestPacific China DongIsland Red-Footed Booby Nature Reserve NJorthwestPacific China Xi-Nan-ZhongshaArchipelago Nature Reserve NorthwestPacific China The SnakeIsland and LaotieMountain National Nature Reserve NorthwestPacific China MiaoDao IslandsNature Reserve NorthwestPacific China QiansanIsland Birds Nature Reserve NorthwestPacific China YanchengPrecious Birds on SeabeachNature Reserve NorthwestPacific China NanJishan ArchipelagoNature Reserve N4orthwestPacific China Nan Ao IslandsNature Reserve NqorthwestPacific China DayawanAquatic Resource Nature Reserve NorthwestPacific Republicof Korea TonghaeProvincial Park NorthwestPacific Republicof Korea Tadohae-HaesangNational Park lNorthwestPacific Republicof Korea HongdoIslands Nature Reserve NorthwestPacific Republicof Korea PyonsanbandoNational Park NorthwestPacific Republicof Korea Tae-an-hae-anSeashore National Park NorthwestPacific Republicof Korea Kyongp'oProvincial Park NorthwestPacific Republicof Korea NakdongRiver Mouth Migratory Bird Arrival Area NorthwestPacific Republicof Korea HallyoHaesang National Park 60 AppendixC

The Global Environment Facility

The Global Environment Facility is a pilot pro- Sources of Funds gram to assist developing countries contribute toward solving global environmental problems. The GEFis an administrative umbrella for three The three-year experiment provides grants for different types of funds: (1) contributions to the investment projects, technical assistance, and to a GET, which is the "core fund"; (2) associated lesser extent research on protecting the global cofinancing arrangements; and (3) contributions environment and transferring environmentally to the Montreal Protocol's Interim Multilateral benign technologies. The facility's work falls into Fund. Together they totalled some $1.3 billion four main areas: biological diversity, global (Special Drawing Rights, $1 billion) at the end of warming, international waters, and depletion of 1991. the ozone layer. All finance from the core fund and the Interim Responsibility for implementing the GEF is Multilateral Fund is in grants. Cofinancing ar- shared by UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank. The rangements must also provide funds on grant or GEFis chaired by the Director of the World Bank's highly concessional terms. Environment Department. Twenty-four participating countries (nine of A global environment facility was proposed them in the developing world) had pledged some in September 1989 by the French representative $800 million to the core fund by the end of 1991: at a meeting of the Development Committee- Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Den- a joint World Bank-IMFministerial advisory mark, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Mo- group. Germany put forward a similar proposal. rocco, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Spain, Fourteen months later, in November 1990, the Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United GEF was formally established by a group of devel- Kingdom. Industrial country pledges account for oping and industrialized countries meeting in some $700 million of the core fund. Other coun- Paris. tries are expected to contribute. In addition to their contributions to the core Organization fund, Belgium, Canada, Japan and Switzerland have separate cofinancing arrangements. Aus- The CEF'sorganization reflects the understand- tralia and the United States have not contributed ing that no new bureaucracy will be created and to the core fund, but Australia has established that only modest modifications will be made to cofinancing arrangements and the United States the three implementing agencies. Emphasis is has announced plans for parallel financing of placed on building consensus and informal GEF-type projects. Together the six countries' working arrangements. Within this framework cofinancing commitments stood at some $300 the agencies play distinct roles: million in December 1991. Another $200 million is available through the * UNDP is responsible for technical assistance Interim Multilateral Fund, the funding mecha- activities and through its worldwide network nism of the Montreal Protocol that provides for of offices,ensures that GEFprograms comple- the phasing out of ozone-destroying substances. ment other development activities. UNDP is The fund is administered by UNEP under the aus- also responsible for running a small grants pices of a fourteen-country Executive Committee. program with the GEF. Approved projects are implemented by either * UNEPprovides policy guidance to the GEF UNDP,UNEP, or the World Bank. process, as well as the secretariat for the Sci- Finance for projects to protect the ozone layer entific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP), will normally come from the Interim Multilateral which is made up of fifteen international en- Fund but there are some countries, such as those vironmental experts. in Central and Eastern Europe, thatdo not qualify * The World Bank is the trustee and man- for its support because their ozone-depleting ager of the Global Environment Trust Fund emissions are above the cut-off point of 0.3 kilo- (GET) and is responsible for investment gramsper capita, asspecified at the Londonmeet- projects. ing in June 1990where agreement was reached on AppendixC 61

Table C. GEF Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Portfolio Amount (millions LeadAgencyl Country Project of dollars) AssociatedNGOs

Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental 10.0 UNDP and World Bank/ Conservation WWF-U.S. Lao P.D.R. Wildlife Protected Areas 5.5 World Bank Management (component of forestry project)/ TucN and wwF Philippines Conservation Management Up to 20.0 World Bank of Priority Protected Areas (component of SECAL)/ WWF-U.S.and Haribon Foundation South Pacific RegionalBiodiversity 10.0 UNDPandSPREP/ ConservationTechnical IUCN Assistance Viet Nam Protected Areas and Wildlife 3.0 UNDP/ Conservation Technical WwFand IUCN Assistance Indonesia Biodiversity Action Plan, 13.6 World Bank preparation work, for (component of watershed project)/ integrated conservation and WALFH,SKEPHI, development wwF-lnternational Papua New Guinea National Conservation and Up to 5.0 UNDP/ ResourceManagement WWF-US Programme WCa,FSP Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation and 4.1 uNDPandFAo/ Protected Areas Management IUCN Nepal Makalu-Barun Conservation 3.8 uNDPand World Bank/ Area and National Woodlands Mountain Institute Biodiversity Action Plan Myanmar BiodiversityConservation 3.9 UNDP/ WWF

China* Biodiversity Action Plan 20.0 World Bank Management Plans for (component of Forest Protection Priority Protected Areas and Development Project) India* Ecodevelopment 10.0-12.0 World Bank and UNDP Thailand* Forest Area Protection and 10.0-25.0 World Bank Management (component of Forest Protection, Management, and Development Project) Reserveor standbyproject. the interim fund. In these countries, the GEFcore ronmental problems outlined above. All coun- fund may be used for projects that protect the tries with a UNDP program in place and a per ozon e layer. capital income of $4,000 or less are eligible for GEF funds. The scientific and technical criteria for -projects project selection were set out by STAP. Govern- ments in the developing world are primary During its three-year pilot phase, the GEFem- agents in identifying and selecting projects, but phasized selection of an assortment of projects they may seek assistance in project identification that deal with the complete range of global envi- from the GEFimplementing agencies, NGOs, and 62 AppendixC private firms. All projects require government Role of NGOS,Regional Banks, and endorsement. UN Agencies Projects are then submitted to the local UNDP representative. After review and approval by Fromtheoutset,thethreeGEFimplementingagen- participating governments (which together make cies have been committed to working with NGOs up the GEF'sparticipants), the appraisal of pro- whose specialized knowledge of both global and jects is left to the relevant implementing agency. local issues is valuable in project identification,re- The World Bank manages investment projects, view, preparation, and implementation. A special while UNDP has primary responsibility for techni- $5 million small-grantsfund supports community- cal assistance. basedactivitiesbygrassrootsorganizationsand NGOs Some fifty projects were reviewed by partici- in developing countries. Individual grants cannot pating governments during 1991 and are now exceed $50,000 except for regional projects, for part of the GEFwork program. They include pro- which the maximum is $250,000.This program will posals to preserve tropical rainforests in the initiallyoperate in thirty-threedeveloping countries, Congo, reduce carbon emissions in the Philip- where it will be implemented relatively autono- pines, arrest marine pollution in China, and mously,under the guidanceof localcommittees and strengthen conservation in Colombia. the stewardship of the resident UNDP fieldoffices. During the Rio Earth Summit sponsored by the GEFprojects may be sponsored and cofinanced United Nations Commission on Environment by the regional multilateral development banks. and Development, the second phase of GEF was The United Nations specialized agencies also have endorsed, and is expected to commit $1 billion a a role to play, notably those dealing with health, year for global environmental issues. food, agriculture, climate, and maritime issues. References I | . I''~~~~~~~I 111

Abiramovitz, J. 1991. Investing in BiologicalDiversity: Craven, 1.1990."Community Involvement in Manage- L.S. Researchand ConservationEfforts in Developing ment of the Arfak Mountains Nature Reserve." Un- Countries.Washington, D.C.: WRI. published paper, WWF, Jayapura, Indonesia. Abramovitz, J. and R. Nichols. 1992. "Women and Dahl, A. L. 1986.Review of the ProtectedAreas System in Biodiversity: Ancient Reality, Modern Imperative." Oceania.Gland, Switzerland:IUCN and Nairobi:UNEP. Development:Seeds of Change2:85-90. de Beer,J. H. and M. J. McDermott. 1989. The Economic Alc:orn,J. B. and N. Johnson. 1989. "Conservation of Valueof Non-timberForest Products in SoutheastAsia. Biological Diversity in Bangladesh: Status, Trends Amsterdam: Netherlands Committee for IUCN. and Recommended Responses." Unpublished paper Dixon, J. A. and P. B. Sherman. 1990. Economicsof prepared for USAID,Washington, D.C. ProtectedAreas: A New Look at Benefits and Costs. Allegretti, M. H. 1990."Extractive Reserves: An Alter- Washington, D.C.:Island Press. native for Reconciling Development and Environ- Ehrlich, P. R. and A. H. Ehrlich, 1981. Extinction:The mental Conservation in Amazonia." In A. Anderson, Causesand Consequencesof the Disappearanceof Species. ed., Alternativesto Deforestation:Steps Toward Sustain- New York: Random House. aiblelse oftheAmazonRainForests. NewYork: Colum- Ehrlich, P. R. and E. 0. Wilson, 1991. "Biodiversity bia University Press. Studies: Scienceand Policy." Science253:758-762. AshtorL,P. S. 1988. Conservation of Biological Diversity FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1981a. in Botanical Gardens. In E.O. Wilson, ed., Biodivers- "Thailand: A Review of the Nature Conservation ity. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of S Programmes and Policiesof theRoyal Forest Depart- eances. ment." Project Working Document. National Parks BAPPE,NAS(NationalDevelopmentPlanningBureau,ln- and WildlifeManagement Project, THA 77/003. Rome. donesia). 1992. "National Biodiversity Action Plan -. 1981b. ForestResources of TropicalAsia. Tropical for Indonesia." Draft for publication by BAPPENAS, Forest Resources Assessment Project. Rome. Jakarta, Indonesia. -. 1985a. Burma:Survey Data and ConservationPriori- Berkes, F. 1989. "Cooperation from the Prospective of ties. Technical Report 1. Nature Conservation and Human Ecology." In Comton Property Resources: National Parks, FO:DP/BuR/80/006. Rome. Ecology and Community-BasedSustainable Develop- -. 1985b. Nature Consration and National Parks, ment. London: Belhaven. Buma TerminalReport O:DPB/ Rome. Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism:The Potentialand Pitfalls. Vol. .Washinton D.C.: WWF - . 1986. A NationalForest Inventory of Sri Lanka, Washington,. 1982-85.Forest Department, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Browder, J. 0.1990. 'Extractive Reserves will not Save the Tropics." Bioscience,40 (9):626. -. 1988. An Interim Report on the State of ForestRe- sources in the DevelopingCountries. so: Misc/88/7. CCaAR(Consultative Group on International Agricul- Rome. tural Research). 1992. Biodiversity and Plant Genetic Ferside, P. M. 1989. "Extractive Reserves in Brazilan Resources.Washington, D.C.: CGaAR. Amazon.' Bioscience39(6).387-393a China Conservation Strategy Editorial Board. 1990. A, ChinaConservation Strategy. Beijing: China Environ- Hansen, S. 1988. "Debt for Nature Swaps: Overview mental SciencePress. and Discussion of Key Issues." Working Paper 1. C'hinese Academy of Sciences. 1990. Chapter 6: World Bank, Environment Department, Washing- Conseation of Grasslandsand Deserts.China Conser- ton, D.C. vation Strategy. Beijing:China EnvironmentalScience Hoyt, E. 1988. Conser-vingthe Wild Relatives of Crops. Press. Gland, Switzerland: IBPGRIiucN and WWF. Collins, N. M, J. A. Sayer, and T. C. Whitmore, eds. ica (International Council for Bird Preservation). 1991. 1991. The ConservationAtlas of TropicalForests: Asia "World Bird Conservation Strategies." Report by and the Pacific.London: Macmillan Press Ltd. IcBP.Cambridge, UK. 64 References

.1992.PuttingBiodiversityontheMap:PriorityAreas McNeely, J. A. and K. R. Miller, eds. 1984. National for GlobalConservation. Cambridge, U.K: IcBP. Parks, Conservation and Development: The Role of Pro- ne (International Monetary Fund). 1990.Interational tectingAreas in SustainingSociety. Washington, D.C.: FinancialStatistics 1990. Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institution Press. uCNanternational Union for the Conservation of Na- McNeely,J. A,K. R.Miller, W.V. Reid,R. A. Mitterme- ture and Natural Resources).1985. The CorbettAction ier, and T. B. Werner. 1990. Conservingthe World's PlanforProtectedAreasof theIndomralayan Realm Cam- BiologicalDiversity. Washington, D.C. and Gland, bridge, U.K.:University Press. Switzerland:WFI,World Conservation Union, World -. 1988. CoralReefs of the World. Volumes L ,1111. Bank, wwF-US. and Conservation International. Nairobi:UNEP and Gland, Switzerland: iucN. Mishra, H. 1984. "A Delicate Balance: Tigers, Rhinoc-

-. 1990. IUCNDirectory of South Asian Protected eros, Tourists, and Park Management vs. Needs of Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. the Local People in Royal Chitwan National Park, - 1991.Towards Sustainable Development: The Nepal." In J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller, eds., Na- National ConservWatoSStrmatlegyof Bangladesh' tional Parks, ConseVation and Development: The Role of National Conservation Strategy of Bangladesh. nProtecting Areas in Sustaining Society. Washington, Draft. Ministry of Enviromnent and Forest. Gland, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution Press. Switzerland. Mittermeier, R. A. and T. B. Werner. 1990. "Wealth of -. 1992.Protected Areas of the World:A Review of Na- Plants and Animals Unites "Megadiversity" Coun- tional Systems. Volume 1: Indomalaya,Oceania, Aus- tries." Tropicus4(1)1-5. traliaand Antarctic.Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.* r * traiaPant Conservatio.Gland,OSwicze.r1990.aCente of PMorowitz, H. J. 1991. "Balancing Species Preservation IuN Plant Conservation Office. 1990.Centres of Plant and Economic Considerations." Science Diversity:AnIntroduction to theProject with Guidelines 253(5021):752-754. for Collaborators.Surrey, U.K.:iuacN. Myers, N. 1988. 'Threatened Biotas: "Hot-spots" in IUCN,UNE and WWF.1992. Caringfor the Earth:A Strat- Tropical Forests."The Environmentalist8(3):187-208. egy for SustainableLiving. Gland, Switzerland: rucN, 1990.'The BiodiversityChallenge: Expanded Hot- UNEPand WWF .90 TeBodvriyhlege.xaddHt UN(antenaioalw Spots Analysis." TheEnvironmentalist 10(4):243-256. rwRB(Intemnational Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau) and AWB(Asian Wetland Bureau). 1992.Ac- National Academy of Sciences.1980. Research Priorities tion Programmefor the Conservationof Wetlands in in TropicalBiology. Washington, D.C.: National Re- South and West Asia. Slimbridge, UK.: IwRB and search Council. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: AWB. Nelson,J.G.andR.Serafin. 1992."Assessing Biodivers- Jansen, M. A. B. and E. R. Loken. 1988. "Sri Lanka, ity: A Human Ecological Approach." Ambio BiologicalDiversity and Tropical Forests: Status and 21(3):212-218. Recommended Conservation Needs." Unpublished Norton, B. C. 1987. Why Preserve Natural Variety? paper, prepared by USAID,Sri Lanka. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Johnson, N. and J. Alcorn. 1989.Ecological, Economicand OTA(Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress). DevelopmnentValues of BiologicalDiversity in Asia and 1987. Technologiesto Maintain BiologicalDiversity. the Near East. Washington, D.C.: wPi. OTA-P-330. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govermnent Lao Forest Inventory and Management Office. 1991. Printing Office. National Forest ReconnaissanceSurvey of Lao P.D.R. Pearce, D. W. 1987. "The Sustainable Use of Natural Vientienne Departmentof Forestryand Environment. Resources in Developing Countries." In R.H.Turner, Ledec, G. and R. Goodland. 1988. Wildlands:Their Pro- ed., SustainableEnvironmental Management: Principles tection and Management in Economic Development. and Practices.London: Frances Pinto. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Peters, C. M, A. H. Gentry and R. 0. Mendelsohn. 1989. Li Wenhua and Zhao Xianying. 1989. China'sNature "Valuation of anAmazonian Rainforest."Nature 339, Reserves.BeiJing: Foreign Languages Press. 655-656. Machlis, G.E. 1992. 'The Contribution of Sociologyto Pimentel, D., Stachow, H. Takacs, A. Brubaker, H. Biodiversity Research and Management." Biological Dumas, A. Meaney, J. O'Neil, J. Onsi, and E. and D. Conservation62:161-170. Corzilius. 1992."Conserving Biological Diversity in MacKinnon, J. 1990. Review of the Nature Conservation Agricultural/Forestry Systems." Bioscience System, NationalParks and ProtectedAreas. Forestry 42(5):35 2. sector review.t Viet Nae Trotical Forestry Action Poffenberger, M., ed. 1990. Keepersof the Forest:Land Plan. rvO/Ue VP/MOFVIE/88/037. Romes FAO ManagementAlternatives in SoutheastAsia. West Hart- MacKinnon, J. and K. MacKinnon. Romiew of the ford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press. Protected Areas System in the I16o-.AwayanRoalm. Raven,P. H. 1988."Our DiminishingTropical Forests." Gland, Switzerland: UmiN. In E.O. Wilson, ed., Biodiversity.Washington, D.C.: Markandya, A. 1990. "Current Multilateral, Bilateral National Academy Press. and National FinancialSupport for BiologicalDiver- Reid, W. V. 1991. "Genetic Resources and Sustainable sity Conservation." Report for UNEP.Nairobi. Agriculture: Creating Incentives for Local Innova- Mc.1988.Economics and BiologicalDiversity: tion and Adaptation." Paper presented at the Work- McNeely,oJ.A. UsingEconomi Icntmtol o nwe shop on PropertyRights, Biotechnology,and Genetic DBevlopingand UsingEconomicIentives tCnr Resources,June 1991.Nairobi. BiologicalResouerces. GLand, Switzerland: 113cM. Rsucs ue19.Nlo References 65

-. 1992. "How Many Species Will There Be?" In T. Udvardy, M. D. F. 1975.A Classificationof the Biogeo- WhitmoreandJ.Sayer,eds.,TropicalDeforestationand graphical Provinces of the World. IucN Occasional SpacesExtinction. London: Chapman and Hall. Paper 18. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Reid, W.V. and K. R.Miller. 1989.KeepingOptionsAlive: -. 1984. "A BiogeographicalClassification System for The ScientificBasis for ConservingBiodiversity. Wash- Terrestrial Environments." In J. A. McNeely and K. ington D.C.: wRi. R. Miller, eds, NationalParks, Conservation and Devel- Repetto, R. and M. Gillis. 1988. PublicPolicies and the opment. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Misuse of ForestResources. Cambridge, UK.: Cam- Press. bridge University Press. UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment Repetto, R., W. Magrath, M. Wells, C. Beer, and F. and Development). 1992. "Promoting Sustainable Rossini. 1989. Wasting Assets: Natural Resourcesin Agriculture and Rural Development." In draft of NaturalIncome Accounts. Washington, D.C.: wRi. Agenda 21, adopted June 14.Rio de Janieiro. Roberts, T. J. 1986. "Critical Ecosystems in Pakistan." UNDP/FAO. 1981 and 1982. NationalConservation Plan Report to wRi,Washington, D.C. for Indonesia.Volumes I-VIII FO/INs/78/061. Rome: Rodgers, W. A, and H. S. Panwar. 1988. Planninga FAO. WildlifeProtected Area Network in India. Dehra Dun, UNP (United Nations Environment Programme). India: Wildlife Institute of India. 1992a. "Biodiversity Country Studies." Executive Santiapillai,C. and P. Jackson.1990. TheAsian Elephant: Summary, February 20. Nairobi. An Action Plan for its Conservation.Gland, Switzer- -. 1992b."Biodiversity Country Studies." Synthesis land: IucN. Report, April 23. Nairobi. Scott, D. A., ed. 1989. A Directoryof Asian Wetlands. Vo Quy, Le Trong Cuc, Hoang Hoc and Nguyen Mau Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Tai. 1991.Biodiversity Conservation and ProtectedAreas Scott,D. A. and C. M. Poole. 1989.A Status Overviewof in Viet Nam. Hanoi, Vietnam: Center for Natural Asian Wetlands. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Asian ResourcesManagement and EnviromnentalStudies, Wetland Bureau. University of Hanoi. Seidensticker, J. 1990. ":Manadng Elephant Deoreda- WcAC(World Conservation Monitoring Centre). 1990. tion in Agricultural and orestry Projects. In J. "Directory of Protected Areas." Draft. Cambridge, Eisenberg, G. McKay and J. Seidensticker,eds., Asian U.K.:WCMC. LElephants,Washington, D.C.: National Zoological -.1992. GlobalBiodiversity: Status of the Earth'sLiving Park, Smithsonian Institution. Resources.Cambridge, U.K.:WCMC. .Snidvongs,K. 1989. "Problems and Opportunities for Wells, M. 1991. "Trust Funds and Endowments as a lBiological Resource Conservation in Thailand." Biodiversity Conservation Tool." Working Paper P?aper presented at the Asia/Pacific Consultative 1991-26.World Bank, Policy and Research Division, Meeting on Conservation ofCritical Ecosystems and Environment Department, Washington, D.C. Economic Development, October 30-November 1. Wells, M., K. Brandon, and L. Hannah. 1992. Peopleand Bangkok. Parks:Linking ProtectedAreas Management with Local SPREP(South Pacific Regional Environmental Pro- Communities.Washington, D.C.: World Bank. gramme) and IucN. 1989. Action Strategyfor Nature West, P. C, and S.R. Brechin,eds. 1990.Resident Peoples Conservationin theSouth Pacific.Noumea, New Cale- and NationalParks: Social Dilemmas and Strategiesin donia: South Pacific Commission. InternationalConservation. Tucson, Arizona: Univer- Soule, M. 1991."Conservation: Tactics for a Constant sity of Arizona Press. Crisis." Science,253(5021):744-750. Whelan, T, ed. 1991. Nature Tourism. Washington, Sri Lanka Ministry of Environment and Parliamentary D.C.: Island Press. Affairs. 1991.National Environmental Action Plan. Co- White, A. 1988.Marine Parks and Reserves:Management lombo, Sri Lanka. for CoastalEnvironments in SoutheastAsia. Interna- Srivastava, P. and W. Butzler. 1989."Protective Devel- tional Center for Living Aquatic Resources Manage- opmentand Conservation of theForest Environment ment, Education Series 2. Manila: ICLARM inPapuaNewGuinea: PriorityNeedsand Measures White, A. and C. Savina. 1987. "Community-Based Proposed under the Tropical Forest Action Plan." Marine Reserves: A Philippine First." In Proceed- Technical report of the Tropical Forest Action Plan ings of Coastal Zone '87, May 26-30. Seattle, Donor Coordination Mission to Papua New Guinea Washington. from April 4-28.FAO, Rome. Wilson, E. 0.1988. Biodiversity.Washington, D.C.: Na- StOne,R. D. and E. Hamilton. 1991.Global Economicsand tional Academy Press. the Environment:Toward SustainableRural Develop- . 1992.The Diversityof Life.Cambridge, Massachu- ment in the Third World.New York: Council on For- setts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. eign Relations. Winterbottom, R. 1990.Taking Stock: The TropicalFor- TDRI(Thailand Development Research Institute). 1987. estry Action Plan after Five Years.Washington, D.C.: Thailand:Natural Resources Profile. Bangkok. WRI. Thorne-Miller, B., and J. C. Catena. 1991. TheLiving World Bank. 1989a. Philippines:Environment and Natu- Ocean:Understanding and ProtectingMarine Biodivers- ral ResourceManagement Study. Washington, D.C. ity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 66 Refernces

-. 1989b.World Bank Atlas 1989.Washington, D.C. wRl (World ResourcesInstitute). 1988.World Resources, -. 1990a.Indonesia: Sustainable Development of Forest, 1988-89.New York: BasicBooks, Inc. Land and Water.Washington, D.C. -. 1989.Natural Endowments: Financing Resource Con- -. 1990b. WorldDevelopment Report 1990. New York. seation for Development.Washington, D.C.: WRI. Oxford University Press. -. 1990.World Resources, 1990-91.New York: Oxford -. 1991. TheForest Sector. World Bank Policy Paper. UniversityPress. Washington, D.C. -. 1992. WorldResources, 1992-93. New York:Oxford -. 1992a. China EnvironmentalStrategy Paper. Vol- University Press. umes I and II. Washington, D.C. WRI,IUCN and UNEP.1992. GlobalBiodiversity Strategy: - . 1992b.Strategy for ForestSector Developnmnt in Asia. Guidelinesfor Action to Save, Study and Use Earth's World BankTechnical Paper 182.Washington, D.C. Biotic WealthSustainably and Equitably.Washington, D.C.: wRL Map 1. The Asia-Pacific Region

Z] COUNTRIESCOVERED BY THE WORLD BA'S ASIAREGIONAL OFFICES

i bi I- BIOGEOGRAPHICREALMS BOUNDARIES

S LAEARCTALAARCIC RtALM .

,.ACIFIC

.OCFAN INDIAN?'Ika OCEANT ..- malayeia. OCEANIAN REALM

INDO-MALAYAN REALM, r - tIb'

, onesia ) WGu*nea

V~~~~~~

'. ~~~~Vanue'm '..

I f) r Gfo r Thod d m * b..r J, P ,op odo r n h p ofTIh.W RoddGp, oI

Map 2. HabitatCa&'bit-MEin Indo-Malavan Realm I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 PERCENTAGEOF ORIGINALHABITAT REMAINI NTG:*..

I A \ 1,THAN .LESS20% 21% -39% MORETHAN 40% ...... SUB-BIOUNITBOUNDARIES *. - BIOUNlTBOUNDARIES * Unit Name of Biounit - SUB-REGIONBOUNDARIES O Indian Sub-RegioI_ 1 Western Ghats 2 CeylontWet Zonte 3 Bengal 8 North India 11 I.astern Ghats 12 Coromandel 13 Ceylon Dry Zone 1 4Deccan Plateau6 15 Thar/lIndus H S. Hinalayas 0 Indo-Chinese Sub-Region 4 Burmese Coast 4 5 S. Indochina 2; 6 S. China 9 Irrawaddy N 10 Indochina 20 Andamans 2 27 Taiwan 1 4f Sundaic Sub-Region 7 Malay Peninsula 21 Sumatra/lNicobars 22 JavaBali 25 BorneolPalawan * Wallacean Sub-Region- 23 LesserSundas 24 Sulawesi/Sula 26 Philippines

21. - sC 22

23~~~~~~~c _FronMacKinnon andMacKinnon (19_6). 4

Map 3. Priority Areas for Conservation

r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S4

asMP ,;'n°

Hawlaii(US),

I Megadiversitycountries (Mittermeierand Werner,1990) R,0 g < ,Conservation priority areas (NationalAcademy of Sciences,1980) U Hot spots (Myers,1988 and 1990) Source:World D.volopmM Ropo, 1992.

Distributors of World Bank Publications

ARGENTINA EL SALVADOR JAPAN SOUTH AFRICA, BOTSWANA CarlosHirsch,SRL Fusades Eastern BookService Forsinglefitki GaleriaGuemes Alarn Dr. Manuel Enrique Araujo 93530 Hongo 3-Chome, Bunkyo-ku 113 Oxford University Pres Flo3da 165,4th FloorOfc. 453/465 Edificio SISA, ler. PIso Toiyo Southern Afric 1333 Buence AjrS San Salvador Ol P.O. Box 1141 KENYA Cape Town 8000 AUSTRALIA,PAPUA NEW GUINEA, FINLAND Africa BookService (EaAB)Ltd. FIJI, SOLOMON ISLANDS, Akateemninen KIriakAuppa Quaran House, Mfangano Street For suawcrtiin ordm: VANUATU, AND WESTERN SAMOA P.O. Box 128 P.O. Box 45245 Intenational Subseription Service DA. Books & Journals SF-001 Helidnki 10 Nairobi P.O. Box 41095 648Whitehorse Road Craighall Mitcham 3132 FRANCE KOREA,REPUBLICOF Johannesburg 204 Victoria World Bank Publicatons Pan Korea Book Corporation 66, avenue d'lna P.O. Box 101, Kwangwhtamun SPAIN AUSTRIA 75116 Paris Seoul Mundi-Prensa aLbroeS.A. Gerold and Co. Castello 37 Graben31 GERMANY MALAYSIA 28001 Madrid A-l11 Wiern UNO-Verlag University ofMalaya Cooperative Poppeisdorfer Allee 55 Bookshop,Limited Libreris lntemacionsl AEDOS BANGLADESH D-5300 Bonn I P.O. Box 1127, Jalan Pantei Baru Con-seli de Cent, 391 Micro Industies Development 59700 Kuala Lompur 05009 Barceiona AssistanceSociety (MIDAS) GUATEMALA House 5, Road 16 Librerias PiedraSanta MEXICO SRi LANKA AND ITE MALDIVES Dhasntrnondi R/Area Sa Caile 7-55 INFOTEC Lake House Bookshop Dhaka 1209 Zono 1 Apartado Postal -860 P.O. Box 244 Guatemala City 14060 Tlalpan, Mexico D.F. 100, Sir Chittampalan A. Brech sfm. Cardiner lawatha 156, Nur Ahmed Sarak HONG KONG, MACAO NETHERLANDS Colornbo 2 Chittagong 4000 Asia 200G Ltd. De Lindeboom/InOr-Publikades 46-48 Wyndham Street P.O. Box 202 SWEDEN 76, K.D.A. Avenue Winning Centre 7480 AE Haaksbergn For single tihe. Kulna 9100 2nd Floor Fritzes Fackboksforetasget Central Hong Kong NEW ZEALAND Regeringagatan 12, Box 16356 BELGIUM EBSCONZ Ltd. S-103 27 Stockholm Jean De Lannoy INDIA Private Mail Bag 99914 Av. du Roi 202 Allied Publishers Private Ltd. New Market Far sulcri onrdr- IOO Brusss 751 Mount Road Auckland Wennergren-Williams AS Madras - 600 002 Box 30004 CANADA NIGERIA 5.104 25 Stockholrn Le Diffuseur Breech Of=c University Press Limited C,P. 85, 15CI B rue Amphre 15 J.N. Heredia Marg Three Crowns Buildinglericho SWiTZERLAND Bourherville, Quebec Ballard Estate Private Mail Bag 5095 Far sinfgle titles: J48 SE6 Bombay - 40 038 oadan Librairie Payot 1, ruaede Boung CHINA 13/14 Asaf Alt Road NORWAY CH 1002d useBrg China Finandal & Fconomic New DeLhi - 110 002 Narvesen Information Center Pubishing House Book Department For subscrqtion oardas 8, Da Fo Si Dong Jie 17 Chitmtranjar, Avenue P.O. Box 6125 Etterstad Libraine Payot Beijing Calcutta - 700 072 N-0602 Oslo 6 Service des Abonnemenis Case postale 3312 COLOMBIA layadeva Hostel Building PAKISTAN CX, 1002 Lausanne Infoenlace Ltda. 5th Main Road Gandhinagar Mirza Book Agency Apartado Aereo 34270 Bangalore -560 009 65, Shahrah-e-Quaid-e-Azam TANZANIA Bogota D.E. P.O. Box No. 729 Oxford University Prese 3-3-1129 Kachiguda Croen Road Lahore 540 P.O. Box 5299 COTE D1VOIRE Hyderabad - 50027 Maktaba Road Centre d'Edition et de Diffusion PERU Dar es Salaam Africaines (CEDA) Prarthana Flats, 2nd Fkoor Editorial Desarrollo SA 04 B.P. 541 Near Thakore Baug Navrargpurm Aoartado3824 THAILAND Abid jan 04 Plateau Ahmedabad - 380 009 Lima I Central DepartmnentSbom 306 Siorn Road CYPRUS Patiala Hoose PHIIwPPINES Bangkok Cyprus Colege Boocitore 16-A Ashok MSg Intekational Book Center 6, Diogenes Street, Engoni Lucknow - 226 001 Fifth Floor, Filipinas Life Building TRINIDAD & TOBAGO, ANTIGUA P.O. Box 2006 Ayala Avenue, Makafi BARBUDA, BARBADOS, Nicosia Centra Bazaar Road Metro Manila DOMINICA, GRENADA, GUYANA, 60 Bajaj Nagar JAMAICA, MONTSERRAT, ST. DENMARK Nagpur 44010 POLAND KITTS & NEVIS, ST. LUCIA, SamfundsUtteratur ORPAN ST. VINCENT & GRENADINES Rose-noerns ABE 11 INDONESIA PaLae Kultury i Nauld Systematics Studies Unit DK-197D FrederiksbergC Pt Indira Limited 00-901 Warzawa #9 Watts Street JLSam Ratulangi37 Curepe DOMINICAN REPUBLiC P.O. Box 181 PORTUGAL Trinidad, West Indies Editonr Taller, C por A. Jakarta Pusat Livrar Portugal Restauraci6n e Isabel Ia Cat6Ik:a 309 Rua Do Carmo 70-74 UNMID KINGDOM Apartado de Correos 219 Z-1 ISRAEL 1200 Lisbor. Microinfo Ltd. Santo Domingo Yozrnot Utrature Ltd. P.O. Boa 3 P.O. BO a56055 SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR Altor, Hampshire GU34 2P EGYPT, ARLABREPUBLIC OF Tel Aviv 61560 Jari Book Store Erngiand Al Ahram Israel P.O. Box 3196 Al Gala Sttee4l1 Riyadh VENEZUELA Cairo ITALY Libreria del Este Licosa Commimionaria Sansoni SPA SINGAPORF, TAIWAN, Aptdo. 60337 The Middle East Observer Via Duca Di Calabria, 1/1 MYANMARBRUNEI Carcas 1060-A 41, Sherif Street Casella Postale 552 Information. Publications Cairo 50125 Firenze Private. Ltd. 02-061st Flt, Pei-Fu Induswtrial Bldg. 24 New Idwusrial Road Singapor 1953

RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS (continued)

No. 159 Liese,Sachdeva, and Cochrane, Organizingand ManagingTropical Disease Control Programs: Lessonsof Success No. 160 Boner and Krueger, The Basicsof Antitrust Policy:A Reviewof Ten Nationsand the European Communities No. 161 Riverson and Carapetis, IntermediateMeans of Transportin Sub-SaharanAfrica: Its Potential for ImprovingRural Traveland Transport No. 162 Replogle, Non-MotorizedVehicles in Asian Cities No. 163 Shilling, editor, Beyond SyndicatedLoans: Sources of Creditfor DevelopingCountries No. 164 Schwartz and Kampen, AgriculturalExtension in East Africa No. 165 Kellaghan and Greaney, Using Examinationsto ImproveEducation: A Study in FourteenAfrican Countries No. 166 Ahmad and Kutcher, IrrigationPlanning with EnvironmentalConsiderations: A CaseStudy of Pakistan'sIndus Basin No. 167 Liese, Sachdeva, and Cochrane, Organizingand ManagingTropical Disease Control Programs: CaseStudies No. 168 Industry and Energy Department, An Introductionand Updateon the Technology,Performance, Costs and Economics No. 169 Westoff, Age at Marriage,Age at First Birth,and Fertility in Africa No. 170 Sung and Troia, Developmentsin DebtConversion Programs and ConversionActivities No. 171 Brown and Nooter, SuccessfulSmall-Scale Irrigation in the Sahel No. 172 Thomas and Shaw, Issuesin the Developmentof MultigradeSchools No. 173 Byrnes, WaterUsers Association in WorldBank-Assisted Irrigation Projects in Pakistan No. 174 Constant and Sheldrick, WorldNitrogen Survey No. 175 Le Moigne and others, editors, Country Experienceswith WaterResources Management: Economic, Institutional,Technological and EnvironmentalIssues No. 176 The World Bank/FAO/UNIDO/Industry Fertilizer Working Group, Worldand RegionalSupply and DemandBalances for Nitrogen,Phosphate, and Potash,1990/91-1996/97 No. 177 Adams, The WorldBank's Treatmentof Employmentand LaborMarket Issues No. 178 Le Moigne, Barghouti, and Garbus, editors, Developingand ImprovingIrrigation and Drainage Systems: SelectedPapers from WordBank Seminars No. 179 Speirs and Olsen, IndigenousIntegrated Farming Systems in the Sahel No. 180 Barghouti, Garbus, and Umali, editors, Trendsin AgriculturalDiversification: Regional Perspectives No. 181 Mining Unit, Industry and Energy Division, Strategyfor AfricanMining No. 182 Land Resources Unit, Asia Technical Department, Strategyfor ForestSector Development in Asia No. 183 Najera, Liese, and Hammer, Malaria:New Patternsand Perspectives No. 184 Crosson and Anderson, Resourcesand GlobalFood Prospects: Supply and Demandfor Cerealsto 2030 No. 185 Frederiksen, DroughtPlanning and WaterEfficiency Implications in WaterResources Management No. 186 Guislain, Divestitureof State Enterprises:An Overviewof the LegalFramework No. 187 Geyndt, Zhao, and Liu, FromBarefoot Doctor to VillageDoctor in Rural China No. 188 Silverman, PublicSector Decentralization: Economic Policy and SectorInvestment Programs No. 189 Frederick, BalancingWater Demands with Supplies:The Roleof Managementin a World of Increasing Scarcity No. 190 Macklin, AgriculturalExtension in India No. 191 Frederiksen, WaterResources Institutions: Some Principlesand Practices No. 192 McMillan, Painter, and Scudder, Settlementand Developmentin the River BlindnessControl Zone The World Bank Headquarters EuropeanOffice Tokyo Office U 1818 H Street, N.W. 66, avenue d'1ena Kokusai Building Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. 75116 Paris, France 1-1 Marnnouchi 3-chome Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, Japan Telephone: (202) 477-1234 Telephone: (1) 40.69.30.00 Facsimile: (202) 477-6391 Facsimile: (1) 40.69.30.66 Telephone: (3) 3214-5001 Telex: wui 64145 WORLDBANK Telex: 640651 Facsimile: (3) 3214-3657 RCA248423 WORLDBK Telex: 26838 Cable Address: ITBAFRAD WASHNGTONDC

Cover design by Bill Fraser ISBN 0-8213-2307-5