the babbler 7

1 BirdLife International in Indochina

The Babbler, September 2003

September, 2003 Number 7

TThhee BBaabbbblleerr BirdLife International in Indochina

1 Welcome

2 Features

7 Regional News

9 Project Updates

16 Rarest of the Rare

17 Staff News

18 Recently Published

20 Photo Spot

21 From the Archives

BirdLife International in Indochina #4, Lane 209, Doi Can Hanoi, Vietnam Tel: + 84 4 722 3864 Fax:+ 84 4 722 3835 E-mail: [email protected] www.birdlifevietnam.com

Welcome to the latest edition of the Babbler. During September it was my pleasure to attend the fifth IUCNWorld Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa. As well as being a great personal opportunity for networking, learning anddebate, the Congress produced four important outputs. Thesewere the Durban Accord and Action Plan, a set of 32 specificRecommendations, and a message to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The outputs reflected the Congress theme, ‘Benefits beyondboundaries’, an IUCN inspired paradigm for protected areas,which places them firmly in the context of sustainabledevelopment. A few of the more important messages for us here in South-East Asia were that the existing protected area network is far from complete, and the gaps need urgently to be locatedand filled. In our region nowhere is this task more compellingthan in Myanmar. Another important message was that the global protected area system should effectively conserve allglobally threatened species in situ, with an immediate emphasis (by 2006, according to the Action Plan) on all globally criticallyendangered and endangered species that are confined to a single site. One of the most interesting initiatives launched at theCongress in relation to this was the Alliance for Zero Extinction, which aims to do just that. This is an intra-agency collaboration including (in our region) Conservation International, Wildlife Conservation Society, WWF and BirdLife (please visitwww.zeroextinction.org to learn more). There was also a plea for the need to recognise the legitimacy and importance of a range of governance types for protected areas, as a means tostrengthen management, fill gaps, promote connectivity,enhance public support and strengthen the relationship betweenpeople and the land, freshwater and sea. Numbered amongstthese was community managed approaches, of which our current efforts are widely reported in this issue of The Babbler. Jonathan C. Eames, Programme Manager BirdLife International in Indochina Babbler is now compiled and edited by Nguyen Thi Ngoc Ha. If youhave any contributions or suggestions for the next issue, please contact [email protected] by 30 November.

http://www.zeroextinction.org/

mailto:[email protected]




FeaturesFeaturesFeaturesFeatures . Earlier this year, I was a wanted man: Vietnamese border troops were hunting for me on information they had received from poachers operating inside Yok Don National Park. How could this be? BirdLife works as a technical consultant within the framework of a major bilaterally funded project and I was in Yok Don as part of a team conducting baseline biodiversity surveys. My situation reveals the difficult conditions under which international NGOs sometimes operate. So how should BirdLife be focusing its efforts in the region to ensure conservation of globally important sites? Priority setting pays dividends BirdLife was amongst the first international conservation NGOs to begin working in Indochina in 1988. Our early entry into Vietnam enabled us to influence priority setting for the national Biodiversity Action Plan and to promote protected area development within the country’s EBAs. In 1994, with European Union support, we began a project to establish protected areas within two EBAs, and the first was gazetted with BirdLife support in 1996. Over the following five years, six new protected areas were established, and recommendations for expansion of the protected areas network were published in 1999. Four years later, most of the prioritised sites are the focus of larger projects aiming to establish protected areas. BirdLife, as a smaller NGO player, has managed to influence major donors and NGOs and bring

additional resources to bear for site based conservation. BirdLife is still developing major donor-funded conservation initiatives at several sites, including Chu Yang Sin National Park in the Da Lat Plateau EBA, Vietnam. It is vitally important to have broad government support for proposals to expand protected areas systems. Frequently the backing of a forest department or ministry alone is insufficient if it clashes with national plans from other sectors. To try and counter this, BirdLife and other NGOs have joined the Forest Sector Support Programme, through which we hope eventually to influence government policy. However, the influence of NGOs has limits and governments will always act in what they perceive to be the national interest. Protected areas and biodiversity will always come lower on the list of priorities than national highway networks or power generation. In Vietnam, for example, the Ho Chi Minh Highway project has gained notoriety amongst conservationists for bisecting many of the country’s national parks. Plans reached the height of absurdity when buildings newly constructed under a Dutch Government supported project in Vu Quang National Park were to be demolished to make way for the road. In 2000, BirdLife expanded its IBA Programme in the region. Working with government and NGO partners, BirdLife published IBA directories for Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, detailing a total of 132 sites. The IBA approach allows BirdLife to address the conservation of

Protected areas development in Indochina: planning is easy – conserving is difficult BirdLife has made a major contribution to priority setting and planning national and informal protected areas systems in Indochina, with governments and other Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) throughout the region embracing BirdLife’s Endemic Bird Area (EBA) and Important Bird Area (IBA) approaches. By working with national protected areas planning agencies, BirdLife has achieved considerable success in getting new protected areas gazetted, thereby filling gaps within national systems. Jonathan Eames, Programme Manager for BirdLife in Indochina, reveals BirdLife’s successes with helping to establish protected areas in Indochina, and outlines the challenges posed in converting good planning into conservation action on the ground



internationally important sites both within and outside protected areas, working with new partners in an emerging civil society and beyond those government agencies mandated to manage national protected areas. We are doing this by pioneering community-based conservation in Indochina, through Site Support Groups (SSGs). Whilst our thinking is in tune with current donor priorities, we must not forget that civil society is very underdeveloped in the region and most land is state owned. The concept of privately managed protected areas is still some way off. Enforcement, enforcement, enforcement Protected areas sometimes fail to conserve biodiversity adequately because relevant authorities cannot enforce the law. There may be a lack of will to do so, manpower shortages, or because park guards are not clear of the limits of their jurisdiction. BirdLife projects work with the civil police and border armies in Cambodia and Vietnam to support enforcement of protected area regulations. Even when donor and NGO support is forthcoming, there is often little emphasis placed on enforcement measures. Another problem is that in times of conflict, protected area authorities are subservient to the military who sometimes operate outside the law and engage in hunting and logging. Even in protected areas where adequate political will exists, there is often insufficient manpower to control illegal activities. For example, last year I visited Beng Per Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia, where there was evidence of logging and forest clearance for agriculture at the core of the protected area. When NGOs become involved in projects to support protected areas development, the projects are frequently too ambitious and do not realistically reflect underlying government policy, the operational environment, or the capacity of the protected area management staff. It sometimes appears that project plans are set aside and the park directors involved simply follow their own goals. A protected area project is more likely to succeed if the management objectives are well understood by the manager. BirdLife is just beginning to develop projects of this kind in the region, and we must be wary of falling into this and other traps, such as pandering too much to donors’ requirements to obtain their support. Inappropriate infrastructure development Inappropriate infrastructure construction can, at a stroke, destroy the efforts of a long-established

conservation project. An example from Vietnam is the flooding of a large part of Na Hang Nature Reserve, one of the only known localities for Tonkin Snub-nosed Monkey Pygathrix avunculus (Critically Endangered), and currently the site of a long-running bilaterally funded protected areas project. One is left asking why infrastructure projects are so popular in protected areas and why government funds can be made available for infrastructure development, but not for training or recurrent operational costs? The truth is that infrastructure projects almost always involve lucrative construction contracts, and where bidding and awarding of contracts takes place without a transparent process, the opportunities for handsome kickbacks are simply too tempting for some badly paid civil servants to resist. Donors and conservation NGOs can help by making sure funds are directed away from infrastructure projects towards capacity building and institutional strengthening. A protected areas institute? Protected areas managers trained in conservation and with an interest and grasp of the challenges they face are sadly still the exception in the region. The director of a national park in southern Vietnam, for instance, a park supporting one of the last viable populations of Green Peafowl Pavo muticus (Vulnerable) in Vietnam, wishes to introduce white horses and has included ostrich farming and river dredging in the management plan for his park! Recently there was a major fire in U Minh Thuong Nature Reserve, Vietnam, the result of managing the area for many years as an intensive Melaleuca plantation, drawing off ground water for agriculture and drying out the underlying peat. Local wetland experts advised against these policies, but sadly their advice was ignored, and funds have now been allocated for re-planting the ‘protected area’ with Melaleuca and building new canals. Lack of adequately trained managers and insufficient awareness of the goals of protected areas were probably the underlying reasons for these decisions. Myanmar established its forest department in 1856 and its first protected areas in 1918. For more than 100 years, forestry and wildlife management have been institutionalized and valued professions within government service and these traditions are maintained, even in today’s difficult times. Given the lack of skills and capacity, perhaps ASEAN leaders should open a protected areas institute, which could train a professional cadre of protected area managers? BirdLife could help by providing scholarships to



enable aspiring managers to study conservation management. How should BirdLife be focusing its efforts? As a relatively small NGO, BirdLife can try to avoid the pitfalls of those that have gone before. Conservation of the IBA network cannot simply be addressed by single site, multi-million dollar projects involving costly inputs from expatriate experts. The SSG approach provides low cost solutions and this is the model we are increasingly advocating for site-based conservation in the region. We also need to explore the opportunities for obtaining land concession rights to manage key

IBAs and for involving private business. As we begin to explore further possibilities for working in Myanmar, we hope the experiences and expertise we have in planning national protected areas systems can be put to good use to fill gaps in the national system. Ultimately, however, the success of national protected areas networks will depend on the commitment of the national governments responsible. Promoting accountability and good governance are essential, if we can also inject more realism into our collaborative projects and give attention to enforcement we can achieve increased worthwhile conservation. Jonathan Eames

Some key BirdLife achievements on protected areas in Indochina Review of protected areas system in Vietnam commenced 1994, recommendations for its expansion published in 1999, and a sourcebook of protected areas published in 2001. Protected areas established in Vietnam 1994–2000 Ke Go Nature Reserve Xuan Lien Nature Reserve Phong Dien Nature Reserve Ngoc Linh Nature Reserve Kon Ka Kinh Nature Reserve Kon Cha Rang Nature Reserve Dakrong Nature Reserve Protected areas enlarged in Vietnam following BirdLife lobbying Yok Don National Park Lo Go Sa Mat upgraded to National Park Chu Yang Sin upgraded to National Park BirdLife has also joined the Forest Sector Support Programme, to guide government policy in Vietnam. In Cambodia Boeung Prek Lapouv is expected to be gazetted as a protected area in late 2003. For more information on protected areas in Vietnam, and to download the sourcebook and other relevant documents, please visit www.birdlifevietnam.com

http://www.birdlifevietnam.com/



Establishment of the BirdLife Cambodia Programme

Critical water hole (trapaeng) in northern Cambodia dry forest.

Photo by Sean Austin

It is an interesting and dynamic time for conservation work in Cambodia. The country is in a unique position in Indochina given a number of political, social, and environmental factors. The human population size is only around 11 million people, there remains an estimated 50% of forest cover, a tremendous amount of biological diversity exists, and the country is working to build institutional capacity to allow greater conservation of protected areas. While the recent July elections have left the political situation once again up in the air, generally speaking, there is tremendous freedom for NGOs to develop and implement conservation activities throughout the country. It is with this environment and these opportunities in mind that BirdLife has recently chosen to move forward and develop a full country conservation Programme based in Phnom Penh. Prior to

initiating this new Cambodia Programme, the BirdLife Indochina Programme already had a productive, positive working relationship with other NGOs, government institutions, and donors in Cambodia. In 1996, BirdLife enjoyed its first collaboration with the Department of Forestry and Wildlife when it supported conservation research at the Prek Toal freshwater swamp forest on the Tonle Sap Lake. More recently, BirdLife, the Ministry of Forestry and Fisheries, the Ministry of Environment, together with the Wildlife Conservation Society, and with support from Danida, undertook a two-year project to strengthen capacity of government agencies and identify and produce a Directory of Important Bird Areas (IBAs), detailing of a network of sites that are of global conservation importance in Cambodia.



Directory of Important Bird Area in Cambodia

In Cambodia, BirdLife aims to build on and consolidate the significant investment already made by Danida in BirdLife’s Important Bird Areas (IBAs) Programme in Indochina by establishing a foundation of stakeholder (i.e. communities, key decision makers, government agencies, private sector, scientific community, and donors) support for, and management of, IBAs. This approach is innovative to Cambodia because it promotes local stakeholder empowerment and accountability, contributes to improved governance, and in turn enables local communities to make a meaningful and lasting contribution to the management of natural resources. The recently published IBA directory for Cambodia identifies 38 IBAs throughout the country. As a first step in establishing conservation activities in all of these areas, the BirdLife Indochina Programme has secured a 3-year financial commitment from Danida and the MacArthur Foundation to initiate conservation activities in 10 of the most threatened IBAs. The two principle habitat types that are of greatest concern and which make up these 10 priority IBAs are the dry forests in northern Cambodia and the seasonally inundated grasslands in southern Cambodia and adjacent to the Tonle Sap Lake. The dry forests of Cambodia support a number of large, relatively intact natural landscapes that have existed, until recently, with minimal impacts from humans. For example, the Srepok River in northeastern Cambodia represents the largest undisturbed riverine forest ecosystem in Southeast Asia. The dry and riparian forests of northern Cambodia harbor some of the last populations of several globally threatened species due to the conversion of lowland forests and wetlands in other areas of the Lower Mekong sub-region. Hence, the

dry forests of Cambodia are the last refuge in mainland Southeast Asia for four critically endangered bird species: Giant Ibis Pseudibis gigantea, White-shouldered Ibis Pseudibis davisoni, White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis

and Slender-billed Vulture Gyps tenuirostris. Remote areas of dry forests may harbor the last population of Kouprey Bos sauveli, an enigmatic species of wild cattle last observed in 1957. Similarly, the inundated grasslands of Cambodia are critical to a number of globally threatened and near-threatened bird species, most notably, Sarus Crane Grus antigone, Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis, and White-shouldered Ibis Pseudibis davisoni. All of these areas are under increasing pressure from human activities such as hunting, fishing, and conversion of grassland areas to deepwater rice cultivation. BirdLife Cambodia’s IBA conservation activities to date have been focused in two areas; Boeng Prek Lapouv IBA on the southern Cambodia–Vietnam border and Western Siem Pang IBA on the northern Cambodia–Laos border. A great number of activities are underway with the goal of developing a comprehensive, long-term, sustainable conservation environment in these IBAs. Specific activities in both areas have included training government officials (at district, provincial and national levels) on how to identify IBAs through a series of field surveys, facilitating the establishment of local Site Support Groups (SSGs), developing working relationships with local NGOs, holding a series of workshops to provide a forum for education and discussion of conservation activities, and providing infrastructure and equipment to

Working with local communities and protected area staff in northern Cambodia dry forest. Photo by Sean Austin



support to IBA monitoring teams. Additionally, the Cambodia BirdLife Programme is currently working with partner NGOs to develop a comprehensive conservation strategy for the northern IBAs and produce educational materials that can be distributed to all sectors of society. While our progress and the cooperation from government and partners have been extremely encouraging, there is a lot of work ahead and the

challenges are great. However, the opportunity exists now to make significant long-term strides in conserving the unique and diverse natural heritage of Cambodia. (For further information, please contact Sean Austin, Cambodia Programme Manager at [email protected])

Regional NewsRegional NewsRegional NewsRegional News

Story by Philip D. Round and pictures by Smith Suthibut

To our left stretches a huge, mangrove-fringed bay bordering a vast expanse of mudflats, flashing silver in the sunlight and studded with thousands of small moving dots-migratory plovers and sandpipers probing the soft sediment with their bills for marine worms, tiny shrimp or shellfish.

Here and there, human figures also move ponderously through the mud, collecting cockles or other bounty for the local markets, while Great Crested Terns perch on the bamboo stakes of fish traps, waiting for the tide

to come in so they can plunge-dive on to the shoals of small fish. To our right stretches a pristine sand beach. The upper shore, beyond the reach of spring tides, is covered with a dense mat of the purple-flowered Ipomoea pescaprae. Here, beyond the reach of the highest high tides, a few pairs of Malaysian Plovers have laid their eggs in shallow depressions scraped in the sand. Wind-crabs skitter across the clear-white sands of the lower shore, while Sanderlings, a kind of sandpiper, dance along the tideline on twinkling legs following the ebb and flow of each breaking wave front. It is an idyllic scene. Other than engine noise from distant fishing boats, there is scarcely any intrusion from the noise and bustle of the 21st century. Trang? Krabi? The Mergui Archipelago? No. As the curlew flies, we are only a few tens of kilometers from downtown Bangkok. The gleaming white tanks of the onshore oil depot at Bang Kaew, at the edge of our field of view, remind us that we are in Phetchaburi Province, at Laem Phak Bia. This isolated four-kilometer long sandpit in Ban Laem district marks the transition zone or ecotone between the sheltered, richly productive mangrove and mudflat ecosystem of the inner gulf around Bangkok, and the more exposed sandy beaches

The rich and varied ecosystem of the Inner Gulf of Thailand supports a variety of water and shorebirds, both residents and migrants.

WETLAND WILDERNESS UNDER THREAT The extraordinary natural environment on Bangkok's doorstep

needs to be preserved




stretching hundreds of kilometers southwards to Prachuap Khiri Khan and beyond. This near–pristine piece of coast is surely the most stunning piece of scenery anywhere in the vicinity of Bangkok. Yet it is only one small part of the rich and varied ecosystem of the Inner Gulf of Thailand-an expanse of hundreds of square kilometers of mud and sand flats, scrub covered coastal flats, fish-ponds and salt-pans and a narrow fringe of mangroves. However, if government plans for a new southern highway link go ahead, the beauty of the Phetchaburi coast, and along with it much of the biodiversity of the upper gulf in the neighboring provinces of Samut Songkhram and Samut Sakhon, will be lost forever. The hundreds of square kilometers of mud and sand flats formed from silt washed down from five major rivers, the Bang Pakong in the east, the Chao Phraya, Tha Chin and Mae Klong to the Phetchaburi River in the west, constitute one of the greatest estuaries and waterbird sites in all of Asia. Even the least adventurous among us have glimpsed this wetland area while speeding westwards along the Thonburi-Pak Tho highway where, for a few tens of kilometers between Samut Sakhon and Samut Songkhram, the road crosses a great expanse of salt-pans. Here, conical piles of white sea-salt neatly arranged in lines, and windmills used to pump salt water among the ponds, attract the attention of the occasional busload of passing tourists who pause for the obligatory photo-op. Although, as the months and years progress, these wide scenic roadside vistas are gradually being screened behind an ugly roadside ribbon of petrol stations and factories, huge areas of wetland habitat remain, extending from the highway to the coast. The Upper Gulf of Thailand was recognised by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in 1989 as one of a handful of Thai wetland sites of International Importance. In spite of this, the Thai cabinet baulked at listing the upper gulf as more than nationally important, and only a small area, Don Hoi Lot, established as a Ramsar site in 2001, was listed as of international importance. This has everything to do with expediency, with a firm eye on opportunities for industrial development, and places no significance on biodiversity, social or landscape values. Neither the livelihoods of many

thousands of inshore fishermen, salt-farmers and others who make their living directly from the gulf, nor the incredible waterfowl concentrations, count in the minds of politicians and their partners in commerce. The government agencies charged with environmental policy and planning are also too timorous to resist the grandiose plans of engineers, industrialists and bankers, who talk not in terms of millions, but thousands of millions, of baht. The unplanned piecemeal development is already being allowed to destroy what remains of the rich and unique coastline of the gulf. This destruction is set to continue, and will undoubtedly accelerate, regardless of whether the proposed road bridge is built or not. To avoid the entire shoreline of the Inner Gulf, southwards to well beyond Phetchaburi, eventually coming to resembling that of the most ugly polluted, congested and industrialized of provinces, Samut Prakan, it will be necessary to develop a comprehensive zoning and environmental protection plan for the gulf. While allowing for reasonable development onshore, this would safeguard the coastline, and retain the wildlife, landscape and recreational values of the whole. In order to achieve this goal, the government must first acknowledge the conservation value of the entire gulf, then set about gathering the necessary data that will enable decisions to be made in accordance with its international obligations under the Ramsar Convention on wetlands' concept of wise use. Up to now, the people of Bangkok and adjacent cities around the Gulf have acted as if they neither know, nor care, about the rich wetland on their doorstep. Its stewardship has been left to a handful of inshore fishermen and others, who live among, and utilise, its



riches and fully realise how acutely their lifestyles are threatened by unrestrained industrialisation and development. The proposed road-bridge, because it seems such an obvious and expensive anachronism, a sop to the vanity of civil engineers, for whom the idea is first and foremost a grand technological challenge, could change all this. Opposition to the bridge could lead to the formation of an alliance between coastal residents, and those city dwellers for whom the wetlands and wide-open spaces of the inner gulf provide an area for recreation,

birdwatching or merely resting the eyes on a distant horizon. There is still time to conserve, and sustainably manage the great wetland on Bangkok's doorstep, but that time is running out. Philip D. Round is an eminent ornithologist and field biologist based at Mahidol University, Bangkok. He is the co-author of A Guide to the Birds of Thailand, among other books on wildlife and over 50 scientific papers.

Project UpdatesProject UpdatesProject UpdatesProject Updates

During August 2003, the preparation phase for the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) continued, with a series of expert round-tables in the region. The purpose of these round-tables was to give conservationists active in the region the opportunity to

have input into the preparation of the Ecosystem Profile, the document that will guide future investment by CEPF.

EXPERT ROUND-TABLES HELD

Photographs from the recent CEPF round table in Yangon



CEPF is a joint initiative of Conservation International (CI), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank, which aims to dramatically advance conservation of the Earth's biologically richest and most threatened areas. A fundamental goal is to engage civil society, such as community groups, non-governmental organisations, academic institutions and private-sector enterprises, in biodiversity conservation. Between 2004 and 2009, CEPF hopes to make funding available to civil society groups active in eligible regions within the Indochina Region (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and southern China) of the Indo-Burma Hotspot. To date, consultations have also been held in Myanmar and Thailand. Unfortunately, at this time, these countries are not eligible for CEPF funding, due to lack of adherence to one of CEPF’s three overarching criteria: (i) that the country must be within a biodiversity hotspot; (ii) that the country must be a World Bank borrowing country; and (iii) that the country must have ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity. Should either country meet all these criteria within the lifetime of CEPF’s investment in the Indochina Region, CEPF would then evaluate the possibility of supporting biodiversity conservation in that country. The first expert round-table was a small meeting held in Vientiane, Laos, on 7 July, attended by representatives of the few international conservation NGOs active in the country. The next expert round-

table was held in Yangon, Myanmar, on 4 and 5 August. This meeting was hosted by CARE Myanmar, and well attended by representatives of national and international NGOs, and academic institutions. Next up was Vietnam, on 8 August, where the expert round-table was held at the Vietnam Development Centre at the World Bank, Hanoi. The Cambodian expert round-table was held in Phnom Penh, on 11 and 12 August. This meeting was hosted by the WWF Cambodia Programme, and attended by representatives of civil society and government organisations. The last expert round-table was held in Bangkok, Thailand, on 28 and 29 August, hosted by Bird Conservation Society of Thailand, the BirdLife Partner in Thailand. The five expert round-tables were attended by over 100 conservationists from the region. The combined knowledge and experience of the assembled experts ensured that the meetings were filled with interesting discussions. At each expert round-table, a series of draft investment priorities for CEPF in the region were recommended by the participants. These recommendations were incorporated into the draft Ecosystem Profile. After further review and consultation, it is expected that the Ecosystem Profile will be submitted to the CEPF donor council for their review and approval in early 2004. After this, CEPF hope to launch a call for grant proposals from civil society organisations active in the Indochina Region later in the year.

Further information about CEPF can be obtained by visiting www.cepf.net or contacting Evy Wilkins at [email protected] . Further details on the CEPF preparation phase in Indochina can be obtained by contacting Jack Tordoff at [email protected] . Site Support Groups (SSG) are permanent (ideally not project-maintained) community-based organisations composed of people with the goal of conserving an IBA, contributing to their sustainable livelihoods. IBA SSG approach was first implemented by BirdLife International in Africa and so far has proven very successful. An independent international team reviewing BirdLife’s UNDP-GEF Africa project, which pioneered the SSG, concluded that “the

concept of the SSGs appears to be unique to this project… The idea of supporting the development of semi-autonomous, local groups with a long–term interest in the sustainable use of important sites is a powerful one with obvious advantages for sustainability”. Up to now through the African NGO-Government Partnerships for Sustainable Biodiversity Action Project, 42 SSGs have been formed in seven countries in Africa and more are being formed. Some have advanced to the level of being able to attract

PIONEERING COMMUNITY BASED APPROACHES TO CONSERVATION IN VIETNAM

http://www.cepf.net/





donor funding and implement site action projects of their own. In Vietnam, IBA SSGs have been piloted in Ha nam island (Quang Ninh Province) since August 2002 and in Che tao (Son La Province) since April 2003 (in collaboration with FFI). Ha nam SSG has undergone its first year of implementing innovative ideas. Experience and lessons learnt from Ha nam and Che tao SSGs are now being fed our two new IBA SSG projects - one to be implemented in Xuan Thuy district, Nam Dinh province; and the other is funded by the MacArthur Foundation to be implemented in Quang Binh, Quang Tri and Thua Thien Hue provinces. A comprehensive evaluation of the Ha nam and Che Tao SSGs’ operation will be done at the end of this year. The evaluation will review the motivation for SSG establishment, composition of and incentive structure for SSGs and their conservation achievements at each site. Future direction for BirdLife SSGs in Vietnam: The performance of BirdLife’s piloted SSGs all over the world has shown that it is one of the most practical ways to solve site-level problems.

In Vietnam, where more than 50% of the IBAs are outside the decreed protected areas, community-based conservation (the SSG model) is essential for their protection. In Vietnam, the most widespread threat to biodiversity within the IBA network is hunting, underlined by a tradition of natural resource use among many communities, increasing demand for wildlife trade, etc. Therefore, helping local communities to organize themselves, finding the right incentives for communities to be proactive in solving local problems will be the keys for sustainable IBA conservation. A very important point is that in a developing country like Vietnam, conservation can never be detached from improving people’s livelihood. As mentioned in the World Birdwatch by Michael Rands – BirdLife’s Chief Executive and Director – local communities should be able to benefit both materially and spiritually from conservation and sustainable use of their key sites. At present BirdLife Asia is working on “developing the Asian Ecological Network” as a mechanism for safeguarding IBAs. Vietnam will be an important link in the network..

Pham Tuan Anh, Programme Manager, Vietnam Programme

Field training for IBA SSG in Hana.

Photo by Ha Quy Quynh

IBA SSG meeting in Hanam. Photo by Ha Quy Quynh



During May and June 2003, as part of the Social Forestry and Natural Conservation in Nghe An Province (SFNC) Project Vietnam, scientists from BirdLife International conducted a field survey of three selected sites in the Pu Mat National Park, Nghe An Province. The aim of the field survey was to collect data on which to base recommendations for the biodiversity conservation management of those sites in the context of the Pu Mat National Park. Botanical work was focused on conifer species and a key species–Cunninghamia konishi–was found in four areas including the upper Khe Ca–Khe Tun, Khe Ngoa and Pu Nhong. Seven nationally threatened

species of conifer listed in Vietnam Red Data Book were identified. During the survey, a total of 249 vertebrate species were recorded, comprising 41 mammal species, 185 bird species and 23 amphibian species. Of the 185 bird species, 11 new to Pu Mat National Park species were recorded. A total of 26 Globally Threatened and Near-Threatened species were recorded, comprising 15 mammal, 8 bird and 3 Near-threatened species of amphibian. Amongst these was the Beautiful Nuthatch Sitta formosa. Le Trong Trai Programme Manager

For further in formation about the “Social Forestry and Natural Conservation in Nghe An Province (SFNC)” Project at Pu Mat National Park, please contact Le Trong Trai, at [email protected] , or Nguyen Duc Tu at [email protected] .

SOCIAL FORESTRY AND NATURAL CONSERVATION IN NGHE AN PROVINCE

Beautiful Nuthatch Sitta formosa





In May 2003, BirdLife International Vietnam Programme received a grant from the Keidanren Nature Conservation Fund (KNCF) to implement a project entitled Generating Support for the Conservation of the Xuan Thuy National Park. This project will facilitate the establishment of a Site Support Group (SSG) at Xuan Thuy National Park, an Important Bird Area (IBA) in the coastal zone of the Red River Delta. The SSG will aim to comprise a diverse group of local stakeholders, including shrimp pond owners, farmers, shellfish collectors and local government officials, and will work to increase awareness among government and civil society of the environmental values of wetland habitats at Xuan Thuy, and support the long-term conservation of the

site. The project will be implemented over a one-year period, from May 2003 to March 2004.

To date, the project has completed a socio-economic assessment and held a consultation workshop with participation from all relevant stakeholders. During the workshop, all stakeholders agreed on the need for a local stakeholder-based conservation organisation in the Xuan Thuy area. It is hoped that the SSG will be established soon, with members from district and commune people's committees, representatives of mass organisations, shrimp pond owners, farmers and shellfish collectors. Several training courses are planned to provide the SSG members with the skills and knowledge required to carry out ecological monitoring and awareness raising activities.

(Nguyen Duc Tu, Project Officer, Vietnam Programme, Vietnam Programme)

The World Bank’s Forest Sector Development Project is seeking to address financial and capacity constraints affecting Special Use Forests (SUF), and to deal more effectively with various threats that have adverse impacts biodiversity conservation in SUFs. This will be done through the establishment of a Vietnam Conservation Fund (VCF), a pilot grant-making facility supporting operational funding in protected areas containing biodiversity of international importance. The VCF will provide specific funding for operational activities linked to conservation priorities as identified in Conservation Needs Assessments and Operational Plans. In anticipation of the establishment of the VCF in 2004, and to develop initial proposals that can be reviewed and funded by the Vietnam Conservation Fund within the first year of its creation, WWF has agreed, within the context of its planned Result Area 3 activities, to prepare Operational Plans for Lo Go Xa Mat National Park, Bu Gia Map National Park, and Bi Dup-Nui Ba Nature Reserve. Also, the Conservation Needs Assessments will be conducted in each of the three SUFs. The Conservation Needs Assessments

and Operational Plans are aimed at strengthening the capacity of the three SUF management authorities in strategic planning within the parks/reserve. Through this process, they will be able to identify major threats to internationally important elements of biodiversity, and formulate and prioritize activities likely to address them. In addition, this process will provide the basis for the parks/reserve receiving funding from conservation financing mechanisms, including the Vietnam Conservation Fund. The Conservation Needs Assessments and Operational Plans will be developed by SUF management authorities with technical assistance provided by BirdLife International. Local people from all communes and all sections of the community in the buffer zone and core area will also be involved in the process. BirdLife International consultants will visit each park/reserve to work with the SUF management authorities in undertaking Conservation Needs Assessments and developing five-year Operational Plans. As part of this process, dialogue and

GENERATING SUPPORT FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE XUAN THUY NATIONAL PARK

COLLABORATION WITH WORLD BANK AND WWF



collaboration will be undertaken with other relevant stakeholders. Following the completion of each site visit, the consultants will prepare a draft Operational Plan,

including and based upon a completed Conservation Needs Assessment. The draft Operational Plan will be reviewed with the SUF management authorities, then finalised and submitted to WWF, along with the completed Conservation Needs Assessment.

(Le Trong Trai, Senior Programme Officer, Vietnam Programme)

After several years of preparation and formulation, a project entitled “Integrated Watershed and Biodiversity Management in Chu Yang Sin National Park” was approved by GEF Secretariat earlier this year and is now in its final stage of approval. The project will be managed by BirdLife International and executed in collaboration with the Management Board of the Chu Yang Sin National Park (which is under the direct management of Dak Lak Provincial People’s Committee)

It is estimated that the project will be up and running by early 2004. With the $973,000 support from GEF and a project team to be comprised of mostly national experts, we believe that the project will make considerable contribution to and help build local capacity for biodiversity conservation in the greater Chu Yang Sin National Park.

(Pham Tuan Anh, Programme Manager, Vietnam Programme)

Due to the presence of Rufous-necked hornbill Aceros nipalensis and a number of other bird species of conservation concern, the forests on the border between Muong La and Mu Cang Chai districts have been designated as an Important Bird Area by BirdLife International. Because of the biological importance of the area, BirdLife have secured funding from DGIS for a community based–conservation project in Muong La district. Since 2000, the Fauna and Flora International (FFI) has been implementing conservation activities in the Hoang Lien Mountains, focusing on flagship species including Western Black Crested Gibbon, and montane forest habitats. The surveys have shown that the forest areas in Muong La district of Son La province and in Mu Cang Chai district of Yen Bai province support the largest known populations of this in Vietnam. FFI has been collaborating with Yen Bai provincial forest protection department to implement a number of activities in Mu Cang Chai district with an aim to involving the local community in the

conservation of biodiversity and management of natural resources. As a result, FFI and BirdLife have teamed up to implement a project in Muong La district. The project will be for six months starting in June 2003 with the aim to involve the local community in conservation of hornbills, gibbons and their habitats. The main beneficiaries are H’mong, Thai, Laha and a small number of Khang communities. Ten villages have been selected to be project targets in three communes of Hua Trai, Nam Pam and Ngoc Chien in Muong La district. In the first three months of the project, an IBA Support Group (SSG) of ten members was established with representation from the community and local authorities in the three target communes. Training needs and materials need assessments were done to identify necessary training courses and materials were provided to SSG members.

INTERGRATED WATERSHED AND BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT IN CHU YANG SIN NATIONAL PARK

CHE TAO SITE SUPPORT GROUP



In the next three months, the project will be carrying out training courses on group operation and ecological monitoring techniques for SSG members. Awareness raising campaigns on conservation of hornbills, gibbons and their habitats will be conducted in all 10

project villages. In December, a workshop will be organized with the participation of all project stakeholders to draw-up the lessons learnt to share experiences that people have gained from project implementation.

(Pham Tuan Anh, Programme Manager, VietnamProgramme)

Kenh Trap Important Bird Area Site Support Group on Ha Nam island, established in August 2002, is now up and running. Kenh Trap is Vietnam's first IBA Site Support Group: a group of stakeholders who develop local solutions to locally identified environmental problems. Following the establishment of the SSG, a training course was run to build the capacity of the group members to monitor bird populations, habitats and threats. Between 18 and 20 August 2003, as part of the DGIS project, BirdLife, Quang Ninh Department of Natural and Environment and Yen Hung district people's committee (DPC) collaborated to run a training course. The objective of the course was to train IBA support group members on enforcement of

environmental regulations, ecological monitoring techniques and environmental awareness raising. The training course proved to be a considerable success. Although the training course took place at a very busy time for all shrimp pond owners, and was held during bad weather, they still attended the training course every day. The participants were very enthusiastic about the course, and strongly supported the idea of monitoring bird populations, habitats and threats by themselves. After the first training was organised last year in September, this training helped them to improve their field skills in ecological monitoring. The participants were not only very active in the classroom but also in the field: practicing

Field training for IBA SSG in Hana. Photo by Ha Quy Quynh

KENH TRAP IMPORTANT BIRD AREA SITE SUPPORT GROUP ON HANAM ISLAND



using telescopes and binoculars, and identifying birds using the bird field guide Chim Viet Nam.

In the one year since the establishment of Kenh Trap IBA Site Support Group, they have increased local people’s awareness of the importance of environment

protection. Kenh Trap SSG will next organise a village meeting to introduce new environmental regulations, which we hope will result in household agreements.

(Vu Thi Minh Phuong, Project Officer, Vietnam Programme)

Rarest of the rare:

This ibis has a tiny, declining population as a result of hunting, disturbance and lowland deforestation. It therefore qualifies as Critical. Identification 102-106 cm. Huge, dark ibis. Adult is mostly dark with naked, greyish ahead and upper neck, dark bands on hindcrown and nape and pale greyish wing-coverts and secondary with dark cross-bars. Juvenile has short black feathers on hindcrown and hindneck, shorter bill and brown eyes (dark red on adults) Similar spp. White-shouldered Ibis Pseudibis is smaller and uniformly darker with whitish collar and white patch on inner wing-coverts. Voice Repeated, loud, ringing a-leurk a-leurk at dawn and dusk. Hints Search remote permanent wetlands in the Mekong floodplain during the dry season.

Range and population The Giant Ibis is now confined to northern Cambodia, where it is probably still fairly widespread but extremely rare, with a few birds surviving in extreme southern Laos and was recently rediscovered in Dak lak province of Vietnam. Its historical range spanned southern Vietnam, and southeast and peninsular Thailand, where it is now extinct. In 1997, its population was estimated at c.250 birds, but contrary to a recent estimate that put the population at < 50 mature individuals, it is now believed to number several hundreds pairs. Ecology Single, pairs or small parties occur in marshes, pools, wide rivers and seasonal water-meadows (trapeangs) in open, predominantly deciduous, dipterocarps lowland forest, although historically it also frequented

GIANT IBIS Thaumatibis gigantea

Giant Ibis Thaumatibis gigantea,

Photo by WCS Cambodia Programme

Giant Ibis Thaumatibis gigantea. Photo by WCS Cambodia Programme



rice-paddies. Its diet comprises a variety of invertebrates, crustaceans, small amphibians and reptiles. It frequently feeds in soft mud, but also forages on dry substates. Little is known of its breeding biology, but it nests in trees. It appears to be largely resident, but apparently wanders widely in response to local disturbance and seasonal water-levels. Threats It has declined as a result of hunting, wetland drainage for agriculture, and deforestation. However, given that wide tracts of suitable habitat still exist in Cambodia, human disturbance and hunting, particularly during the dry season when birds are concentrated around available waterholes, are almost certainly the greatest threats. Conservation It occurs at least seasonally in Xe Pian National Biodiversity Conservation Area (NBCA) and Dong

Khanthung proposed NBCA, Laos, and Lomphat Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia. It is depicted on public-awareness material in Laos and Cambodia as part of an ongoing campaign to reduce hunting of large waterbirds. Targets Conduct further surveys to locate and quantify remaining populations in Laos and Cambodia. � Investigate its breeding requirements,

demography and seasonal movements. � Establish further protected areas encompassing

large tracts of habitat found to support populations of the species, including strict protection of suitable permanent wetlands, especially in the dry season.

� Consolidate and promote further public awareness initiatives to reduce shunting of large waterbirds and wetland disturbance.

Staff NStaff NStaff NStaff Newsewsewsews Nguyen Thi Ngoc Ha joined BirdLife International in mid-August. She graduated from the Institute for International Relations with major in international law. She will be in charge of administration and communications at BirdLife. With her experience in communications, especially in public relations, Ha hopes to contribute to promoting BirdLife’s image, improving the publics' understanding of BirdLife’s Programme in Vietnam in particular, and increasing public support for BirdLife.

(clockwise starting from top left) Mr. Kry Masphal, Project Officer; Dr. Sean C. Austin, Cambodia Programme Manager; Mr. Than Thara, Assistant Project Officer; Mr. Chea Nget, Assistant Project Officer; Ms. Nhean Phala, Administrative Assistant & Financial Officer; Mr. Seng Kim Hout, Project Officer.

CAMBODIA BIRDLIFE PROGRAMME STAFF

NGUYEN THI NGOC HA ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER



Recently publishedRecently publishedRecently publishedRecently published

Important Bird Areas in Lao P.D.R was recently jointly published by the Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wildlife Conservation Society Lao Programme and BirdLife International in Indochina. Overleaf Mr. Phetsamey Vongkhammounty’s foreword. Copies of this publications are available from: Forestry Inventory and Planning Division Box 3802, Vientiane, Lao P.D.R. Division of Forest Resource Conservation Box 2932, Vientiane, Lao P.D.R.

BirdLife International in Indochina 4, Lane 209, Doi Can Street Ba Dinh, Hanoi Vietnam or

Wildlife Conservation Society Lao Programme Box 6712, Vientiane, Lao P.D.R.



Foreword Lao P.D.R has a rich natural heritage. Throughout the country, natural resources support the livelihoods oflocal people, and form a foundation for sustainable development. Lao P.D.R is recognised as globally important for the conservation of biodiversity. Most notably, Lao P.D.R. still supports intact naturallandscapes, which have been extensively lost from neighboring countries. As a result, the potential for long-term conservation of intact plant and animal communities and population of threatened species is high in manyareas. However, the rich natural heritage of the country is currently under threat from a number of sources, includingthe illegal, international wildlife trade, the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, and the loss ofnatural habitats. Fortunately, the Government of Lao P.D.R., through its laws and policies, has taken manysteps to address these threats. In 1993, Prime Ministerial Decree No.164 established the national protected areas network. In 1995 and 1996,two additional protected areas were decreed, bringing the total number to 20. The total area of these protectedareas is 3.3 million ha or 14% of the nation’s land area. The Government of Lao P.D.R. recognizes the need for protected areas to support human livelihoods as well as biodiversity. Over the last 10 years, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, with the support of international donors andNGOs, conducted a series of surveys throughout the protected areas network and other sites of highbiodiversity value. The data collected during these surveys form a solid basis for conservation planning in LaoP.D.R.. In 1999, the results of these surveys were summarized in the Wildlife in Lao P.D.R: 1999 Status Report, produced by the Centre of Protected Areas and Watershed Management, IUCN and the WildlifeConservation Society (WCS). This publication assessed the status of all mammal, bird, reptile and amphibianspecies in the country. During 2001 and 2002, the Forest Inventory and Planning Division (FIPD) and the Division of ForestResource Conservation (DFRC), with technical support from WCS and BirdLife International and fundingfrom Danida, conducted an analysis of all available data on the status of birds in Lao P.D.R., in order to identify and document internationally important sits for bird conservation within protected areas and otherland-use designations. One output of this project is the Directory of Important Bird Areas in Lao P.D.R. Important Bird Areas (IBAs) are sites of international importance for birds conservation, based upon standard, internationallyrecognized criteria. IBAs are not only important for birds buy typically support a wide range of otherimportant animal and plant species. Furthermore, IBAs are also important for human welfare and economicwell being, through protecting catchments, providing flood control or as a source of natural resources for localcommunities. This directory represents an important source of information in an easily accessible format. It can be used ineducation, training and environmental awareness. In addition, it can assist with planning for eco-tourism development in protected areas, by identifying sites of interests to visitors. Finally, by identifying important areas for bird conservation within protected areas, the directory will be a useful tool for developing protectedarea management plans that balance the needs of conservation with those of local communities who depend onthe natural resources of the protected areas. I would like to congratulate the authors for producing this useful document, and to thank WCS, BirdLife International and Danida for their support for the project. Director General Department of Forestry Phetsamey Vongkhammounty signed.



Photo spotPhoto spotPhoto spotPhoto spot This photograph was taken by L. Bruce Kckule, an acclaimed wildlife photographer based in Thailand. In addition to being a remarkable photograph, this particular individual lacks the species’ characteristic black-barring on the flanks. If any of our readers have seen an individual like this, we would like to hear from you.

Gurney’s Pitta. Photo by L. Bruce Kckule



From the ArchivesFrom the ArchivesFrom the ArchivesFrom the Archives

The headman of Yimtsong-Awenrr village (Northeast India) drinking from a horn and wearing a hat with a hornbill decoration. Yimchung, 1947.

This picture was extracted from the “Hills people of Northeast India the Nagas, society, culture and colonial encounter”, by Julian Jacobs with Alan Macfarlane, Sarah Harrison and Anita Herle, published in 1990 by Thames and Hudson, 30 Bloomsbury Street, London WC1B 3QP.

the babbler 7

Documents

indochina babbler

indochina welcome

protected areas

important outputs

global protected area

congress theme

action plan

important messages