Download The Caucasus Hotspot Briefing Book

The Caucasus Hotspot
Briefing Book
Prepared for: Improving Linkages Between CEPF and World Bank Operations, Asia
Forum, Medan, Indonesia—June 23-25, 2005
CAUCASUS BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT
BRIEFING BOOK
Table of Contents
I. The Investment Plan
• Ecosystem Profile Fact Sheet
• Ecosystem Profile
II. Implementation
• Overview of CEPF’s Portfolio in the Caucasus Biodiversity
Hotspot
o Charts of Portfolio
o Map of CEPF Regions
• List of Grants
III. Conservation Highlights
• E-News
• Other Highlights
IV. Leveraging CEPF Investments
• Table of Leveraged Funds
C E P F FA C T S H E E T
Caucasus
Caucasus Biodiversity Hotspot
CEPF INVESTMENT PLANNED IN REGION
$8.5 million
QUICK FACTS
The Caucasus hotspot is home to 50 globally
threatened species of animals, including
East Caucasian and West Caucasian turs
and Armenian mouflon, an endemic species
of wild sheep and the ancestral form of
domestic sheep.
Globally threatened birds in the Caucasus
include the critically endangered Siberian
crane; the vulnerable great bustard; the
endangered white-headed duck; and the
vulnerable red-breasted goose.
More than 6,500 species of vascular plants
are found in the Caucasus. A quarter of
these plants are found nowhere else.
Tigran’s elder is the only globally threatened
plant in the hotspot. This shrub, an endemic
found sporadically in the Shirak, Aparan,
Yerevan and Darelegis regions of Armenia,
is threatened by habitat loss to development
and overgrazing.
The Caucasus spans 500,000 square kilometers of mountains in Eurasia
between the Black and Caspian seas, including parts of Georgia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan and small portions of Russia, Iran and Turkey. It is one of the 25
richest and most threatened reservoirs of plant and animal life on Earth.
These areas, called biodiversity hotspots, cover only 1.4 percent of the planet
yet contain 60 percent of all terrestrial species diversity.
The deserts, savannas, swamp forests and arid woodlands that comprise the
Caucasus hotspot contain more than twice the animal diversity found in
adjacent regions of Europe and Asia.
THREATS
Biodiversity of the Caucasus is being lost at an alarming rate. On average,
nearly half of the lands in the hotspot have been transformed by human
activities. The plains, foothills and subalpine belts have been the most heavily
impacted. Native floodplain vegetation remains on only half of its original
area in the North Caucasus and only 2-3 percent of original riparian forests
remain in the southern Caucasus. Numbers of large herbivores, such as red
deer and saiga antelope, have dropped dramatically in the past century.
The major threats to biodiversity in the region are illegal logging, fuel wood
harvesting and the timber trade; overgrazing; poaching and the illegal wildlife
trade; overfishing; infrastructure development; and pollution of rivers and
wetlands.
CEPF STRATEGY
The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) strategy for this hotspot is
In total, 50 globally threatened species are
concentrated in 205 sites throughout the
hotspot. CEPF focuses on conserving these
species in five target corridors.
CEPF focuses on the Greater
Caucasus, Caspian, West Lesser
Caucasus, East Lesser Caucasus
and Hyrcan corridors within the
Caucasus hotspot.
1 91 9 M S TR EE T, N W, W A SH I N G TO N, D C 2 00 36 , U S A . 1 .2 02 . 9 1 2. 1 8 08 FA X 1. 2 0 2. 9 1 2 .1 04 5 U p da t ed Se p t e m be r 20 04
www.cepf.net
based on the results of stakeholder workshops and background reports coordinated by WWF Caucasus. More than 130 experts representing
scientific, governmental and nongovernmental groups from the six countries,
participated in these preparations.
The CEPF niche for investment was formulated based on five major
parameters: evaluation of the most important biological factors, determination of priority geographical areas, potential impact of thematic directions,
assessment of available institutional capacity and analysis of current funding
gaps and opportunities.
The final CEPF investment strategy, called an ecosystem profile, will be
funded over five years, beginning in 2003.
The strategy is underpinned by conservation outcomes—targets against which
the success of investments can be measured. These targets are defined at three
levels: species (extinctions avoided), sites (areas protected) and landscapes
(corridors created).
As a result, CEPF investment in the Caucasus is focused on conserving the
hotspot’s globally threatened species, the majority of which are found in specific sites in five target corridors: Greater Caucasus, Caspian, West Lesser
Caucasus, East Lesser Caucasus and Hyrcan.
STRATEG IC FUNDING DIRECTIONS
The CEPF strategy for the Caucasus ensures funding is directed where it is
needed most and where it can do the most good.
ABOUT US
CEPF is a joint initiative of Conservation
International, the Global Environment
Facility, the Government of Japan, the John
D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
and the World Bank.
The partnership aims to dramatically
advance conservation of Earth’s biodiversity
hotspots—the biologically richest and most
threatened areas. A fundamental goal is to
ensure that civil society, such as community
groups, nongovernmental organizations and
private sector partners, is engaged in
biodiversity conservation.
CEPF acts as a catalyst to create strategic
working alliances among diverse groups,
combining unique capacities and eliminating duplication of efforts for a coordinated,
comprehensive approach to conservation
challenges.
HOW TO LEARN MORE
For more information about CEPF, the
strategy for this hotspot and how to apply for
grants, please visit www.cepf.net.
CEPF investments in the region are guided by four strategic directions. Each
project must be linked to one of these to be approved for funding:
1. support civil society efforts to promote transboundary cooperation and
improve protected area systems in five target corridors
2. strengthen mechanisms to conserve biodiversity of the Caucasus hotspot
with emphasis on species, site and corridor outcomes
3. implement models demonstrating sustainable resource use in five target
corridors
4. increase the awareness and commitment of decisionmakers to biodiversity
conservation in five target corridors
1 91 9 M S TR EE T, N W, W A SH I N G TO N, DC 2 00 36 , U S A . 1 . 2 02 . 9 12 . 1 8 08 FA X 1. 20 2. 9 1 2. 1 04 5 U p da t ed : S ep t emb er 2 00 4
www.cepf.net
Ecosystem Profile
CAUCASUS
BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT
FINAL VERSION
JULY 31, 2003
(updated: September 2004)
Experts and Contributors
ARMENIA
AGAMYAN, L.
AGASYAN, A.
AKOPYAN, S.
ALAVERDYAN, R.
AMBARTSUMYAN, A.
ARUTUNYAN, A.
ARZUMANYAN, G.
BALYAN, L.
DANYELYAN, T.
DAVTYAN, R.
GABRIELYAN, E.
GLYCHIAN, D.
JENDEREDJIAN, K.
KAZARYAN, M.
KAZARYAN, H.
MANVELYAN, K.
MARKARYAN, N.
MURADYAN, S.
RUKHKYAN, L.
SHASHIKYAN, S.
TOVMASYAN, S.
VANYAN, A.
VARDANYAN, J.
VOSKANOV, M.
ZIROYAN, A.
ZORANYAN, V.
AZERBAIJAN
ABDULLAEV, N.
ALIEV, K.
AKHMEDOV, F.
ASKEROV, E.
AYDYNOV, T.
GULYEV, S.
GUSEINOVA, F.
ISKANDEROV, T.
ISMAILOV, H.
JAFAROV, O.
KANGARLI, T.
LATIFOV, D.
MAMMEDOVA, S.
MUKHTAROV, I.
NAJAFOV, A.
ORUJEV, Ad.
ORUJEV, Al.
RAKHMATULINA, I.
RAZAEV, R.
SADARZADE, R.
SAFAROV, S.
SULEIMANOV, M.
SULTANOV, E.
GEORGIA
ARABULI, G.
BERUCHASHVILI, N.
BERUCHASHVILI, G.
BUKHNIKASHVILI, A.
BUTKHUZI, L.
CHEKURISHVILI, Z.
DIDEBULIDZE, A.
DZNELADZE, M.
EGIASHVILI, D.
GELASHVILI, A.
GOGICHAISHVILI, L.
GOKHELASHVILI, R.
GURIELIDZE, Z.
JORJADZE, M.
JAVAKHISHVILI, Z.
KANDAUROV, A.
KARTSIVADZE, S.
KAVTIASHVILI, I.
KOLBIN, G.
KVELADZE, I.
LABADZE, D.
LEJAVA, V.
LOBJANIDZE, B.
LOLUA, G.
LOMTADZE, Z.
LORTKIPANIDZE, B.
MACHARASVILI, I.
NAKHUTSRISHVILI, G.
NINUA, N.
SERGEEVA, J.
SIKHARULIDZE, Z.
TARKHNISHVILI, D.
TOLORDAVA, K.
IRAN
AGHILI, A.
FARVAR, M.T.
JAZEBIZADEH, K.
KAVOUSI, K.
MANSURI, J.
NAGHIZADEH, N.
NAJAFI, A.
NOROUZI, M.
RAHMANIYAN, M.
ZIYAEE, H.
RUSSIA
BELANOVSKAIA, E.
BELIK, V.
BIRIUKOV, N.
BRATKOV, V.
BUKREEV, S.
CHILIKIN, V.
ERIJEV, K.
GALUSHIN, V.
KHAKUNOV, B.
KIATKOV, V.
KOTLOBAI, A.
KREVER, V.
KROKHMAL, A.
MAMBETOV, M.
MEREMKULOV, M.
MOSKVINA, M.
POLITKO, A.
POLITKO, I.
POLIVANOVA, N.
POPOVICHEV, V.
PTICHNIKOV, A.
SALPAGAROV, A.
SHOVKANOVA, A.
SKOROBOGACH, J.
SPIRIDONOV, V.
TAMOV, M.
TUNIEV, B.
VAISMAN, A.
TURKEY
ALTINTAS, M.
ATAY, S.
BIRSEL, A.
CAN, E.
CIFTCI, N.
DOMAC, A.
GURKAN, B.
IPEK, A.
KALEM, S.
KUCUK, M.
KURDOGLU, O.
KURT, B.
ZEYDANLI, U.
EXTERNAL
BAUER, G.
EVERS, M.
JUNGIUS, H.
LANGHAMMER, P.
NAGY, S.
SCHMIDT-KALLERT, E.
SCHUERHOLZ, G.
STRAND, H.
Editing assistance by Laura Williams, conservation biologist
2
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 4
THE ECOSYSTEM PROFILE........................................................................................... 4
BACKGROUND................................................................................................................ 6
BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE .......................................................................................... 7
Globally Threatened Species .......................................................................................................7
Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................8
Major Ecosystems ........................................................................................................................9
Protected Areas..........................................................................................................................11
CONSERVATION OUTCOMES ..................................................................................... 11
Species Outcomes .....................................................................................................................12
Site Outcomes............................................................................................................................14
Corridor Outcomes .....................................................................................................................15
SOCIOECONOMIC FEATURES .................................................................................... 23
Institutional Framework ..............................................................................................................23
Nature Conservation Legislation ................................................................................................24
Economic Situation.....................................................................................................................25
Infrastructure and Regional Development..................................................................................26
Demography and Social Trends.................................................................................................27
SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT THREATS ........................................................................... 27
Illegal Logging, Fuel Wood Harvesting and the Timber Trade ..................................................28
Overgrazing................................................................................................................................29
Poaching and the Illegal Wildlife Trade......................................................................................29
Overfishing .................................................................................................................................30
Infrastructure Development........................................................................................................30
Pollution of Rivers and Wetlands ...............................................................................................31
Root Causes...............................................................................................................................31
SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT INVESTMENTS................................................................... 34
National Governments................................................................................................................34
Bilateral and Multilateral Donors ................................................................................................34
International NGOs and Foundations.........................................................................................36
Regional NGOs ..........................................................................................................................36
Business Sector .........................................................................................................................37
Funding Opportunities ................................................................................................................40
CEPF NICHE FOR INVESTMENT.................................................................................. 40
CEPF INVESTMENT STRATEGY AND PRIORITIES.................................................... 43
Program Focus...........................................................................................................................43
Strategic Directions ....................................................................................................................43
Sustainability ..............................................................................................................................48
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 49
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TEXT ........................................................................ 50
APPENDICES................................................................................................................. 51
3
INTRODUCTION
The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is designed to safeguard the world's
threatened biodiversity hotspots in developing countries. It is a joint initiative of
Conservation International (CI), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Government
of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. CEPF supports projects in
hotspots, areas with more than 60 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial species in just 1.4
percent of its land surface. The Caucasus hotspot, with its unique assemblages of plant
and animal communities and rare and endemic species, is globally important for
conserving representative areas of the Earth’s biodiversity, making it worthy of
international attention and CEPF funding.
A fundamental purpose of CEPF is to ensure that civil society is engaged in efforts to
conserve biodiversity in the hotspots. An additional purpose is to ensure that those efforts
complement existing strategies and frameworks established by local, regional and
national governments.
CEPF aims to promote working alliances among community groups, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), government, academic institutions and the private sector,
combining unique capacities and eliminating duplication of efforts for a comprehensive
approach to conservation. CEPF is unique among funding mechanisms in that it focuses
on biological areas rather than political boundaries and examines conservation threats on
a corridor-wide basis to identify and support a regional, rather than a national, approach
to achieving conservation outcomes. Corridors are determined through a process of
identifying important species, site and corridor-level conservation outcomes for the
hotspot. CEPF targets transboundary cooperation when areas rich in biological value
straddle national borders, or in areas where a regional approach will be more effective
than a national approach.
THE ECOSYSTEM PROFILE
The Caucasus hotspot, historically interpreted as the isthmus between the Black and
Caspian seas, covers a total area of 580,000 km2, including the nations of Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Georgia, the North Caucasus portion of the Russian Federation,
northeastern Turkey and part of northwestern Iran (Figure 1).
One of the most biologically rich regions on Earth, the Caucasus is among the planet’s 25
most diverse and endangered hotspots. The Caucasus is one of WWF’s Global 200
Ecoregions, identified as globally outstanding for biodiversity. The Caucasus has also
been named a large herbivore hotspot by WWF’s Large Herbivore Initiative. Eleven
species of large herbivores, as well as five large carnivores, are found over a relatively
small area. The 2002 IUCN Red List identifies 50 species of globally threatened animals
and one plant in the Caucasus. Among the IUCN species, 18 have restricted ranges or are
endemics. The Caucasus Mountains harbor a wealth of highly sought-after medicinal and
decorative plants, as well as unique relic and endemic plant communities.
4
Figure 1. The Caucasus hotspot
Spanning the borders of six countries, the Caucasus hotspot is a globally significant
center of cultural diversity, where a multitude of ethnic groups, languages and religions
intermingle over a relatively small area. Close cooperation across borders will be
required for conservation of unique and threatened ecosystems, while helping to foster
peace and understanding in an ethnically diverse region.
The purpose of the ecosystem profile is to provide a rapid assessment of underlying
causes of biodiversity loss, to define measurable outcomes for conservation of species,
sites and corridors, understand the existing institutional framework and identify funding
gaps and opportunities for investment. The ecosystem profile recommends strategic
funding directions that will contribute to the conservation of biodiversity in this globally
significant region.
5
Civil society organizations will propose projects and actions that fit into these strategic
directions and contribute to the conservation of biodiversity in the targeted region.
Applicants propose specific projects consistent with these funding directions and
investment criteria. The ecosystem profile does not define the specific activities that
prospective implementers may propose, but outlines the conservation strategy that will
guide those activities. Applicants for CEPF grants will be required to prepare detailed
proposals identifying and describing the interventions and performance indicators that
will be used to measure the success of the project.
BACKGROUND
The ecosystem profile and five-year investment strategy for the Caucasus Region was
developed based on stakeholder workshops and background reports coordinated by the
WWF Caucasus Programme Office (WWF Caucasus). More than 130 experts from the
six countries participated in preparation of the Caucasus ecosystem profile representing a
variety of scientific, governmental and nongovernmental organizations. During the six
months of the project, data on biodiversity, socioeconomic factors, institutional context
and conservation efforts from six countries were compiled and synthesized. Two
stakeholder workshops were held in November 2002 and January 2003 to allow broad
input from the conservation community and to formulate and approve the niche and
investment strategies proposed for CEPF in the region. The workshops helped people
from six countries to reach a consensus in this politically complicated region. They also
generated commitment from all stakeholders for implementation of proposed directions.
This ecosystem profile, together with profiles under development for CEPF in other
regions at this time, includes a new commitment and emphasis on using conservation
outcomes—targets against which the success of investments can be measured—as the
scientific underpinning for determining CEPF’s geographic and thematic focus for
investment. Conservation outcomes are the full set of quantitative and justifiable
conservation targets in a hotspot that need to be achieved in order to prevent biodiversity
loss. These targets are defined at three levels: species (extinctions avoided), sites (areas
protected) and landscapes (corridors created). As conservation in the field succeeds in
achieving these targets, these targets become demonstrable results or outcomes. While
CEPF cannot achieve all of the outcomes identified for a region on its own, the
partnership is trying to ensure that its conservation investments are working toward
preventing biodiversity loss and that its success can be monitored and measured.
Species, site and corridor outcomes for the Caucasus were defined in cooperation with
scientists at CI’s Center for Applied Biodiversity Science (CABS). Based on the results
of these analyses, experts identified 10 corridors that encompass the vast majority of
outcomes defined for the Caucasus hotspot.
In parallel to this work, WWF coordinated the development of a long-term vision for
conservation of the Caucasus Ecoregion. About 60 priority areas for achieving the vision
were identified based on biological and socioeconomic analyses and identification of
focal species, processes and habitats. Corridors and CEPF strategies for this profile were
determined taking into account the conservation vision and identified priority areas, the
6
conservation site outcomes determined for 51 globally threatened species and the existing
network of protected areas in the region.
WWF Caucasus prepared this profile in collaboration with the MacArthur Foundation,
the German Bank for Reconstruction and Development (KfW) and BirdLife
International. The Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Union of Armenia, CABS,
the Center for Sustainable Development of Iran, the Ecological Union of Azerbaijan and
AHT International provided technical support.
BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE
The Caucasus is a hotspot of plant and animal species diversity and endemism important
for the conservation of biodiversity on a global scale. Located at a biological crossroads,
species from Central and Northern Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East and North
Africa mingle here with endemics found nowhere else. High levels of landscape
diversity in the Caucasus are largely the result of temporal-spatial variability in the
region. The unique geology and terrain, consisting of three major mountain chains
separated by valleys and plains, permit a variety of different microclimate, soil and
vegetative conditions, resulting in a broad range of landscapes and unusually high levels
of species diversity for the Temperate Zone. Climatic conditions are very diverse, with
precipitation ranging from more than 4,000 mm per year in the southwestern Caucasus to
less than 200 mm a year in deserts in the eastern Caucasus.
More than 6,500 species of vascular plants are found in the Caucasus. A quarter of these
plants are found nowhere else on Earth - the highest level of endemism in the temperate
world. At least 153 mammals inhabit the Caucasus; one-fifth of these are endemic to the
region. As many as 400 species of birds are found in the Caucasus, four of which are
endemic to this hotspot. The coasts of the Black and Caspian seas are important stop over
sites for millions of migrating birds, which fly over the isthmus each spring and autumn
between their summer and winter homes. Twenty-two of the 77 reptiles in the Caucasus
are endemic to the region. Fourteen species of amphibians are found in the region, of
which four are endemics. More than 200 species of fish are found in the rivers and seas
of the region, more than a third of which are found nowhere else.
Globally Threatened Species
Globally threatened species—those listed as vulnerable, endangered and critically
endangered according to the IUCN Red List—are the primary focus for conservation at
the species level in this profile. In all, 50 globally threatened species of animals and one
plant were identified in the hotspot. The distribution of these species was assessed to
determine important sites and corridors for conservation. The East Caucasian tur and the
West Caucasian tur are among the 18 mammals identified in this hotspot. Turs are found
in the Greater Caucasus Range, dwelling mainly in the high mountains and sometimes
descending into the rocky gorges of the forest belt. In recent years, their numbers have
declined greatly and now IUCN lists the turs as endangered and vulnerable. The
Armenian mouflon, an endemic species of wild sheep and the ancestral form of domestic
sheep, is another mammal listed as vulnerable in the IUCN Red List. Mouflon
populations have dwindled to fewer than several hundred in southern Armenia and in the
7
Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic (Azerbaijan). Dahl’s jird, found in semi-desert
habitats in the Araks River valley, is also endangered in the region.
Globally threatened birds in the Caucasus include the critically endangered Siberian
crane that migrates along the Caspian Sea coast; the vulnerable great bustard, found in
open plains in northern Iran and Turkey during migration and in the North Caucasus of
Russia; the endangered white-headed duck; and vulnerable red-breasted goose that
winters in wetlands in Azerbaijan, Russia and northern Iran and Turkey. In all, 11 bird
species in the Caucasus are listed as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered
according to IUCN.
The 10 globally threatened reptiles in the region include the Caucasian viper, meadow
viper and Dinnik’s viper. These vipers are endemic to the Caucasus and occupy total
ranges of only a few thousand square kilometers. The endemic Caucasian salamander,
one of the four vulnerable species of amphibians, is found only in western Georgia and
Turkey.
Six species of sturgeon and the beluga are endangered by overfishing and habitat
degradation in the Black and Caspian seas. The Baltic (Atlantic) sturgeon, which spawns
only in rivers in the Kolkheti Lowlands in Georgia, is critically endangered.
Additionally, the Caucasus has a number of important flagship and locally threatened
species. Perhaps the best known is the highly endangered Caucasian leopard, celebrated
in local folklore. The leopard used to be widespread throughout the Caucasus, but now it
is found only in remote parts of the Greater Caucasus Range, southern Armenia, the
Nakhichevan Republic (Azerbaijan), the Talysh Mountains and in bordering areas of
northeastern Turkey and northwestern Iran. The main reasons for the leopard’s decline
are habitat loss, poaching and decline of prey species.
Other large mammal species include the striped hyena, which is now on the verge of
extinction, and the Caucasian red deer, one of the most endangered species of wildlife in
the southern Caucasus. Chamois and goitred gazelle are also important flagship species
in the region.
Endemic species of birds in the Caucasus include the Caucasian black grouse and the
Caucasian snowcock. The Caucasian black grouse occurs in all the high mountains of the
Caucasus, while the Caucasian snowcock is found only in the Greater Caucasus Range.
Vegetation
The vegetation of the Caucasus is quite diverse as a result of the varied relief, climate and
evolutionary history. Outstanding features include plants and plant associations that date
back to the Tertiary Period, including in the Colchic Region in the Black Sea basin and
the Hyrcanic Region in the southeastern portion of the Caucasus on the Caspian Sea
coast. The abundance of relic and endemic plant species in the region is largely due to
the fact that the Caucasus was spared glaciation during the last Iceage. The Colchic
Refugia (Georgia, Russia and Turkey) and the Hyrcanic Refugia (Azerbaijan and Iran)
harbor species found nowhere else like Imeretian and pontic oaks, Medwedew’s birch,
8
Ungern’s and Smirnow’s rhododendron, epigea and others. Chestnut-leaf oak, Hyrcanic
poplar, danae and other plants are endemic relics of the Hyrcanic Region. Relic forests
of endemic box tree occur in the northern part of the Colchic Region.
About 700 species of higher plants are listed in regional Red Books of Rare and
Endangered Species, including at least 20 species of bellflower and 18 species of iris.
Five species of lichens and 11 species of fungi are also locally endangered. Tigran’s
elder is the only globally threatened plant included in the IUCN Red List and considered
in this Ecosystem Profile as a conservation target at the species level. This vulnerable
shrub is an endemic found sporadically in the Shirak, Aparan, Yerevan and Darelegis
regions of Armenia, in lower and middle mountain belts on dry rocky and clay soils. It is
threatened by habitat loss to development and overgrazing.
Major Ecosystems
The major ecosystems in the Caucasus hotspot consist of forests, high mountain habitats,
dry mountain shrublands, steppes, semi-deserts and wetlands. In the North Caucasus
Plain, vegetation changes from steppe communities in the west to semi-desert and desert
habitats in the east. Moving south, the Greater Caucasus Range rises above the plain
with several peaks above 5,000m, enveloped by broadleaf and coniferous forests and
subalpine and alpine meadows, glaciers and snowfields. The Greater Caucasus Range
gives way to the narrow Transcaucasian Depression to the south, with rich alder and
Caucasian wing-nut swamp forests in the Kolkheti Lowlands to the west and steppes, arid
woodlands, semi-deserts and deserts to the east. The Lesser Caucasus Mountain Chain
rises to the south of this depression, with broadleaf and coniferous forests and alpine
meadows and shrublands. The Southern Uplands abut the Lesser Caucasus Mountains,
characterized by mountain steppe and grasslands. The Talysh-Alborz Mountain Range,
in the southeastern corner of the hotspot, extends along the Caspian Sea from southern
Azerbaijan to northern Iran, where broadleaf forest, mountain steppe and alpine meadow
ecosystems are represented.
Forests are the most important biome for biodiversity conservation in the Caucasus,
covering nearly one-fifth of the region. Forests in the Caucasus are highly diverse,
consisting of broadleaf, dark coniferous, pine, arid open woodland and lowland forests,
which are dispersed according to elevation, soil conditions and climate in the region.
Broadleaf forests, consisting of Oriental beech, oak, hornbeam and chestnut, make up
most of the forested landscape of the Caucasus. Beech forests play the leading role in the
region’s timber industry. Careless clearcutting of mountain beech stands has permanently
damaged a significant portion of valuable beech forests in the Northern Caucasus. Most
oak species in the hotspot are endemic to the region. Oak forests, largely cleared for
farmlands and pastures, have been spared mostly in remote canyons and on relatively
poor soils. Chestnut forests in the Colchic foothills and in the northwestern Caucasus
have also been logged intensively. In northeastern Turkey, broadleaf forests are cleared
for tea and hazelnut plantations. In northwestern Iran, only 12 percent Arasbaran
broadleaf forests remain, noted for their high number of endemic species.
9
Dark coniferous forests, made up mainly of Oriental spruce and Caucasian fir, are found
in the western part of the Lesser Caucasus Range and on both sides of the western and
central Greater Caucasus Range. Coniferous forests are logged for paper production and
timber, resulting in severe depletion of these reserves. Pine forests occur in the North
Caucasus, though they are also found in the southern Caucasus, especially in the Kura
River watershed in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
Arid open woodlands form on dry, rocky slopes in the eastern and southern Caucasus,
made up of juniper and pistachio species. Lowland forests are found in floodplains and
on low river terraces, generally growing on alluvial, swampy, or moist soils. Very few
lowland forests have been preserved to this day; some stands remain only in the Lenkoran
and Kolkheti lowlands and in the Kura, Iori, Samur and Alazan-Agrichay river valleys.
High mountain meadows are dominated by herbaceous species. About 1,000 vascular
plant species are found in the Greater Caucasus high mountains and half of these are
endemics. Caucasian rhododendron thickets grow on slopes with northern exposure in the
Greater Caucasus Range and in the northern part of the Lesser Caucasus Mountain Chain.
Alpine mats, formed by dense low-lying perennial plants, cover the terrain on the upper
belts of these two mountain systems. Alpine meadows and grasslands are used
intensively for livestock grazing in the summer throughout the region, resulting in decline
in plant species diversity. Unique communities of cliff and rock vegetation are
distributed throughout the high mountains of the Caucasus. Approximately 80 percent of
the plant species found in rock and scree communities on Colchic limestone ridges in the
Greater Caucasus are endemic to the hotspot.
Mediterranean and Anatolian-Iranian shrublands occur in arid mountains of the Caucasus
where continental climate prevails, particularly in the foothills of the Araks River
watershed.
Steppe vegetation used to be widespread on the Caucasus Isthmus, but today only
fragments of primary steppe communities have survived on slopes that are unsuitable for
agriculture. Steppe communities are found in the plains and foothills of the eastern and
southern Caucasus. Highland steppe communities, primarily found in dry mountain
regions of the southern Caucasus, are diverse in species composition and have a number
of endemic plants.
Until recently, semi-deserts with elements of desert vegetation were widespread in the
lowlands and foothills of the eastern part of the Caucasus Isthmus. In the past few
decades, agricultural development, irrigation and winter grazing practices have
significantly altered the landscape in this area. The few semi-deserts and deserts that
have been preserved are made up of either predominately wormwood or salt habitat
species.
Wetland ecosystems are found throughout the Caucasus and include estuaries and river
deltas, marshes, swamps, lakes and streams in alpine regions. Wetland vegetation covers
large areas along the lower Terek, Sulak, Kuban, Kura, Samur and Rioni rivers and the
coastal zones of the Black, Azov and Caspian seas. Flora in wetlands ranges from
10
aquatic vegetation in lakes, to swampy floodplain, brush and forest ecosystems, to
sphagnum-sedge swamps in the Kolkheti Lowlands. The marshes along the Caspian
coast in northwestern Iran are particularly important for waterfowl. A variety of lakes are
scattered throughout the Caucasus from small alpine lakes to significant bodies of water
such as Lake Sevan with highly specific fish fauna.
Protected Areas
Protected areas have played an important role in nature conservation in the Caucasus for
nearly a century. The first strict nature reserve in the region was created in 1912 in
Lagodekhi Gorge on the southeastern slopes of the Greater Caucasus Range in Georgia.
Since then, more than 60 strict nature reserves were created in the former Soviet part of
the Caucasus, yet many of these were abolished in the 1950s. Georgia, for example, had
22 strict nature reserves prior to 1951. By the end of the protected area reform process,
only one reserve remained. In time, some previously existing protected areas were reestablished and new ones were created. Now, Georgia has 16 strict nature reserves and
two national parks.
Today, there are 55 strict nature reserves and national parks in the Caucasus hotspot.
Combined, nature reserves (IUCN categories I and II) protect a total land area of 1.2
million hectares or 2.1 percent of the Caucasus Region. Besides these protected areas,
there are a large number of multiple-use sanctuaries, refuges, nature parks, hunting
reserves and protected forests in the Caucasus (IUCN categories IV to VI). Altogether,
approximately 8 percent of the Caucasus Region is afforded some sort of protection.
Most strict nature reserves and national parks, particularly in the southern Caucasus, are
too small to guarantee long-term biodiversity conservation. Economic problems have
resulted in an increase in poaching, illegal forest cutting and grazing in protected areas
where the protection regime is not always enforced. Reserve employees are underpaid
and equipment and transportation are lacking. Buffer zones are often non-existent, so
consequences of resource use and human pressures outside reserves spill over the borders
and impact protected ecosystems. Furthermore, the existing protected areas system is not
entirely representative of the full range of biodiversity in the hotspot.
New protected areas need to be created in certain regions where there are none and
corridors need to be created between existing protected areas. The protected status of
sanctuaries with low levels of protection need to be increased in areas that are important
for conservation of biodiversity and endangered species and ecosystems. Management
and planning in nature reserves needs to be improved by increasing the qualifications of
nature reserve staff and elaborating and implementing management plans.
CONSERVATION OUTCOMES
This ecosystem profile, together with profiles under development for other regions at this
time, includes a new commitment and emphasis on using conservation outcomes—targets
against which the success of investments can be measured—as the scientific
underpinning for determining CEPF’s geographic and thematic focus for investment.
Conservation outcomes are the full set of quantitative and justifiable conservation targets
11
in a hotspot that need to be achieved in order to prevent biodiversity loss. These targets
are defined at three levels: species (extinctions avoided), sites (areas protected) and
landscapes (corridors created). As conservation in the field succeeds in achieving these
targets, these targets become demonstrable results or outcomes. While CEPF cannot
achieve all of the outcomes identified for a region on its own, the partnership is trying to
ensure that its conservation investments are working toward preventing biodiversity loss
and that its success can be monitored and measured. CI’s Center for Applied Biodiversity
Science is facilitating the definition of conservation outcomes across the 25 global
hotspots, representing the benchmarks against which the global conservation community
can gauge the success of conservation measures.
Species Outcomes
In determining species outcomes, CEPF aims to improve or stabilize the conservation
status of species and ultimately avoid extinctions. Since avoiding species extinctions is
essential for halting biodiversity loss, threatened species, or species that have a high
probability of extinction, are the obvious targets for conservation in a given hotspot.
Species outcomes are defined based on the conservation status of individual species,
compiled in IUCN Red Lists. The Red List is based on quantitative, globally applicable
criteria under which the probability of extinction is estimated for each species. Species
outcomes in the Caucasus hotspot are those species that are globally threatened
(vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered) according to the most recent IUCN
Red List. Outcome definition is a fluid process and as data and criteria become available,
species-level outcomes are being expanded to include other taxonomic groups that have
not been assessed, as well as restricted-range species (endemics).
In order to determine species outcomes for the Caucasus, WWF Caucasus synthesized
available information on globally threatened birds for the hotspot, based on data provided
by BirdLife International. It also included all other globally threatened species in the
hotspot, based on recent IUCN Red Lists. Local scientists assisted in determining
whether or not each species actually occurs in the Caucasus. WWF Caucasus then
compiled a database on threatened species including the status, distribution, conservation
needs and major threats for each species based on surveys of scientists in the field.
A total of 51 species representing six taxa (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and
plants) were included in the species outcomes as a result of this process (Table 1,
Appendix 1). Eighteen mammal species, 11 bird species, 10 reptile species, four
amphibian species, seven fish species and one plant species were selected as targets for
conservation. Two species of mammals are listed as critically endangered: the saiga
antelope, found only in the Russian part of the Caucasus, and the Armenian birch mouse,
found only in Armenia. Four mammals are endangered, including the West Caucasian
tur and Dahl’s jird. Eleven of the 18 mammal species are found in Armenia, Azerbaijan
and Georgia, while 14 species are found in Russia, 10 in Iran and nine in Turkey. The
vulnerable giant mole rat is found only in Russia. Six of the threatened mammals are
endemics or restricted-range species.
12
Table 1.
Summary of species outcomes for the Caucasus hotspot
NUMBER OF GLOBALLY
THREATENED SPECIES
DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTRY
IUCN Status
Endangered
Critically
Endangered
Total
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Georgia
Iran
Russia
Mammals
12
4
2
18
11
11
11
10
14
9
Birds
9
1
1
11
4
8
3
11
11
10
Reptiles
4
4
2
10
3
Amphibians
4
Fish
1
Plants
1
TOTAL
31
5
14
1
6
Turkey
Vulnerable
TAXONOMIC
GROUP
3
5
4
5
6
4
2
3
1
2
3
7
6
6
5
6
4
30
28
31
38
32
1
1
*51
19
*September 2004 update: The global conservation status of one of the amphibian species outcomes has
since been determined to be near threatened, rather than vulnerable as originally indicated. As a result of
this new information, the species can no longer be considered a species outcome or a priority for CEPF
investment. The CEPF investment strategy and appendices of this profile have been updated with this
change.
Eleven bird species were identified as conservation outcomes, including one critically
endangered species - the Siberian crane, which migrates along the Caspian coast. The
white-headed duck is endangered, while the remaining nine species are considered
vulnerable. Three of the avian species outcomes are found in Georgia and four in
Armenia. Eight birds are found in Azerbaijan and 10 in the Turkish Caucasus. The
Russian and Iranian Caucasus both have all 11 bird species. Three additional bird
species, used by BirdLife International to delineate Important Bird Areas (IBAs), are
local endemics with restricted ranges: Caucasian black grouse, Caucasian snowcock and
Caucasian chiffchaff.
Ten species of reptiles and four species of amphibians were targeted in the species
outcomes. Two reptiles—Darevsky’s and pontic vipers—are critically endangered. The
large-headed water snake is found only in the Russian Caucasus. All four species of
amphibians are vulnerable. The Persian brook salamander is found only in the Iranian
Caucasus. Seven of the 10 threatened reptiles and all of the threatened amphibians in the
hotspot are restricted-range species or local endemics.
Seven species of fish are included in the species outcomes, six of which are from the
sturgeon genus. Five of the seven fish are endangered. The critically endangered Baltic
sturgeon is found only in the Black Sea and rivers of the Kolkheti Lowlands in Georgia.
Overfishing and pollution in the Caspian and Black seas threaten all of these fish species.
Only one plant—Tigran’s elder—is included in the species outcomes as a vulnerable
species. This endemic species is sporadically found on lower and middle mountain
slopes in Armenia and is threatened by habitat loss to development and overgrazing.
13
In summary, six species of the 51 are critically endangered, 14 are endangered and 31 are
vulnerable. The 51 threatened species were the basis for determining site-level outcomes
for the Caucasus hotspot and will be important indicators of the success of future
conservation activities. Among them, critically endangered, restricted-range and
landscape species with large ranges that cannot be saved at the site-level were taken into
account as important conservation priorities at the species level (Appendix 2). CEPF and
the conservation community should monitor the status of these species closely to prevent
further extinctions and biodiversity loss.
Site Outcomes
Site outcomes were defined for each target species, recognizing that most species are best
conserved through the protection of the sites in which they occur. Site outcomes are
physically and/or socioeconomically discrete areas of land that need to be protected to
conserve the target species. Sites are scale-independent, which means they can be very
small or very large. The defining characteristic of a site is that it is an area that can be
managed as a single unit. Sites can be any category of protected area, governmental
lands, or private farms or ranches. The main objective of defining important sites for
conservation of threatened species is to identify areas where investments can be made to
create protected areas or special conservation regimes, expand existing protected areas
and improve protected area management, all of which will help to prevent species
extinctions and biodiversity loss.
In order to define the site-level outcomes, WWF Caucasus analyzed point data on the
distribution of globally threatened and endemic species (species outcomes). It mapped
the data according to the six taxa (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and plants)
to determine sites where these species are found. Since BirdLife International has
already determined IBAs for bird fauna, these were automatically included as site
outcomes in the hotspot. Existing protected areas in the region where globally threatened
species (species outcomes) occur were also included in the list of sites. Much of the
work involved resolving overlaps between the IBAs, existing protected areas and other
site outcomes for non-bird taxa, since IBAs were not always delineated with regard to
protected area boundaries. Important habitats for threatened species that are not currently
protected but could be managed as a single unit were also included. Additional factors
considered in determining site outcomes were: a) important habitats for endemics
(restricted-range species) and b) sites important for large congregations of waterfowl and
fish, particularly those that hold more than 1 percent of the global population of a single
species at a particular time (according to BirdLife International criteria).
WWF Caucasus identified 205 site outcomes for the Caucasus, covering 19 percent of the
hotspot. It compiled a database on these site outcomes including the site name, major
habitat, threatened species occurring there, protected status, threats and proposed
conservation actions. Table 2 shows how the outcomes are distributed across countries
and taxonomic groups. In Armenia, 20 sites were identified, covering an area of more
than 0.91 million hectares. Azerbaijan has 61 site outcomes covering more than 1.29
million hectares. Georgia has 49 site outcomes across an area of 2.17 million hectares.
In northwestern Iran, 15 site outcomes have been identified across 1.65 million hectares.
The Russian Caucasus includes 42 site outcomes with a combined area of 2.29 million
14
hectares. Northeastern Turkey has 18 site outcomes with an area of 2.25 million
hectares. These sites are described in Appendix 3 and depicted in Figure 2.
In all, 115 of the sites identified in the site outcomes harbor mammals listed as threatened
by IUCN. Globally threatened birds and IBAs are represented in 100 of the sites, while
reptiles and amphibians are found in 59 and 21 of the sites, respectively. Threatened fish
species are found in 20 of the 205 sites and the Tigran’s elder - the only globally
threatened plant species - is found in three sites.
Table 2.
Summary of site outcomes for the Caucasus hotspot
CONSERVATION SITES
Country
Area
(x 1,000 ha)
Turkey
Number of
Sites
Area
(x 1,000 ha)
Number of
Sites
Russia
Area
(x 1,000 ha)
Iran
Number of
Sites
Area
(x 1,000 ha)
Georgia
Number of
Sites
Area
(x 1,000 ha)
Azerbaijan
Number of
Sites
Area
(x 1,000 ha)
Armenia
Number of
Sites
Area
(x 1,000 ha)
TAXONOMIC
GROUP
Number of
Sites
Hotspot
Mammals
115
8,097
10
764
26
828
25
1,312
11
1,482
33
1,678
10
2,032
Birds
100
5,847
11
574
35
664
19
845
9
1,248
17
875
9
1,641
3
337
Reptiles
59
5,704
16
525
21
1,357
3
586
10
1,031
6
1,867
Amphibians
21
2,784
1
26
14
635
1
374
2
358
3
1,390
Fish
20
2,156
4
318
8
205
3
205
4
168
1
1,260
3
130
3
130
205
10,560
20
906
Plants
All Taxa
61
1,289
49
2,174
15
1,647
42
2,293
18
2,250
Corridor Outcomes
Corridor outcomes are large-scale landscapes that need to be conserved in order to allow
persistence of biodiversity. While protecting sites alone will not be sufficient to conserve
biodiversity in the long-term, conservation of landscapes (corridors) large enough to
allow the persistence of biodiversity must be anchored on core areas (site outcomes),
embedded in a matrix of other natural habitat and anthropogenic land uses. Corridors
within the Caucasus were identified and delineated based on the following criteria:
coverage of site outcomes, existence of large-scale intact biota assemblages, needs of
wide-ranging (landscape) species, connectivity of habitats and opportunities for
maintaining ecological and evolutionary processes. Areas that were considered for
corridors included intact rivers and landscapes, natural mountain passes, known
migratory corridors and areas with spatial heterogeneity that could serve as stepping
stones for many species. WWF Caucasus also considered habitat representation,
resilience to anthropogenic development scenarios and the need to safeguard unknown
areas that might harbor high levels of biodiversity or endemism.
Ten conservation corridors were identified for the Caucasus hotspot as important for
biodiversity conservation (Appendix 4 and Figure 3). Of these, five were determined to
be priority (target) corridors for conservation. All 10 corridors are described below in
15
brief, including significant biodiversity features, threatened species and habitats,
institutional factors and potential for expansion of protected areas. An explanation of the
ranking of the five priority corridors is given below under CEPF Niche for Investment.
Figure 2. Site outcomes for the Caucasus hotspot
Note: Site numbers correspond to numbering in Appendix 3.
Kuma-Manych Corridor
The Kuma-Manych Corridor (2.08 million hectares) extends along the northern border of
the hotspot in the North Caucasus Plain and includes the eastern coast of the Azov Sea.
The corridor, located entirely within the Russian Federation, harbors numerous wetlands,
large lakes and channels - important areas for waterfowl that have been designated IBAs
and site outcomes. Wetlands are surrounded by steppe and semi-desert habitats. Parts of
the corridor have been severely impacted by grazing, farming, poaching and overfishing.
16
The Kuma-Manych Corridor was delineated based on its importance for migratory
waterfowl and its significant number of IBAs. The corridor contains 11 site outcomes,
making up a quarter of its area. Lake Manych-Gudilo, the Yeyski Salt Lakes and the
deltas of the Don and Kuban rivers are some of the more notable sites. The Kuban River
Delta has been designated a Ramsar site. Ten globally threatened species are found here,
such as European mink, otter, bustard and three species of sturgeon. Eight wetland sites
hold globally significant congregations of waterfowl, such as the red-breasted goose and
lesser white-fronted goose. Three wildlife sanctuaries protect only 4.1 percent of the
corridor. There are no local NGOs active in the region, but universities and institutes in
large cities of the North Caucasus work in these areas. International conservation
organizations and Russian national NGOs are active in the region. State natural resource
management agencies have representative offices for the region.
Greater Caucasus Corridor
The Greater Caucasus Corridor (4.68 million hectares) mainly includes middle and high
mountain areas of the Greater Caucasus Range, extending from the Black Sea almost to
the Caspian. The corridor runs along the borders of Russia, Georgia and Azerbaijan and
contains the highest peak in Europe - Mount Elbrus (5,642m). Major habitats include
deciduous and coniferous forests at middle elevations and elfin woods, shrublands, alpine
meadows, glaciers and snowfields at high elevations. Large areas of pristine forests and
high mountain habitats remain intact. A number of endemic species of plants and
animals are found here. The region was named a large herbivore hotspot by WWF for
the abundance of ungulates. Threats to biodiversity include illegal logging, overgrazing
in high mountain areas, poaching and political strife. The corridor contains 40 site
outcomes, making up almost half of its area. Twenty globally threatened and seven
restricted-range species are found here including East and West Caucasian turs and
Dinnik’s viper. One site, Teberdinsky Nature Reserve, harbors globally significant
congregations of the endemic Caucasian black grouse. Protected areas cover 35 percent
of the corridor, including 15 strictly protected nature reserves, three national parks and 23
sanctuaries and other areas. Several reserves are adjacent to each other across national
borders, offering great potential for transboundary cooperation. Some reserves should be
connected by wildlife corridors to facilitate migration of red deer and other species.
Political conflicts in Abkhazia (Georgia) and Chechnya (Russia) make work in certain
areas of the corridor difficult. A number of NGOs are active in the corridor. Existing
protected areas are the basis of many investment projects in the region. State natural
resource management agencies have representative offices in the corridor.
Caspian Corridor
The Caspian Corridor (3.23 million hectares) is located along the Caspian Sea coast from
the Talysh Mountains in the south to the northern border of the hotspot, including parts of
Azerbaijan and Russia. Coastal wetland, marine, semi-desert and desert habitats are
found in this corridor, which has the lowest level of precipitation in all of the Caucasus.
The Caspian Corridor was delineated based on its importance for migratory waterfowl
and its significant number of IBAs. The corridor has 31 sites identified as site outcomes,
covering more than a quarter of its area. Twenty sites have important congregations of
waterfowl, the largest number in the Caucasus. Many sites are critical spawning areas for
threatened sturgeon populations. Twenty-three globally threatened species are found
17
here, such as the Caspian seal, found in the Absheron site and the marbled duck, found in
lakes and shore areas along the Caspian. Illegal fishing threatens sturgeon populations.
Poaching of migratory birds is widespread. Pipeline construction and oil development
threaten certain parts of the region, such as Baku Bay. The protected areas system, made
up of four nature reserves and 11 sanctuaries, covers 14 percent of the corridor. Some
NGOs are active in the corridor, but capacity is generally limited. New funds for the
environment are becoming available from oil companies in the region. State natural
resource management agencies have representative offices in the corridor.
Figure 3.
Corridor outcomes for the Caucasus hotspot
1 - Kuma-Manych; 2 - Greater Caucasus; 3 - Caspian; 4 - West Lesser
Caucasus; 5 - Javakheti; 6 - East Lesser Caucasus; 7 - Iori-Mingechaur;
8 - Southern Uplands; 9 - Arasbaran; 10 - Hyrcan
18
West Lesser Caucasus Corridor
The West Lesser Caucasus Corridor (2.99 million hectares) is situated in the western part
of the Lesser Caucasus Mountain Range, where it extends along the Black Sea from
northeastern Turkey to southwestern Georgia, ending in central Georgia. The area has
the highest level of precipitation in the Caucasus. The Colchic Refugia, at the core of the
corridor, contains the highest levels of woody plant diversity in the hotspot with a large
percentage of endemic and relic species. Major habitats consist of broadleaf, coniferous
and elfin forests with evergreen understory. Five species of rhododendron are found
here, including two endemics. The Kolkheti Lowlands harbor important wetlands for
migrating waterfowl and rivers for spawning sturgeon, including the critically
endangered Baltic sturgeon. Significant numbers of threatened bat species are found
here. The region was named a large herbivore hotspot by WWF for its abundance of
ungulate species. In all, 21 site outcomes are found in this corridor, covering 76 percent
of its area. Four sites contain globally significant congregations of birds. The corridor
includes the highest number of threatened species among the corridors (29) including
several species of endemic vipers, sturgeon and the otter. Seven restricted-range species
inhabit the area, such as the Caucasian salamander. Illegal fishing threatens sturgeon
populations in the Black Sea, while fuel wood collection, illegal logging and timber
export affect forest ecosystems. Poaching, oil pipelines, sea ports and damming of rivers
impact freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems. Protected areas cover 11 percent of the
corridor and include 12 nature reserves, seven national parks and five sanctuaries.
Transboundary cooperation between reserves bordering Turkey and Georgia has been
initiated. WWF and several local NGOs are active in the region, as well as the Georgian
and Turkish governments. State natural resource management agencies have
representative offices in the corridor.
Javakheti Corridor
The Javakheti Corridor (0.42 million hectares), the smallest corridor in the Caucasus, is
situated in the northern part of the Southern Uplands on the border of Armenia, Georgia
and Turkey. Habitats include high mountain wetlands with lakes of volcanic origin,
steppes and meadows. The region is one of the three important migratory corridors for
birds in the Caucasus. Thirteen site outcomes are found here, covering 53 percent of the
corridor. Six globally threatened species inhabit the region, such as the corncrake and
imperial eagle. Darevsky’s viper is one of the two restricted-range species in this
corridor. Ten sites in the corridor have significant congregations of waterfowl, the
second largest in the hotspot after the Caspian Corridor. Threats to habitats include
unsustainable water management, poaching of birds and overgrazing. There are no
protected areas in the corridor, providing opportunities to create new reserves, including
across political boundaries. A number of NGOs are active in this corridor. State natural
resource management agencies have representative offices in the region.
East Lesser Caucasus Corridor
The East Lesser Caucasus Corridor (1.43 million hectares) in Armenia and the
Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan is situated mainly in the eastern and
southern parts of the Lesser Caucasus Mountain Chain. Temperate broadleaf forests,
mountain steppes and subalpine and alpine meadows are the primary habitat types.
Juniper woodlands are found on mountain slopes. Lake Sevan, the largest freshwater
19
lake in the Caucasus, is included in this corridor. The leopard - a flagship species - is
found in the region. The corridor includes 13 site outcomes, making up nearly half of its
area (52 percent). Fourteen globally threatened species are found here, such as Armenian
mouflon, bezoar goat, otter, Armenian birch mouse and Tigran’s elder. Lake Sevan has
large congregations of waterfowl. The Armenian birch mouse and the Armenian
mouflon are restricted-range species in this corridor. Fuel wood collection and illegal
logging, poaching, overgrazing and unsustainable water management threaten the
region’s biodiversity and natural ecosystems. Protected areas cover a quarter of the
corridor, but only two of these are national parks, three are strict nature reserves and the
remaining sixteen are sanctuaries with insufficient protected regimes to prevent
biodiversity loss. The status of these protected areas should be increased and new
reserves should be created. Institutional capacity is limited, with the exception of
governmental agencies, which have representatives of environmental and other natural
resource management agencies in the region. International NGOs carry out conservation
work in the corridor.
Iori-Mingechaur Corridor
The Iori-Mingechaur Corridor (0.97 million hectares) is situated in the central part of the
Transcaucasian Depression on the border between Georgia and Azerbaijan. The corridor
includes intact arid plateau and foothill habitats with pistachio-juniper woodlands, as well
as a significant portion of the floodplain forests in the hotspot. Steppe, semi-desert and
wetland ecosystems are also represented here. The corridor includes 14 site outcomes,
covering 57 percent of its area. Three sites are important for bird congregations. Nine
globally threatened species inhabit the region including Mehely’s horseshoe bat, common
tortoise, imperial eagle and otter. Significant threats include overgrazing, poaching and
infrastructure development. Protected areas cover 15.1 percent of the corridor. Habitats
are adequately protected on the Georgian side and protection is relatively good in
Azerbaijan. The corridor has high potential for transboundary cooperation among
reserves. Several NGOs from Georgia and Azerbaijan are active in this region. State
natural resource management agencies have representative offices in the corridor.
Southern Uplands Corridor
The Southern Uplands Corridor (2.04 million hectares) covers the central part of the
Southern Uplands on the border of Turkey, Iran and Armenia. The sacred Mount Ararat
(5,165 m), located in this corridor, is one of the highest peaks in the Caucasus Hotspot.
Major habitats include mountain steppes and scattered wetlands. The corridor contains
16 site outcomes, covering 62 percent of its area. Two sites have globally significant
congregations of birds. Twenty-four globally threatened species, such as Armenian
mouflon and bezoar goat, are found in the corridor. Seven species have restricted ranges,
such as Dahl’s jird and Schaub’s bat, which occur only in this corridor. Overgrazing and
poaching threaten the region’s habitats and wildlife. Protected areas are poorly
represented, covering less than 1 percent of the corridor. New protected areas,
particularly in wetland areas, should be created. Institutional capacity is limited, with the
exception of governmental agencies, which have regional divisions of national
environmental and natural resource agencies.
20
Arasbaran Corridor
The Arasbaran Corridor (1.24 million hectares) includes the extreme northwestern part of
Iran at the junction of the Southern Uplands and the Lesser Caucasus Range. The Araks
River borders the corridor to the north. Major habitat types include mountain steppes,
remnants of broadleaf forests and wetlands in the Araks River watershed. Mountain
habitats are important for the leopard. The corridor includes five site outcomes, which
cover more than half of its area. Three sites along the Araks River are important for
congregations of waterfowl. Globally threatened species include 16 species, such as the
Armenian mouflon and bezoar goat. The Persian brook salamander is one of the three
restricted-range species. Threats to natural habitats include overgrazing and poaching, as
well as construction of roads and dams. Protected areas cover nearly a quarter of the
corridor, but the protected status of these is generally too low to guarantee biodiversity
conservation. Institutional capacity is limited, though regional representatives of
environmental agencies and protected areas staff are present.
Hyrcan Corridor
The Hyrcan Corridor (1.85 million hectares) includes the Talysh Mountains in Azerbaijan
and the northwestern part of the Alborz Mountains in Iran, along with a section of the
Caspian coast. The Hyrcanic Region is one of the two important plant refugia in the
Caucasus Hotspot, where a number of relic and endemic species are found. Major
habitats include broadleaf forests, high mountain steppes and meadows and some coastal
wetlands - important wintering grounds for endangered bird species. One wetland area
has Ramsar status. Leopards are found in forest habitats. The corridor contains eight site
outcomes, covering over 21 percent of its area. Two sites are important for bird
congregations. Nineteen globally threatened species are found in the corridor including
sturgeon and Siberian crane. Overarching threats include unsustainable logging,
poaching and overfishing of sturgeon species. Protected areas (one strict nature reserve,
one national park and 11 other types of protected areas) cover an insufficient portion of
the corridor (8.6 percent) and most of these have low protected status. Institutional
capacity is limited, though regional representatives of environmental agencies and
protected areas staff are present.
Thirty-three sites with a combined area of 675,341 hectares were not included in any of
the corridors. These sites should be targeted for investment by other funding sources
since they do not fall under the corridor outcomes that will be supported by CEPF
investment. The majority of these sites are IBAs that are distributed along bird migratory
routes. White-headed duck, otter and several species of bats are just a few of the globally
threatened species that need protection in these individual sites. Two sites in Armenia
are crucial for protection of the Tigran’s elder plant. Additionally, there were several site
outcomes that were only partially covered by corridors. Threats to these sites include
infrastructure development (urban expansion), overgrazing, overfishing, poaching and
water pollution. These sites should be targeted for investment by other funding sources
since they do not fall under the corridor outcomes that will be supported by CEPF
investment.
In summary, the area of the 10 corridor outcomes is 20.8 million hectares, making up
35.5 percent of the hotspot. Corridor outcomes contain the majority of the globally
threatened species and are important areas of congregations of waterfowl and Caucasian
21
endemics. Corridors are generally the most intact areas in the Caucasus, partly because
they are located along political borders, furthest from administrative centers and
development pressures. The majority of the protected areas in the hotspot fall within the
boundaries of the 10 corridors. Corridors include 84 percent of the total number of sites
identified in site outcomes, or 94 percent of the total area of site outcomes (Figure 4).
The remaining sites, shown in Figure 4 and listed in Appendix 3, must be targeted for
individual conservation programs from other funding sources to prevent extinctions of
globally threatened species.
Figure 4. Site and corridor outcomes in the Caucasus hotspot
22
SOCIOECONOMIC FEATURES
Humans have inhabited the Caucasus for many millennia. Legions of rulers and
government regimes have vied for control of the region and its rich natural and cultural
resources. Nearly half the lands in the Caucasus have been transformed by human
activities. Any strategy for conservation of the rich biodiversity of the region will have to
take the human factor into account by seeking alternative ways to boost local economies
through integrating sustainable practices of natural resource use and including local
communities in conservation programs.
Institutional Framework
After the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1990, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and even
Russia faced the challenge of building new governmental structures. New state
institutions dealing with natural resources were created while others were dismantled or
reorganized. Environmental ministries are the leading agencies in biodiversity
conservation in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, while the Ministry of Natural
Resources absorbed the functions of the environmental ministry in Russia in 2000.
Forestry, water resources, agricultural and other agencies also have jurisdiction over
various aspects of natural resources. Ministries generally have regional divisions in each
of the provinces within the countries. However, state conservation agencies often lack
funding and capacity to implement their mandates or to enforce legislation and
international obligations. Conflicting policies in legislation and overlapping jurisdictions
in addition to a general lack of communication among governing bodies hinder effective
management of environmental resources and create significant contradictions in
regulation.
In Turkey, the Ministry of Forestry deals with biodiversity conservation issues in forests.
Turkey’s Ministry of Environment also plays an important role, dealing with pollution,
marine and wetland ecosystems, climate change, sustainable resource use and other
issues. Iran’s Department of the Environment is in charge of environmental protection in
that country.
Universities, scientific academies and specialized institutes on forestry, soils, biology and
marine resources play an important role in research and inventory of biodiversity in the
hotspot. Scientists and students participate in reserve planning and fieldwork in protected
areas.
The NGO movement has gained momentum over the past decade in each of the Caucasus
countries. National and local NGOs speak out on environmental issues, impact public
opinion and conduct scientific studies on environmental and social issues. NGOs provide
independent information on important topics, often filling in gaps where scientific and
governmental institutions fall short. NGOs play a crucial role in bringing a variety of
stakeholders together, holding meetings among decisionmakers, local communities,
businesses and international organizations. Fourteen national NGOs, such as the
Environment Foundation of Turkey and the SOS Environment Volunteers and eight local
NGOs, such as the Black Sea Environmentalists, are active in the Turkish Caucasus. The
Center for Sustainable Development (CENESTA) is one of many environmental NGOs
23
active in Iran. Some of the more notable of the over 20 NGOs in Armenia are the
Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Union, Khazer Ecological and Cultural NGO
and the Center for Environmental Rights. Azerbaijan has the Ecological Union, Green
Wave and the Green Movement of Azerbaijan among 40 others. At least 50
environmental NGOs are active in Georgia, such as the Noah’s Ark Center for Recovery
of Endangered Species (NACRES), Georgian Center for Conservation of Wildlife
(GCCW) and the Green Movement of Georgia. NGOs promoting conservation in the
Russian Caucasus include the Socio-Ecological Union and other regional divisions of
Russian NGOs and the North Caucasus Association of Protected Areas.
International NGOs such as BirdLife International, Eurasia Foundation, Fauna and Flora
International, Greenpeace, MacArthur Foundation, Wetlands International and WWF are
important catalysts for biodiversity conservation in the Caucasus.
Nature Conservation Legislation
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia began to adopt new environmental legislation
after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1990. Legislation was enacted on environmental
protection, protected areas, wildlife management and forestry. Other laws on air
pollution, water, land use and environmental impact assessments were also enacted.
In Turkey, articles in the 1982 Constitution guarantee the right to a clean environment
and lay out principles for protection of cultural and natural areas. A number of other
laws on allocation of forests for protection, hunting and fishing, water use, tourism,
coastal areas, export of animal species and national parks have come into force in the past
two decades.
Iran’s constitution proclaims the need to prevent pollution and environmental
degradation. Laws governing management of game, forest and rangeland resources have
been in effect since 1967. Laws and acts dealing with environmental protection, air
pollution and water use were put in place beginning in the 1970s and 1980s. Deficiencies
in existing regulations are related to the lack of correct environmental data, lack of
enforcement by environmental inspection agencies and the scarcity of experienced
environmental professionals in the country.
Gaps and contradictions in conservation legislation and overlapping jurisdictions plague
each of the countries in the Caucasus. Transboundary cooperation on environmental
issues is limited, though a memorandum of understanding is under consideration between
Georgia and Turkey to promote cooperation on biodiversity conservation and sustainable
resource use in the globally important Colchic Region. Bilateral agreements on
environmental cooperation also exist between Georgia and Azerbaijan and between
Georgia and Armenia, yet detailed work plans have yet to be elaborated.
All six countries have signed the majority of international conventions, including the
Convention on Biological Diversity, Wetlands of International Importance, Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and World Cultural and Natural
Heritage. Not all of the countries, however, have the capacity and finances to fulfill their
24
international obligations. Countries are implementing other multilateral strategies and
programs such as the Caspian Environment Program and Regional Seas Project.
Economic Situation
The economies of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia are still in a state of
transition since the fall of the Soviet Union. Economic development and indicators
clearly differ between urban areas and rural communities, where corridor outcomes have
been delineated. Agricultural farming, livestock, forestry and fishing make up the bulk of
the economy in rural regions in the Caucasus.
Agriculture was the leading sector of the economy for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and
the Russian Caucasus during Soviet times. Fertile soils and favorable climate conditions
allowed a broad range of production. Goods shipped to the USSR included grapes, wine,
tobacco, cotton, fruit, vegetables, tea and citrus fruits. Since 1990, production and
distribution patterns were disrupted. In Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, total
production of previously exported crops such as citrus fruits and grapes is only a third of
pre-1990 levels. Today most of the rural population depends on subsistence farming,
growing basic food crops for consumption. Livestock farming (cattle, sheep, goats) is the
primary source of income in mountain regions. Cattle and sheep provide leather, wool,
meat, milk and other products. Livestock production has decreased in the former Soviet
republics in the past 10 years.
Fishing in rivers, lakes and seas has been an important part of regional economic
development for centuries. The demand for caviar, sturgeon and other fish on global
markets encourages overfishing and poaching. Sturgeon is the most sought after fish,
with seven species living in the Caspian and Black seas and swimming up rivers to
spawn. The Caspian Sea holds 90 percent of the world’s sturgeon. Overfishing in the
Black and Caspian seas has brought about the demise of sturgeon and other fish - 13
species of fish in the Black Sea are endangered or nearly extinct. Fishing in freshwater
rivers and lakes plays an important role in local economies and for supplementing low
incomes in rural areas. Poaching in important rivers and streams for spawning sturgeon
is widespread.
Agriculture is also the leading industry in the Turkish Caucasus. Major crops include
grains, vegetables, industrial crops, fruit and seeds for oil. All of the tea produced in
Turkey comes from the Caucasus provinces. Livestock and bee-keeping are also
important sources of income in rural areas. The bulk of fish production in the country
comes from the Turkish Caucasus. Yet the economic situation in the Turkish Caucasus
lags behind economic indicators for Turkey.
The Iranian Caucasus has grasslands favorable for livestock breeding and agriculture.
Craft-making and fruit orchards are also important sources of income in rural areas.
Dairy products from this region such as Leghvan cheese are world-renowned.
The forestry and wood manufacturing industry in the Caucasus has felt the impacts of the
economic crisis more acutely than other areas of production, despite relatively large
forest reserves, particularly in the North Caucasus. Wood processing plants produce
25
boards for construction, furniture, parquet flooring and other products. Forests provide
firewood for heat and cooking in rural areas. Due to the chronic lack of energy resources
in Georgia and Armenia, the public sector now consumes two to three times more
firewood than in the 1980s. Illegal logging and timber export put at risk some of the last
remnants of forests in the Caucasus.
A once flourishing tourism industry based on spas and mineral baths, beaches of the
Black and Caspian seas and mountain sports has diminished to next to nothing. Today,
many tourists prefer to travel to more exotic destinations with higher standards, resulting
in serious losses to local economies. Facilities to support tourists in the former Soviet
region of the Caucasus are decaying or lacking altogether, suggesting that either large
investments would be required to boost this sector of the economy or local people would
need to become more active in providing diversifying services to tourists (bed and
breakfasts, restaurants, souvenirs) to reach a different market segment.
Infrastructure and Regional Development
Infrastructure is mainly concentrated in and around large cities, far from rural areas.
Several dams for hydroelectric stations and reservoirs have altered natural river systems
and flooded forests and steppes. Oil pipelines connect the Caspian and Black seas and
gas pipelines run from Russia to Armenia via Georgia. The Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, now
under construction, will connect the Caspian Sea with the Mediterranean, running
through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Pipelines and power lines fragment natural
habitats and disrupt animal migrations.
Roads are generally under-developed and poorly maintained due to the complicated
mountainous terrain in the region and lack of finances. Railroads follow the major roads
and are connected by ferries to Ukraine and Europe, offering potential for connection to
the European railway network. Water transportation is accessible from ports on the
Black Sea, handling some freight and insignificant numbers of passengers. The Caspian
Sea is landlocked and connections between ports of adjacent countries are limited.
Most of the Caucasus Region is electrified. The Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant, the only
atomic power station in the Caucasus, produces the bulk of the energy in Armenia. In
Azerbaijan, thermal power plants produce 85 percent of the energy and hydropower
provides the rest. Most of the energy in Georgia is generated by hydropower.
Since infrastructure and regional development is mostly concentrated near urban centers,
many of the outlying regions of the countries are largely unscathed by large-scale
infrastructure projects and development. Border regions of the countries, which are
usually the most distant areas from administrative centers, harbor large swaths of intact
natural habitats. As a result, much of the biodiversity in the Caucasus has been preserved
in these outlying regions and many of the corridor outcomes are situated in border
regions.
26
Demography and Social Trends
Approximately 35 million people live in the Caucasus hotspot and about half in rural
areas. The region has a high population density at 60 people per square kilometer. High
migration rates are characteristic for the entire region. Incentives for migration include
better employment opportunities, higher income and the attraction of urban life for rural
youth. As a result of migration and falling birth rates, the overall population in the region
has decreased since 1990.
The majority of the population in rural areas of the former Soviet Union lives below the
poverty level. Most have low disposable incomes, limited access to health care, poor
housing and shortages of fuel and electricity. Health care is more accessible in the
Turkish Caucasus and some other areas. Many people in rural villages supplement their
income with food from vegetable gardens, livestock, fishing and hunting.
The Caucasus is a mosaic of ethnic, religious and cultural diversity. A multitude of
languages can be heard in the region. Christianity and Islam are practiced side by side
and while differences in religious beliefs are generally tolerated, historically religion has
been the reason behind many ethnic skirmishes.
Many people are aware of environmental issues due to the generally high level of
education in the region (literacy is near 100 percent in most areas). Rural populations,
however, are generally less informed and competent environmental journalists in these
areas are lacking. The desire to take action to improve the environmental situation
among the general public is very low, since most people are more concerned with
meeting basic needs such as food, drinking water, or employment.
In conclusion, a rapid assessment of the socioeconomic situation assists in identifying the
niche for CEPF in the region. Clearly, civil society - NGOs, scientific institutes,
universities and other groups - is established in the region, providing a basis for
conservation action, though finances and capacity are limited. Governmental institutions
are generally supportive of conservation and a number of laws are in place, but agencies
often lack financial and technical capabilities to enforce them. Cooperation on the
environment between countries is limited but the potential exists, particularly where
protected areas and migrating species are concerned. Most of the counties in the region
are experiencing economic difficulties. The rural population is especially poor, where
people are largely dependent on the land to meet their basic needs. New models of
alternative income generation and sustainable resource use are needed to help the rural
population emerge from economic depression and become less dependent on natural
resources. The general public in corridor areas is largely uninformed on environmental
issues and lacks incentive to participate in conservation programs.
SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT THREATS
Biodiversity of the Caucasus is being lost at an alarming rate. On average, nearly half of
the lands in the hotspot have been transformed by human activities. The plains, foothills
and subalpine belts have been the most heavily impacted. Native floodplain vegetation
remains on only half of its original area in the North Caucasus and only 2-3 percent of
27
original riparian forests remain in the southern Caucasus. Most natural old growth forests
have been fragmented into small sections, divided by areas of commercial forests or
plantations, as well as agricultural and developed lands. For the Caucasus as a whole,
about a quarter of the region remains in reasonable condition, while less than 10 percent
of the original vegetation, including forests, can be considered pristine.
Numbers of large herbivores have dropped dramatically in the past century. Red deer
numbers have plummeted from 800 in the Lagodekhi Nature Reserve of Georgia to fewer
than 100 today. In Azerbaijan, only 500 of the animals remain, while fewer than 1,500
red deer are left in Russia. Saiga antelope numbers in the North Caucasus Plain have
dropped from several hundred thousand at the middle of the 20th century to fewer than
20,000 today.
Participants of the second stakeholder workshop, facilitated through CEPF investment,
held in January 2003 determined proximate threats and their root causes in the Caucasus
hotspot. The major threats to biodiversity in the region are illegal logging, fuel wood
harvesting and the timber trade; overgrazing; poaching and illegal wildlife trade;
overfishing; infrastructure development; and pollution of rivers and wetlands. These
threats lead to habitat degradation, decline of species populations and disruption of
ecological processes - all contributing to overall loss of biodiversity.
Illegal Logging, Fuel Wood Harvesting and the Timber Trade
Illegal logging, fuel wood harvesting and the timber trade threaten biodiversity in the
region’s forests and lead to habitat degradation. While officially sanctioned logging has
actually decreased in some areas in the past few years—in the North Caucasus, for
example, only 30 to 50 percent of the originally planned area is being logged—illegal
logging has increased. In Georgia, experts believe that illegal logging (including fuel
wood harvesting) accounts for three times more than the official quotas. In Armenia, as a
result of the energy crisis, 27,000 ha of forests were cut between 1992-1995, comprising
8 percent of the entire forest reserves of that country. The amount of timber and fuel
wood taken from forests in the Eastern Anatolian Province of Turkey is nine times higher
than forest productivity. Fuel wood harvesting has increased nearly three times in some
areas compared to a decade ago as a result of energy shortages and the economic crisis.
Rural populations are largely dependent on fuel wood consumption for heating and
cooking.
Illegal timber export is a serious problem, particularly for Georgia and Russia, but
official estimates of exports are not available. Illegal logging leads to decline in species
composition, forest degradation and overall habitat loss, impacting a number of plant and
animal species. Fuel wood harvesting and consumption lead to forest degradation and
disappearance of certain species and contribute to forest fires and global warming. The
Greater Caucasus, West Lesser Caucasus, East Lesser Caucasus and Hyrcan corridors are
the most impacted by illegal or unsustainable logging and fuel wood harvesting.
In order to halt illegal logging, independent assessments of the level of illegal logging
and timber exports need to be made. Possible measures to combat illegal logging and
trade include increasing the capacity of customs and forest inspection agencies to stop
28
illegal trade and monitor logging in forestry enterprises. Information exchange between
importing and exporting countries, as well as transboundary cooperation and NGO
participation in monitoring the timber trade would help curb illegal logging. Fines for
violators could be increased, while increasing the sale price of timber would mean that
fewer trees would have to be cut to turn a profit. At the same time, processing wood in
the region into construction materials, wood flooring, furniture and other goods would
fetch a higher price on regional and international markets, eventually leading to lower
levels of timber extraction from forests. Measures to reduce unsustainable fuel wood
harvesting include enforcing restrictions on fuel wood harvesting near villages and
reducing dependence on fuel wood by providing energy alternatives such as natural gas.
Overgrazing
Overgrazing and uncontrolled livestock grazing threatens steppe, subalpine and alpine
ecosystems. A third of pasturelands in the region are subject to erosion. Sheep grazing
in winter ranges and steppes and semi-deserts of the eastern Caucasus has nearly tripled
in the past decade. Intensive grazing has resulted in reduced species diversity and habitat
degradation. Secondary plant communities now occupy 80 percent of grasslands in the
subalpine belt. The alpine belt is slightly better preserved. Grazing of cattle in forested
areas disturbs undergrowth and creates competition for wild ungulates. Overgrazing is
causing environmental damage in much of the hotspot, particularly in the Kuma-Manych,
Greater Caucasus, Javakheti, East Lesser Caucasus, Iori-Mingechaur and Southern
Uplands corridors.
Measures to reduce the impacts of overgrazing include developing sustainable rangeland
management plans, enforcing restrictions on grazing in protected areas and prohibiting
grazing in damaged fields near rivers and on steep slopes. Furthermore, developing
opportunities for alternative sources of income would reduce the need to keep large
numbers of livestock in some rural communities.
Poaching and the Illegal Wildlife Trade
Poaching and the illegal wildlife trade have increased significantly as a result of the
economic crisis and the opening of the borders in the former Soviet countries.
Overhunting of legal game species and poaching of rare species is widespread in
mountain regions, in particular. Government agencies set quotas for game species
without carrying out appropriate research on game numbers and population dynamics.
Thus, quotas are often too high to ensure that viable populations of game animals (mostly
ungulates) are maintained. Nature reserves are neither equipped nor authorized to control
poaching outside of protected areas. Limitations of enforcement capabilities in Turkey
and Iran also lead to uncontrolled hunting.
Leopard, brown bear, Caucasian red deer, bezoar goat and turs are heavily poached in the
Caucasus. There are no more than 25 leopards left in the entire Caucasus region. Tur
populations, hunted for their horns and meat, have declined in recent years and there are
fewer than 200 Caucasian chamois in the Lesser Caucasus Range. Red deer numbers
have fallen in the past few decades as well, particularly in the southern part of the
hotspot.
29
Lynx, otter, wild cat, fox and jackal are killed for their fur. Rare species of falcons are
captured and sold abroad. Reptiles and amphibians like common tortoise,
Transcaucasian agama and Caucasian salamander have been collected for decades, both
for laboratory use and the pet trade. Vipers have long been exploited for their venom.
Use of animal parts, such as saiga horns for oriental medicines and leopard skins for
decoration, threatens several endangered species. Poaching and unsustainable hunting
are rampant in nearly all the corridors.
Measures to reduce poaching include building capacity (training, equipment,
transportation) of existing ranger services, inspection agencies and NGO groups to patrol
areas where poaching is prevalent. Anti-poaching units within governmental inspection
agencies and civil groups could be created to monitor territories outside protected areas.
Fines for poachers should be increased and prosecution of violators enforced. New
opportunities for providing income to local communities through ecotourism and
sustainable resource use should be developed to reduce the need for poaching. Illegal
export of animal derivatives should be halted by working with customs agencies across
borders and through the TRAFFIC network to reduce demand on world markets.
Overfishing
Overfishing, mostly driven by poverty and international demand for black-caviar, is
widespread in the Caspian Sea and spawning rivers. The caviar from one beluga fetches
as much as $30,000 on world markets. Illegal fishing could cause some species of
sturgeon to go extinct within the next few years. It takes nearly two decades for the
sturgeon to reach maturity, therefore overfishing has far-reaching impacts for populations
of these fish. Overfishing is also a serious problem in the Black and Azov seas. A study
in the Black Sea found that the annual catch value to the fishing industry declined by
$300 million from 1980 to the mid-1990s. Poachers may exceed the legal catch quota by
10 times. Fish inspection agencies are often powerless to halt overfishing - either they
are corrupt and benefit from the business or they lack the capacity to fight it. Overfishing
and illegal fishing also impact lakes and rivers. Fish populations have been affected in
freshwater and marine habitats in the Caspian, Kuma-Manych, West Lesser Caucasus and
Hyrcan corridors.
Measures to halt overfishing include enacting and enforcing bans on threatened fish
species and decreasing demand for threatened species on international markets through
public awareness campaigns. Fines for illegal fishing should be increased and violators
prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Capacity (training, equipment, transportation) of
marine and freshwater inspection agencies should be strengthened. Fishing quotas should
be established based on independent scientific studies of reproductive capacity of fish
populations. Alternative sources of income should be provided for fishermen.
Infrastructure Development
Infrastructure development, including roads, dams, channels and pipelines, fragments
natural habitats and contributes to habitat loss. Draining wetlands and digging channels
for agriculture and irrigation alters riparian ecosystems irreversibly and leads to habitat
loss. Oil extraction in Baku Bay in the Caspian Corridor causes pollution and habitat
degradation. Plans for construction of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline will have negative
30
impacts for biodiversity. Certain provinces in Turkey have experienced population
booms in the past 10 years, leading to a growth in construction of residential housing,
industrial complexes and infrastructure. A highway along the Black Sea Coast has
damaged marine ecosystems irreversibly and expansion of urban areas destroys forest
cover. Plans to build a dam on the Chorokh River for irrigation or electricity will result
in enormous damage to riparian ecosystems of one of the most important rivers in the
Turkish Caucasus. Infrastructure development threatens natural habitats in the Caspian,
West Lesser Caucasus, Iori-Mingechaur and Arasbaran corridors.
Measures to mitigate impacts of infrastructure development include carrying out
independent environmental impact assessments and monitoring, bringing public attention
to the environmental consequences of development projects and encouraging
development companies to provide funds for protected areas and other conservation
measures in areas that will be disturbed by infrastructure projects.
Pollution of Rivers and Wetlands
Pollution of rivers and wetlands is generally a result of run off from human settlements,
factories, farmlands and pastures. While the use of pesticides and fertilizers in
commercial agriculture has declined significantly in the former Soviet countries since
1990, use of chemicals on private plots is growing. Manure from livestock is often
dumped directly into rivers, altering nutrient balances and causing eutrophication of
lakes. Waste materials from timber production are also thrown into rivers at logging and
processing sites. Erosion from farmlands, pastures and logged forests causes increased
turbidity in many rivers.
Large-scale industrial production has decreased dramatically in the last decade as a result
of the economic crisis, leading to lower levels of pollution. However, smaller factories
generally do not have the means to install effective waste management mechanisms and
equipment and runoff waters are highly polluted. Pollution of wetlands and rivers
impacts breeding birds and fish populations. Pesticides and fertilizers kill large numbers
of invertebrates and make their way up the food chain to birds and even humans.
Pollution has impacted freshwater systems in the Kuma-Manych, Arasbaran and IoriMingechaur corridors. Pollution from oil extraction, run off and other sources has
compromised the integrity of marine ecosystems in the Caspian, Azov and Black seas.
Ineffective water management is a serious problem for water conservation in the East
Lesser Caucasus and Javakheti corridors.
Measures to reduce pollution of rivers and wetlands include increasing fines for dumping
polluted wastewater into rivers and prosecuting violators. Civil society should be
involved in monitoring pollution levels in rivers and lakes to determine sources.
Dumping of manure and other waste into rivers should be prohibited. Use of pesticides
and other chemicals near waterways should be closely monitored by independent groups.
Conversion of lands adjacent to rivers and lakes for agriculture should be prohibited.
Root Causes
A number of root causes are behind the proximate threats to biodiversity (Figure 5). Root
causes can be broadly grouped into three categories: socioeconomic, political and
31
institutional. Poverty is perhaps the most significant of the socioeconomic root causes,
leading to poaching, fuel wood consumption, illegal logging, overgrazing and other
threats. Poverty forces people to be dependent on natural resources and use resources
unsustainably to meet their basic needs. The lack of public awareness and public
involvement in nature conservation is another reason people are more likely to participate
in poaching, overfishing and other violations. Economically, the public has little
incentive to conserve firewood, water, or other resources. Poor land use planning results
in overgrazing, pollution of waterways and inefficient infrastructure development.
Political root causes of biodiversity degradation stem from gaps and contradictions in
legislation and the lack of a clear delineation of jurisdiction for enforcement agencies.
Political and civil conflicts hinder cooperation on nature conservation and military
conflicts often result in increased forest fires, logging, poaching and pollution. The lack
of transboundary cooperation between countries hinders control of overfishing, illegal
trade of timber and wildlife and pollution of waterways.
Institutional root causes include ineffective administrative institutions and enforcement
of legislation. Limited coordination among institutions and lack of communication
results in duplication of efforts and misunderstandings. Insufficient knowledge of
conservation issues among key stakeholders hinders environmental protection efforts.
Gaps in protected areas networks and poor protected areas management leads to
poaching, illegal logging, overgrazing and other threats. Insufficient research and
monitoring means that the extent of illegal logging, overfishing and poaching is unknown
and long-term impacts on biodiversity are poorly understood.
Assessment of proximate threats and root causes helps to determine the thematic focus of
the CEPF niche. Strategies should aim to address the root causes in order to mitigate
threats in the corridors. Targeted programs that empower civil society to improve
management of protected areas and capabilities of state conservation agencies and
increase transboundary coordination will be important strategic directions for CEPF
investment. Programs to create alternative incomes for local communities will be
important to reduce the public’s dependence on natural resource consumption. Strategies
to increase awareness among decisionmakers and the public will promote involvement in
and support of conservation activities. Training and support of NGOs and key
stakeholders will help them carry out important conservation projects more efficiently
and in coordination with existing government efforts, thereby maximizing the
effectiveness of all efforts. Tightly defined monitoring and research activities will help
us gain a better understanding of the extent of threats to biodiversity and what measures
are needed to halt biodiversity loss.
32
Figure 5. Threats and root causes
ROOT CAUSES
Socioeconomic
Political
Institutional
Poverty / social problems
Conflicts in legal framework
Insufficient law enforcement
Lack of public awareness and
biodiversity information
Lack of transboundary
cooperation
Lack of public involvement and
NGO presence
Political and civil
conflicts
Insufficient conservation
knowledge and expertise among
key stakeholders
Poor land use planning
Ineffective administrative
institutions / governance
Insufficient incentives favoring
conservation
Gaps in protected areas system
and low status of existing
protected areas
Poor management in protected
areas network
Lack of economic opportunities
other than resource
consumption
Limited coordination among
institutions
Lack of research and monitoring
Lack of communication
PROXIMATE THREATS
Illegal logging, fuel wood
harvesting and timber trade
Overgrazing / uncontrolled
livestock grazing
Poaching and wildlife trade
Overfishing
Infrastructure development
(roads, dams, pipelines, etc.)
Pollution of rivers
and wetlands
BIODIVERSITY LOSS
Habitat
degradation
Decline in species
numbers
33
Disruption of
ecological processes
SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT INVESTMENTS
Investments in biodiversity conservation in the Caucasus Hotspot come from national
governments, bilateral and multilateral agencies and international and regional NGOs.
The following summary is not an exhaustive list of organizations and projects in the
region, but is only meant to assist in determining funding gaps and opportunities in the
hotspot. Table 3 depicts major investment projects underway and funding opportunities
in corridors.
National Governments
Each of the national governments in the Caucasus has developed or is in the process of
developing a national strategy and action plan for conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity as part of international obligations under the Convention on Biodiversity.
Environmental policies and legislation are in place in all the countries. Though regional
governments allocate funds for protected areas operations and environmental programs,
funding for implementation of action plans and programs is scarce. Recommended CEPF
investment is coherent with the national strategies envisioned by each of the countries in
the Caucasus.
The Russian Government spent more than $13 million on nature conservation in the
North Caucasus in 2002, four times more than in 2000. Russia also committed
significant funds toward developing a strategy for sustainable development in the
mountains of the Adygeya Republic. The Georgian Government recently made a
commitment to preserve 15 percent of the country’s forests in protected areas (IUCN IIV) as part of WWF’s Gifts to the Earth initiative. The Government of Azerbaijan
contributed $1 million to creation of the Shakhdag National Park. The government is
developing a program for protection and expansion of forests and for environmentally
sustainable socioeconomic development. In the framework of the Caspian Environment
Program, the Azerbaijan government is developing a national Caspian Action Plan. The
Ministry of Nature Protection in Armenia carried out several projects with support of the
GEF and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on combating
desertification, climate change and building capacity for implementing the Convention on
Biodiversity. The Ministry developed an action plan for Lake Sevan, as well as forest
and biodiversity conservation strategies. The Turkish Government has supported
biodiversity and natural resource management in the Turkish Caucasus. The Department
of Environment in Iran carried out several biological assessment projects in the Caucasus,
including in the Ghorigol wetlands, as well as studies of rare flora and fauna in the
Caucasus region. In 1995, the Iranian government funded a study and management plan
for the Sabalan protected area.
Bilateral and Multilateral Donors
Among bilateral and multilateral donors in the Caucasus, GEF is one of the most active.
GEF has invested substantial funds in protected areas and promoting environmental
education and ecotourism in the North Caucasus, as well as expanding the protected areas
system in Georgia. GEF funded species conservation projects on the European bison,
East Caucasian tur and chamois. In Turkey, GEF is building capacity for resource
34
management planning, protected areas management and conservation of threatened fauna
species. GEF funded two UNDP implemented projects worth over two million dollars on
improving environmental management in the Black Sea Region. GEF funded UNDP
implemented capacity building activities in the Ministry of Environment in Georgia and
in Armenia and on preventing transboundary pollution in the Kura-Araks basin.
The European Union’s Technical Assistance for the Commonwealth of Independent
States (EU-TACIS) supported an environmental program on the Black Sea ($5.5 million),
as well as projects on improving nature conservation policy and environmental awareness
in the region.
The Germany Ministry for Cooperation and Development (BMZ) has supported a project
on erosion control in Turkey. The German government funded development of a vision
for biodiversity conservation in the Caucasus Ecoregion that also served as a foundation
for defining CEPF’s proposed investments and will support implementation of selected
projects under the Caucasus Initiative of the Government of Germany. The German
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (KfW) is funding a $10 million project in
Georgia to create the Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park and develop communal
infrastructure in its support zone.
The Swiss government, in partnership with the World Bank, is financing a Tourism
Initiative project for South Caucasus and a WWF project on sustainable use of medicinal
plants.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) invested $1.6 million to build
disaster management capabilities and $2.3 million on sustainable resource management
in Georgia. UNDP is also funding a program on rural development in the Turkish
Caucasus.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is actively supporting
building environmental awareness in the Caucasus. In the Russian Caucasus, USAID
funded projects on promoting environmental education and ecotourism through nature
reserves, the mass media and children’s camps through the Institute for Sustainable
Communities. USAID invested over $6 million in improving water management in the
southern Caucasus. The Swiss Government, World Bank, EU and UNDP also
contributed funds for that project.
The World Bank provided a $15 million loan to Georgia for establishing sound forest
management systems. The World Bank also supported projects in Armenia on natural
resources management and poverty reduction, in Azerbaijan on boosting sturgeon
populations and creating a national park and on assessing forests on the Turkish-Georgian
border. The World Bank/GEF is funding a large-scale protected areas development
project in Georgia ($8.7 million), aiming to establish two new national parks and expand
existing reserves, as well as provide assistance to the state department of protected areas.
The World Bank/GEF is also supporting the creation of a national park in the Kolkheti
Lowlands ($2.5 million).
35
International NGOs and Foundations
A number of international NGOs and foundations are active in the Caucasus. The
Initiative for Social Action and Renewal in Eurasia (ISAR) provides small grants for
various environmental projects in the Russian Caucasus, including on promoting
environmental awareness through the mass media and working with children, collecting
information on impacts of military conflicts on the environment and assessing the state of
fish populations in southern Russia. IUCN financed an assessment of biological and
landscape diversity in the North Caucasus.
The Eurasia Foundation has contributed to rural development and poverty reduction
projects in the region. The MacArthur Foundation actively supports civil society in the
Caucasus. MacArthur supported creation of the Ecoregional Biodiversity Consultation
Council for the Caucasus Ecoregion, as a follow up to its project with WWF on
elaborating a portfolio for conserving the region’s biodiversity. This portfolio served as a
backdrop for deriving CEPF’s investment priorities in the Caucasus. MacArthur also
financed a conference on threats to the Caspian, as well as work to understand issues
related to the changing level of the Azov Sea.
WWF has been working in the Caucasus for more than10 years through its WWF
Georgia (now WWF Caucasus), WWF Turkey and WWF Russia offices. WWF’s
projects are mainly related to creation of protected areas and improving management of
existing reserves, developing ecotourism, promoting environmental education and
environmentally sound policies and conserving endangered species.
Regional NGOs
Most of the regional NGOs rely on international donors to support their programs. NGO
capacity is limited in rural areas where corridors have been delineated.
The Regional Environmental Centre for the Caucasus (REC Caucasus) operates with core
support from the EU and funding from Switzerland, the United States and other
countries. REC assists Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in solving environmental
problems, supports building civil society, promotes public participation in the
decisionmaking process and helps develop the free exchange of information.
In Georgia, the Noah’s Ark Center for Recovery of Endangered Species (NACRES) is
one of the more active local NGOs. NACRES implements projects on research and
monitoring of large carnivores and on protected areas. The Georgian Center for the
Conservation of Wildlife (GCCW) carries out projects on environmental awareness and
studies of migratory birds and raptors, among others. The Sacred Earth Network
provided funding through the GCCW to support the Caucasus Environmental NGO
Network (CENN).
Today, CENN is an active nongovernmental organization that acts as a voluntary effort to
foster regional cooperation by means of improving communication among environmental
organizations of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
36
Most projects run by NGOs in Armenia and Azerbaijan are funded by international onors,
such as the GEF, TACIS and USAID. The “Chevre” NGO in Azerbaijan promotes
sustainable development and conservation of the southeastern Caucasus.
Business Sector
Investments in biodiversity from the business sector are relatively rare, but precedents
have been made. British Petroleum supported conservation of floodplain forests in the
upper Kura River (Tugai Forests) in Azerbaijan ($250,000), in addition to actions for
conservation of Javakheti wetlands through NACRES in Georgia. The British Petroleum
funds projects of GCCW and NACRES in Georgia.
37
Table 3.
CORRIDOR
Major investment projects on biodiversity conservation in the Caucasus
(Note: the following table is not an exhaustive list of all projects in the region, but
provides an overview of the major investment directions)
PRIMARY THREATS AND ROOT
CAUSES
MAJOR PROJECTS
1. KumaManych
• overgrazing
• Research and monitoring of migratory waterfowl in the
Kuma-Manych Depression - Russia (Wetlands
International, ongoing, $25,000)
2. Greater
Caucasus
• illegal logging
• Establishing a protected areas regional association on the
basis of Teberdinsky Zapovednik - Russia (GEF, 19992001, $33,500)
• Environmental center in Teberdinsky Zapovednik;
ecotourism and education projects - Russia (GEF, 19982000, $371,500)
• Development of sustainable tourism in the Northern
Caucasus - Russia (USAID/ISC, 2000-2001, $117,782)
• Development of environmental education through creation
of summer camps in Sochi area - Russia (USAID, 20002001, $39,500)
• Awareness campaign in regional mass media in Dagestan
and Krasnodarsky Province - Russia (USAID, 2000-2001,
$36,000)
• Model project for strengthening protection in SeveroOsetinsky Zapovednik (GEF, 1998-1999, $95,800)
• Promoting ecotourism in the North Caucasus - Russia
(USAID/ISC, 1999-2001, $136,887)
• Forests development project - Georgia (World Bank,
ongoing, $15.6 million)
• Protected areas development project - Georgia
(GEF/World Bank, ongoing, $8.7 million)
• Creating anti-poaching units - Georgia (WWF, ongoing,
$70,000)
• Creation of Shakhdag National Park - Azerbaijan (World
Bank/Japanese government, ongoing, $900,000)
3. Caspian
• overfishing, poaching
• Construction of a sturgeon propagation factory on the
Caspian Sea Coast - Azerbaijan (World Bank, 2001-2003,
$9.1 million)
• Regional partnership for prevention of transboundary
degradation of the Kura-Araks River basin - Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia (UNDP/Swiss government/ World
Bank/USAID/EU, ongoing, $4.7 million)
38
CORRIDOR
PRIMARY THREATS AND ROOT
CAUSES
MAJOR PROJECTS
4. West Lesser
Caucasus
• illegal fishing, logging, poaching
• Biodiversity and natural resources management - Turkey
(GEF/Turkish Government, ongoing, $11.5 million)
• Model project for erosion control, natural resource
management and rural development in Bayburt Province Turkey (German Government, $3 million)
• Gap analysis in the Uzungel Nature Park - Turkey (GEF,
ongoing, $20,000)
• Creating anti-poaching units - Georgia (WWF, ongoing,
$70,000)
• Creation of Kolkheti National Park - Georgia (GEF/World
Bank, ongoing, $2.5 million)
• Creation of Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park and its
support zone - Georgia (KfW/WWF/GSIF, 1999-2002, $10
million)
• Assessment of high conservation value forests on the
border of Turkey and Georgia (World Bank/WWF Alliance,
ongoing, $25,000)
• Continued actions for the conservation of Javakheti
wetlands - Georgia (BP/NACRES, ongoing, $52,500)
5. Javakheti
• unsustainable water management
6. East Lesser
Caucasus
• fuel wood collection, illegal logging • Natural resources management and poverty reduction Armenia (World Bank/GEF, ongoing, $13.1 million)
• Regional partnership for prevention of transboundary
degradation of the Kura-Araks River basin - Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia (UNDP/Swiss government/ World
Bank/USAID/EU, ongoing, $4.7 million)
• Conservation of the endangered leopard in the Caucasus
Ecoregion (WWF, ongoing, $200,000)
7. IoriMingechaur
• overgrazing, poaching
8. Southern
Uplands
• poaching, overgrazing
9. Arasbaran
• overgrazing, poaching
• No major investments
10. Hyrcan
• unsustainable logging
• Conservation of the endangered leopard in the Caucasus
Ecoregion (WWF, ongoing, $200,000)
• Conservation of arid and semi-arid ecosystems in the
Caucasus - Georgia (UNDP/GE/MacArthur/NACRES,
ongoing, $750,000)
• Creating anti-poaching units - Georgia (WWF, ongoing,
$70,000)
• Regional partnership for prevention of transboundary
degradation of the Kura-Araks River basin - Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia (UNDP/Swiss government/ World
Bank/USAID/EU, ongoing, $4.7 million)
• Tugai Forest - Azerbaijan (BP Azerbaijan, ongoing,
$250,000)
• Eastern Anatolia participatory rural development project Turkey (UNDP, 2001-2003, $425,000)
• Conservation of the Agri Mountain’s biodiversity, especially
threatened fauna species - Turkey (GEF, ongoing,
$30,000)
39
Funding Opportunities
Funding is required to complement investments of governmental and international
conservation organizations and to ensure overall effectiveness of conservation efforts.
Supporting civil society in improving protected areas systems, for example, would
complement existing governmental plans on expanding protected area networks. Projects
on building environmental awareness will complement ongoing NGO programs in that
field throughout the hotspot. Funding for promoting transboundary cooperation will
build on region-wide projects by the GEF, World Bank and others by creating an
institutional basis for cooperation between the Caucasus countries. Funding for
monitoring and conservation of globally threatened species will further conservation
efforts of NGOs, protected areas and scientific institutions in corridors.
Opportunities differ from corridor to corridor. Protected areas systems consisting of
strict nature reserves are well developed in the Greater Caucasus and West Lesser
Caucasus corridors, where efforts are needed to connect existing reserves with wildlife
corridors. Protected areas in the Caspian, East Lesser Caucasus and Hyrcan corridors are
mostly sanctuaries with low protected status and require strengthening. Support for
promoting transboundary cooperation is needed in all five corridors. Nearly all corridors
require funding for increasing public awareness and support from decisionmakers for
biodiversity conservation in the region. Support for introducing sustainable means of
resource use and promoting alternative livelihoods in local communities is virtually nonexistent in all corridors.
CEPF NICHE FOR INVESTMENT
The CEPF niche for investment in the Caucasus hotspot was determined based on the
following factors: biological and geographical priorities for biodiversity conservation
(species, site and corridor outcomes); threats to biodiversity; socioeconomic framework
of the corridors; institutional capacity in the region; and assessment of current
investments and funding gaps and opportunities in the corridors.
The biological basis for the CEPF niche is determined by the species outcomes - globally
threatened species found in the Caucasus according to the 2002 IUCN Red List. These
species are the primary basis for conservation action in the region and the foundation
upon which all other priorities - site and corridor outcomes - were determined. It is
important to note that investment will be concentrated in the corridors that contain the
majority of these species. Additional funding should be sought to cover species located
outside of these corridors. Monitoring of populations of globally threatened species over
the long term will help ascertain whether or not conservation programs are successful.
Over time, the list of globally threatened species for the Caucasus should be updated, as
more information on restricted-range and threatened species is gathered in the region.
The geographical basis for the CEPF niche in the Caucasus hotspot was elaborated
during the process of determining conservation outcomes. The globally threatened
species (species outcomes) were found to be concentrated in 205 sites throughout the
hotspot (site outcomes). These sites were grouped where possible into 10 broad corridors
(corridor outcomes). Thirty-three sites, that contain globally threatened species, did not
fall under any of the corridors and should be targeted individually through additional
40
funding opportunities. Wide-ranging species (landscape species) are not limited to
specific corridors and should be targeted separately where necessary. While the corridors
are not targeted for protection as entire blocks, they indicate priority areas where precise
measures can be taken to complement existing conservation programs.
In order to narrow the geographical niche to account for limited CEPF funding, five
priority corridors were delineated from the original 10, taking into account
representativeness, level of biodiversity, threats, current investments and other factors.
These target corridors are the Greater Caucasus, Caspian, West Lesser Caucasus, East
Lesser Caucasus and Hyrcan corridors. The five corridors, covering 14.2 million
hectares, account for 68 percent of the total area and 66 percent of the site outcomes of all
10 corridors. Ninety percent (46) of the species outcomes are found in these five
corridors, including all six critically endangered species. All 18 landscape species are
represented within the five target corridors. Fourteen of the 17 restricted-range species
found in all 10 corridors are in the selected five. Over half of the bird congregation areas
are concentrated in the five corridors. Nearly 90 percent of the protected areas found in
the 10 corridors are located within the five priority corridors. All major habitats are
represented in the target corridors.
The threat of habitat degradation and irreversible biodiversity loss is also greatest in the
five target corridors. Illegal and unsustainable logging and fuelwood collection threaten
habitats in these five corridors, leading to forest degradation, deforestation and species
extinctions. Poaching poses serious threats to biodiversity and endangered species in all
five corridors. Overgrazing is impacting fragile mountain meadow habitats in the Greater
Caucasus and East Lesser Caucasus corridors. Overfishing is wiping out fish populations
and related biodiversity in the Caspian, West Lesser Caucasus and Hyrcan corridors.
Infrastructure development and poor water management is a problem in three of the
corridors. Thus, the five corridors have a representative array of problems to be resolved
through investment in conservation programs. The Caspian and Hyrcan corridors in
particular have received limited international assistance and government support. All six
countries are represented in the target corridors, which is important for ensuring support
from each of the national governments. Finally, these five corridors provide
unprecedented opportunities for promoting transboundary cooperation, since each of the
corridors crosses the boundaries of two or more countries in the hotspot. Additional
sources of funding will need to be identified to resolve important conservation issues in
the remaining five corridors and sites not covered by corridors.
The thematic basis for the CEPF niche was elaborated as a result of analysis of threats to
biodiversity at the species, sites and corridor level. Major threats include overgrazing,
poaching, illegal logging, fuel wood harvesting, overfishing and infrastructure
development. The thematic niche for CEPF should address the socioeconomic, political
and institutional root causes of these threats - lack of awareness, lack of economic
opportunities, poor management of protected areas, etc. - while monitoring the status of
globally threatened species and their habitats. The thematic niche - CEPF’s strategic
directions - includes targeted actions led by civil society actors, such as strengthening the
protected areas network, for example, by developing management plans for protected
areas in target corridors and linking existing protected areas into a continuous network of
41
reserves (Econet). CEPF can support efforts of civil society to promote transboundary
cooperation to ensure conservation of transborder ecosystems and threatened species.
The thematic niche includes fighting poverty in local communities by implementing
model projects on alternative income generation and sustainable resource use, reducing
pressures on natural ecosystems. CEPF can play an important role in building capacity of
civil society and conservation agencies through training and technical support and in
promoting awareness and support of decisionmakers and the general public on
biodiversity conservation issues in target corridor areas. Components of the strategic
directions should be carried out in the corridors where they will have the greatest impact.
The institutional basis for the CEPF niche was determined as a result of the rapid
socioeconomic analysis and assessment of institutional capacity. Legislation supporting
nature conservation is generally in place in all the countries, though contradictions exist
and enforcement capabilities are less than optimal. Governmental environmental
agencies have representative branches in all five target corridors, but these are under
funded and can only cover basic operational costs. NGOs are well established in the
Greater Caucasus, Caspian and West Lesser Caucasus corridors, but have limited
capacity and funding. International NGOs are active in most of the corridors. Protected
areas with experienced scientific and administrative staff can serve as the basis for
conservation projects related to species conservation and other areas in the target
corridors. Target groups for funding—the institutional niche—are NGOs and other parts
of civil society (universities, institutes, etc.) that can work with governmental agencies to
fill in gaps where state funds fall short, as well as protected areas staff and individuals
involved in conservation in the region. Governmental conservation agencies would also
benefit from training programs and other capacity building measures facilitated by civil
groups.
The funding niche was determined based on analysis of current investments in the
Caucasus and taking into consideration that CEPF funds are limited and the timeframe is
only five years. CEPF funding can help fill funding gaps in the protected areas system—
the foundation—by supporting ongoing efforts to create new reserves and wildlife
corridors. Improving reserve management through development and implementation of
management plans will help ensure that existing reserves are effective in conserving
biodiversity within the target corridors. Promoting transboundary cooperation in the
target corridors would help governments realize programs on transboundary conservation
set out in bilateral agreements. In order to ensure persistence of the globally threatened
species, conservation mechanisms such as international conventions on biodiversity and
the IUCN Red List need to be updated and enforced. State conservation agencies would
benefit from training and support in implementing conventions. Small grants targeted at
conservation of all globally threatened species would ensure that these species receive the
attention of the conservation community and serve as indicators for conservation success
in the region. Model projects on alternative income generation for local communities and
sustainable resource use are good investments that will demonstrate the benefits of
sustainable nature use and become self-financing in the long run.
42
To reiterate, the CEPF niche for investment was formulated based on five major
parameters: evaluation of the most important biological factors, determination of priority
geographical areas, potential impact of thematic directions, assessment of available
institutional capacity and analysis of current funding gaps and opportunities. The
outcome of this evaluation is that CEPF investment should be focused on conserving
globally threatened species, the majority of which are found in five target corridors:
Greater Caucasus, Caspian, West Lesser Caucasus, East Lesser Caucasus and Hyrcan.
The main threats to biodiversity and species in these target corridors stem from illegal
logging, overgrazing, poaching, overfishing and infrastructure development. Thus CEPF
funding should focus primarily on mediating the root causes of these threats in the five
corridors - lack of economic opportunities, lack of transboundary cooperation, lack of
awareness, poor protected area management and others. Existing civil society
institutions, protected areas and conservation agencies should be the target groups for
CEPF funding, as they have the greatest potential to realize projects for mitigating threats
and halting biodiversity loss in the Caucasus hotspot.
CEPF INVESTMENT STRATEGY AND PRIORITIES
Program Focus
The CEPF program focus is based on the need to abate proximate threats to biodiversity
and their root causes in the Caucasus hotspot. Within the ecosystem profile, five target
corridors of the 10 total corridors (corridor outcomes) have been delineated to conserve
globally threatened species (species outcomes) and their major habitats (site outcomes).
Government institutions and civil society are active in conservation in the region, but
often lack the capacity to implement environmental programs. CEPF can build on their
existing programs to further biodiversity conservation, in particular, through increasing
transboundary cooperation, strengthening existing protected areas systems, strengthening
mechanisms for biodiversity conservation, promoting sustainable resource use and
increasing awareness and commitment of decisionmakers for biodiversity conservation in
the region.
Strategic Directions
Four strategic directions for the CEPF investment strategy were developed based on the
conclusions of this rapid assessment and elaboration of the CEPF niche. Funding gaps
and opportunities were explored to find ways that CEPF could complement existing
efforts and increase the overall effectiveness of conservation activities. The CEPF
strategic directions and investment priorities are outlined in Table 4 and described in
detail below. Priority investment areas were determined within each of the strategic
directions. While elaborating specific projects for implementation was not the goal of
this profile, ideas, examples and focal areas for investment, as well as indication of which
corridors have the greatest potential or require the most assistance for each component,
are provided.
43
Table 4. CEPF strategic directions and investment priorities in the Caucasus hotspot
CEPF STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
1. Support civil society efforts to
promote transboundary
cooperation and improve
protected area systems in five
target corridors
2. Strengthen mechanisms to
conserve biodiversity of the
Caucasus hotspot with
emphasis on species, site and
corridor outcomes
3. Implement models
demonstrating sustainable
resource use in five target
corridors
4. Increase the awareness and
commitment of decisionmakers
to biodiversity conservation in
five target corridors
CEPF INVESTMENT PRIORITIES
1.1
Promote transboundary cooperation by carrying out joint initiatives and
harmonizing existing projects to conserve border ecosystems and
species and site outcomes
1.2
Support existing efforts to create new protected areas and wildlife
corridors through planning processes and co-financing efforts
1.3
Develop and implement management plans for model protected areas
with broad participation of stakeholders
2.1
Provide funding for research and implementation of the Caucasus Red
List re-assessments, particularly for poorly represented taxas such as
plants, invertebrates, reptiles and fish.
2.2
Under one CEPF/Small Grant mechanism, focus small grant efforts on
supporting efforts to conserve 50 globally threatened species in the
hotspot.
2.3
Provide support to conservation agencies specifically to improve
implementation of international conventions such as the Convention on
Biological Diversity, the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
3.1
Evaluate and implement models for sustainable forestry, water use and
range management
3.2
Under one CEPF/Small Grant mechanism, focus small grant efforts on
supporting existing NGOs to undertake projects focused on developing
alternative livelihoods, such as ecotourism, collection of non-timber
forest products and sustainable hunting and fishing
3.3
Support civil society efforts to mitigate, participate in and monitor
development projects
4.1
Develop local capacity to train environmental journalists and develop
incentives to write on environmental issues, targeting decisionmakers
in particular
4.2
Develop a communications campaign to increase environmental
awareness in the Caucasus hotspot
1. Support civil society efforts to promote transboundary cooperation and
improve protected area systems in five target corridors
Each of the five target corridors in the Caucasus hotspot extends across borders of two or
more countries. The ranges of globally threatened species cross political borders. Illegal
logging, wildlife trade, pollution and other issues also have transboundary implications.
Thus, transboundary cooperation will be a key component of ensuring long-term
biodiversity conservation in the Caucasus. Projects promoting transboundary cooperation
are relatively inexpensive but have far-reaching effects. Civil society, such as NGOs and
scientific institutions, has the expertise and organizational capacity to ensure that
transboundary initiatives are successful and effective over the long-term.
Many transboundary issues related to biodiversity conservation can be resolved through
establishing transboundary protected areas and enhancing existing protected areas
systems. Protected areas are the foundation for biodiversity conservation in the Caucasus
hotspot, helping to safeguard globally threatened species, local endemics and unique
44
habitats. Certain corridors of the Caucasus hotspot have well-developed systems of
protected areas, while others have none. Limited CEPF funding could be used to support
civil society in realizing existing state programs for creating transboundary protected
areas, planning and expanding protected areas systems and establishing wildlife corridors
to ensure connectivity of existing protected areas - by linking reserves into ecological
networks of protected areas (Econets). Civil society can also work to improve protected
area management by assisting in elaborating management plans for model areas and
training protected areas staff in development and implementation of management
priorities.
Recommendations for engaging civil society in these areas include:
1.1
Promote transboundary cooperation by carrying out joint initiatives and
harmonizing existing projects to conserve border ecosystems and species and site
outcomes: assess existing programs and implement new strategies and projects relevant
to species and site outcomes; promote cooperation on halting illegal logging and
export/import of timber and wildlife; organize exchanges across borders between
protected areas, NGOs, institutes and universities and governmental agencies; conduct
international conferences and meetings on transboundary cooperation.
1.2.
Support existing efforts to create new protected areas and wildlife corridors
through planning, co-financing and other points: involve civil society in protected area
planning and expansion of protected areas systems; support establishment of
transboundary protected areas where border reserves already exist (a transboundary
protected area is proposed in the Greater Caucasus Corridor on the borders of Georgia,
Azerbaijan, Russia and other opportunities may arise); use civil society expertise to
elaborate proposals to create multiple use corridors and sanctuaries in site outcomes or to
connect existing reserves into Econets where management capacity already exists;
develop new types of management categories for linking areas where necessary (nature
parks, wildlife corridors, etc.).
1.3.
Develop and implement management plans for model protected areas with broad
participation of stakeholders in five target corridors: engage expertise of civil society in
elaboration of management plans for transboundary protected areas, key nature reserves
and site outcomes to serve as models for other reserves; involve local communities,
decisionmakers, businesses and other stakeholders in the planning process; provide grants
for technical assistance to implement priority aspects of management plans; improve
infrastructure and provide incentives to staff in model areas.
2. Strengthen mechanisms to conserve biodiversity of the Caucasus
hotspot with emphasis on species, site and corridor outcomes
Endangered species are the first elements of biodiversity to disappear as ecosystems and
natural conditions are altered. Thus, effective conservation planning requires up-to-date
information on the status of threatened species and the habitats on which they depend.
Species in the IUCN Red List are generally granted special attention within government
and NGO conservation programs. IUCN species are subject to regulations under CITES
45
and other conventions. Therefore it is extremely important that the IUCN Red List
accurately reflect the current situation in the Caucasus hotspot. At present, the IUCN
Red List has some gaps and inaccuracies, especially where the range and status of certain
species are concerned. Scientific institutions, NGOs and protected areas should be
enlisted to help update the IUCN Red List and determine whether there are other globally
threatened species (species outcomes) in the hotspot. For certain species, rapid scientific
surveys will need to be carried out. GIS tools will be used to map threatened species and
determine their current level of protection. Small grants aimed at protecting globally
threatened species will enable civil society and other institutions, such as protected areas,
to elaborate and implement effective species conservation programs. Investments into
species conservation should encompass all 10 corridors in order to ensure conservation of
the 50 globally threatened species and their habitats.
International conventions on biodiversity, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), CITES and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, require member countries to
provide adequate levels of protection to endangered species, ecosystems and biodiversity
overall. While the six countries in the Caucasus hotspot have signed the majority of
conventions related to biodiversity, most lack the means to implement them. Often
officials responsible for convention implementation lack the necessary know-how to
ensure their country is in compliance with convention regulations. Training programs for
conservation agencies and responsible officials are needed to create capacity to
implement the biodiversity conventions. CEPF could also boost the effectiveness of
government efforts by assisting civil society to implement projects related to the
conventions in cooperation with conservation agencies.
Examples of programs to enhance mechanisms for biodiversity conservation are:
2.1
Provide funding for research and implementation of the Caucasus Red List reassessments, particularly for poorly represented taxas such as plants, invertebrates,
reptiles and fish. Involve civil society - NGOs, scientific institutions, scientists in
protected areas - in rapid scientific surveys for certain globally threatened species and
other species which should be listed; assess the current state and range of listed and
potential species; make recommendations to IUCN to update the Red List for the
Caucasus Hotspot.
2.2.
Under one CEPF Small Grants umbrella, establish a small grants program to
support efforts to conserve 50 globally threatened species in the hotpot: create a
mechanism to distribute small grants; solicit proposals for conserving globally threatened
species from the conservation community; provide small grants to NGOs, scientific
institutions, protected areas and individuals to support research and conservation projects
on threatened species. Projects might include enlisting support of local communities in
conserving endangered species, elaborating and implementing species conservation
strategies; monitoring endangered species, determining causes for population decline,
setting up a sanctuary or corridor to conserve important habitats for threatened species, or
combating poaching and illegal wildlife trade.
2.3.
Provide support to conservation agencies specifically to improve implementation
46
of international conventions such as CBD, CITES and Ramsar: support civil society in
organizing training programs for government officials charged with implementation of
conventions on biodiversity; develop and distribute informational materials for
conservation agencies on international conventions; support preparation and submission
of reports on biodiversity and other necessary background materials as required by
international conventions; assess ways that civil society can complement government
efforts in implementing conventions and provide appropriate support.
3. Implement models demonstrating sustainable resource use in five
target corridors
In order to reduce poaching, overgrazing, overfishing and unsustainable fuel wood
collection, new models of sustainable resource use need to be developed in corridors
where pressures are greatest. Ways to generate income for local communities need to be
developed in order to make them less dependent on natural resources. Examples of
alternative income generation include ecotourism, sustainable collection and sale of
medicinal plants and other non-timber forest products and sustainable hunting and
fishing. NGOs and other civil institutions can work with local communities to develop
capacity for alternative livelihoods. Sustainable resource use also entails reducing the
impacts of development on the environment and biodiversity. Civil society can play an
important role in monitoring these impacts and providing objective information on
pressing conservation issues.
Investments to demonstrate sustainable resource use might include:
3.1.
Evaluate and implement models for sustainable forestry, water use and range
management: identify communities within the five corridors that have the desire to
participate in model projects; build capacity in these model communities through training
and technical support; elaborate guidelines for sustainable resource use and implement in
model areas. The Greater Caucasus, West Lesser Caucasus and Hyrcan corridors have
the best potential for sustainable forestry projects. The East Lesser Caucasus Corridor
offers the best potential for sustainable range management projects.
3.2.
Under one CEPF/Small Grants mechanism, establish a small grants program to
support existing NGOs to undertake projects focused on developing alternative
livelihoods, such as ecotourism, collection of non-timber forest products and sustainable
hunting and fishing: create mechanism for distributing small grants in the region; solicit
proposals from the conservation community for projects; provide small grants to NGOs,
scientific institutions, protected areas and individuals on building capacity for ecotourism
and other projects in model communities, providing training and technical support for
sustainable resource use, establishing zones and management guidelines to encourage
sustainable resource use and marketing and distribution of sustainably harvested products
and services. Projects within the five target corridors should be selected for funding
based on available expertise and capacity, economic factors and threats to biodiversity.
3.3.
Support civil society efforts to mitigate, participate in and monitor development
projects: create capacity of NGOs and the scientific community to assess and mitigate
impacts of large development projects such as the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, dams in the
47
Chorokh River valley, pollution of waterways from oil extraction, etc.; develop model
project on monitoring illegal logging and timber export/import; build capacity to assess
threatened fish populations and impact establishment of catch limits and other projects.
4. Increase awareness and commitment of decisionmakers and the public
to biodiversity conservation in five target corridors
An awareness campaign to build support of decisionmakers and the general public for
conservation programs should be carried out on the community, regional, national and
transboundary levels. An assessment of current awareness levels should be carried out to
provide a basis to measure success. Programs should be based on the institutional
capacity of existing NGOs and other parts of civil society (universities, media, etc.).
Specific activities might include:
4.1.
Build local capacity to train environmental journalists (in print, television and
radio) and develop incentives to write on environmental issues, targeting decisionmakers
in particular: work with NGOs to develop seminars and training workshops for
environmental reporters, especially representatives of local newspapers and television in
corridor areas and target sites; organize contests and provide other incentives for
environmental reporting.
4.2.
Develop a communications campaign to increase environmental awareness in the
Caucasus hotspot: develop a strategy in concert with environmental NGOs and
conservation agencies on building awareness of important conservation issues in the
region, including transboundary issues; provide support for implementation of key
components of the communications strategy. Investment areas might include: working
with the mass media (TV, radio and print) in the target corridors to increase
environmental content of reporting; assisting conservation NGOs in hiring and training
communications officers to work with the press; supporting environmental information
clearinghouses in existing NGOs to provide accessible information and photo and film
archives for the mass media; and supporting production of films and clips for news
broadcasts on conservation issues for television.
Sustainability
In order to ensure sustainability and regional support of projects after the investment
period, CEPF should work within the framework of government action plans and
international conventions. By investing in the four strategic directions described above,
CEPF will help build a stable foundation for biodiversity conservation in the Caucasus
Hotspot for the long-term. Increased transboundary cooperation will ensure that efforts
to conserve biodiversity happen on a regional level. Strengthening protected areas will
help safeguard globally threatened species and unique habitats, ensuring they are
managed properly on inviolable lands. Assistance and training to NGOs and
conservation agencies will ensure that local organizations gain professional tools and
potential to continue to work on conservation issues long after funding has run out.
Finding ways for rural communities to benefit from nature conservation, through
sustainable resource use, will boost local economies, helping reduce pressures on
48
biodiversity. Involving NGOs in planning and monitoring development projects will
ensure that long-term economic endeavors take into account consequences to
biodiversity.
The strategy to build environmental awareness of decisionmakers and other stakeholders
on the importance of conserving biodiversity and the environment in the Caucasus is
perhaps the most important component to ensure long-term sustainability of conservation
measures. By investing in building awareness, CEPF will help build support for
biodiversity conservation from decisionmakers, businesses and land users at the
community level. Rural populations—those with a direct link to natural resource use—
are generally the least informed on conservation issues. By focusing awareness strategies
in target corridors, these rural communities will gain knowledge that will last a lifetime,
empowering them to make informed decisions about their environment.
CONCLUSION
The Caucasus hotspot contains globally important reserves of biodiversity. To ensure
conservation of this diversity, 10 priority corridor outcomes for the Caucasus were
identified that contain the bulk of the globally threatened species and intact habitats in the
region. Five of these corridors—Greater Caucasus, West Lesser Caucasus, East Lesser
Caucasus, Caspian and Hyrcan, all of which span the borders of two of more countries—
will be the focus of CEPF investment. Governmental institutions in the six countries in
the hotspot support biodiversity conservation and have signed important international
environmental conventions, yet most lack the funding and expertise to uphold
environmental mandates. Civil society, including environmental NGOs, universities and
scientific institutes, is relatively well developed in the region and has the potential to help
fill these gaps.
Proximate threats such as poaching, overfishing, illegal logging and overgrazing are
causing irreversible damage to biodiversity in the hotspot. Threats stem from economic
and social problems, the lack of environmental awareness, poor management and
enforcement capabilities and the lack of transboundary cooperation. International donors
have provided considerable support to help resolve some of these issues. Yet funding
opportunities exist in many of the corridors identified in this profile, particularly in
promoting transboundary cooperation, training conservation professionals, building
environmental awareness and demonstrating the benefits of sustainable resource use.
CEPF’s strategy for the Caucasus hotspot should help to mitigate specific threats and
their root causes in five target biodiversity corridors, while focusing on programs that
will have the most impact given limited funds.
With CEPF support, the conservation community can achieve important milestones
toward safeguarding globally threatened species and unique ecosystems by helping to
prevent species extinctions and habitat loss in one of the most biologically diverse
regions on Earth.
49
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TEXT
BMZ
CBD
CBO
CENESTA
CENN
CEPF
CI
CITES
ECONET
GCCW
GEF
GIS
GSIF
IBA
ISAR
ISC
IUCN
KfW
NACRES
NGO
REC
TACIS
UNDP
USAID
WWF
German Ministry for Cooperation and Development
Convention on Biological Diversity
Community-based organization
Center for Sustainable Development (Iran)
Caucasus Environmental NGO Network
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
Conservation International
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
Ecological network of protected areas
Georgian Center for Conservation of Wildlife
Global Environment Facility
Geographic Information System
Georgian Social Investment Fund
Important Bird Area (according to BirdLife International)
Initiative for Social Action and Renewal in Eurasia
Institute for Sustainable Communities
World Conservation Union
German Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Noah’s Ark Center for Recovery of Endangered Species (Georgia)
Nongovernmental organization
Regional Environmental Centre for the Caucasus
Technical Assistance for the Commonwealth of Independent States (EU)
United Nations Development Programme
United States Agency for International Development
World Wide Fund for Nature
50
APPENDICES
Appendix I
Species outcomes for the Caucasus hotspot
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Barbastella barbastellus
Myotis emarginatus
Myotis schaubi
Myotis bechsteini
Rhinolophus euryale
Rhinolophus hipposideros
Rhinolophus mehelyi
Lutra lutra
Mustela lutreola
Phoca caspica
Capra aegagrus
Capra caucasica
Capra cylindricornis
Ovis ammon
Saiga tatarica
Sicista armenica
Spalax giganteus
Meriones dahli
Western barbastelle
Geoffroy's bat
Schaub's bat
Bechstein's bat
Mediterranean horseshoe bat
Lesser horseshoe bat
Mehely's horseshoe bat
Common otter
European mink
Caspian seal
Wild (bezoar) goat
West Caucasian tur
East Caucasian tur
Armenian mouflon
Saiga antelope
Birch mouse
Giant mole rat
Dahl's jird
Birds
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Aquila heliaca
Aquila clanga
Falco naumanni
Vanellus gregarius
Crex crex
Grus leucogeranus
Otis tarda
Marmaronetta angustirostris
Anser erythropus
Branta ruficollis
Oxyura leucocephala
Testudo graeca
Lacerta clarkorum
Natrix megalocephala
Vipera darevskii
Vipera kaznakovi
Vipera ursinii
Vipera dinniki
Azerbaijan
Georgia
Iran
Russia
Turkey
12
4
2
11
11
11
10
14
9
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Imperial eagle
Greater spotted eagle
Lesser kestrel
Sociable lapwing
Corncrake
Siberian crane
Great bustard
Marbled duck
Lesser white-fronted goose
Red-breasted goose
White-headed duck
51
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
1
+
1
+
+
+
+
+
4
8
3
11
11
10
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
3
3
5
4
5
6
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
4
2
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
4
Common tortoise
Turkish lizard
Large-headed water snake
Darevsky’s viper
Caucasian viper
Meadow viper
Dinnik’s viper
+
+
+
+
+
+
9
Reptiles
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Armenia
Mammals
Critically
Endangered
COMMON NAME
Endangered
SCIENTIFIC NAME
DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTRY
Vulnerable
IUCN STATUS
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
37
38
39
Vipera pontica
Vipera wagneri
Vipera latifii
Pontic viper
Wagner's viper
Latifi's viper
Mertensiella caucasica
Batrachuperus persicus
Bufo verrucosissimus
Pelodytes caucasicus
Acipenser gueldenstaedtii
Acipenser persicus
Acipenser nudiventris
Acipenser ruthenus
Acipenser stellatus
Acipenser sturio
Huso huso
4
Caucasian salamander
Persian brook salamander
Caucasian toad
Caucasian parsley frog
Russian sturgeon
Persian sturgeon
Bastard sturgeon
Sterlet
Star sturgeon
Baltic (Atlantic) sturgeon
Beluga
Sambucus tigranii
Tigran’s elder
TOTAL
1
2
+
3
+
+
5
1
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
6
6
5
6
4
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
30
28
31
38
32
+
+
1
1
+
+
31
3
Turkey
Russia
Iran
Georgia
Azerbaijan
2
+
+
+
+
1
+
+
+
+
+
Plants
51
Armenia
+
Fish
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTRY
+
Amphibians
40
*41
42
43
Critically
Endangered
COMMON NAME
Endangered
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Vulnerable
IUCN STATUS
14
6
19
+
+
+
* The global conservation status of one of the species outcomes, the Persian brook salamander
(Batrachuperus persicus), has since been determined to be near threatened, rather than vulnerable as
originally indicated. This species was originally included in the site outcomes based on preliminary results of
the Global Amphibian Assessment. However, these results and data for the Global Amphibian Assessment
have since been finalized and this species will be classified as near threatened on the 2004 IUCN Red List.
As a result of this new information about the species’ status, Batrachuperus persicus can no longer be
considered a species outcome or a priority for CEPF investment. For further information, see
www.globalamphibians.org.
52
Appendix 2
Conservation priorities at the species level in the Caucasus hotspot
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Landscape species
Acipenser gueldenstaedtii
Acipenser nudiventris
Acipenser persicus
Acipenser ruthenus
Acipenser stellatus
Acipenser sturio
Huso huso
Barbastella barbastellus
Myotis bechsteini
Myotis emarginatus
Rhinolophus hipposideros
Capra aegagrus
Capra caucasica
Capra cylindricornis
Ovis ammon gmelini
Saiga tatarica
Lutra lutra
Phoca caspica
Russian sturgeon
Bastard sturgeon
Persian sturgeon
Sterlet
Star sturgeon
Baltic (Atlantic) sturgeon
Beluga
Western barbastelle
Bechstein's bat
Geoffroy's bat
Lesser horseshoe bat
Wild (bezoar) boat
West Caucasian tur
East Caucasian tur
Armenian mouflon
Saiga antelope
Common otter
Caspian seal
EN
EN
EN
VU
EN
CR
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
VU
VU
CR
VU
VU
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
**15
16
17
18
Restricted-range species
Myotis schaubi
Capra caucasica
Capra cylindricornis
Ovis ammon gmelini
Meriones dahli
Sicista armenica
Lacerta clarkorum
Natrix megalocephala
Vipera darevskii
Vipera kaznakovi
Vipera dinniki
Vipera pontica
Vipera wagneri
Mertensiella caucasica
Batrachuperus persicus
Bufo verrucosissimus
Pelodytes caucasicus
Sambucus tigranii
Schaub's bat
West Caucasian tur
East Caucasian tur
Armenian mouflon
Dahl’s jird
Birch mouse
Turkish lizard
Large-headed water snake
Darevsky’s viper
Caucasian viper
Dinnik’s viper
Pontic viper
Wagner's viper
Caucasian salamander
Persian brook salamander
Caucasian toad
Caucasian parsley frog
Tigran’s elder
EN
EN
VU
VU
EN
CR
EN
VU
CR
EN
VU
CR
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
2
1
2
0
2
1
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
6
15
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
14
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
12
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
5
6
+
9
4
+
+
+
+
+
+
16
+
+
+
+
+
11
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
7
8
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
* CR - critically endangered; EN - endangered; VU - vulnerable, according to IUCN Red List.
** The global conservation status of one of the species outcomes, the Persian brook salamander
53
Turkey
Saiga antelope
Armenian birch mouse
Siberian crane
Darevsky's viper
Pontic viper
Baltic (Atlantic) sturgeon
Russia
1
2
3
4
5
6
Critically endangered
species
Saiga tatarica
Sicista armenica
Grus leucogeranus
Vipera darevskii
Vipera pontica
Acipenser sturio
Iran
IUCN
STATUS*
Georgia
COMMON NAME
Azerbaijan
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Armenia
DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTRY
+
+
+
+
(Batrachuperus persicus), has since been determined to be near threatened, rather than vulnerable as
originally indicated. This species was originally included based on preliminary results of the Global
Amphibian Assessment. However, these results and data have since been finalized and this species will be
classified as near threatened on the 2004 IUCN Red List. As a result of this new information about the
species’ status, Batrachuperus persicus can no longer be considered a species outcome or a priority for
CEPF investment.
54
Appendix 3
Site outcomes for the Caucasus hotspot
OTHER
CRITERIA
KUMA-MANYCH
1
Russia
Dadynskiye Lakes
2
Kuban
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Manych-Gudilo Lake
Yeisky Salt Lakes
Don Delta
Krimsky Sanctuary
Priazovsky Sanctuary
Veselovskoye Reservoir
Azov Sea Eastern Coast
Yeya River Mouth
Primorsko-Akhtarsk Salt
Lakes
10
Branta ruficollis, Anser erythropus, Otis tarda, Oxyura
leucocephala, Falco naumanni
Mustela lutreola, Lutra lutra, Huso huso, Acipenser
stellatus, Acipenser gueldenstaedtii
Branta ruficollis, Anser erythropus
Otis tarda, Anser erythropus
Branta ruficollis
Lutra lutra
Lutra lutra
Branta ruficollis
GREATER CAUCASUS
12
Azerbaijan
Zakatala NR
13
Gabala NR
14
15
Sarybash
Ismailly
16
17
18
19
20
Babadag Mountain
Shakhdag Mountain (1)
Shakhdag Mountain (2)
Bazar-Duzu Mountain
Oguz
20
Barbastella barbastellus, Rhinolophus hipposideros,
Myotis emarginatus, Capra cylindricornis, Pelodytes
caucasicus, Bufo verrucosissimus
Barbastella barbastellus, Rhinolophus hipposideros,
Myotis emarginatus, M. bechsteini, Testudo graeca
Barbastella barbastellus, Capra cylindricornis
Barbastella barbastellus, Aquila heliaca, Testudo
graeca
Capra cylindricornis, Aquila heliaca
Capra cylindricornis, Aquila heliaca
Capra cylindricornis
Capra cylindricornis
Georgia
21
22
Bichvinta-Miusera NR
Ritsa NR
23
Sukhumi
24
25
26
27
28
Svaneti (1)
Svaneti (2)
Abkhazia
Racha
Liakhvi NR
Rhinolophus euryale, Barbastella barbastellus,
Testudo graeca
Mustela lutreola, Capra caucasica, Barbastella
barbastellus, Vipera kaznakovi, Pelodytes caucasicus,
Bufo verrucosissimus
Myotis emarginatus, Mustela lutreola, Capra
caucasica, Vipera kaznakovi, Pelodytes caucasicus,
Bufo verrucosissimus
Capra caucasica, Vipera dinniki
Capra caucasica, Vipera dinniki
Capra caucasica
Rhinolophus hipposideros, Myotis emarginatus,
Pelodytes caucasicus, Bufo verrucosissimus
55
AREA
OF SITES
(ha)
Sites with
restrictedrange species
GLOBALLY THREATENED
SPECIES**
Globally
significant
congregation
CORRIDOR, COUNTRY,
AND SITE NAME*
519,076
8
0
519,076
39,348
8
+
0
90,679
72,541
13,541
54,704
19,821
32,635
74,164
24,480
38,262
58,900
+
+
+
2,365,756
1
32
245,150
26,552
0
8
+
+
+
+
+
29,150
19,894
40,146
+
+
7,551
90,033
10,450
5,762
15,613
+
+
+
+
+
864,640
4,018
0
13
16,500
+
38,743
+
232,131
30,208
35,058
137,568
7,887
+
+
+
+
29
30
31
Khevi
Khevsureti
Tusheti
32
33
34
35
Akhmeta NR (Akhmeta)
Akhmeta NR (Babaneuri)
Eastern Caucasus
Lagodekhi
36
Russia
Teberdinksy NR
37
Kavkazsky Biosphere
Reserve
38
Sochinsky NP
39
40
Tlyaratinsky Sanctuary
Severo-Osetinsky NR and
Sanctuaries
Laman-Kam Area
Kabardino-Balkarsky NR
Sochinsky Sanctuary
Kosobsko-Kelebsky
Sanctuary
Begtinsky
Erzi NR
Ingushsky Sanctuary
Alania NP
Prielbrusiye
Dautsky Sanctuary
Damkhurtsky Sanctuary
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
GLOBALLY THREATENED
SPECIES**
Capra cylindricornis, Crex crex, Vipera dinniki
Capra cylindricornis
Capra cylindricornis, Capra aegagrus, Vipera dinniki,
Pelodytes caucasicus, Bufo verrucosissimus
Pelodytes caucasicus, Bufo verrucosissimus
Pelodytes caucasicus, Bufo verrucosissimus
Crex crex, Aquila heliaca
Barbastella barbastellus, Rhinolophus hipposideros,
Capra cylindricornis, Pelodytes caucasicus, Bufo
verrucosissimus
Barbastella barbastellus, Rhinolophus hipposideros,
R. euryale, Myotis emarginatus, M. bechsteini,
Mustela lutreola, Lutra lutra, Capra caucasica, Aquila
heliaca, Testudo graeca, Natrix megalocephala,
Vipera dinniki, V. ursinii, Pelodytes caucasicus, Bufo
verrucosissimus
Barbastella barbastellus, Rhinolophus hipposideros,
R. euryale, Myotis emarginatus, M. bechsteini,
Mustela lutreola, Lutra lutra, Capra caucasica, Crex
crex, Testudo graeca, Natrix megalocephala, Vipera
dinniki, V. ursinii, Pelodytes caucasicus, Bufo
verrucosissimus, Vipera kaznakovi
Rhinolophus hipposideros, R. euryale, Lutra lutra,
Testudo graeca, Natrix megalocephala, Vipera dinniki,
Vipera kaznakovi
Capra cylindricornis, C. aegagrus, Vipera dinniki
Capra cylindricornis, Vipera dinniki, V. ursinii
Aquila clanga, Aquila heliaca
Capra caucasica, Vipera ursinii
Rhinolophus hipposideros, Lutra lutra
Capra aegagrus
Azerbaijan
Samur Delta
53
Yallama Rivers
54
Akzibir Lake
55
Kargabazar and Gush-Gaya
Mountains
Absheron Archipelago (north)
and Artem Bay
56
101,957
84,239
112,142
+
+
+
3,050
801
35,969
24,369
+
+
+
+
1,255,965
121,487
1
+
23
Aquila heliaca, Falco naumanni, Huso huso,
Acipenser stellatus, Acipenser ruthenus, Acipenser
persicus, Acipenser nudiventris, Acipenser
gueldenstaedtii
Lutra lutra, Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, A. persicus, A.
nudiventris, A. stellatus, A. ruthenus, Huso huso
Branta ruficollis, Marmaronetta angustirostris, Falco
naumanni
Falco naumanni
+
193,695
+
81,722
110,008
+
+
18,710
75,736
30,536
71,371
+
+
+
+
+
+
892,422
20
0
515,563
19,653
16
+
0
160,353
6,826
+
2,427
1,843
56
11
+
236,882
47,075
16,647
48,673
56,855
103,247
34,728
8,592
Capra aegagrus
Capra cylindricornis
Capra cylindricornis
Capra cylindricornis
Capra cylindricornis
Vipera dinniki
Vipera dinniki
CASPIAN
52
AREA
OF SITES
(ha)
Sites with
restrictedrange species
CORRIDOR, COUNTRY,
AND SITE NAME*
Globally
significant
congregation
OTHER
CRITERIA
+
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Absheron Sanctuary
Krasnoye Lake and Absheron
Waterbodies
Alat Bay-Baku Archipelago (1)
Alat Bay-Baku Archipelago (2)
Alat Bay-Baku Archipelago (3)
Alat Bay-Baku Archipelago (4)
Alat Bay-Baku Archipelago (5)
Alat Bay-Baku Archipelago (6)
Alat Bay-Baku Archipelago (7)
Alat Bay-Baku Archipelago (8)
Shirvan NR / Shorgel Lakes
68
69
Gobustan NR
Kura Delta
70
Gyzyl-Agach Bay
71
72
73
74
Mahmud-Chala Lake
Hadjikabul Lake
Central Shirvan
Mil-Karabakh Steppe
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
GLOBALLY THREATENED
SPECIES**
Phoca caspica
Oxyura leucocephala, Anser erythropus
Oxyura leucocephala
Oxyura leucocephala
Oxyura leucocephala
Oxyura leucocephala
Oxyura leucocephala
Oxyura leucocephala
Oxyura leucocephala
Oxyura leucocephala
Marmaronetta angustirostris, Aquila heliaca, Falco
naumanni, Testudo graeca
Testudo graeca
Huso huso, Acipenser stellatus, Acipenser ruthenus,
Acipenser persicus, Acipenser nudiventris, Acipenser
gueldenstaedtii
Phoca caspica, Marmaronetta angustirostris, Branta
ruficollis, Anser erythropus, Grus leucogeranus, Otis
tarda, Falco naumanni, Testudo graeca, Huso huso,
Acipenser stellatus, Acipenser ruthenus, Acipenser
persicus, Acipenser nudiventris, Acipenser
gueldenstaedtii
Marmaronetta angustirostris
Oxyura leucocephala
Russia
Dagestan NR and Kizlyar Bay Rhinolophus hipposideros, Lutra lutra, Saiga tatarica,
Spalax giganteus, Testudo graeca, Vipera ursinii
Tarumovsky Sanctuary and
Lutra lutra, Saiga tatarica, Spalax giganteus
Karakolsky Lakes
Hamamaturtovsky Sanctuary Saiga tatarica, Spalax giganteus, Vipera ursinii
Agrakhansky Bay
Sulak River
Acipenser persicus, A. nudiventris
Kayakentsky Sanctuary
Rhinolophus mehelyi
Samur River
Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, A. persicus, A. nudiventris,
A. stellatus, A. ruthenus, Huso huso
Berkubinsky Forest
Anser erythropus, Aquila heliaca, A. clanga,
Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, A. persicus, A. nudiventris,
A. stellatus, A. ruthenus, Huso huso
WEST LESSER CAUCASUS
83
Georgia
Meskheti
84
85
86
87
Tetrobi Sanctuary
Ktsia-Tabatskuri Sanctuary
Trialeti Range
Nedzvi Sanctuary
88
Borjomi-Kharagauli NP
29
Aquila heliaca, A. clanga, Falco naumanni, Vipera
darevskii
Vipera darevskii
Crex crex, Vipera darevskii
Aquila heliaca
Myotis bechsteini, Mertensiella caucasica, Pelodytes
caucasicus, Bufo verrucosissimus
Barbastella barbastellus, Rhinolophus hipposideros,
Myotis emarginatus, M. bechsteini, Vipera kaznakovi,
Mertensiella caucasica, Pelodytes caucasicus, Bufo
verrucosissimus
57
AREA
OF SITES
(ha)
Sites with
restrictedrange species
CORRIDOR, COUNTRY,
AND SITE NAME*
Globally
significant
congregation
OTHER
CRITERIA
1,179
394
94
14
267
191
10
58
79
58
65,856
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
4,299
6,487
+
131,559
+
10,773
4,201
42,285
56,656
+
376,859
64,148
4
+
49,981
+
104,092
31,604
44,726
50,184
10,753
+
+
0
+
21,370
+
2,291,385
4
5
845,298
82,721
3
+
4
+
3,042
21,369
121,522
11,427
261,312
+
+
89
90
91
92
Goderdzi Pass
Shavsheti Range (1)
Shavsheti Range (2)
Chorokhi
93
Batumi
94
Mtirala
95
Kintrishi NR
96
97
Supsa River
Kolkheti
98
Rioni River
99 Khobi River
100 Kolkheti NP (Aquatory)
101 Enguri River
Turkey
102 Harsit Vadisi
103 Dogu Karadeniz Mountains
GLOBALLY THREATENED
SPECIES**
Mertensiella caucasica
Vipera pontica, Mertensiella caucasica
Vipera pontica
Lacerta clarkorum, Acipenser persicus, A. stellatus,
Huso huso
Aquila heliaca, Aquila clanga, Falco naumanni,
Lacerta clarkorum, Acipenser persicus, A. stellatus,
Huso huso
Barbastella barbastellus, Lacerta clarkorum, Vipera
kaznakovi, Mertensiella caucasica, Pelodytes
caucasicus, Bufo verrucosissimus
Barbastella barbastellus, Rhinolophus mehelyi, R.
euryale, R. hipposideros, Myotis emarginatus, Lacerta
clarkorum, Vipera kaznakovi, Mertensiella caucasica,
Pelodytes caucasicus, Bufo verrucosissimus
Acipenser sturio
Lutra lutra, Oxyura leucocephala, Anser erythropus,
Crex crex, Acipenser sturio, A. gueldenstaedtii, A.
persicus, A. nudiventris, A. stellatus, Huso huso
Acipenser sturio, A. gueldenstaedtii, A. persicus, A.
nudiventris, A. stellatus, Huso huso
Acipenser sturio, Huso huso
Acipenser sturio, A. gueldenstaedtii, A. persicus, A.
nudiventris, A. stellatus
Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, A. persicus, A. stellatus,
Huso huso
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
Georgia
Paravani Lake
Javakheti Range (Geo)
Saghamo Lake
Madatapa Lake
Bugdasheni Lake
Khanchali Lake
Kartsakhi Lake
Turkey
114 Aktas Lake
115 Erakatar
116 Cildir Lake
30,564
59,192
20,690
23,238
39,959
6
Vipera darevskii
Aquila heliaca, Falco naumanni
Crex crex
Vipera darevskii
Lutra lutra, Crex crex
Aquila heliaca, Crex crex
Lutra lutra, Crex crex
Crex crex
Lutra lutra, Crex crex
Ovis ammon
58
+
+
15,289
13,315
2,077
52,246
+
36,431
3,844
23,217
23,842
1,446,087
186,074
Lutra lutra, Testudo graeca, Lacerta clarkorum, Vipera
ursinii
1,260,013
Barbastella barbastellus, Rhinolophus hipposideros,
Myotis bechsteini, Ovis ammon, Falco naumanni,
Lacerta clarkorum, Vipera kaznakovi, V. pontica, V.
ursinii, Mertensiella caucasica, Pelodytes caucasicus,
Bufo verrucosissimus, Acipenser persicus, A.
stellatus, Huso huso
JAVAKHETI
Armenia
104 Javakheti Range (Arm)
105 Tashir
106 Amasia
AREA
OF SITES
(ha)
Sites with
restrictedrange species
CORRIDOR, COUNTRY,
AND SITE NAME*
Globally
significant
congregation
OTHER
CRITERIA
1
1
+
+
217,865
10
3
100,329
27,705
42,484
30,139
2
1
+
+
+
81,230
5,830
65,970
857
1,978
397
2,580
3,619
6
+
36,306
1,262
14,993
20,051
2
+
1
+
+
+
+
+
+
1
+
+
OTHER
CRITERIA
AREA
OF SITES
(ha)
EAST LESSER CAUCASUS
14
750,466
Armenia
117 Dsegh-Haghartsin-Pambak
Chain and Dilijan NP
118 Lake Sevan
119 Shakhdag Range
120 Khosrov NR
121
122
123
124
125
Gndasar
Djermuk
Gorike
Meghri
Noravank
Azerbaijan
126 Ordubad Sanctuary
127 Bichenek
128 Ordubad
129 Sardarak Caves
Barbastella barbastellus, Rhinolophus mehelyi, R.
hipposideros, Sicista armenica, Aquila heliaca, Crex
crex, Testudo graeca, Sambucus tigrani
Lutra lutra, Anser erythropus
Rhinolophus euryale
Rhinolophus hipposideros, R. mehelyi,
Testudo graeca
Crex crex, Falco naumanni
Rhinolophus mehelyi, Crex crex
Crex crex, Falco naumanni
Capra aegagrus, Ovis ammon
Falco naumanni
Rhinolophus mehelyi, R. euryale, Capra aegagrus,
Ovis ammon
Capra aegagrus
Ovis ammon, Testudo graeca
Rhinolophus mehelyi, R. euryale
IORI-MINGECHAUR
Azerbaijan
130 Garayazy-Agstafa Sanctuary
131 Samukh
132 Korchai Sanctuary
133 Barda Sanctuary
134
135
136
137
138
139
Garayazy NR
Alazani Valley (Az)
Jandar Lake
Gekchai Bozdag Mountains
Shamkhor
Ajinaur Lake
Georgia
140 Iori Plateau
141 Gardabani Sanctuary
142 Alazani Valley (Geo)
143 Jandari Lake
9
Rhinolophus hipposideros, Aquila heliaca, Testudo
graeca
Anser erythropus, Aquila heliaca, Falco naumanni
Rhinolophus mehelyi, Myotis emarginatus, Testudo
graeca
Crex crex, Aquila heliaca, Falco naumanni, Testudo
graeca
Rhinolophus hipposideros, Aquila heliaca
Lutra lutra, Aquila heliaca
Anser erythropus, Aquila heliaca
Aquila heliaca
Testudo graeca
Myotis emarginatus, Lutra lutra, Anser erythropus,
Aquila heliaca, Falco naumanni, Testudo graeca
Rhinolophus hipposideros, Anser erythropus, Crex
crex, Aquila heliaca, Testudo graeca
Lutra lutra, Aquila heliaca, Anser erythropus
SOUTHERN UPLANDS
Armenia
144 Araks River
145 Armash
23
Lutra lutra, Marmaronetta angustirostris, Otis tarda,
Sambucus tigranii
Myotis schaubi, Meriones dahli
59
Sites with
restrictedrange species
GLOBALLY THREATENED
SPECIES**
Globally
significant
congregation
CORRIDOR, COUNTRY,
AND SITE NAME*
1
5
640,356
188,874
1
3
+
155,425
28,427
120,248
+
+
7,041
3,070
1,290
121,518
14,463
110,110
27,462
+
0
9,707
64,396
8,546
2
+
+
549,585
3
0
225,353
8,496
2
0
76,992
32,163
29,404
4,567
41,104
557
17,603
12,481
1,986
324,232
264,975
+
+
1
0
10,896
46,119
2,242
+
1,261,008
2
11
146,219
121,386
1
2
16,121
+
146 Goravan Sands Sanctuary
147 Armash Fish-Farm
Iran
148 Maku and Iran West Border
149 Maku
150 Agh-Gel
Turkey
151 Mt. Ziaret Forest
152 Karasu Plain
153 Sarakamish Forest
154 Igdir Plain
155 Tendurek Mountain
156 Van Dogusu Mountains
157 Karakose
158 North-East Ararat
159 Ararat
GLOBALLY THREATENED
SPECIES**
Myotis schaubi
Marmaronetta angustirostris, Oxyura leucocephala
Rhinolophus euryale, Myotis schaubi, M. bechsteini,
Aquila heliaca, A. clanga, Falco naumanni
Rhinolophus euryale, Myotis schaubi,
M. bechsteini
Rhinolophus euryale, Myotis schaubi, M. bechsteini,
Anser erythropus, Branta ruficollis, Marmaronetta
angustirostris, Oxyura leucocephala, Vanellus
gregarius, Grus leucogeranus, Otis tarda, Crex crex,
Aquila clanga
Testudo graeca, Vipera wagneri, Mertensiella
caucasica, Pelodytes caucasicus
Otis tarda
Ovis ammon, Testudo graeca, Vipera wagneri,
Mertensiella caucasica, Pelodytes caucasicus
Myotis schaubi, Marmaronetta angustirostris,
Testudo graeca, Vipera wagneri
Ovis ammon
Ovis ammon
Marmaronetta angustirostris, Testudo graeca,
Vipera wagneri
Myotis schaubi, Marmaronetta angustirostris
Capra aegagrus, Ovis ammon
ARASBARAN
Iran
160 Kaleibar and Arasbaran
161 Parsabad
162 Marakan
163 Kiamaky
164 Aras Dam Lake
16
Rhinolophus mehelyi, R. hipposideros, Lutra lutra,
Capra aegagrus, Aquila heliaca, A. clanga, Falco
naumanni, Testudo graeca, Batrachuperus
persicus***
Anser erythropus, Branta ruficollis, Marmaronetta
angustirostris, Oxyura leucocephala, Grus
leucogeranus, Aquila clanga, Falco naumanni
Lutra lutra, Capra aegagrus, Ovis ammon, Testudo
graeca
Lutra lutra, Capra aegagrus, Ovis ammon, Testudo
graeca
Marmaronetta angustirostris, Oxyura leucocephala,
Crex crex
HYRCAN
Azerbaijan
165 Hyrcan NR
166 Zuvand Sanctuary
18
Barbastella barbastellus, Rhinolophus hipposideros,
Myotis emarginatus, Lutra lutra
Testudo graeca
60
AREA
OF SITES
(ha)
3,558
5,154
+
448,862
336,902
1
+
Sites with
restrictedrange species
CORRIDOR, COUNTRY,
AND SITE NAME*
Globally
significant
congregation
OTHER
CRITERIA
+
2
84,437
+
27,524
+
665,926
55,914
0
7
+
19,215
73,706
+
177,767
+
30,617
80,898
113,847
+
+
+
41,134
72,829
+
652,211
3
3
652,211
374,320
3
+
3
+
56,222
+
105,951
+
106,239
+
9,479
+
384,808
2
0
18,545
3,601
0
0
14,944
OTHER
CRITERIA
169 Lavandevil
170 Anzali Lagoon
171 Gasht-e Rudkhan and
Siahmazgy
172 Bojagh
Rhinolophus hipposideros
Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, A. persicus, A. nudiventris,
A. stellatus, Huso huso
Crex crex, Aquila heliaca, A. clanga, Acipenser
gueldenstaedtii, A. persicus, A. nudiventris, A.
stellatus, Huso huso
Rhinolophus hipposideros, Anser erythropus,
Marmaronetta angustirostris, Oxyura leucocephala,
Vanellus gregarius, Grus leucogeranus, Crex crex,
Aquila heliaca, A. clanga, Acipenser gueldenstaedtii,
A. persicus, A. nudiventris, A. stellatus, Huso huso
Rhinolophus hipposideros
Anser erythropus, Oxyura leucocephala, Aquila
heliaca, A. clanga, Crex crex
SITES NOT COVERED
BY CORRIDORS
173
174
175
176
Armenia
Ara Mount
Artashavan
Ani
Goris Sanctuary
Azerbaijan
177 Sarysu Lake
178 Ag-Gel Lake
179 Dashalti NR
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
Lake Boz-Koba
Gizildja Sanctuary
Gubadly Sanctuary
Lapchin Sanctuary
Sheqi Sanctuary
Shemakha
Araz-Behremtepe
Gey-Gel Lake
Factory Shelf
Giamysh Mount
Georgia
190 Askhi Massif
191 Kvernaki
192 Saguramo NR
193 Sataplia NR
Iran
194 Mount Sahand and Sabalan
26
Crex crex
Sambucus tigranii
Sambucus tigranii
Rhinolophus mehelyi
Anser erythropus, Marmaronetta angustirostris,
Oxyura leucocephala, Falco naumanni
Anser erythropus, Marmaronetta angustirostris,
Oxyura leucocephala, Falco naumanni
Barbastella barbastellus, Rhinolophus mehelyi, R.
euryale
Marmaronetta angustirostris, Falco naumanni
Barbastella barbastellus, Testudo graeca
Barbastella barbastellus, Testudo graeca
Barbastella barbastellus
Testudo graeca
Vipera dinniki
Grus leucogeranus
Lutra lutra
Barbastella barbastellus, Rhinolophus mehelyi, R.
euryale, R. hipposideros, Myotis emarginatus, M.
bechsteini, Vipera kaznakovi, Pelodytes caucasicus,
Bufo verrucosissimus
Aquila heliaca, Crex crex, Testudo graeca
Barbastella barbastellus, Rhinolophus mehelyi
Rhinolophus mehelyi, Rhinolophus euryale
Myotis schaubi, M. bechsteini, Ovis ammon, Falco
naumanni, Aquila clanga, A. heliaca
61
AREA
OF SITES
(ha)
Sites with
restrictedrange species
Iran
167 Lisar NR
168 Sepirud River
GLOBALLY THREATENED
SPECIES**
Globally
significant
congregation
CORRIDOR, COUNTRY,
AND SITE NAME*
366,263
34,449
26,824
2
0
44,228
+
134,151
41,692
84,919
+
675,341
6
6
18,778
4,443
3,842
4,756
5,737
1
+
3
+
+
+
174,616
16,555
4
+
2
15,676
+
1,312
14,577
13,704
47,348
27,990
5,119
11,388
2,678
6,276
3,418
8,575
+
58,775
40,211
0
0
0
1
+
+
+
+
12,969
5,209
386
180,195
180,195
OTHER
CRITERIA
Globally
significant
congregation
Sites with
restrictedrange species
AREA
OF SITES
(ha)
Russia
Novotroitskoye Reservoir
Meleshtinsky Sanctuary
Novo-Berezansky Sanctuary
Shovgenovsky Sanctuary
Irgaklinskaya Forest Area
Varkhatau Ridge
Surrounding of Kislovodsk
0
Anser erythropus, Branta ruficollis
Rhinolophus mehelyi
Lutra lutra
Lutra lutra
Otis tarda
Aquila heliaca
Aquila heliaca
141,015
7,008
21,387
28,713
22,336
2,390
40,823
18,359
0
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
Turkey
Kars Plain
Yalnizcam Mountains
Cali Lake
Kuyucuk Lake
0
Oxyura leucocephala, Otis tarda
Capra aegagrus, Lutra lutra
Oxyura leucocephala
Oxyura leucocephala
101,961
6,511
93,907
1,071
472
1
202
203
204
205
CORRIDOR, COUNTRY,
AND SITE NAME*
GLOBALLY THREATENED
SPECIES**
+
* NR - nature reserves; NP - national parks.
** Critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable according to the 2002 IUCN Red List.
*** The Persian brook salamander (Batrachuperus persicus), has since been determined to occur only in the Hyrcan
Corridor, the priority corridor in Iran. In addition its global conservation status has since been determined to be
near threatened, rather than vulnerable as originally indicated. This species was originally included based on
preliminary results of the Global Amphibian Assessment. However, these results and data have since been
finalized and this species will be classified as near threatened on the 2004 IUCN Red List. As a result of this new
information about the species’ status, Batrachuperus persicus can no longer be considered a species outcome or a
priority for CEPF investment.
62
Appendix 4
Landscape
Species
RestrictedRange Species
Bird
Congregation
Areas
# of Site
outcomes
Percent
in Protected
Areas
Number
of Protected
Areas
All Corridors
Critically
Endangered
Species
Kuma-Manych
Greater Caucasus
Caspian
West Lesser Caucasus
Javakheti
East Lesser Caucasus
Iori-Mingechaur
Southern Uplands
Arasbaran
Hyrcan
2,080,462
4,677,560
3,234,678
2,999,245
419,537
1.433.267
966,785
2,041,972
1,239,743
1,851,242
10
20
23
29
6
14
9
24
16
19
0
0
2
3
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
8
9
12
2
5
3
4
4
9
0
7
0
7
2
3
0
7
2
0
8
1
20
4
10
1
3
2
3
2
11
40
31
21
13
13
14
16
5
8
4.1
35.2
14.4
11.3
0.0
24,6
15.1
0.6
23.8
8.6
3
41
15
24
0
21
12
3
5
13
20,893,467
51
6
18
18
54
172
16.5%
137
Area (ha)
CORRIDORS
# of Species
Outcomes (globally
threatened species)
Corridor outcomes for the Caucasus hotspot
63
An Overview of CEPF’s Portfolio
in the Caucasus Biodiversity Hotspot:
Building on Existing Foundations
The Caucasus Hotspot spans 500,000 square kilometers of mountains in Eurasia
between the Black and Caspian Seas, including Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and small
portions of Russia, Turkey, and Iran. The temperate forests, high mountains, steppes,
semi deserts, and marine ecosystems that comprise the hotspot contain more than twice
the animal diversity found in adjacent regions of Europe and Asia. The Caucasus is also
a mosaic of ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity, mixed over a relatively small area.
Biodiversity in the Caucasus is being lost at an alarming rate. Nearly half of the
landmass has been transformed by human activities, with the plains, foothills, and sub
alpine belts most heavily impacted. Root causes of the destruction include legal and
illegal logging, hunting of endangered wildlife, fuel wood harvesting, over grazing, over
fishing, large infrastructure development, and pollution of rivers and wetlands. Poverty
and unemployment magnify the scope and tenacity of these threats.
The WWF Caucasus Program developed the CEPF ecosystem profile for this hotspot.
The science-based outcomes definition process now used to select CEPF conservation
targets combined with WWF’s ability to guide regional scale strategy development
(expertise gained in part through their experience putting together an Ecoregional
Conservation Plan for the Caucasus) resulted in a clear investment strategy with broad
stakeholder support. WWF brought together more than 130 experts from the six
Caucasian countries to consider how CEPF could best add value to the region’s
conservation needs. They defined targets at species, site, and biodiversity conservation
corridor levels. The profile focuses on conserving the hotspot’s 50 globally threatened
species, most of which are found in key sites within five focal corridors. These corridors
(see map attached following this overview) include the:
• Greater Caucasus Corridor;
• Caspian Corridor;
• West Lesser Caucasus Corridor;
• East Lesser Caucasus Corridor; and,
• Hyrcan Corridor.
The regional experts agreed that CEPF’s niche should be to support increased
transboundary cooperation, better protected-area management, stronger on-the-ground
implementation of international protocols such as the Convention on Biological Diversity,
better-regulated natural resource extraction, and increased commitment from
decisionmakers to back conservation.
The transparency of the strategy development process and the clearly defined
investment priorities of the ecosystem profile are key elements in the potential for
successful implementation. Effective collaboration among countries might crumble if
1
stakeholders perceived a decision-making process driven by politics rather than by
science. The Caucasus ecosystem profile is in fact the only regional initiative in any field
that has been endorsed at the ministerial governmental level by all six countries. In a
region experiencing internal, sometimes quite dramatic, political transitions and beset by
long-standing and seemingly intractable conflicts between nations, this is significant.
CEPF is in a position to catalyze profound long-term changes, particularly in how
transboundary conservation occurs, that will benefit the biodiversity and the people of
the Caucasus.
Launched in May 2004 with an allocation of $8.5 million, CEPF’s grant portfolio is meant
to:
1. Support civil society efforts to promote transboundary cooperation and
improve protected area systems in five target corridors
Each of the five corridors in the Caucasus Hotspot extends across borders of two
or more countries because threatened species, their habitats, and the threats to
both do not recognize international boundaries. As a consequence,
transboundary cooperation is a key component of ensuring long-term biodiversity
conservation in the region and something CEPF seeks to catalyze. Within this
investment area, we support protected area strengthening and ecosystem
management initiatives.
2. Strengthen mechanisms to conserve biodiversity of the Caucasus Hotspot
with emphasis on species, site and corridor outcomes
Under this strategic direction we support species-focused efforts through small
grants; Red List assessments for poorly represented taxa; and improved
implementation of treaties and protocols (such as the Convention on Biological
Diversity and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Flora and Fauna) that results in documented protection of threatened
forests and species.
3. Implement models demonstrating sustainable resource use in five
corridors
CEPF aims to support communities implementing models for sustainable
forestry, water use and range management, and conservation-friendly livelihood
alternatives, such as ecotourism and sustainable collection of non-timber forest
products. Projects that seek to assess and monitor the impact of large-scale
development projects are also priorities.
4. Increase awareness and commitment of decisionmakers and the public to
biodiversity conservation in five corridors
Under this strategic direction, CEPF supports training for journalists to raise
awareness of conservation priorities among key decisionmakers and
communities. Projects contributing to increased environmental awareness at a
regional scale will also be supported.
Building on a Solid Foundation
WWF Caucasus has been working to protect biodiversity landscapes in the region for
more than a decade. In choosing WWF Caucasus as its coordination unit, CEPF was
able to tap into and enhance an existing regional effort with a focus that complemented
CEPF’s own, as well as support a seamless transition from planning to implementation.
2
In addition to bringing to the table its existing network of collaborators in six countries,
WWF also matches funding for CEPF coordination one-to-one. The Caucasus
coordination unit is in itself a significant piece of leveraging for CEPF.
With headquarters in Georgia and country offices in Armenia and Azerbaijan, WWF
Caucasus has established a CEPF coordination team with a physical presence in each
country except Iran. (At this time, CEPF cannot fund projects in Iran, due to restrictions
by the United States government.) In addition, the team has established a pool of 84
reviewers of varying disciplines representing governments, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), and scientific institutions from all six countries to ensure expert
consideration of CEPF grant applications.
This is the first region to use a call for proposals, which CEPF hopes to adopt in other
hotspots as a means to ensure even more effective grant portfolios. The first invitation to
Caucasus grantees went out in September 2004, after the coordination team had
introduced CEPF to grassroots organizations across the region. The response was
overwhelming in two ways. Firstly, the volume was unexpectedly high. CEPF received
276 letters of inquiry, the majority of which were for small grants (less than $20,000).
Secondly, the quality of the proposed projects was unexpectedly low and/or not clearly
linked to the investment strategy. It became clear that many of the applicants had energy
and enthusiasm, but little capacity to plan and execute meaningful conservation projects.
In response, CEPF quickly established a small-grants program in the region, managed
directly by WWF Caucasus, to mentor promising groups and individuals, in hope that
small grants would build solid conservation capacity and, perhaps, lead to larger CEPF
grants in the future. As a consequence, most of CEPF’s investment to date in the
Caucasus has gone to support the establishment of the coordination unit and a smallgrants program. WWF Caucasus has made 27 small grants with a total value of
$478,365 to date. The distribution of these grants within the region is:
• Armenia - $ 77,866
• Azerbaijan - $ 86,994
• Georgia - $ 97,615
• Russia - $ 178,640
• Turkey - $ 37,250
The following provides illustrative examples of the types of projects being funded
through these small grants:
•
•
•
•
•
Institute of Biological Resources (Dagestan Branch) – Strategy for Conservation
of the Riesen –Blindmaus (Spalax giganteus) in the North Caucasus
The Society of Green Artvin – Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas in
the Turkish Part of West Lesser Caucasus Corridor Using WWF’s RAPPAM
Methodology
International Association of Ecology and Tourism – Perspectives of Ecotourism in
Chaukhski District of the Great Caucasus
Center for Biodiversity – Improvement of Protection of the Dagestanian Tur
(Capra cylindricornis) and other CEPF Priority Species in Zacatala Strict Nature
Reserve
Association of Scientists-Ecologists – Analysis of Socioeconomic-Demographic
Characteristics and Assessing Alternative Livelihoods Options in the
Transboundary Region of the West Lesser Caucasus
3
In addition, CEPF’s regional coordinators conducted a series of workshops to assist
local NGOs in developing projects that are more closely aligned with the ecosystem
profile. The second call for proposals was made in April 2005 and more than 100
proposals were submitted by the May 31st deadline. The process of screening this
second set of project proposals is ongoing.
Complementing the small grants mechanism managed by WWF Caucasus, BirdLife
International is implementing a large multi-year project to develop a “caretaker network”
of local organizations that support conservation efforts at the site level. BirdLife will work
with national-level NGOs in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey to identify, train,
and provide long-term support to 32 community level organizations. This network will
help protect 31 sites critical to globally threatened species living in and around Important
Bird Areas. In addition to the site-level impact, the capacity building investment in the
four national NGOs will strengthen them as institutions and allow them to develop as
partners within BirdLife’s global network. BirdLife intends to encourage local and national
governments, as well as European donors, to support these site-based interventions
over the long term, providing much-needed livelihoods for local communities as well as
species protection.
A project supporting an IUCN Red List assessment of the region’s plant species and
populations − one of the top priorities identified in CEPF’s stakeholder consultation
process – is in on the verge of final approval. In addition, CEPF expects to soon fund
two regional NGOs in their efforts to establish two new protected areas at priority sites in
Armenia.
Conservation Without Borders
The pivotal importance of transboundary conservation in this region is expected to
dominate CEPF investments. With all of the Caucasus countries suffering social and
economic disarray due to an unfortunate mix of political and cultural history, many
people in the countryside survive through unsustainable, and sometimes illegal, logging,
hunting, and fishing. Transboundary areas are particularly vulnerable to this type of
exploitation, as they tend to be a netherworld with regard to management and law
enforcement. CEPF’s coordination unit hopes to help local people in these areas
understand that it is in their best long-term interest to work with their neighbors to protect
and sustainably manage shared tracts of natural resources.
For example, although political conflicts make conservation in the Greater Caucasus
Corridor difficult, CEPF plans to support the creation of a network of protected areas
managed by communities in Russia and Georgia that will allow safe passage for
migratory species crossing the corridor.
The West Lesser Corridor, which extends along the Black Sea from northeastern Turkey
through southwestern Georgia and into central Georgia, is home to 21 priority
conservation sites covering 76 percent of its area. CEPF plans to invest here in
promoting transboundary cooperation between nature reserves bordering Turkey and
Georgia and in training the reserves’ staff.
In the East Lesser Caucasus Corridor, which covers parts of Armenia and the
Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan, two small grant projects were recently
developed to support cooperative species management across the borders of Armenia
4
and Azerbaijan. An NGO from each country worked with WWF staff and a consultant
technical advisor to design complementary activities. They will implement the projects in
tandem and share the costs for ongoing technical support from the consultant advisor.
Given the recent history of conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, this level of
cooperation is quite remarkable.
These are but a few examples of the transboundary approach to conservation that CEPF
intends to support in all corridors.
Ensuring Long-Term Regional Commitment
With support from the MacArthur Foundation, the Regional Council for Biodiversity and
Sustainable Management of Natural Resources was established in May 2004. This highlevel policy group – made up of representatives of each government in the region and
resident NGOs – was created to provide strategic oversight and support for cooperation
among regional conservation efforts. The Council’s mandate is to promote a regional
approach to conservation and sustainable natural resource management, encourage
consensus among stakeholders, and to seek necessary financial support from relevant
governments and the donor community. CEPF and WWF Caucasus are committed to
supporting and collaborating with the Council, as it holds great promise for further
scaling up regional conservation efforts.
Scaling Up Funding through a Common Investment Strategy
A central element of the CEPF / WWF Caucasus partnership is our mutual interest in
promoting coordinated investment among donors. There are many promising
opportunities and examples of this occurring. For example, we are working closely with
WWF and the German Bank for Reconstruction and Development (KfW) on the
development of a regional trust fund to support protected area management. CEPF’s
sister fund also administered by Conservation International, the Global Conservation
Fund (GCF), is actively assessing opportunities for investment in protected area
development and the regional trust fund.
Another significant investor in conservation in the Caucasus is British Petroleum’s (BP).
Its lenders require $9 million in environmental-mitigation investments in relation to its
new pipeline, which passes through two of CEPF's priority corridors (the Caspian and
West Lesser). CEPF has encouraged BP’s use of the ecosystem profile as a grantmaking guide for their investments. These discussions are ongoing.
The ecosystem profile is proving to be a critical document in encouraging coordination
among donors by providing clear guidance on where investment will have the greatest
impact. WWF was recently successful in securing a commitment from the Norwegian
Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) to invest in the conservation of the
Javakheti Iori-Mingechaur Corridor – the smallest corridor identified in the hotspot
covering portions of Georgia, Armenia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. While not a CEPF
priority corridor, the NORAD commitment in Javakheti Iori-Mingechaur is significant
because WWF used the ecosystem profile to demonstrate how their investment would fit
within the regional strategy and complement, rather than duplicate, the expenditures of
CEPF, KfW, GEF and others.
Conclusion
Despite political and cultural divides, conservationists and decisionmakers of the six
Caucasus countries are now sitting together, making plans for protecting the region’s
5
biodiversity. Integrating CEPF’s consensus-based mandate with the established WWF
ecoregional approach and the political will generated by the Regional Council for
Biodiversity and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources holds great promise for
ensuring that the hopes and dreams of Caucasian conservationists will be realized.
The transboundary cooperation supported by CEPF and its partners is fundamental not
just to conservation but also for stability and economic development in the region. The
interplay between regional collaboration on environmental issues and peaceful economic
development is something we will monitor and explore further as this portfolio develops.
Similarly, we will monitor the portfolio and its impact to identify connections between
CEPF investments in supporting civil society efforts to engage effectively in conservation
projects and the role the NGO sector plays in promoting democratization and good
governance. We believe CEPF investment will make a contribution to these larger
development objectives.
Most importantly, at the local level, CEPF is providing the first-ever funding opportunity
for civil society groups wishing to work in alliance with each other and relevant regional
governments to make conservation a reality on the ground. CEPF is helping to fill a
leadership vacuum left at the community level by decades of Soviet rule. As WWF
Caucasus Director Giorgi Sanadiradze says, “If you reach the people, there will be
something for the future…. In our case, the main purpose is conservation, but it is also
joining people under one idea…. The main thing that interests me about the CEPF
approach is that we will be able to reach these local people and organizations and make
a difference.”
- June 2005
* Prepared for: Improving Linkages Between CEPF and World Bank Operations, Asia Forum,
Medan, Indonesia, June 23-25, 2005.
6
4
-0
y
a
M
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
$2,479,23
$20,00
4
-0
g
Au
ov
N
04
5
-0
b
Fe
5
-0
y
a
M
Total: $2,699,238
4. Increase awareness and
commitment of
decisionmakers
2. Stengthen mechanisms to
conserve biodiversity
1. Multiply and scale up
investments corridor wide
Chart 3. Combined Value of Grants Awarded
$200,000
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Chart 2. Portfolio Status by Strategic Direction
3. Implement
models
demonstrating
sustainable
resource use
2. Stengthen
mechanisms to
conserve
biodiversity
1. Support civil
society
transboundary
cooperation
Chart 1. Approved Grants by Strategic Direction
4. Increase
awareness and
commitment of
decisionmakers
Charts through May 2005: Caucasus Biodiversity Hotspot
Rejected
Pending
Approved
Multiple
# of Grants
Approved Grants
Caucasus Region
(Through May 2005)
Strategic Direction 1: Support civil society efforts to promote transboundary cooperation and
improve protected area systems in five target corridors
Building Capacity to Strengthen Conservation Alliances Through CEPF Coordination and
Grantmaking in the Caucasus
As the CEPF coordination mechanism for the Caucasus Hotspot, build civil society capacity to effectively
engage in conserving the region's globally threatened species and unique biodiversity. Activities include
raising awareness about the CEPF opportunity in the region, helping develop and assess grant proposals,
directly manging a small grants program, communicating lessons learned, monitoring and evaluating the
investment portfolio, and leveraging additional funding to ensure sustainability.
Funding:
$2,470,000
Grant Term:
7/04-7/08
Grantee:
World Wide Fund for Nature Caucasus Program Office
*The original funding amount has been increased by $1,170,000 to incorporate a small grants program.
Attending the Regional Stakeholder Meeting and Planning Workshop for the Project: Development
of an IBA Caretaker Network in the 5 Priority Corridors
Provide support for a staff member from the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation
International to attend a regional stakeholders workshop organized by WWF Caucasus to launch CEPF
investment in the Caucasus hotspot and a second workshop organized by BirdLife International to develop
an Important Bird Area Caretaker Network in the hotspot. Staff will assist participants in developing clear
objectives and priority setting during both workshops to be held in June in Tbilisi, Georgia.
Funding:
$4,586
Grant Term:
5/04-6/04
Grantee:
Conservation International
*The original funding amount has been decreased by $451.
Planning Workshop for the Project: Development of an Important Bird Area Caretaker Network in
the Five Priority Corridors
Enhance participatory development in a larger grant proposal through an international workshop in Tbilisi,
Georgia. Through this forum the existence of a network of like-minded organizations associated with
BirdLife in five countries—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Turkey—will provide a unique
opportunity to increase civil society support to the 45 sites identified for birds in the priority corridors of
the Caucasus biodiversity hotspot.
Funding:
$4,652
Grant Term:
5/04-6/04
Grantee:
BirdLife International, European Office Division
*The original funding amount has been decreased by $658.
1
Strategic Direction 2: Strengthen mechanisms to conserve biodiversity of the Caucasus hotspot with
emphasis on species, site and corridor outcomes
Regional Council for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Resource Use in the Caucasus
Enhance implementation of the CEPF ecosystem profile and investment strategy for the Caucasus
Hotspot by improving the coordinated donor investment and catalyzing the policy support necessary for
sustainability beyond CEPF’s 5-year investment window. The Regional Council will provide a high level
forum to address transboundary issues as an effective, widely accepted, and broadly supported institution
for regional conservation.
Funding:
$200,000
Grant Term:
1/05-6/08
Grantee:
World Wide Fund for Nature Caucasus Program Office
Strategic Direction 4: Increase the awareness and commitment of decisionmakers to biodiversity
conservation in five target corridors
Conservation in the Caucasus: Reports from the Field
Raise awareness about the importance of the Caucasus hotspot and the efforts underway to protect it
through a series of articles in Russian Conservation News, an English-language quarterly that promotes
biodiversity in Russia and throughout northern Eurasia. Activities also include building local capacity in
communications through work with local writers contributing to the publication.
Funding:
$20,000
Grant Term:
7/04-7/05
Grantee: Center for Russian Nature Conservation
2
Conservation Highlights
E-News
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
28 Grantees for New Caucasus Small Grants Fund – April 2005
51 Globally Threatened Species Get New Lease on Life in the Caucasus – June 2004
Partnership Profile – WWF Caucasus and CEPF – October 2004
Caucasus Coordination Team Reviews 260 Grant Applications – December 2004
CEPF Set for Expansion – August 2003
WWF Helps Develop Framework for Investment in the Caucasus – October 2002
Giorgi Sanadiradze: A Regional Leader in the Caucasus
Other Highlights
•
•
Small Grants List through May 2005: WWF Caucasus Program Office Small Grants
Program
News Article: Saving Georgia’s Nature – May 2004, The Messenger
Improvement of Protection of Caspian Seal
(Phoca Caspica) Breeding Grounds and
Habitats of Priority Bird Species in the
Absheron Sanctuary
Release of the Determinant of the CITES
Species and Carrying out Trainings to the
employees of Customs Service
Help to survive the otter (Lutra lutra)
Improvement of protection of the
Dagestanian Tur (Capra cylindricornis)
and other CEPF priority species in
Zacatala Strict Natura Reserve
Planning Workshop on Sturgeon
Conservation in the Caucasus Hotspot
Biodiversity and Landscape
Conservation Union
Armenian Tourist Association
NGO – Ecology and Conservation
of Birds
Public Union Euro Caucasian
Ecological Initiative
Sumgayit Center for Environmental
Rehabilitation
Center for Biodiversity
NGO “Center for Biodiversity “
3
1
2
3
4
5
4
Armenian Botanical Society
2
Requested
Amount
12 months
1,5 year
1, 5 year
1,5 year
Duration
$ 7 500 USD
$ 20 000 USD
$ 20 000 USD
$ 19 494 USD
$ 20 000 USD
2 months
8 months
16 months
10 months
10 months
AZERBAIJAN (5 proposals) $ 86994
Small Grant Proposals
Create Baseline Data on Rare Invertebrate $ 17 866 USD
Animal for the National Red Book and
Prepare Materials for the Caucasus Red
Book and IUCN’s Red List
Status Survey and Conservation of the
$ 19 975 USD
Endangered Tulip (Tulipa L.)and Iris (Iris
L.) species of the East Lesser Caucasus
$ 20 000 !!!
Corridor
Strengthening the Protection Regime of
$ 20 000 USD
Shikahogh Reserve
Strengthening the Protection Regime of
$ 20 000 USD
Garni tract of Khosrove Reserve
Institute of Zoology, National
Academy of Sciences of Armenia
1
Project Title
Name of Organization
#
ARMENIA (4 proposals) $ 77866
Multiple
(Caspian, West
Lesser Caucasus and
Hyrcan )
Multiple
(Caspian and
Hyrcan)
Greater Caucasus
Corridor
Multiple
(Caspian, Great
Caucasus, Hyrcan
and East Lesser
Caucasus)
Caspian Corridor
East Lesser Caucasus
Corridor
East Lesser Caucasus
Corridor
East Lesser Caucasus
Corridor
East Lesser Caucasus
Corridor
Applied corridor
Strategic direction 1 (1.1)
Strategic direction 2 (2.2)
Strategic direction 2 (2.2)
Strategic direction 2 (2.3)
Strategic direction 2 (2.2)
Strategic direction 2 (2..3)
Strategic direction 2 (2..3)
Strategic direction 2 (2.1)
Strategic direction 2 (2.1)
Strategic Direction of the
Ecosystem Profile
WWF – Caucasus Program Office Small Grants Program: Small Grants through May 2005
Improve Nature Reserve National Park
Rangers` professional Skill in the Greater
Caucasus
Inventory of Internationally and Nationally
Important Wetlands in the Russian
Caucasus Region
International Conference - ``Initiation and
Harmonization of Trans-boundary
NGO – Union for Sustainable
Development - ``Ecoview``
Association of Friends of Nature
“Tskhratskharo”
IUCN Office for CIS and Russia
Partnership for Protected Areas
Partnership for Protected Areas
Wetlands International – Russian
Programme
European Herpetological Society
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
8 months
$ 12 715 USD
$ 9 120 USD
$ 19 750 USD
2 months
14 months
9 months
10 months
$ 19 450 USD
$ 17 700 USD
12 months
$ 18 880 USD
$ 19 540 USD
$ 20 000 USD
$ 19 900 USD
$ 19 900 USD
$ 19 850 USD
2 months
12 months
12 months
12 months
18 months
RUSSIA (10 proposals) $ 178640
Civil Society and Biodiversity –
involvement of youth in conservation
Development of the Management Plan for
the Kavkazky Biosphere Nature Reserve
Association of ScientistsEcologists - `` Caucasian
Ecohouse``
4
3
2
1
Conservation of Endemic and Endangered
Plant Species of Adjara -Shavsheti Region
Perspectives of Ecotourism in Chaukhski
District of the Great Caucasus
Support Government Conservation
Agencies in the implementation and
reinforcement of the International
Conventions and Agreements related to
biodiversity conservation and sustainable
use
Analysis of Socio-Economic-Demographic
and Geo-ecological Characteristics for
further Planning of New Protected Areas
in the West Lesser Caucasus
Creation of Base for the Improvement /
Perfection of National Legislation to
Ensure Implementation and Fully
Enforcement of CITES and RAMSAR
Conventions
Planning Workshop on Caprinae species
Conservation in the Caucasus Hotspot
Association for Nature Protection
and Sustainable Use - ``Mta-Bari ``
International Association of
Ecology and Tourism
Ecopulse Association
GEORGIA (6 proposals) $ 97615
Multiply
(Greater Caucasus
and Caspian)
Multiple
Greater Caucasus
Corridor
Greater Caucasus
Corridor
Greater Caucasus
Multiply
(Greater Caucasus
and
West Lesser
Caucasus)
Multiple
(Greater Caucasus
and East Lesser
Caucasus)
West Lesser
Caucasus
Multiply
(Greater Caucasus
and West Lesser
Caucasus)
West Lesser
Caucasus
Greater Caucasus
Strategic Direction 1 (1.1)
Strategic Direction 2 (2.3)
Strategic Direction 2 (2.3)
Strategic Direction 1 (1.3)
Strategic Direction 4 (4.2)
Strategic Direction 1 (1.1)
Strategic Direction 2 (2.3)
Strategic Direction 3
Strategic direction 2 (2.3)
Strategic direction 3 (3.2)
Strategic direction 1 (1.1)
WWF – Caucasus Program Office Small Grants Program: Small Grants through May 2005
NGO Kadastr
NGO Kadastr
Biodiversity Conservation Center
(BCC)
Institute of Biological resources
(Dagestan Branch)
The Research Association of Rural
Environment and Forestry
(RAREF)
The Society of Green Artvin
7
8
9
10
1
2
$ 10 000 USD
$ 20 000 USD
$ 9800 USD
$ 19 700 USD
$ 19 950 USD
2 years
12 months
8 months
8 months
12 months
$ 18 250 USD
$ 19 000 USD
12 months
10 months
TURKEY (2 proposals) $ 37250
Determination and Prevention of
Economic, Social, Cultural and Technical
Reasons Which May Give Harm to HighMountain Ecosystems in the East Black
Sea Region.
Management Effectiveness of Protected
Areas in Turkish part of West Lesser
Caucasus Corridor using WWF’s
RAPPAM Methodology
Total number: 27 approved small grants
Total amount: $ 478 365
WWF Russia
6
Cooperation in Conservation of the
Herpeto-Complexes in the Caucasus
Ecoregion``
Methodology Support and Special
Trainings to prevent Poaching Activities
and Control Timber Logging in Russian
Part of the Caucasus
Assessment of Nature Resources and
Ecosystem Services as a base for
Management of Protected Areas (by the
example of Sochinski National Park)
Sustainable Development as a base for
Conservation of the Ecosystems of the
North Caucasus
Analysis of Conservation Project
Relevance to the Convention on Biological
Diversity, the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species and the
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in the
Caucasus Ecoregion
Strategy for Conservation of the Riesen –
Blindmaus (Spalax giganteus )in the North
Caucasus
West Lesser
Caucasus Corridor
West Lesser
Caucasus Corridor
Greater Caucasus
Multiple
Greater Caucasus
Corridor
Greater Caucasus
Corridor
Greater Caucasus
Corridor
Strategic Direction 1 (1.3)
Strategic direction 3 (3.1)
Strategic direction 2 (2.2)
Strategic Direction 2 (2.3)
Strategic Direction 2 (??)
Strategic Direction 1 (1.3)
Strategic Direction 2 (2.3)
&
Strategic Direction 4 (4.2)
WWF – Caucasus Program Office Small Grants Program: Small Grants through May 2005
28 Grantees for New Caucasus Small Grants Fund
Hot on the heels of last month’s announcement about Critical
Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) support to small grant funds in
the Mountains of Southwest China and Succulent Karoo hotspots
comes news of a new $1 million fund in the Caucasus Hotspot.
This new fund becomes the ninth to receive CEPF support and help
implement specific strategic components of the initiative’s regional
ecosystem profiles. For each one of the nine, CEPF has delegated
responsibility for outreach, decisionmaking, and management and
distribution of grant monies to a locally based partner to enable swifter
action and a broader reach where it matters most.
Swift it is: WWF-Caucasus, which also coordinates CEPF’s overall
investment in the region, recently awarded the first 28 small grants.
These include support for training projects, conferences, protected
area management reviews and species protection efforts, among
others.
© WWF-Caucasus
The deserts, savannas, swamp
forests and arid woodlands of the
Caucasus contain more than
twice the animal diversity found in
adjacent regions of Europe and
Asia.
Some of the first grantees include the Armenian Botanical Society, The Sumgayit Center for
Environmental Rehabilitation in Azerbaijan, the Society of Green Artvin in Turkey, the Mta-Bari
Society for Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development in Georgia, and the Russian
nongovernmental organization (NGO) Kadastr.
Further support will be given to small-scale projects that aid the conservation of 50 globally
threatened species in the region, such as the Siberian crane (Grus leucogeranus) and the
Armenian birch mouse (Sicista armenica).
The Fund will also support at least 20 projects that develop alternative livelihoods with the help of
local organizations, such as ecotourism, non-timber forest products and sustainable hunting and
fishing. A third focus is to help at least 60 local groups or NGOs contribute further toward local
conservation.
To avoid duplication of effort and build stronger relationships throughout the local conservation
community, WWF also specifies that news of at least 50 percent of the projects must be reported
to partner organizations, relevant government agencies and donors, as well as in local or regional
media where possible.
WWF-Caucasus recently held an initial project planning, communications and budgeting
workshop for five of the new grant recipients in Tbilisi, Georgia. Similar meetings will be held for
grantees in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia and Turkey in the near future.
•
•
Contact Lana Ghvinjilia, WWF Caucasus Communications Officer, for more information.
Read about other CEPF small grants funds.
51 Globally Threatened Species Get New Lease on Life in the Caucasus
WWF, the conservation organization, and the Critical Ecosystem
Partnership Fund (CEPF) announced in late May a CEPF investment
strategy and a high-level advisory council of governmental and
nongovernmental representatives from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,
Iran, Russia and Turkey to help conserve the rich natural resources of
the Caucasus.
The announcement came as part of a series of events held in the
© Conservation International
The Caucasus hotspot stretches
Republic of Georgia, including a workshop May 25-26 that brought
across 500,000 square
together stakeholders to learn more about the strategy, called an
kilometers, including Georgia,
ecosystem profile, and to help develop an action plan for its
Armenia and Azerbaijan and
small portions of Russia, Iran and
implementation. The first meeting of the Regional Council for
Turkey.
Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in the Caucasus
Ecoregion was held May 26. A May 27 event drew together all participants for an official launch.
Support for the council is a strategic part of a new regional coordination approach, led by the
WWF Caucasus Programme to ensure success of CEPF’s $8.5 million investment strategy for
the Caucasus. CEPF will award grants to nongovernmental organizations and other civil society
groups working to safeguard high-priority areas for conservation in the region, which spans the
area between the Black and Caspian seas.
“These new developments will pull together partners from across the region, enabling an inclusive
approach for planning and action across political boundaries that can be obstacles to successful
conservation,” said Giorgi Sanadiradze, director of the WWF Caucasus Programme.
A regional approach involving multiple stakeholders is also vital to effectively address the broader
social, economic and policy factors essential to results that benefit both nature and people.
The forests, high mountain ecosystems and arid landscapes of the Caucasus contain more than
twice the animal diversity found in adjacent regions of Europe and Asia. However, biodiversity of
the Caucasus is being lost at an alarming rate. Human activities have transformed nearly half of
the lands. Fifty-one species are at risk, including the Critically Endangered Siberian crane and
Baltic (Atlantic) sturgeon.
CEPF investments will focus on engaging civil society in conserving these 51 globally threatened
species, the majority of which are found in specific sites in five target areas: Greater Caucasus,
Caspian, West Lesser Caucasus, East Lesser Caucasus and Hyrcan.
The WWF Caucasus Programme coordinated an intensive process to develop the CEPF
ecosystem profile for the Caucasus. Its approach ultimately drew participation from more than
130 experts representing scientific, governmental and nongovernmental groups from the six
countries.
The Programme will act as the hub of CEPF implementation in the region, ensuring integration of
the WWF and CEPF approach, helping local groups develop grant proposals, disseminating
information and assisting in monitoring of the CEPF portfolio.
With headquarters in Tbilisi and country offices in Armenia and Azerbaijan, WWF Caucasus will
work together with WWF offices in Russia and Turkey and the Centre for Sustainable
Development and Environment in Iran to ensure effective coordination region-wide.
Following up on the participatory approach to develop the ecosystem profile, the implementation
approach also includes building a regional group of experts from the six countries to assist in
reviewing grant proposals and to act as a technical advisory group, as well as assisting the new
regional council in its overarching role.
eNewsletter | eCards | Contact Us | CI Sites | Search | Site Map
WWF Caucasus and CEPF
We are all stakeholders
in the future of our
planet. Make an online
donation now. Or click
here to learn how your
support will help CI in its
fight to save biodiversity.
The forests, high mountain ecosystems and arid landscapes of the
Caucasus biodiversity hotspot contain more than twice the animal
diversity found in adjacent regions of Europe and Asia. The Caucasus is
also a mosaic of ethnic groups, languages and religions stretching across
six countries, including the newly independent countries of Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Georgia and small portions of Russia, Iran and Turkey.
Needless to say, transboundary cooperation is far from business as
usual.
© WWF Caucasus
The Caucasus hotspot spans 500,000
square kilometers of mountains in Eurasia
between the Black Sea and the Caspian
Sea.
The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) and WWF Caucasus
have joined together in support of a new high-level advisory council
composed of governmental and nongovernmental representatives from
each of the six countries to help conserve the rich natural resources of the
region.
Support for the Regional Council for Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Use in the Caucasus, which held its first meeting in May
2004, is a key component of a new regional approach to coordinate CEPF
investments in the hotspot and ensure maximum impact.
Ioseb Kartsivadze, head of the Biodiversity Department for the Ministry of
Environment and Nature Resources Protection in Georgia, characterized
the new regional forum and CEPF investment strategy for the region as
"extremely valuable."
"We expect that such joint efforts will help us to achieve new conservation
heights," Kartsivadze said. "Taking into account WWF Caucasus'
involvement in the CEPF program, I believe we face inevitable progress
at the regional level in terms of biodiversity conservation."
Building bridges between decision makers and civil society groups in and
among the six diverse countries is key.
Each of the five landscapes targeted for CEPF investment straddle the
boundaries of two or more countries. The ranges of globally threatened
species and the threats these species face cross these political borders
as well.
A regional approach is also essential to help address the broader social,
economic and policy factors in this hotspot, which sits between the Black
and Caspian seas.
It's an imperative recognized by the MacArthur Foundation, one of
CEPF's five donor partners. The Foundation's Russia office became the
© WWF Caucasus
Megruki Gorge in the Caucasus
first donor to support WWF Caucasus and its partners in developing an
ecoregional approach to conservation and sustainable use in the
Caucasus, including paving the way for the new regional council,
beginning in 1999.
WWF Caucasus also coordinated the intensive, participatory process to
develop the CEPF investment strategy for the Caucasus. It now acts as
the hub of CEPF implementation, helping local groups develop proposals
and ensuring integration of the WWF and CEPF approach as well as
informed decisionmaking in concert with a range of local partners.
CI Wide
CEPF: Interview with WWF Caucasus Programme Director Giorgi
Sanadiradze
CEPF: CEPF Caucasus Program info
Factsheet: CI Overview (44kb PDF)
Hotspots: Caucasus biodiversity hotspot
On the Web
WWF: Caucasus
Home | About CI | Support CI | CI Newsroom | CI Library | CI Partners
© 2005 Conservation International Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Photo credits for banner images: (Greater Flamingos © Tui De Roy/Minden Pictures); (Diagonal-banded Sweetlips © Fred Bavendam/Minden Pictures);
(Madagascar Aloe © Frans Lanting/Minden Pictures); (Hippo © Frans Lanting/Minden Pictures); (Hummingbird © Pete Oxford)
Caucasus Coordination Team Reviews 260 Grant Applications
About the Coordination Team
The regional coordination team for Critical Ecosystem
Partnership Fund (CEPF) investments in the Caucasus
Hotspot recently met in Tbilisi, Georgia to review 260 grant
WWF Caucasus leads the
applications submitted in response to the first call for proposals
coordination team in the
in the region.
Caucasus Hotspot as part of
The public call invited letters of inquiry from nongovernmental
our strategic approach to
organizations, community groups and other civil society
partners addressing the strategic directions outlined in the
strengthen conservation
CEPF ecosystem profile for the Caucasus Hotspot.
alliances through effective
The strategic directions and their accompanying investment
priorities are designed to ensure maximum conservation
outcomes per dollar spent to conserve the hotspot’s globally
threatened species.
CEPF coordination in this
region.
The team includes a regional
Applications that appeared promising have now been sent to
coordinator, a national
expert reviewers. The strategic directions have been
addressed in the following proportion in the proposals selected coordinator based in a WWF or
for expert review:
partner organization office in
1. Support civil society efforts to promote trans-boundary
cooperation and improve protected area systems in
five target corridors — 23%
2. Strengthen mechanisms to conserve biodiversity of the
Caucasus Hotspot with emphasis on species, site and
corridors outcomes — 42%
3. Implement models demonstrating sustainable resource
use in five target corridors — 20%
4. Increase the awareness and commitment of
decisionmakers to biodiversity conservation in five
target corridors — 15%
each country (Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia,
Turkey and Iran) of the
Caucasus Hotspot, a
communications officer, and an
administrator.
Each of these strategic directions includes several investment priorities, which provide more
detailed guidance on the types of activities the strategy is intended to accomplish.
Approximately 100 experts from all six countries in the region are participating in the evaluation.
Proposals for small grants (under $20,000) may be approved for funding based on the results of
the review process, while organizations with favorably reviewed applications for larger grants
would be invited to participate in the second part of the CEPF application process by submitting a
more in-depth application.
Learn more:
•
•
First call for proposals (PDF)
CEPF ecosystem profile for the Caucasus Hotspot
TEXT ONLY
ABOUT CEPF
OUR STRATEGY
CONTACT
FAQ
SEARCH
SITE MAP
CEPF Set for Expansion
August 2003
CEPF NEWS
Press Releases
E-News Top Stories
In Focus Features
WHERE WE WORK
RECENT GRANTS
APPLY FOR GRANTS
The CEPF Donor Council approved new ecosystem
profiles and investment strategies on July 31 for the
partnership to expand to two new biodiversity hotspots:
Caucasus and the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal
Forests of Tanzania and Kenya.
Final endorsement of the strategies is expected from the
official Global Environment Facility focal points within
each of the countries within these two hotspots in the
next few weeks. CEPF grants can be disbursed once this
required endorsement is formalized. The expansion will
bring the number of hotspots to 13 where CEPF grants
are available to civil society, such as nongovernmental
organizations, community groups and academic
institutions.
The Caucasus hotspot spans 500,000 square kilometers
of mountains in Eurasia between the Black Sea and the
Caspian Sea. The area includes parts of Georgia,
Armenia and Azerbaijan, and small portions of Russia,
Iran and Turkey. The deserts, savannas, swamp forests
and arid woodlands that comprise the Caucasus hotspot
contain more than twice the animal diversity found in
adjacent regions of Europe and Asia, yet its biodiversity
is being lost at an alarming rate.
The CEPF strategy for this hotspot is based on the
results of stakeholder workshops and background
reports coordinated by WWF Caucasus. More than 130
experts representing scientific, governmental and
nongovernmental groups from the six countries
participated in these preparations.
The strategy is underpinned by conservation
outcomes—targets against which the success of
investments can be measured. These targets are defined
at three levels: species (extinctions avoided), sites
(areas protected) and landscapes (corridors created). As
a result, CEPF investment in the Caucasus is focused on
conserving the hotspot's 51 globally threatened species,
© Nina Marshall
Borjomi-Kharagauli
National Park in West
Lesser Caucasus.
You can learn more in the
special sections on these
two new hotspots:
Caucasus / Eastern Arc
Mountains
Related story: WWF Helps
Develop Framework for
CEPF Investment in the
Caucasus
the majority of which are found in specific sites in five
target conservation corridors: Greater Caucasus,
Caspian, West Lesser Caucasus, East Lesser Caucasus
and Hyrcan.
The Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot
stretches along most of the eastern coast of Tanzania
and into extreme southeastern Kenya. The region is
notably fragmented with endemic species being found
in small sites. Agriculture and encroachment along with
timber extraction are the greatest threats.
Within the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests
hotspot, CEPF aims to improve knowledge and
appreciation of biodiversity among the local
populations and stimulate support for conservation. In
conjunction with this, a commitment to scientific best
practices will improve biological knowledge in the
hotspot and show practical applications of conservation
science.
CEPF investment will focus on conserving the hotspot's
333 globally threatened species, which are primarily
found in 160 sites. In addition, key parts of the strategy
focus on select sites for maximum impact.
Subscribe to the Newsletter or View more E-News top
stories
© 2005 Conservation International
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Photo credits for banner images: (Frog) © CI, Haroldo Castro; (Chameleon) © CI, Russell A. Mittermeier
TEXT ONLY
CONTACT
FAQ
CEPF NEWS
WWF Helps Develop
Framework for Investment
in the Caucasus
Press Releases
In Focus, October 2002
ABOUT CEPF
OUR STRATEGY
E-News Top Stories
In Focus Features
WHERE WE WORK
RECENT GRANTS
APPLY FOR GRANTS
SEARCH
SITE MAP
The Caucasus biodiversity hotspot is home to leopard,
wild boar, West Caucasian tur, bezoar goat and
numerous flagship bird species. The Caucasus is also
categorized as a Global 200 Ecoregion by WWF, which
has worked for more than a decade to ensure
conservation of the biodiversity in this mountainous
range.
CEPF has entered into a partnership with the WWF
Caucasus Programme to determine strategic
opportunities for future CEPF investments to do the
most good in this unique temperate hotspot, which
spans approximately 420,000 square kilometers across
six countries between the Black and Caspian seas.
WWF will catalyze a stakeholder consultation process,
information synthesis and analysis during the next six
months that will ultimately result in an ecosystem
profile—a framework that would guide CEPF
investments in the region.
Mobilizing the Preparation Process
CEPF Grant and Program Management directors visited
Georgia in September to learn more about the region,
meet NGO representatives and participate in a WWF
workshop funded by the MacArthur Foundation and the
World Bank.
WWF introduced the CEPF team to five natural areas in
Georgia:
●
●
Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park, a lush
temperate forest in the middle of the country
Colkheti National Park, an 80,000-hectare
wetland near the Black Sea
© WWF Caucasus
Borjomi-Kharagauli
National Park.
The CEPF Donor Council
approved the final
ecosystem profile for
expansion to the Caucasus
hotspot in July 2003. Visit
the Caucasus pages of the
Where We Work section
for details of the CEPF
strategy for this region.
●
●
●
Kazbegi Nature Reserve, a snow-covered
expanse near the border with the Russian
Federation
Lagodekhi Nature Reserve in Eastern Georgia,
the country's oldest protected area created in
1912
Mtirala forest, a proposed national park in
western Georgia that is home to important
Colchic relict flora.
Each area provides important habitat for species unique
to the hotspot and presents a different kind of
conservation challenge and opportunity.
The hospitality of the Georgian people is unparalleled.
It is customary to conduct business over feasts of
cheeses, different kinds of mushrooms, walnuts, grilled
eggplant, trout, stuffed peppers, homemade breads and
barbequed beef and chicken, complete with homemade
Georgian wine.
During the site visit and workshop, CEPF staff joined
colleagues from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Europe, Georgia,
Iran, Russia, Turkey and the United States to partake in
this customary outpouring of conviviality.
CEPF staff met with numerous nongovernmental and
governmental representatives, including the Noah's Ark
Center for the Recovery of Endangered Species
(NACRES), Rec Caucasus, Horizonti Foundation,
Georgian Center for the Conservation of Wildlife, the
Ministry of Environment and the CUNA Foundation.
Demonstrating a commitment echoed by others who
CEPF staff met while in Georgia, Marlen Patsasia, the
Director of Colkheti National Park, said securing
protection for this vast wetlands would "fulfill my
destiny."
View more In Focus features
© 2005 Conservation International
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Photo credits for banner images: (Frog) © CI, Haroldo Castro; (Chameleon) © CI, Russell A. Mittermeier
TEXT ONLY
ABOUT CEPF
OUR STRATEGY
How We Work
CEPF NEWS
WHERE WE WORK
RECENT GRANTS
APPLY FOR GRANTS
CONTACT
FAQ
SEARCH
SITE MAP
Giorgi Sanadiradze: A
Regional Leader in the
Caucasus
The WWF Caucasus Programme coordinated an
intensive process to develop the Critical Ecosystem
Partnership Fund (CEPF) ecosystem profile for the
Caucasus biodiversity hotspot. The Programme will now
act as the hub of CEPF strategy implementation in the
region, ensuring integration of the WWF and CEPF
approach, helping local groups develop grant proposals,
disseminating information and assisting in monitoring
© WWF Caucasus
of the CEPF portfolio.
WWF Caucasus
Programme Director Giorgi
In this interview, we talk with WWF Caucasus
Sanadiradze in one of the
Programme Director Giorgi Sanadiradze about himself, programme's many
the coordination challenge and the future.
meetings with stakeholders
to determine conservation
CEPF: How did you get involved in conservation?
priorities in the hotspot.
Sanadiradze: I am a lucky person because I am a
biologist. My target in life was science. I went to the
Biology Department of Tbilisi University and my main
idea was to become a scientist. I worked 10 years in
science. I completed my thesis in 1986 – a Ph.D. – on
high mountain ecology.
My work was mainly dedicated to the human impact on
high mountain ecosystems. It was one of the best times
of my life. It was a very interesting study: we compared
the human impact in the Caucasus and the Alps in
Austria. It was a joint project over 10 years. It was a
very popular UNESCO program. During the Soviet
times, this was a project that was financed by the state.
It has absolutely collapsed now unfortunately because
the government in Georgia has been very weak but
during Soviet Union times it was financed well.
In 1991, I heard that WWF had decided to enlarge their
activities in Georgia. They asked the different experts in
the country to propose a strategy for environmental
education. I was an employee of the Academy of
Sciences at that time and I produced and submitted a
You can learn more about
the CEPF strategy for this
hotspot in the Caucasus
section of Where We
Work.
strategy. Fortunately for me they approved this as the
best one and they took it as a strategy for
implementation and asked me to coordinate the
program. And since then, we have slowly expanded
from environmental education to a regional
conservation program.
CEPF: Your team led the CEPF ecosystem profiling
process in this region, including involving more than
130 experts in the six countries of the Caucasus. What
kind of challenges did you face in this process?
Sanadiradze: I’m sure everybody thinks their
ecoregion or hotspot is the most difficult one, but in our
case it is really difficult. We have six countries that are
very different politically because the Soviet Union was
an absolutely closed country during the last 70 years
while Turkey and Iran were outside this. It’s a complex
mixture of very different countries, ethnic groups and
cultures.
The biggest challenge was in Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Three countries—Georgia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan—are the heart of the Caucasus but Armenia
and Azerbaijan were in a state of war. On the other
hand, you would be surprised that even from these
nations with problems, the scientists and experts sit
together, nobody thinking about politics and problems.
They are thinking about science, planning and the
future. They are working together. This gives us real
possibility to believe that the future will be much better
than we have had before.
The other challenge is the general situation in the region
– all the countries are in very poor condition. I would
say the same about Russia because it’s a huge country
with a lot of problems. All the countries have big social
and economic problems, which is a major threat to
nature. The easiest way to survive today in the
countryside is through the use of natural resources and
this is usually logging, poaching or overfishing.
It’s a big problem because it is very difficult to discuss
the environmental problems with poor people who do
not even have heating or something to eat. But on the
other hand, I would say that everybody is ready to
discuss something.
Generally, the people in the Caucasus are for nature
protection, not against it. But, of course if you put them
in a corner, people will find it difficult to find a way to
discuss these issues. We are conservationists but we
need to find a way to create alternatives for these
people, how to help them and not to fight with them.
I think this is very important: not to fight with the
people for conservation but to help them and work
together for conservation. If you fight, it is absolutely
impossible. You could establish a national park, do the
demarcation, put the staff in, you could put 500 or 1,000
rangers there, but it would never work if there is no
consensus or assistance and understanding from the
local people.
CEPF: Was it difficult to achieve consensus about
which places are priorities and which actions should be
taken?
Sanadiradze: Yes. The first barrier you have to cross is
to show people that nature very close to their village is
not only their resource. In their mind, ‘it’s my nature,
my forest, my animals.’ The first step is to explain that
it is not only for them but also for the country and the
world. This takes some time.
Very often I have had meetings with whole villages,
100 or 150 people—people without electricity, no jobs,
living in very poor condition—and have faced the
challenge of explaining and discussing with the people
how we would like to protect this area because it is of
global importance.
The second step is to explain and to show that this is
one of the ways they can help themselves: it’s not just
protection but also one of the ways to have a good
future. All the main benefits today are not for the local
people—local people receive 1 or 2 percent of the
benefits—the main benefits are going to the people
from other regions, from the city, the forest mafia or the
hunting mafia so we try to show how this existing small
amount of money is not a solution for the people.
The next biggest problem from the Soviet Union times
is that there is no leadership in the communities. The
whole Soviet Union system was against leadership so
nobody would have any new idea or promote any new
idea. This is a result of those times in the communities.
You will find people sitting in the village and there is a
big hole in the road right behind them. It’s very easy –
they could go and find two or three big stones and put
them in the hole and the road would be immediately
better but nobody will do that. There is no initiative.
Many problems at the community level could be solved
by the communities. This is the other thing you show
them: that conservation is one of the ways we propose
to help development. If you reach the people, there will
be something for the future. Everybody needs to think
about the future and their children and grandchildren.
You have to leave something for the future. This is one
of the most sensitive parts of the human spirit that you
have to touch.
CEPF: What kind of opportunity do you think the
CEPF approach represents for the Caucasus?
Sanadiradze: This is what I like very much. I mean
working together with NGOs and community-based
organizations and having the chance to assist them in
the creation of leadership – the group who will lead the
people to a target. In our case, the main purpose is
conservation but it is also joining the people under one
idea. It is very important. Very often big organizations
are allocating a lot of money but grassroots
organizations are out of the focus.
The main thing that interests me about the CEPF
approach is that we will be able to reach these local
people and organizations, and make a difference.
- July 2004
© 2005 Conservation International
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Photo credits for banner images: (Frog) © CI, Haroldo Castro;
(Blue and yellow macaw) © André Bärtschi
Organization
CEPF: World Wide Fund for Nature
Caucasus Program Office
Co-Financing: WWF Germany,
WWF Switzerland, WWF
International, and WWF Caucasus
PO
Project/Regional Leveraging:
NORAD
CEPF: World Wide Fund for Nature
Caucasus Program Office
Co-Financing: WWF Caucasus PO
Regional Council for Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable Resource
Use in the Caucasus
Project Title
Building Capacity to Strengthen
Conservation Alliances Through CEPF
Coordination and Grantmaking in the
Caucasus
$80,000
$1,380,000
$200,000
TOTAL:
$400,000 $1,780,000
$80,000
Funding
Project/Regional Total
Amount
Co-Financing Leveraging
Leveraged
$2,470,000
$1,300,000
$400,000 $1,700,000