Status of a protected area system in theHindu Kush-Himalayas: An analysis ofPA coverage

Nakul Chettri, Bandana Shakya, Rajesh Thapa and Eklabya Sharma

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal

Key words: Conservation measures, management categories, biodiversity hotspots, ecoregions

SUMMARYMultifaceted patterns of protected area (PA) expansion are reviewed considering: i) theincrease in PA number and coverage; ii) distribution and extent of important bird areas(IBAs); and iii) distribution and coverage of global biodiversity hotspots and the Global200 Ecoregions that fall within the Hindu Kush-Himalayas (HKH). The analysis revealedthat biodiversity conservation is a priority for the eight regional member countries ofthe HKH, who have established 488 PAs over the last 89 years (1918 to 2007). The eightcountries sharing the HKH have committed 39% of this total geographical area to the PAnetwork and 11% to IBAs, which is quite significant when compared to the global target of10%. There has been an increasing trend in PA establishment over the last four decades.The PA coverage within the HKH of China alone is significant (35.5%), followed by India(1.46%) and Nepal (0.58%). When IUCN management categories are considered, themajority of PAs belong to Category V (39%), followed by Category IV (29%). Only 0.6% ofPAs are managed as Category I, and, in recent years, Categories V and VI have increased.Of the total HKH geographical area, 32% is covered by four global biodiversity hotspotsand 62% by the Global 200 Ecoregions. However, only 25% of the global biodiversityhotspots and 40% of the Global 200 Ecoregions are part of the PA network. There are stillnumerous gaps in conservation in the HKH. Coordinated and committed efforts arerequired to bring other critical habitats within the PA network in the HKH.

INTRODUCTION

Mountains, due to their diverse habitats with variedmicro-climatic and ecological conditions, havehigh levels of biodiversity (Price 2004; Kollmairet al. 2005; Brooks et al. 2006) and are therefore apriority for biodiversity conservation. The HinduKush-Himalayas (HKH), the working area of theInternational Centre for Integrated MountainDevelopment (ICIMOD), is one such dynamiclandscape with a rich and remarkable biodiversity

(Pei 1995; Guangwei 2002). Stretched over morethan 4,000,000 km2, the HKH includes Bhutan andNepal in their entirety and parts of six other coun-tries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, India,Myanmar and Pakistan. Endowed with a rich varietyof gene pools, species and ecosystems of globalimportance, the region hosts parts of four globalbiodiversity hotspots: Himalaya, Indo-Burma, andthe mountains of southwest China and Central Asia

Correspondence: Nakul Chettri, Environmental Change and Ecosystem Services, International Centre for IntegratedMountain Development. GPO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal. Email: nchettri@icimod.org

164

International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 4 (2008) 164–178DOI 10.3843/Biodiv.4.3:4

(Mittermeier et al. 2004). Approximately 39% ofthe HKH is comprised of grassland, 20% is forest,15% is shrub land and 5% is agricultural land. Theremaining 21% includes barren land, rock out-crops, built-up areas, snow cover and water bodies.Elevation zones across the HKH extend from tropi-cal (< 500 m) to alpine ice-snow (> 6000 m), with aprincipal vertical vegetation regime comprisingtropical and subtropical rain forest, temperatebroadleaf deciduous or mixed forest and temper-ate coniferous forest, including high-altitude coldshrub or steppe and cold desert (Pei 1995;Guangwei 2002).

The region, with its varied landscapes, soils, vege-tation and climate, is known for its unique flora andfauna, high level of endemism (Myers et al. 2000)and numerous critical ecoregions of global import-ance (Olson et al. 2001; Olson and Dinerstein2002). However, the rich biodiversity continues tobe threatened by the loss and extinction of species,mainly due to habitat degradation and forestfragmentation (Myers et al. 2000; Ives et al. 2004;CEPF 2005, 2007; Pandit et al. 2007). All eight HKHregional member countries, being signatories tothe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), arecommitted to conservation and, as a measuretowards the immediate protection of globally signif-icant landscapes, have set aside a considerable pro-portion of their most biologically rich terrain asvarious forms of protected areas (PAs). However,deforestation and degradation continued throughhuman activities (Bawa et al. 2004; Pandit et al.2007). Even strictly managed national parks, naturereserves and wildlife sanctuaries are under tremen-dous pressure from the communities living insideand outside the PAs (Sharma and Yonzon 2005).

PAs are an integral element of global biodiversityconservation (Brooks et al. 2002, 2004; Lovejoy2006). Since the establishment of the first nationalpark (Yellowstone, USA) in 1872, more than104,791 PAs have been established worldwide,containing 12.2% of the global land area (Chapeet al. 2005; Loucks et al. 2008). Advocating the signif-icance of biodiversity, the Seventh Conference ofthe Parties (COP 7) to the CBD urged all signato-ries to effectively conserve at least 10% of theworld’s critical ecological zones (Secretariat of theCBD 2004a). PAs are a key indicator of global com-mitment to biodiversity conservation and sustain-able development (UNDP 2003; Secretariat of theCBD 2004a, 2004b; Chape et al. 2005). However,

global conservation measures that use only thenumber of PAs and their spatial coverage as indica-tors of effective conservation are unrealistic andinadequate in terms of protecting the values forwhich they were originally established (Gaston2000; Rodrigues et al. 2004; Zimmerer et al. 2004;Chape et al. 2005). Many researchers (Brooks et al.2002, 2004; Chape et al. 2005; Rodrigues et al. 2004)consider that several important habitat types andspecies are far from covered by the current PAnetwork, and many existing PAs face severe habitatloss and fragmentation.

The majority of conservation priorities reflectthe view of the HKH as a key region of biodiversity(Bryant et al. 1997; Mittermeier et al. 1997, 2004;Olson and Dinerstein 2002; Myers et al. 2000; Ekenet al. 2004; Hoekstra et al. 2005; Ricketts et al. 2005;Langhammer et al. 2007). The HKH region con-tains many globally important conservation areasand is home to globally significant plant and animalspecies, as noted by Pei (1995) and Wikramanayakeet al. (1998). The Indo-Burma hotspot alone ishome to 7000 endemic plants and possesses 1.9% ofthe global endemic vertebrates (Myers et al. 2000).More than 7000 plant species, 175 mammal species,and over 500 bird species have been recorded inthe Eastern Himalayas alone (WWF and ICIMOD2001). Hence, biodiversity in the hotspots of theHKH is significant in terms of global conservationinitiatives. Ricketts et al. (2005) also identifiedcentres of imminent extinction in the HKH(where highly threatened species are confined toa single site), predominantly in Indo-Burma andthe mountains of southwest China. Out of 14 suchsites within the HKH, nine are still outside formalPA networks and the others are subject to intensehuman intervention.

Although PAs in the HKH region have increasedconsiderably in number and area over the last fewdecades, knowledge of their present number,extent and effectiveness in terms of conservation isstill lacking. There have been efforts in the recentpast to understand the adequacy and appropriate-ness of conservation initiatives in the region (WWFand ICIMOD 2001; Wikramanayake et al. 1998,2002; CEPF 2005, 2007), but analyses of conserva-tion initiatives have mainly been conducted on aregional or global scale, with little effort put intounderstanding conservation effectiveness at theHKH level. ICIMOD initiated a PA review of theHKH in 2002 with the objective of understanding

Protected area status in the Hindu Kush-Himalyas Chettri et al.

International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 165

the present PA coverage and relating it to ongoingglobal conservation planning and prioritisationprocesses, such as the identification of globalbiodiversity hotspots (Mittermeier et al. 2004),Global 200 Ecoregions (Olson et al. 2001; Olsonand Dinerstein 2002), and important bird areas(Birdlife International 2007). ICIMOD reviewedand analysed various data sets with respect to thespatial coverage and number of PAs; coverage ofcritical habitats and ecoregions; and IUCNmanagement categories. The analysis was furthersupplemented by looking at IBAs. This paper is theoutcome of this preliminary assessment of PAcoverage in the HKH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The four major datasets used for analysis of PAstatus and trends in the HKH were: i) the WorldDatabase on Protected Areas jointly developed bythe UNEP-WCMC and the IUCN World Commis-sion on Protected Areas (IUCN, UNEP, WCMC2005), crosschecked with the PA dataset compiledfrom various literature sources, reviews by indivi-duals and from government documents of the eightregional member countries, including PAs estab-lished after 2005; ii) the IBA dataset (BirdlifeInternational 2007); iii) Global 200 Ecoregions(WWF 2006); and iv) global biodiversity hotspots(Mittermeier et al. 2004).

PAs falling within IUCN Categories I–VI in theabove four datasets were analysed with respect totheir date of establishment, growth in number,extent of coverage and management categorybased on Hamilton and McMillan (2004). Catego-ries I, II and III represent more strictly-defined

protected areas, including strict nature reserves orwilderness areas (Category I), national parks(Category II) and natural monuments (CategoryIII). Those with moderate or less strict manage-ment regimes are defined under Categories IV–VIand, basically, include habitat species managementareas (Category IV), protected landscapes/seascapes (Category V), and managed resourcesprotected areas (Category VI).

Using the global IBA dataset, all IBAs in the eightregional member countries were listed. Areas ofkey importance for biodiversity, such as the Global200 Ecoregions and global biodiversity hotspots,were delineated for the entire HKH. The gaps inPA coverage were identified by overlaying the geo-graphic coordinates (polygons and points) of PACategories I to VI with those of IBA, and also over-laying these on designated Global 200 Ecoregionand global biodiversity hotspot datasets.

RESULTS

Number and extent of PAs

The countries within the HKH contain many ofthe world’s major mountain PAs (Figure 1), whichhost a significant assembly of biological, social andcultural diversity. Table 1 summarises the totalnumber of PAs and their respective coverage ineach of the eight regional member countries in theHKH. In 2007, there were 488 PAs within the HKH,covering more than 1.6 million km2, representingabout 39% of the region’s terrestrial area, withChina and India contributing the most PAs, com-pared to the other six countries. China accounts forthe largest PA coverage within the HKH, with 35.5%

Protected area status in the Hindu Kush-Himalyas Chettri et al.

166 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management

CountryTotal area

(km2)Total area within HKH

(km2)Total number of PAs

within HKHPA coverage within

HKH (km2)

% of PA coverage withrespect to total area of

HKH

AfghanistanBangladeshBhutanChinaIndiaMyanmarNepalPakistan

65222514399846500

95969602387590676577147181796095

3904751329546500

2420266461139317629147181489988

65

10221135161976

2461632

126811522172

62417239672497218721

0.060.010.30

35.511.460.560.580.44

Total 14447126 4286473 488 1668023 38.91

Table 1 Number and area coverage of protected areas in the HKH region

of the total area, including recently establishedlarger conservation reserves (Table 1).

The first PA in the HKH was the Pidaung Wild-life Sanctuary (1918), in the state of Kachin inMyanmar. There were 12 PAs in the region up to1957, increasing to 98 in 1977 and to 346 in 1997.Considering the trend in establishment of PAs

within the HKH, significant growth has been wit-nessed in the last three decades (Figure 2),corresponding to other global-scale trends (Chapeet al. 2005; Kollmair et al. 2005; Naughton-Treveset al. 2005). Total coverage continued to increasesignificantly, from 3973 km2 in 1957 to more than1.2 million km2 by 1997. In 2007, coverageexceeded 1.6 million km2. The extent of PA spatialcoverage significantly increased from 1970 to 2007,similar to global-scale coverage (Chape et al. 2005;Kollmair et al. 2005; Naughton-Treves et al. 2005).Interestingly, the proportion of terrestrial areacovered by PAs in the HKH is much higher (39%)than in Central America (26%) (Chape et al. 2005).Such growth in the numbers and areas of PAs is asignificant achievement on the part of the HKHcountries towards fulfilling their global commit-ment to conservation.

The PAs in the HKH differ in size, ranging fromthe smallest, Bagmara Pitcher Plant Sanctuary inIndia (0.02 km2), to the largest, Hai Zi MountainNature Reserve (494,076 km2), in Sichuan, China.

Protected area status in the Hindu Kush-Himalyas Chettri et al.

International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 167

Figure 1 Spatial distribution of protected area in different ecoregions in the HKH (correspond to the numbers ofthe ecoregion names in Annex 1)

Figure 2 Trend in number and area coverage ofprotected areas from 1918–2007 in the HKH

Among the recorded 488 PAs in the HKH, most(27%) are less than 50 km2 in area, and 20% arebetween 101–250 km2. PAs from 251–500 km2

account for 14% of the total, and only 5% are largerthan 5000 km2 (Figure 3). Most (68%) PAs in theHKH are small (< 500 km2) and scattered.

Protected area management categories

Analysing PAs in terms of their IUCN manage-ment category, the majority in the HKH belong toCategory V (39%), followed by Category IV (29%)(Figure 4), which are basically ‘protected land-scapes for conservation and recreation’ and ‘habi-tat species management areas’, respectively. ThesePAs are less strictly managed, and human activitiesare generally allowed. Of the 488 PAs in the HKH,only 0.6% are managed as Category I, ‘strict naturereserve’ or ‘wilderness area’, in which no humanintervention is permitted except for scientificmonitoring: two nature reserves in China (Mo TuoNature Reserve and Shen Zha Nature Reserve) andone in Bhutan (Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve). InChina, the Heqing Zhao Xia Ming Sheng NatureReserve (8 km2) is the only Category III PA, ‘protec-tion of natural monuments’.

If the area of PAs is considered in relation to theIUCN management categories (Figure 4), CategoryV has the highest coverage (41%, about 0.6 mil-lion km2), Category VI has 36%, and Category I hasthe least coverage, only 0.08%. Analysis of the estab-lishment of PAs with reference to the IUCN catego-ries (Figure 5) showed that the number of PAsunder Category V significantly increased in the last40 years, reaching the highest point in the lastdecade. A similar increasing trend was observed forCategory IV, until the 1970s, after which the num-ber of Category IV PAs declined. For all othercategories, establishment of PAs has also beenincreasing, but with relatively little variation com-pared to Categories IV and V. Thus the analysis ofPAs in the HKH shows a weak shift away from strictlymanaged PA systems, as also observed by Zimmereret al. (2004).

Important bird areas: distribution andextent

There are 1106 IBAs (Birdlife International 2007)in the eight member countries of the HKH,

covering about 1.1 million km2, of which around30% (330) are within the HKH per se, covering 11%(467,627 km2) of the total area (Table 2). The

Protected area status in the Hindu Kush-Himalyas Chettri et al.

168 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management

Figure 3 Distribution pattern of protected areas indifferent size range (in sq km) in the HKH

Figure 4 Number and protected area coverage underdifferent IUCN management categories in the HKH

Figure 5 Trend in the establishment of different IUCNcategories of protected areas from 1918–2007 in theHKH

majority of IBAs are within the four globalbiodiversity hotspots in the HKH (Figure 6). How-ever, 73% of the total IBAs in terms of area, and57% in terms of number, are outside existing PAnetworks. China has the largest area outside its PAnetwork, with more than 0.29 million km2 of IBAsoutside the PA network. Pakistan, on the other

hand, has the largest area of IBAs (88%) within PAs(Table 2). It is arguable whether IBAs, which areregarded as key biodiversity areas (Eken et al. 2004;Langhammer et al. 2007), should be a conservationpriority as, while they contain a rich biodiversityof birds, the biodiversity of other species is notnecessarily so great.

Protected area status in the Hindu Kush-Himalyas Chettri et al.

International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 169

Country

Total number ofIBAs in each

countries

Total area coveredby IBAs in eachcountry (km2)

Total numberof IBAs within

HKH

Total area coveredby IBAs within

HKH (km2)

Total number ofIBAs outsidePAs in HKH

Total areaof IBAs outside

PAs (km2)

AfghanistanBangladeshBhutanChinaIndiaMyanmarNepalPakistan

171923

445465552755

409315395

12133796623164118543642611946701

136

2375

141222723

9431796

1213332620456258181582611918528

83

15596515129

7370241

276529486922286738738602161

Total 1106 1146384 330 467627 189 340939

Table 2 Number and area coverage of Important Bird Areas (IBA) in the HKH region

Figure 6 Distribution of global biodiversity hotspots and important bird areas in the HKH

Biodiversity hotspots, Global 200Ecoregions: extent of PA coverage

Looking at global biodiversity hotspots and Global200 Ecoregion coverage within the HKH, GISArc-view data reveal that 32% of the HKH is coveredby parts of the four global biodiversity hotspots: theHimalaya hotspot (15%), the Indo-Burma hotspot(11%), the mountains of southwest China (6%),and the mountains of Central Asia (< 1%) (Table 3,Figure 6). Of the 488 PAs in the HKH, 194 (39%)fall within the four global biodiversity hotspots, thehighest number (111) being in the Himalaya hot-spot. However, when considering area coverage,80% of the mountains of southwest China, 30% ofthe mountains of Central Asia, 22% of the Himalayahotspot, and 0.9% of Indo-Burma hotspot arewithin PAs. In other words, on average, 25% of thearea of the global biodiversity hotspots fallingwithin the HKH is within PA networks, leaving avery significant area unprotected.

The HKH contains 14 of the world’s highestmountain peaks, including Everest/Sagarmatha/Qomolangma, Kangchenjunga, and the highestpeaks of the Karakoram. The majority of thesemountain ecosystems are protected within PAs.Within the region, there are many critical habitatsand ecoregions of global importance. Among the60 ecoregion types found within the HKH, 30 arecritical and represent 12 of the Global 200 Eco-regions (Olson et al. 2001; Olson and Dinerstein2002) (Table 4, Figure 1, Annex 1). Our analysisindicates that 71% (345) of the total number of PAsin the HKH and 40% of the region’s PA coverageare within the 12 Global 200 Ecoregions. Amongthe 12 Global 200 Ecoregions, the largest areawithin the HKH is in the Eastern Himalayan alpinemeadow (75%), followed by the Tibetan Plateausteppe (56%), the Eastern Himalayan broadleafand conifer forests (26%), the Hengduan Shanconifer forest (22%), and the Middle Asian mon-tane woodland and steppe (19%). However, two ofthe 12 ecoregions, the Kayah-Karen/Tenasserimmoist forest and the Indo-China dry forest, are notrepresented in the existing PA networks (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

Biodiversity conservation in mountain regionsthrough the establishment of PAs is central to themodern conservation paradigm. In the recent past,

there has been a tremendous increase in the num-ber and coverage of PAs in mountain regions(Kollmair et al. 2005). Enormous progress in termsof PA coverage in the HKH is evidence of the com-mitment shown by the countries of the HKH withrespect to delineating biologically significant areasfor conservation. Thirty-two per cent (32%) of theHKH region is covered by parts of the four globalbiodiversity hotspots; however, only 25% of thesehotspots are within PAs. This indicates that moreconservation initiatives are necessary to bridge this75% gap. In addition, there are 12 critically impor-tant ecoregions (Global 200 Ecoregions) in theHKH, covering 62% of its geographical area, and40% of this area is within the PA network, which isquite significant (Wikramanayake et al. 2002). How-ever, it is also important to determine whether suchconservation initiatives address the Global Conser-vation Targets 2010 (Balmford et al. 2005). Theregion is also facing challenges in terms of rapiddeforestation and development activities (Bawaet al. 2004; FAO 2007; Pandit et al. 2007). Thesedevelopment activities could widen the gapbetween conservation and development agendas,presenting more challenges than ever before.

Trend and management aspects

PAs in the HKH show similar trends in terms ofnumber and extent of coverage as at the globalscale (Chape et al. 2005; Kollmair et al. 2005;Naughton-Treves et al. 2005). There has been con-siderable progress in the number and extent of PAsestablished from the 1980s till the 2000s. Thisappears to be the result of the process of globalisa-tion, as explained by Zimmerer et al. (2004),Büscher and Whande (2007), Rodriguez et al.(2007) and Wilson et al. (2007). These studies arguethat trends in biodiversity conservation and PAmanagement are, in large part, determined by anarray of international environmental agreements,global political and economic developments, andstrong advocacy by prominent global conserva-tion organisations and multilateral and bilateralfunding institutions supported by the UnitedNations (UNEP and UNESCO) and, in particular,by UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Program(MAB). In the HKH region, this has been supple-mented by global (UNDP 2003; Hamilton andMcMillan 2004; Secretariat of the CBD 2004a,2004b) and national (Anonymous 2002;

Protected area status in the Hindu Kush-Himalyas Chettri et al.

170 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management

Protected area status in the Hindu Kush-Himalyas Chettri et al.

International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 171

Bio

dive

rsity

hots

pot

with

inH

KH

Tot

alho

tspo

tar

ea(k

m2 )

Tot

alho

tspo

tare

afa

lling

with

inH

KH

(km

2 )

%to

the

tota

lare

aof

HK

H

No

ofPA

sfa

lling

inea

chho

tspo

tsw

ithin

HK

H

%to

tota

lnu

mbe

rof

PAin

HK

H

PAar

eaco

vera

gein

each

hots

pots

with

inH

KH

(km

2 )

%PA

area

cove

rage

with

resp

ectt

oth

eho

tspo

tar

eain

HK

H(%

)

Him

alay

aIn

do-B

urm

aM

oun

tain

sof

sout

hw

estC

hin

aM

oun

tain

sof

Cen

tral

Asi

a

7417

0623

7305

726

2446

8633

62

6585

4945

6711

2454

7222

67

15.4

10.7 5.7

0.1

111 25 57 1

22.7 5.1

11.7 0.2

1458

4242

0419

4505 679

22.1

50.

9279

.24

29.9

6

Tot

al42

4075

113

6299

931

.819

439

.834

5230

25.3

3

Tab

le3

Num

ber

and

area

cove

rage

ofPA

sw

ith

inth

egl

obal

biod

iver

sity

hot

spot

sin

the

HK

H

Ecor

egio

nsG

loba

l200

Ecor

egio

n

Are

aco

vera

geby

Glo

bal2

00ec

oreg

ions

inH

KH

(km

2 )

Are

aco

vera

geby

each

Glo

bal2

00ec

oreg

ions

with

inH

KH

(%)

Tot

alnu

mbe

rof

PAs

inea

chec

oreg

ion

inH

KH

PAco

vera

gew

ithin

Glo

bal2

00ec

oreg

ions

ofth

eH

KH

(km

2 )

PAco

vera

gew

ithre

spec

tG

loba

l200

ecor

egio

nsw

ithin

HK

H(%

)

Nor

ther

nIn

do-C

hin

aSu

b-tr

opic

alM

oist

Fore

stK

ayah

-Kar

en/T

enas

seri

mM

oist

Fore

stN

aga-

Man

ipur

Ch

inH

ills

Moi

stFo

rest

sIn

do-C

hin

aD

ryFo

rest

Eas

tern

Him

alay

anB

road

leaf

and

Con

ifer

Fore

sts

Wes

tern

Him

alay

anT

empe

rate

Fore

sts

Sout

hw

estC

hin

aT

empe

rate

Fore

stH

engd

uan

Shan

Con

ifer

Fore

stT

erai

-Dua

rSa

van

nas

and

Gra

ssla

nd

Tib

etan

Plat

eau

Step

peM

iddl

eA

sian

Mon

tan

eW

oodl

and

and

Step

peE

aste

rnH

imal

ayan

Alp

ine

Mea

dow

2668

43.1

2299

7.6

2010

13.2

13.3

1615

44.1

8597

9.1

6208

.224

5446

2653

1.1

1522

161.

336

13.5

1211

84.9

6.2

0.5

4.7

0.0

3.8

2.0

0.1

5.7

0.6

35.5 0.1

2.8

70 0 30 0 37 37 1 48 411

3 1 13

7414

.4 0.0

1356

8.5

0.0

4312

4.3

1017

3.3

640.

055

072.

993

5.2

8519

74.7

679.

490

482.

9

2.8

0.0

6.8

0.0

26.7

11.8

10.3

22.4 3.5

56.0

18.8

74.7

Tot

al26

6353

5.4

62.1

354

1074

065.

640

.3

Tab

le4

Num

ber

and

area

cove

rage

ofPA

sw

ith

inth

eG

loba

l200

Eco

regi

ons

inth

eH

KH

HMGN/MFSC 2002, 2005; Xu and Melick 2007)approaches that specifically emphasise the estab-lishment of new PAs in the mountains. The advo-cacy role played by mountain representatives inglobal initiatives further strengthened the recogni-tion of mountains as key areas for conservation(WWF and ICIMOD 2001; Sharma and Acharya2004; Sharma et al. 2007).

In this evolving scenario, PA management is con-sidered in the context of integrated development,in which resource conservation is undertakentogether with sustainable livelihood developmentfor local communities who are directly dependenton natural resources (Balasinorwala et al. 2004;Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004). As indicated inFigures 4 and 5, comparatively larger areas (about41%) have been assigned to PAs in Category V, andare predominantly protected landscapes and recre-ational natural areas, which have significantlyincreased since the late 1980s. This indicates a para-digm shift towards more people-oriented andpeople-centred management of PAs. In China,many PAs have been re-categorised as Category V(areas protected mainly for conservation and recre-ation) with the objective of safeguarding the tradi-tional interactions between parks and indigenouspeople (Xu and Melick 2007). Similarly, in Nepal,collaborative forest management between the parkauthorities and local communities in buffer areasoutside PAs, as well as the landscape approach toconservation, stand out as successful measures forconservation (Bajracharya et al. 2005; Gurung2005). Twenty-five years ago, PAs were consideredthe domain of ecologists, foresters and the occa-sional land-use planner for research and to under-stand the dynamics of ecosystems. Now, they arebeing defined as the arena of a wide range ofstakeholders with broad missions, and even as a wayof achieving the Millennium Development Goals(UNDP 2003).

Effectiveness of PAs in achievingconservation targets

PA coverage was endorsed by CoP7 of the CBD asan indicator for immediate testing in relation to theadopted target of significantly reducing the rate ofbiodiversity loss by 2010. Additionally, CoP7 set atarget that ‘at least 10% of each of the world’secological regions [should be] effectively con-served’ (Secretariat of the CBD 2004a). PAs are alsoindicators of success in achieving MillenniumDevelopment Goal 7 (ensuring environmentalsustainability), Target 9 (integrating the principlesof sustainable development into country policiesand programmes and reversing the loss of environ-mental resources), and Indicator 26 (land areaprotected to maintain biological diversity). TheHKH countries have made significant progress,

Protected area status in the Hindu Kush-Himalyas Chettri et al.

172 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management

CODE Ecoregion Area (km2)

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132

33343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Afghan mountains semi-desertBadghyz and Karabil semi-desertBaluchistan xeric woodlandsBrahmaputra Valley semi-evergreen forestsCentral Afghan mountains xeric woodlandsCentral Indochina dry forestsCentral Tibetan Plateau alpine steppeChin Hills-Arakan Yoma montane forestsDaba Mountains evergreen forestsEast Afghan montane conifer forestsEastern Himalayan alpine shrub and meadowsEastern Himalayan broadleaf forestsEastern Himalayan subalpine conifer forestsGhorat-Hazarajat alpine meadowGissaro-Alai open woodlandsGuizhou Plateau broadleaf and mixed forestsHengduan Mountains alpine coniferous forestsHimalayan subtropical broadleaf forestsHimalayan subtropical pine forestsHindu Kush alpine meadowIrrawaddy dry forestsIrrawaddy freshwater swamp forestsIrrawaddy moist deciduous forestsKarakoram-West Tibetan Plateau alpine steppeKayah-Karen montane rain forestsKuh Rud and Eastern Iran montane woodlandsLower Gangetic Plains moist deciduous forestsMeghalaya subtropical forestsMizoram-Manipur-Kachin rain forestsMyanmar coastal mangrovesMyanmar coastal rain forestsNorth Tibetan Plateau-Kunlun Mountains alpine

desertNortheast India-Myanmar pine forestsNortheastern Himalayan subalpine conifer forestsNorthern Indochina subtropical moist forestsNorthern Triangle subtropical forestsNorthern Triangle temperate forestsNorthwestern Himalayan alpine shrub and meadowsNorthwestern thorn scrub forestsNujiang Langcang Gorge alpine conifer and mixedPamir alpine desert and tundraParopamisus xeric woodlandsQaidam Basin semi-desertQilian Mountains conifer forestsQilian Mountains subalpine meadowsQin Ling Mountains deciduous forestsQionglai-Minshan conifer forestsRegistan-North Pakistan sandy desertRock and IceSoutheast Tibet shrublands and meadowsSulaiman range alpine meadowsTaklimakan desertTerai-Duar savanna and grasslandTibetan Plateau alpine shrublands and meadowsUpper Gangetic Plains moist deciduous forestsWestern Himalayan alpine shrub and meadowsWestern Himalayan broadleaf forestsWestern Himalayan subalpine conifer forestsYarlung Tsangpo arid steppeYunnan Plateau subtropical evergreen forests

13413.746402.7

240560.24651.1

83273.613.3

629473.126381.4

194.419651.4

121184.981286.827478.262515.4

3613.5101.8

99418.532902.873632.028259.2

356.2753.6

14751.8135245.9

22997.62063.0

17385.128580.499556.2

5101.923632.7

176938.9

9556.246277.3

173488.846495.3

6501.849404.132307.782807.4

4997.290544.6

165645.213069.539492.9

6013.863220.170334.888963.5

425853.221651.2

790.526531.1

272131.24274.8

70162.555147.830831.359457.993354.3

Annex 1 A list of ecoregions including those fallingwithin the Global 200. Ecoregions (in bold)

compared to the global target, in creating a PA net-work with 39% coverage. However, these PAs arescattered throughout the region, with no connec-tivity between them, making each PA a ‘conserva-tion island’.

Many conservationists have raised serious con-cerns about the effectiveness of PAs in achievingglobal conservation goals (Gaston 2000; Chape et al.2005; Rodrigues et al. 2004; Zimmerer et al. 2004).These authors point out that the percentage of thearea protected in a given country or biome is not astrong indicator of actual conservation needs oreffective action, as such indicators overlook the factthat biodiversity is unevenly distributed. This isillustrated by the case of Myanmar, where human-induced pressure and lack of financial and skilledhuman resources are impinging on the effectivemanagement of PAs (Rao et al. 2002). Bawa (2006)also points out that local challenges, such as lackof economic opportunities, interdisciplinarity inconservation actions, institutional development,skilled human resources, and lack of large scaleconservation actions are hindering conservationglobally.

In addition, Locke and Dearden (2005) andNaughton-Treves et al. (2005) have expressed con-cern at the use of the new categories of PA, such asCategories V and VI, as indicators of the paradigmshift in conservation (Phillips 2003). Lock andDearden (2005) strongly argue that the manage-ment of PAs under Categories V and VI will devalueand undermine the creation of strictly protectednature reserves, which provide protection, in a realsense, to wild biodiversity. They contend that therecent trend towards people-centred PAs is not inline with the objectives of conservation, and advo-cate the recognition of Categories I–IV as appropri-ate for the strict protection of wild biodiversity andthe reclassification of other categories, such asculturally-modified landscapes (Category V) andmanaged resource areas (Category VI) as sustain-able development areas. Doing so would betterserve both the protection of wild biodiversity andhuman development needs in humanised land-scapes where sustainable development could bepractised. These developments have highlightedtwo critical issues that are now the subject of debatewithin the conservation community: the effective-ness of existing PAs for biodiversity conservation;and the effectiveness of the newly classified PACategories V–VI in achieving conservation goals. In

both cases, little can be predicted, as there are largeknowledge gaps on species distribution and man-agement effectiveness due to a lack of convincingmonitoring and assessment mechanisms and holis-tic indicators (Butchart et al. 2004; Balmford et al.2005).

Perceived conservation gaps in the HKHregion

In recent years, there have been many regionalefforts on biodiversity documentation and gapanalysis in the HKH (Wikramanayake et al. 1998;WWF and ICIMOD 2001; Allnutt et al. 2005; CEPF2005, 2007; Chettri et al. 2008), but coverage acrossthe region has not been uniform (Sarkar 2007).Species distribution, diversity patterns (alpha andbeta diversity) and the population status of themajority of globally significant species, such as snowleopard, red panda, wild ass, takin, etc., are stillpoorly documented (Wikramanayake et al. 1998,2002). Most of the information available is on thelarger vertebrates that are easily observed andinventoried (Myers et al. 2000; Eken et al. 2004;Mittermeier et al. 2004; CEPF 2005, 2007), and thecriteria used mainly refer to threatened andendemic species (Myers et al. 2000; Butchart et al.2004). The smaller mammals, reptiles, amphibiansand fish, have been overshadowed, and the mostabundant taxonomic group, insects, has been virtu-ally ignored. Further research on these informationgap species and taxa, especially those outside thePA network, could provide insight into the conser-vation significance of the region (Mishra et al. 2004;Pawar et al. 2006; Sarkar 2007). PAs in the HKH,especially in the higher altitude areas, such as theTibetan Plateau and Eastern Indian Himalayas, arefacing more challenges due to rises in human popu-lation and human-induced threats (Cardillo et al.2006; Cincotta et al. 2000; Myers et al. 2000; Jha andBawa 2006). Many of these remote areas are keyelements of the global biodiversity hotspots andGlobal 200 Ecoregions and are critical in terms ofbiodiversity conservation. In spite of the significantprogress in PA coverage within the critical eco-regions and hotspots, there are still many potentialareas with high biodiversity that have a low profile,mainly due to poor documentation and prioritisa-tion (Rawal and Dhar 2001). For example, recentsurveys (Mishra et al. 2004, Pawar et al. 2006, 2007)revealed that many of the important wildlife

Protected area status in the Hindu Kush-Himalyas Chettri et al.

International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 173

habitats in the northeastern Indian states of theeastern Himalayas are still outside the present PAnetwork. CEPF (2005, 2007), with inputs from con-servation experts, has identified many priority areasand species from the region as conservation targetsand has recommended that corridors be estab-lished to link broader landscapes for effectiveconservation. Recently, Langhammer et al. (2007),using the Key Biodiversity Areas approach, reflec-ted on the conservation gaps, and concluded thatmany of the key biodiversity components are stilloutside existing PA networks and suggested theneed for a comprehensive conservation strategy toaddress such gaps.

In the HKH, land-use and land-cover changehave important implications for the developmentof indicators to measure the effectiveness of PAs interms of conservation (Chape et al. 2005; Balmfordet al. 2005). However, such indicators are virtuallynon-existent for most of the PAs in the HKH. Inaddition, recent scientific opinion, led by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),states that global climate change is taking place; itis inevitable and will have practical ramificationsfor local ecosystems (IPCC 2007). The mountainsystems of the world are expected to be warmer inthe twenty-first century, although to differingextents, and predictions about the extinction ofspecies in the region are alarming (Schwartz et al.2006). If climate change continues as globally pro-jected, it will have significant impacts on bio-diversity (Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Thomas et al.2004; Malcolm et al. 2006). However, in the HKHcontext, these concerns are anecdotal. No seriousefforts have been made so far to understand theimpacts of climate change on biodiversity, espe-cially on species with a narrow home range, such asthe one-horned rhinoceros.

Future prospects and opportunities

During the last two decades, either as mechanisms oras conservation targets themselves, a series of newperspectives based on ecoregions, biodiversityhotspots, key biodiversity areas and landscapes haveevolved to accomplish various conservation objec-tives. These perspectives have emerged as a resultof changing perceptions in ecology, which havestimulated scientists to think in broader terms toinclude economic and socio-cultural perspectives.The increasing realisation of the importance of

large-scale patterns and disturbances hasencouraged scientists to recognise that long-termconservation and all types of targets require theexplicit recognition of landscape heterogeneity inconservation activities and a focus on each activity atthe appropriate scale (Noss 1983; Redford et al.2003). The philosophy exemplified by these conser-vation approaches is that human beings are neces-sary components of bio-cultural landscapes(Brunckhorst 2000; Balmford et al. 2005). Many con-servationists and land managers now include targetssuch as ecological processes and landscape patternsas a new dimension to conservation practice.

The HKH region contains many globally signifi-cant landscapes such as the Kangchenjunga-Singhalila Complex, Bhutan Biological Conserva-tion Complex and North Bank Landscape, whichare home to numerous species of global impor-tance (CEPF 2005, 2007). Some of the species havea wide habitat, ranging across political borders, andothers are confined to a limited geographical area.For example, only 3.5% of the Terai Duars savannaand grassland falling within the HKH is under for-mal PA management. This area is home to manycharismatic species such as the one-horned rhino-ceros, Asiatic elephant and the Royal Bengal tiger(Panthera tigris). Thus, existing PAs have so far notbeen able to cover all the critical habitats in theregion, and these species cannot be conservedwithin the boundaries of a single PA due totheir contiguous and extensive habitat ranges(Wikramanayake et al. 1998; Chettri et al. 2007). Theestablishment of continuous habitats as trans-boundary PAs would further enhance ongoingconservation initiatives in the region and ensurethe continued supply of ecosystem services by thisdiverse and rich landscape (Sharma and Chettri2005). However, to bring such areas into PA net-works requires bilateral or regional cooperation(Secretariat of the CBD 2004b; Bennett andMulongoy 2006; Sharma et al. 2007). Hence, it isimportant for all HKH countries to employ an eco-system approach with matrix (protected and non-protected areas) management through regionalcooperation and to close the current gaps inconservation.

CONCLUSION

The HKH is an important repository of biodiversityand home to many globally significant species. The

Protected area status in the Hindu Kush-Himalyas Chettri et al.

174 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management

conservation initiatives taken by the eight regionalmember countries represent significant progresstowards achieving global conservation targets. ThePAs in the HKH vary in management objectives,ranging from strict nature reserves and wildernessareas with minimal interaction with local people, tocommunity-managed areas where people play animportant role in conservation. However, substan-tial efforts are needed to fill the gaps in our knowl-edge of species distribution, population status andthe management effectiveness of existing PAs, criti-cal ecoregions and hotspots. Research is needed toproduce a complete gap analysis on the state andtrends of biodiversity in the HKH. Emphasis shouldalso be given to identifying and using effectiveindicators, both ecological and socio-economic.The ecosystem approach and transboundary PAmanagement have been important in taking con-servation beyond PAs and beyond political bordersin the HKH region. In some cases, national andregional collaborations are emerging to make thisconcept a reality; for example cooperation betweenBhutan, India and Nepal in Kangchenjunga land-scape (Sharma et al. 2007). Such collaborations will,in due course, help to achieve the ultimate aim ofestablishing an effectively managed, ecologicallyrepresentative PA system with associated bufferzones and conservation corridors. Such initiativescould contribute to checking the rate of bio-diversity loss. Meanwhile, to further strengthen thePA network in the HKH and to fill the knowledgegaps, the following recommendations are made:

i) Develop a comprehensive knowledge base onthe extent of coverage for species of bothnarrow and wide habitats range, and for ende-mic species in the HKH, including endemicflora, species of special concern, and lessstudied species groups such as insects, smallermammals and lower plants.

ii) Create inventories of beta diversity and meta-populations of species occurring within PAsand landscapes in the HKH, and particularlyfor PAs in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Myanmarand China, as little information is available forPAs in these HKH countries.

iii) Develop comprehensive indicators to assessthe effectiveness of PAs and their conservationtargets.

iv) Ensure the protection of key elements ofdistinct ecoregions, the Kayah-Karen/Tenasserim moist forest and the Indo-Chinadry forest because, at present, none of the PAsin the HKH cover the biodiversity elementscontained in these ecoregions.

v) Include the 73% of unprotected IBA sites inthe HKH within key biodiversity areas, com-plemented by more research on other formsof biodiversity in these sites, and develop aframework to include them in PA systems,either by formally notifying them as PAs or byincorporating them within existing PAs.

vi) Increase connectivity between PAs by estab-lishing conservation corridors to provide acontiguous habitat for the protection ofspecies with larger habitat requirements, andpromote adaptive measures to tackle environ-mental stresses due to climate change andother anthropogenic influences.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We express our gratitude to the Director General,International Centre for Integrated MountainDevelopment (ICIMOD), for his inspiration inreaching out to a larger audience and for providingthe required facilities. We also thank the relateddepartments and individuals from ICIMOD’s eightregional member countries in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region for their support in data updates,including Birdlife International, ConservationInternational, IUCN and WWF for providing accessto their datasets. The contribution of two anony-mous reviewers to an earlier version of this manu-script and critical review by Dr Michael Kollmair(ICIMOD) enabled us to bring new thoughts andinsights to this paper. Financial support from theMacArthur Foundation to conduct this analysis aspart of the Transboundary Biodiversity Manage-ment initiative in the Eastern Himalayas is highlyappreciated.

Protected area status in the Hindu Kush-Himalyas Chettri et al.

International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 175

REFERENCESAllnutt TF, Wikramanayake ED, Dinerstein E et al.

Protected areas in the Himalaya. In Sharma URand Yonzon PB (eds), People and Protected Areas inSouth Asia. Resources Himalaya Foundation,Kathmandu and IUCN World Commission onProtected Areas, South Asia; 2005:112–17

Anonymous. Biodiversity Action Plan for Bhutan. Minis-try of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan;2002

Bajracharya S, Furley PA and Newton A. Effectivenessof community involvement in delivering conserva-tion benefits to the Annapurna Conservation Area,Nepal. Environmental Conservation 2005;32(3):239–47

Balasinorwala T, Kothari A and Goyal A. Participatoryconservation: paradigm shifts in the international policy.Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK andKalpavriksh, India: IUCN; 2004:iv+ 120

Balmford A, Bennun L, Brink B, Cooper D et al. TheConvention of Biological Diversity’s 2010 Target.Science 2005;307:212–13

Bawa KS, Seidler R and Raven HP. Reconcilingconservation paradigms. Conservation Biology 2004;18(4):859–60

Bawa KS. Globally dispersed local challenges in con-servation biology. Conservation Biology 2006;20(5):696–9

Bennett G and Mulongoy KJ. Review of Experience withEcological Networks and Buffer Zones. Secretariat ofthe Convention of Biological Diversity, Montreal,Technical Series No. 23; 2006

Birdlife International. Important bird area data pro-vided by BirdLife International, taken from WorldBird Database (accessed 19 June 2007)

Borrini-Feyerabend G, Kothari A and Oviedo G. Indig-enous and local communities and protected areas:Towards equity and enhanced conservation. Switzer-land and Cambridge UK: IUCN; 2004:xiii–111

Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG et al.Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots ofbiodiversity. Conservation Biology 2002;16(4):909–23

Brooks TM, Bakarr MI, Boucher T et al. Coverage pro-vided by global protected area system: Is it enough?BioScience 2004;54(12):1081–91

Brooks,TM, Mittermeier RA, da Fonseca GAB et al.Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities. Science2006;313:58–61

Brunckhorst DJ. Bioregional planning: resource manage-ment beyond the new millennium. Amsterdam, TheNetherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers; 2000

Bryant D, Nielsen D and Tangley L. Last Frontier Forests.Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 1997

Büscher B and Whande W. Whims of the Winds ofTime? Emerging trends in biodiversity conserva-tion and protected area management. Conservationand Society 2007;5(1):22–43

Butchart SHM, Stattersfield A, Bennun LA, et al.Measuring global trend in status of biodiversity.PLoS Biol 2004;2(12):e383. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020383.t001

Cardillo M, Mace GM, Gittleman GL and Purvis A.Latent extinction risk and the future battle-grounds of mammal conservation. Proceedings ofNational Academy of Sciences USA 2006;103:4157–61

Chape S, Harrison M, Spalding M and Lysenko I.Measuring the extent and effectiveness of pro-tected areas as an indicator for meeting globalbiodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions ofRoyal Society B 2005;360:443–55

Chettri N, Shakya B and Sharma E (eds). Biodiversityconservation in the Kangchenjunga Landscape.Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD; 2008

Chettri N, Sharma E, Shakya B and Bajracharya B.Developing Forested Conservation Corridors inthe Kangchenjung Landscape, Eastern Himalaya.Mountain Research Development 2007;27(3):211–14

Cincotta RP, Wisnewski J and Engelman R. Humanpopulation in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature2000;404:990–2

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF). Ecosys-tem Profile: Indo-Burma Hotspot, Indo-China Region.WWF US-Asian Program; 2007

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF). Ecosys-tem Profile: Indo-Burma Hotspot, Eastern HimalayanRegion. WWF US-Asian Program; 2005

Eken G, Bennun L, Brooks TM, et al. Key BiodiversityAreas as Site Conservation Targets BioScience2004;54(12):1110–18

FAO. State of World Forests. Rome: FAO; 2007Gaston, KJ. Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature

2000;45:220–27Guangwei C (ed.). Biodiversity in the Eastern Himalayas:

Conservation through Dialogue. Summary reports ofthe workshops on Biodiversity Conservation in theHindu Kush-Himalayan Ecoregion. Kathmandu,Nepal: ICIMOD; 2002

Gurung PC. Terai Arch Landscape: A new paradigmin conservation and sustainable development. InHarmone D and Worboys GL (eds), ManagingMountain Protected Areas: Challenges and Responses forthe 21st Century. Italy: Andromeda Editrice;2005:80–6

Hamilton L and McMillan L. (eds). Guidelines forPlanning and Managing Mountain Protected Areas.

Protected area status in the Hindu Kush-Himalyas Chettri et al.

176 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management

Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN;2004 xi +83 pp

HMGN/MFSC. Nepal Biodiversity Strategy. His MajestyGovernment of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and SoilConservation; 2002:170

HMGN/MFSC. Proceedings of the National Stakeholders’Consultation on Sacred Himalayan Landscape inNepal. His Majesty Government of Nepal, Ministryof Forests and Soil Conservation; 2005:50

Hoekstra JM, Boucher TM, Ricketts TH and RobertsC. Confronting a biome crisis: Global disparities ofhabitat loss and protection. Ecological Letters2005;8:23–9

IPCC. IPCC Summary for Policymakers: ClimateChange 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adapta-tion and Vulnerability. IPCC WGII Fourth Assess-ment Report; 2007

IUCN, UNEP and WCMC. World Database on ProtectedAreas (WDPA). CD ROM, 2005

Ives JD, Messerli B and Spiess E. Mountains of theworld: A global priority. In Messerli B and Ives JD(eds), Mountains of the World: A Global Priority. NewYork and London: Parthenon Publishing Group;2004:1–15

Jha S and Bawa KS. Population Growth, Human Devel-opment, and Deforestation in Biodiversity Hot-spots. Conservation Biology 2006;20(3):906–12

Kollmair M, Gurung GS, Hurni K and Maselli D.Mountains: Special places to be protected? Ananalysis of worldwide nature conservation effortsin mountains. International Journal of BiodiversityScience and Management 2005;1:181–9

Langhammer PF, Bakarr MI, Bennun LA, et al. Identifi-cation and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas:Targets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems.Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2007

Locke H and Dearden P. Rethinking protected areacategories and the new paradigm. EnvironmentalConservation 2005;32:1–10

Loucks C, Ricketts TH, Naidoo R, Lamoreux J andHoekstra J. Explaining the global pattern ofprotected area coverage: relative importance ofvertebrate biodiversity, human activities andagricultural suitability. Journal of Biogeography 2008;doi:10.1111/j.1365–2699.2008.01899.x

Lovejoy TE. Protected areas: a prism for a changingworld. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2006;21(6):329–33

Malcolm J R, Liu C, Neilson R P, Hansen L andHannah L. Global warming and extinctions ofendemic species from biodiversity hotspots. Conser-vation Biology 2006;20:538–48

Mishra C, Datta A and Madhusudan MD. The highaltitude wildlife of Western Arunachal Pradesh: asurvey report. CERC Technical Report No. 8. Nature

Conservation Foundation, International SnowLeopard Trust, and Wildlife Conservation Society(India Program), Mysore, India; 2004

Mittermeier RA, Gil PR and Mittermeier CG.Megadiversity. Mexico City, Mexico: CEMEX; 1997

Mittermeier RA, Gils PR, Hoffman M, Pilgrim J,Brooks T, Mittermeier CG, Lamoreaux J and daFonseca GAB (eds.) Hotspots Revisited. Earth’s Bio-logically Richest and Most Endangered TerrestrialEcoregions. USA: CEMEX; 2004

Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da FosecaGAB and Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conserva-tion priorities. Nature 2000;403(24):853–8

Naughton-Treves, L. Holland MB and Brandon K.The role of protected areas in conserving Bio-diversity and sustaining local livelihoods. AnnualReview on Environmental Resources 2005;30:219–52

Noss RF. A regional landscape approach to maintaindiversity. BioScience 1983;33:700–6

Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, et al.Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map ofLife on Earth. BioScience 2001;51(11):993–38

Olson, D M and Dinerstein E. The Global 200: PriorityEcoregions for Global Conservation. Annals ofMissouri Botanical Garden 2002;89:199–224

Pandit MK, Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Bhaskar A and BrookBW. Unreported yet massive deforestation drivingloss of endemic biodiversity in Indian Himalaya.Biodiversity and Conservation 2007;16:153–63

Parmesan C and Yohe G. A globally coherent finger-print of climate change impacts across naturalsystems. Nature 2003;421:37–42

Pawar S, Birand AC, Ahmad MF, Sengupta S andSharkar Raman TR. Conservation biogeography inNorth-east India: hierarchical analysis of cross-taxon distributional congruence Diversity andDistributions 2006. doi: 10.1111/j.1472–4642.2006.00298.x

Pawar S, Koo MS, Kelley C, Ahmed MF, Chaudhuri S.and Sarkar, S. Conservation assessment and priori-tization of areas in Northeast India: Priorities foramphibians and reptiles. Biological Conservation2007;136:346–61

Pei S (ed). Banking on biodiversity. Report on theRegional Consultations on Biodiversity Assess-ment in the Hindu Kush Himalaya, ICIMOD,Kathmandu, Nepal; 1995

Phillips A. A Modern Paradigm. World Conservation2003;34:6–7

Price M (ed). Conservation and sustainable developmentin the mountain areas. Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK: IUCN; 2004

Rao M, Rabinowitz A and Khaing ST. Status reviewprotected area system in Myanmar with

Protected area status in the Hindu Kush-Himalyas Chettri et al.

International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 177

recommendation for conservation planning. Con-servation Biology 2002;16(2):360–8

Rawal RS and Dhar U. Protected area network inIndian Himalayan region: need for recognizingvalues of low profile protected areas. Current Science2001;81(2):175–84

Redford KH, Coppolillo P, Sanderson EW, et al.Mapping the Conservation Landscape. Conserva-tion Biology 2003;17(1):116–31

Ricketts TH, Dinerstein E, Boucher T, et al. Pinpoint-ing and preventing imminent extinctions. Proceed-ings of National Academy of Sciences USA 2005;102:18497–501

Rodrigues ASL, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, et al. Effec-tiveness of global protected area network in repre-senting species diversity. Nature 2004;428:640–3

Rodriguez JP, Taber AB, Daszak P, et al. Globalizationof Conservation: A View from the South. Science2007;317:755–6

Sarkar S. An open access database for Himalayanenvironmental management. Himalayan Journal ofSciences 2007;4(6):7–8

Schwartz MW, Iverson LR, Prasad AM, Matthews SNand O’connor RJ. Predicting extinctions as a resultof climate change. Ecology 2006;87(7):1611–15

Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity(CBD). Programme of work on protected areas (CBDProgramme of Work). Montreal, Secretariat of theConvention of Biological Diversity. 2004a:31

Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity(CBD). Biodiversity Issues for Consideration inPlanning, Establishment and Management of ProtectedArea Sites and Networks. Montreal, Secretariat of theConvention of Biological Diversity. TechnicalSeries No 15; 2004b:164

Sharma E and Acharya R. Summary report on moun-tain biodiversity in the convention on biologicaldiversity (CBD). Mountain Research and Development2004;24(3):63–5

Sharma E and Chettri N. ICIMOD’s TransboundaryBiodiversity Management Initiative in the HinduKush-Himalayas. Mountain Research and Develop-ment 2005;25(3):280–3

Sharma E, Chettri N, Gurung J and Shakya B. Land-scape approach in biodiversity conservation: A regionalcooperation framework for implementation of the Con-vention on Biological Diversity in KangchenjungaLandscape. ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal; 2007

Sharma UR and Yonzon PB (eds). People and ProtectedAreas in South Asia. Resources Himalaya Founda-tion, Kathmandu and IUCN World Commissionon Protected Areas, South Asia; 2005

Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, et al. Extinctionrisk from climate change. Nature 2004;427:145–8

UNDP. Human Development Report: Millennium Develop-ment Goals – A Compact Among the Nations to End thePoverty. Oxford, New York: Oxford UniversityPress; 2003

Wikramanayake E D, Dinerstein E, Allnut T, et al.A biodiversity assessment and gap analysis of the Hima-layas. Conservation Science Program, WashingtonDC: World Wildlife Fund; 1998

Wikramanayake, E D, Dinerstein E, Loucks CJ, et al.Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo Pacific: A ConservationAssessment. Washington DC: Island Press; 2002

Wilson KA, Underwood EC, Morrison SA, et al. Con-serving biodiversity efficiently: What to do, whereand when. PLoS Biol 2007;5(9):e223. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050223

WWF and ICIMOD. Ecoregion-based Conservation in theEastern Himalaya: Identifying Important Areas forBiodiversity Conservation. Kathmandu: WWF NepalProgram; 2001

WWF. Terrestrial Ecoregions GIS Database. World Wild-life Fund, Washington, DC. 2006a. Available:http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/data/terreco.cfm. Accessed 12 June 2007

Xu J and Melick DR. Rethinking the effectiveness ofpublic protected areas in Southwestern China.Conservation Biology 2007;21(2):318–28

Zimmerer KS, Galt RE and Buck MV. Globalizationand Multi-spatial Trends in the Coverage ofProtected-Area Conservation (1980–2000). Ambio2004;33(8):520–9

Protected area status in the Hindu Kush-Himalyas Chettri et al.

178 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management