Reconciling Mountain Biodiversity Conservation and Human Wellbeing: Drivers of Biodiversity Loss and New Approaches in the Hindu-Kush Himalayas

Abstract

Mountains have long been admired and protected on the grounds of their wilderness,character and landscape beauty. But despite their remoteness and low human population density, many mountain ecosystems are strongly affected by drivers of global change. Mountain ecosystems in the tropical and sub-tropical regions have attracted the attention of a number of scientists, policy makers and natural resource managers because of their critical role in the supply of ecosystem services, and their vulnerability to environmental changes induced by anthropogenic and climatic factors. Adapting to and mitigating the effects of environmental change and sustaining ecosystem services in the context of a burgeoning human population is a major challenge.The Convention on Biological Diversity, Millennium Development Goals, and other international agreements explicitly connect conservation to poverty alleviation. It has become clear that nature conservation only works in practice if people's needs are also taken into account; while conservation efforts based on community participation and ownership tend to be more effective. A concerted effort is needed to develop a better scientific understanding of ecosystem structure and functioning and drivers of change as a basis for formulating comprehensive ecosystem management approaches and strategies that link to human wellbeing and poverty alleviation. This paper reviews the state of knowledge on five principle pressures, driving biodiversity loss in the HKH region, and describes evolving processes that highlight reconciliation of the conservation and development perspectives.

Impact of land use land cover change on ecosystem services: a comparative analysis on observed data and people’s perception in Inle Lake, Myanmar

“…The LULCC has been identified as one of the main drivers of change worldwide (Pandit et al 2007;Chettri and Sharma 2016). Such LULCC, as a continued socioecological disturbance, changes the flow of ES (Janssen and Anderies 2007).…”

“…Since 1900 AD, the wetland lost 64-71% of its original area and was faster for inland than coastal natural wetlands (Davidson 2014). As evident from the recent studies, the LULCC is one of the five major drivers of change for wetlands in Asia (Romshoo and Rashid 2014;Zorrilla-Miras et al 2014;Chettri and Sharma 2016). As a result, wetland degradation and its conservation have been a subject of global concern (Gopal 2013;Reis et al 2017;Davidson et al 2018).…”

Integrating geospatial tools and species for conservation planning in a data-poor region of the Far Eastern Himalayas

“…In recent decades, the HKH has witnessed significant conceptual development in regional approaches to biodiversity conservation. It evolved from "people exclusionary" and "species focused" to "peoplecentred community-based" and "ecosystem/landscape approach," as reflected by conservation policies and practices within the region (Chettri & Sharma, 2016;Molden et al, 2017;Sharma et al, 2010). The classical approach to biodiversity conservation, which started with an emphasis on the conservation of flagship species (e.g., Wikramanayake et al, 1998;Yonzon, 1989), evolved to the understanding that "conservation and management of biodiversity are impossible without people's participation" (Phuntsho, Chettri, & Oli, 2012).…”

“…The classical approach to biodiversity conservation, which started with an emphasis on the conservation of flagship species (e.g., Wikramanayake et al, 1998;Yonzon, 1989), evolved to the understanding that "conservation and management of biodiversity are impossible without people's participation" (Phuntsho, Chettri, & Oli, 2012). Since the 1980s, decentralization, and devolution of authority for biodiversity conservation were evident in governments" efforts across the HKH through landscape-level initiatives (see Chettri & Sharma, 2016;Phuntsho et al, 2012;Sharma et al, 2010;Zomer & Oli, 2011).…”

“…Also, only about 25% of the Global Biodiversity Hotspots in the HKH are within the existing protected area network, leaving a very significant area unprotected . Moreover, habitat degradation as a result of land use and cover change (Bharti, Adhikari, & Rawat, 2012;Sharma, Areendran, Raj, Sharma, & Joshi, 2016;Brandt, Allendorf, Radeloff, & Brooks, 2017) and challenges from prevailing climate change (Kraaijenbrink, Bierkens, Lutz, & Immerzeel, 2017;Shrestha, Wake, Mayewski, & Dibb, 1999) are bringing additional pressure on the existing protected areas system and biodiversity of the region (Chettri & Sharma, 2016;Chettri et al, 2010;Xu et al, 2009).…”