* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download The Caucasus Hotspot Briefing Book
Survey
Document related concepts
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
World Wide Fund for Nature wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity wikipedia , lookup
Wildlife corridor wikipedia , lookup
Conservation movement wikipedia , lookup
Conservation psychology wikipedia , lookup
Conservation biology wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
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