Hosted by the Ministry of Environmental Conservation and ...
Transcript of Hosted by the Ministry of Environmental Conservation and ...
NBSAP Inception Workshop, July 31, 2014
Hosted by the Ministry of Environmental
Conservation and Forestry
Funded by UNEP China Fund
Nay Pyi Taw
Draft of September 8, 2014
An Update of Myanmar’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
On July 31, 2014, the Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry (MOECAF) hosted the
inception workshop for an update of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP).
The NBSAP will be updated to include the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (ABT), to incorporate the
most recent data relevant to biodiversity conservation, and to update and prioritize the Action Plan
for each ABT. The revision process is funded by UNEP-Nairobi and the UNEP China Fund and
will include consultations at the regional and national level with government, civil society, and the
private sector.
The first version of the NBSAP was written in 2011 and approved by the Myanmar government in
2012. Most of the data in the NBSAP came from the Conservation Investment Vision1 written in
2013 by a consortium of NGOs. The revised NBSAP will include the significant amount of data
that has been collected on biodiversity in the intervening decade, particularly for marine and coastal
management. The NBSAP should also include an assessment of how new laws and policies,
including the Environmental Conservation Law of 2012, land use policies, and policies on Foreign
Direct Investment (FDI), will affect conservation goals. The NBSAP will also be revised to reflect
the contribution of indigenous knowledge and management practices to biodiversity conservation.
While the original inception workshop held in 2006 included representatives from a number of
different government ministries and departments and a few NGOs, the update process must include
broader civil society and the private sector participation in line with CBD guidelines. NBSAP
development is an opportunity to increase public awareness of the value of conservation and build
public support for conservation policies and action at national, regional, and local levels. Three
regional consultations will be held in southern, central, and northern Myanmar as part of the
NBSAP revision process.
Inception Workshop U Tin Tun, Director General of the Planning and Statistics Department, Forest Department (FD),
opened the workshop with remarks about the need to designate new protected areas in line with the
national target of 10% in the National Forestry Master Plan for 2001-2030. Marine conservation,
which has been relatively neglected, is a priority, with Aichi Target 11 calling for 10% of marine
and coastal areas protected by 2020. In order to preserve the benefits of biodiversity for Myanmar’s
people, it is necessary to find ways to reach ABT protection targets.
Jinhua Zhang UNEP-ROAP, NBSAP Integration Regional Perspective
Zhang presented a regional perspective on NBSAP development and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
Decision (X/2) on the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, adopted at the Convention on
Biological Diversity Conference of Parties 10 (CBD COP10), urged countries to update their
NBSAPs and develop national targets. The NBSAP revision can provide a framework to coordinate
implementation of the six major Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Conventions related to
biodiversity: the CBD, CITES, CMS, Ramsar, the World Heritage Convention, and the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. To date, 178 out of 193
country signatories have developed an NBSAP and 18 have finished revising their NBSAPs to
include the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Jinhua also explained where other ASEAN countries are in
their NBSAP development process.
The presentation highlighted the primary lessons learned from past regional experiences with
NBSAP preparation:
1WCS (2013) Myanmar Biodiversity Conservation Investment Vision. Wildlife Conservation Society, Yangon,
Myanmar.
1. NBSAP development was treated as a technical process to gather information, but not as a
political process to increase support for biodiversity conservation and mainstreaming it into
other sectors. NBSAPs developed in this way often have little influence on policy.
2. NBSAPs were not well incorporated into national development strategies, with the
Millenium Development Goals, or with sectoral policies.
3. NBSAPs were overly ambitious and prescriptive, without a strategy for financing
implementation.
4. NBSAPs did not have measurable, time-bound targets or mechanisms for monitoring
progress.
Recommendations for targets from UNEP include identifying financing mechanisms, developing a
clear set of indicators for targets, and greater engagement with community-based organizations
(CBOs) and NGOs.
Reviewing National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, NWCD
Naing Zaw Htun, Assistant Director of the FD’s Nature and Wildlife Conservation Division
(NWCD), gave an overview of the previous NBSAP development process in Myanmar. Myanmar
became a member country of the UN CBD in 1994. The country developed an NBSAP in
accordance with Article 6 of the CBD in 2011, with the involvement of line departments,
universities, and NGOs. Three national workshops were held and the natural resources, ecosystem
and conservation, and socio-economic working groups each met five times. A national consultant
provided the NBSAP draft, which was approved by UNEP and then by the government in March
2012. Myanmar’s NBSAP does not have a mechanism to coordinate different departments,
ministries, or sectors.
Updating Myanmar’s NBSAP, IUCN
Jake Brunner, IUCN Programme Coordinator for Viet Nam, Myanmar, and Cambodia, identified
sources of published and unpublished data that should be incorporated into the NBSAP and
described how this data can help to identify priority areas for increasing protected area coverage
(Aichi Target 11). Remote sensing data indicates that mangroves and dry deciduous forests are
under particular pressure. The Key Biodiversity Areas identified in the Myanmar Biodiversity
Conservation Investment Vision (2013) and extensions of PAs on the World Heritage Tentative List
have also identified priority areas for conservation. Community-managed protected areas, such as
Chaung-Pone-Kan Wildlife Sanctuary in Magwe Division, and customary protected areas could
also contribute towards ABT 11.
A preliminary economic valuation of Myanmar’s forests indicate that their total value is nearly
US$7.3 billion, including their value for watershed and coastal protection, pollination, fisheries
replenishment, and production of timber and other forest products (Emerton and Yan Min Aung
2013). While this analysis needs to be supplemented by more reliable data from the district level, it
clearly indicates that forest conservation substantially subsidizes inputs and services to the broader
economy. Groups that benefit from conservation, including agriculture and fisheries industries,
receive these benefits at little or no cost. Even within MOECAF, 80% of the budget goes to
Myanmar Timber Enterprise (MTE), though timber accounts for less than 10% of the forest sector’s
value.
Some primary goals for the new NBSAP include:
1. Greater engagement with general public, civil society, businesses.
2. Identify the primary drivers of deforestation and address them through mainstreaming
biodiversity in to the relevant sectors.
3. Address laws and policies that have been enacted since the previous NBSAP.
4. Expand coastal and marine coverage, which are currently underrepresented.
5. Incorporate lessons from other countries in the region.
6. Update biodiversity data and generate meaningful, measurable indicators for each target.
Julia Fogerite, Project Officer for IUCN, presented all twenty ABTs with examples relevant to
Myanmar for each target. Target 3, for example, encourages mainstreaming of biodiversity into
macroeconomic policy and FDI regulation. ABT 18, the recognition of traditional knowledge in
conservation, is a crosscutting issue that can be applied to most of the other targets. Guidelines for
incorporation of indigenous knowledge can be found in Article 8(j) and 10(c), and a national focal
point for Article 8(j) could be appointed during the NBSAP update process. Broad participation in
the NBSAP update process is an opportunity to work towards Target 1, increased public awareness
of the value of biodiversity.
Group Discussion Participants divided into four groups to discuss 10 of the 20 ABTs that are most relevant to
Myanmar. To capture the results of the discussion, each group filled out a SWOT (Strengths,
Weakeness, Opportunities, Threats) analysis for their targets and presented them to the group for
discussion.
Group A: Protected Areas and Species (Targets 11 and 12)
Targets 11 and 12 are intended to conserve biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems and species.
They are two of the three targets within Strategic Direction C, which aims to safeguard biodiversity
and ecosystem, species, and genetic levels.
Target 11 Protected Areas increased and improved: By 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and
inland water, and 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for
biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed,
ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-
based conservation.
Target 12 Extinction of threatened species prevented: By 2020 the extinction of known
threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in
decline, has been improved and sustained
Strength (Internal) Opportunities (External)
National targets on PAs (5% in
Myanmar Forest Policy (1995),
10% in National Forestry Master
Plan for 2001-2030)
Defined Key Biodiversity Areas
(132), and Important Bird Areas
(Birdlife International)
Existing legal framework for PAs
EIA required by Environmental
Conservation Law of 2012)
International interest in biodiversity conservation in Myanmar
increasing
Integrated approach for conservation and management
Increasing activity of CBOs , CSOs, NGOs
GEF 6 allocation (2014-2018) of US$10 million for biodiversity
for Myanmar
Increasing community-based conservation approaches such as
Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBRM).
Man and Biosphere (MAB) potential designations, community
forestry (CF) especially in buffer zones and in natural forest
Weakness (Internal) Threats (External)
No gap analysis on what
ecosystems are not protected
under current and proposed PAs
Low awareness of existing
legislation
Not enough opportunity for
stakeholder engagement in
conservation- need framework
Unsustainable development and land use change
Poor participation of local people and local government
Land use conflicts
for co-management
Limited human resources and
funding
Poor coordination among line
ministries
Conflicts between interests of
different sectors
While the ABT sets a target of 17% of land area and 10% of marine and coastal areas under
conservation, countries should set targets appropriate to their own circumstances. Myanmar
currently has 5.6% of its total land area designated as protected areas, and a target of 10% coverage
was set in the National Forestry Master Plan for 2001-2030. Already proposed protected areas
would add an additional 1.19% land cover to the total if gazetted. Effective management is as
important as the coverage target, and efforts to designate large areas should not come at the expense
of strengthening park management.
Gap analyses of current protected areas can help to determine priorities for expanded protection.
Designation of new areas under conservation must be guided by species ranges and targeted
towards current protection gaps. Otherwise, additional PA coverage may do little to safeguard the
biodiversity of lowland forests, dry deciduous forests, wetlands, and other areas under relatively
high pressure. Key Biodiversity Areas and Important Bird Areas can also help to determine priority
areas. Dry deciduous forest may warrant a special focus, as it is highly fragmented with only a few
patches designated as protected. Developing a framework to recognize traditional and community-
conserved areas would help to meet protected area targets. Wildlife trafficking must be addressed
to meet ABT 11 for species including tigers, Sunda and Chinese Pangolins, and multiple species of
turtle and tortoise.
During the discussion of this SWOT analysis, the group’s listing of “poverty” as a threat to
ecosystem and wildlife conservation was questioned. Brunner commented that poverty is not an
underlying threat to wildlife and it is important to be more specific in these assessments. If poverty
were the main threat to forest and wildlife, then how could India and Nepal fare relatively well with
PA management and wildlife conservation? Their PAs are well-funded, enjoy public support and
prestige, and are prioritized by the government. These factors, among others, are a more useful way
to understand threats to biodiversity than a general identification of poverty as the cause.
Group B: Ecosystem Benefits and Financing, Targets 2, 14, 20
These targets cover the values that ecosystems provide, how these values are integrated into
national accounting, and how financial resources can be mobilized to safeguard these values.
Target 2 Bioversity values integrated: By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been
integrated into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies and planning
processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting
systems.
Target 14 Ecosystem services safeguarded: By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services,
including services related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored
and safeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and
the poor and vulnerable.
Target 20 Financial resources increased: By 2020, at the latest, the mobilization of financial
resources for effectively implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 from all
sources, and in accordance with the consolidated and agreed process in the Strategy for Resource
Mobilization should increase substantially from the current levels. This target will be subject to
changes contingent to resource needs assessments to be developed and reported by Parties.
Strength (Internal) Opportunities (External)
Existence of large area of natural habitats
Dry Zone Greening Department
New Mangrove Division
NWCD
Environmental Conservation Department
End of sanctions means opportunity for new
technology transfer (e.g., off the grid)
Policy support for Green Economy
Adoption of a people-centered approach
Credible valuation of ecosystem services
REDD+ transition fund
Establishing a national policy to offset
unavoidable impacts in line with National
Conservation Priorities
Weakness (Internal) Threats (External)
Central Dry Zone – Poverty, Climate, Population,
need to address drivers and not just plant
History of sanctions
Insecure tenure and weak protection of land rights
Mangrove recovery in abandoned aquaculture
ponds requires substantial initial investment (e.g.,
northern Rakhine)
Solutions required outside of MOECAF
Climate change impacts
Unresolved conflicts at border area
The values of ecosystem services in Myanmar have not been assessed using credible data and these
values remain a blind spot in decisions about land use and resource management. Incorporating
these values into the accounting and incentives of MOECAF and other ministries could help to
institutionalize environmental considerations. These values include watershed provisioning,
pollination and pest control for agriculture, and safe air and water for public health.
Funding for conservation could come in part from the establishment of a national policy on
biodiversity offsets from unavoidable impacts of development projects. As discussed in the
opening presentation, increased funding for MOECAF’s conservation activities would be in line
with the values it generates for other sectors. Increased funding will be necessary to meet the
ABTs. ABT 15, for example, would require the restoration of degraded mangrove areas. In
northern Rakhine, this would require substantial initial investment of labor to restore natural
hydrology in areas of abandoned shrimp ponds.
Group B’s discussion focused on the Central Dry Zone (CDZ) to examine these three targets in
more detail. The CDZ, covering Sagaing, Magwe, and Mandalay, is a very challenging
environment: high temperatures, high rates of poverty, high population density, low rainfall, and
few livelihood options. There has been a long history of FD-led replanting in the CDZ but as soon
as the project stops, the trees die or are cut down. Farmers cannot afford to wait for trees to reach
marketable size so the income generation potential is low. Nearly all the FD’s replanting efforts
have been in Bagan, which is easy to access and enjoys a slightly more temperate climate. FD staff
consider the CDZ a hardship post.
The FD approach has been all stick (“keep out”) and no carrot. There is no or very limited
community participation and they have no incentive to participate because they do not stand to
benefit from the trees when they mature. The slow rate of community forest allocation also hinders
progress. There are no local nurseries (that communities could manage and earn income from) or
sources of financing to enable communities to delay cutting. REDD+ could provide transitional
financing. Tree cutting for fuelwood is a major threat and needs solutions from outside the forestry
sector, for example promoting off the grid solar power. These solutions need financing, though,
and years of sanctions have prevented any innovation in off the grid technologies.
Expansion of community forestry, promotion of community enterprises, and adoption of fuelwood-
efficient cookstoves and other technologies, including solar power, may help to reduce pressure on
CDZ forests and minimize fragmentation.
The group also discussed shifting cultivation in Chin and Shan States, including options to redice
fallow rotational periods to cope with increasing population pressure and take advantage of greater
market access. This system of rotational agroforestry provides multiple livelihood and ecosystem
benefits. As was pointed out after Group B presented their main points, shifting cultivation impacts
watersheds in patches, whereas competing land uses like oil palm and other monoculture plantations
convert entire watersheds. As with other smallholders, increased product quality and post-
production technologies could make these diverse, low-input systems more profitable. Supporting
the sustainability of shifting cultivation systems, maintaining their diversity, and preserving the
traditional knowledge bout up in these systems would help to fulfill both conservation and rural
development goals.
Group C: Coastal and Marine, Freshwater (Targets 6, 10)
These targets focus on the sustainable management of aquatic resources and the protection of
threatened marine and freshwater habitats and species. An ecosystem approach to fisheries
management and integrated coastal management are essential for achieving these targets.
Target 6: Sustainable management of marine living resources
By 2020 all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably,
legally and applying ecosystem based approaches, so that overfishing is avoided, recovery plans
and measures are in place for all depleted species, fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on
threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and
ecosystems are within safe ecological limits.
Target 10 Pressure on coral reefs reduced:
By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems
impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to maintain their integrity
and functioning.
Strength (Internal) Opportunities (External)
Strongly supported by political will and
government.
According to R/V Dr. Fridtjof Nansen
(fisheries research vessel) survey results,
marine primary productivity is lower but still
in good condition
External funding
External technology support
Active participation of NGOs and INGOs.
Wider project implementation.
Good coral covers in some parts of Myeik
Archipelago
Strong interest by local communities: LMMA
approach
Large and diverse marine ecosystem.
Strong interest by global communities:
biodiversity, ecosystem
Weakness (Internal) Threats (External)
Weak governance on environmental
conservation
Low horizontal intervention within
government departments
Low budget allocation for conservation
Conservation technology
Limited human resources
Community poverty
Low awareness
Pollution: water quality
Human health
Biodiversity loss
Ecosystem damage: sand mining
Low compliance on laws and regulations
No effective management
Climate change
Transboundary fishing
Weak law enforcement
Transparency of NGOs and INGOs
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) is in
severe decline
Low interest in conservation by business
communities
No/little updated information.
A clearer impression of the status of Myanmar’s marine resources has been emerging with recent
surveys by R.V. Dr. Fridtjof Nansen on coastal fisheries, coral reef surveys in the Myeik
Archipelago by IUCN and Fauna & Flora International (FFI), and other work supported by the Bay
of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem project. This new data highlights the immediate need for
improved management and conservation of marine resources. The Nansen survey conducted in late
2013 recorded pelagic fish biomass at 10% of the levels found in their 1978-80 surveys and
demersal fish biomass at 30% of 1980 levels. There were also fewer large, high value demersal fish
caught in the recent survey. Primary production was lower than in the 1979-80 survey, but with
appropriate management could support a recovery of fish stocks if action is taken in the next few
years. The IUCN and FFI surveys have identified some reefs in good condition that could be
priorities for conservation and local management, while also documenting significant damage from
dynamite fishing and other illegal fishing methods.
Weak governance of marine resources was identified as a key impediment to achieving these two
ABTs. Uncertainties over near-shore governance, lack of law enforcement, uncertainty over
procedures for the establishment and responsibilities for management of marine protected areas, and
low integration and coordination across relevant departments all hinder marine management. At
present, the fishery is estimated to be 40% over harvested. The private sector is perceived to be
more interested in increasing current catches than in ecosystem-based fisheries management and
conservation. Other threats to marine and coastal areas include establishment of Special Economic
Zones and deep sea ports, sand mining, oil exploration in the 81 available offshore blocks, tourism
development, and climate change.
NGOs, INGOs, and local communities all have the potential to play an increased role in marine and
coastal management. There is strong community interest in Locally Managed Marine Areas.
Community-based marine management is analogous to community management of forests and
freshwater fisheries that have already been established in Myanmar, often with NGO facilitation.
Cooperation between line departments, NGOs, INGOs, and civil society are more developed for
forests and freshwater management, and marine work should foster similar collaborative
relationships.
Group D: Sustainable Land Use (Targets 5, 7, 18)
Group D chose to write separate SWOT analyses for each of these targets. Target 5 addresses the
drivers of deforestation and habitat degradation and Target 7 the sustainable alternatives to
managing agriculture, aquaculture, and fisheries. Traditional knowledge and practices are a cross-
cutting theme of the ABTs and can play a key role in achieving many of the targets.
Target 5: Habitat loss halved or reduced: By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats,
including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and
fragmentation is significantly reduced.
Strength (Internal) Opportunities (External)
Forest Law, Environmental Law, Wildlife Law, etc.
Willingness to work with INGOs
Capacity building
Transparent supply chain
Community Forestry expansion International support programs
Land use policy in progress
Weakness (Internal) Threats (External)
Monitoring
Public awareness
Weak data storage and handling system
Law enforcement
Land use policy not in place
Population pressure
Increased demand of natural resources
Illegal logging
Urbanization
Target 5 addresses the drivers of deforestation, including agribusiness development, infrastructure
projects, urbanization, and increasing demand for natural resources. Land grabs that convert forest
area to other uses, including industrial agriculture, was identified as a major driver of deforestation
that should be addressed in the ongoing land policy reform process. Urban development is also a
driver of forest loss; Nay Pyi Taw was built on what used to be a reserve forest. Law enforcement
and monitoring illegal activity were identified as weaknesses. Increased transparency in supply
chains, through FLEGT for timber and certification programs for other forest and agricultural
products, could help to address these problems. Certification systems can also promote sustainable
use under Target 7. A major gap in knowledge is the relative impact of diferent drivers of
deforestation in different regions and on a national level. The group could not rank the scale of
impact of the drivers they discussed, which would be necessary for prioritizing steps in the Action
Plan reduce the rate of deforestation. Collecting information on the relative impact of different
drivers of deforestation was identified as a goal for the NBSAP update process.
Target 7: Sustainable Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Forestry By 2020 areas under agriculture,
aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity.
Strength (Internal) Opportunities (External)
Laws (Farmland, Vacant, and
Virgin)
Land use policy (drafted)
Integrated Pest Management
Community Forestry, plantation,
rehabilitation
Energy efficient stoves
Log export ban (2014)
Technology transfer
Micro-credit loans (ADB)
High value timber
Diverse forest ecosystem & biodiversity
International and national law enforcement network (ASEAN-
WEN, TRAFFIC, NWLET)
Trans-boundary cooperation
Weakness (Internal) Threats (External)
Shifting cultivation
Lack of modern technology (post
harvest)
Lack of energy in rural areas
Land ownership
Climate change
Illegal logging
Over exploitation of natural resources
The discussion focused on agriculture and forestry. Land use policy and laws were identified as
both a threat and opportunity as they are being revised. The recent formation of both the
Community Forestry Unit within the FD and of the Community Forestry National Working Group,
shows commitment to expand the amount of forest under community management. Community
enterprises linked to community forests could be a source of sustainably managed timber and non-
timber forest products. Improvements in post-harvest technology, both to increase the quality and
value of crops and to reduce agricultural waste, could be improved through investment and
technology transfer.
Target 18 Traditional Knowledge respected: By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and
practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity, and their customary use of biological resources, are respected, subject to national
legislation and relevant international obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the
implementation of the Convention with the full and effective participation of indigenous and
local communities, at all relevant levels.
Strength (Internal) Opportunities (External)
Traditional agricultural practices
Diverse herbal resources
Sacred forests
Genetic diversity
Development of seed bank
Traditional medicine
Recognition of sacred forests in land use policy
Weakness (Internal) Threats (External)
Low production
No specific records, research on indigenous
knowledge
Value-added technology
Knowledge transfer
High interest in GMO varieties
Low investment
Migration/socio-economic changes in
mountainous areas
Climate change
Myanmar’s many ethnic groups hold a wealth of indigenous knowledge and management practices
critical to achieving many of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Indigenous and community-conserved
areas, including sacred forests and watershed protection forests, are protected areas in their own
right and should be recognized as such. Genetically and nutritionally diverse polycultures and agro-
forestry demonstrate sustainable management adapted to local ecological and economic systems.
Genetic diversity of local and traditional crop varieties may help to adapt crops to a changing
climate. Traditional genetic resource must be preserved against increasing use of hybrid seeds
bought from abroad (this also falls under ABT 13). As with other smallholders, post-harvest
processing and organization of producer groups could increase the profitability of these systems.
The maintenance of traditional knowledge is under threat by forced and voluntary migration that
disrupts traditional relationships with land. Socio-economic changes can also weaken the transfer
of knowledge between generations. Greater numbers of rural investment and development projects
will provide different livelihood opportunities and change traditional lifestyles, which may also lead
to loss of traditional knowledge. School systems that do not teach traditional knowledge and
culture also impede its transfer to new generations.
The presentation from Group D prompted a discussion of the risks and opportunities of increased
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Myanmar. Group D had initially listed FDI as an opportunity
for technology transfer and human resource training, under the condition that EIAs and SIAs are
rigorous and well-implemented. Beneficial FDI could, for example, encourage post-harvest
processing to improve the quality and profitability of lower yielding but more sustainable traditional
cultivation. Most of the attendees, however, considered FDI to be a severe threat to biodiversity
conservation and sustainable resource management. Some investors may currently be attracted to
Myanmar not because of its natural resources but because of its low levels of regulation and
environmental protection. Adoption of high yield, high input agriculture threatens the preservation
of traditional varieties, generates cycles of rural debt, and increases the environmental impact of
cultivation. Increased nitrogen, pesticide, and herbicide use is a threat to biodiversity and public
health. The replacement of smallholder farms with large scale, industrial agribusiness is a threat to
food security among rural populations. It is essential that FDI is channelled into avenues that will
benefit smallholder farmers rather than funding large-scale, environmentally destructive
monocultures.
Conclusions
The update of the NBSAP is an opportunity to develop indicators and prioritize actions under the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Many of the goals set under the current Action Plan, which is organized
by sector, fit under the ABTs. Updating the NBSAP to reflect the current understanding of
biodiversity and threats will be used to identify knowledge gaps and develop indicators to monitor
progress towards ABTs. Regional and national consultations with different sectors of government,
businesses, and civil society will be used to fill gaps and set priorities in the Action Plan.
Different regions will have very different drivers of deforestation and degradation, and different
priorities for meeting the ABTs. It may be appropriate to develop state and division level Action
Plans during the update of the NBSAP. Upcoming regional consultations will explore this
possibility. More data must be collected on the primary drivers of deforestation in different regions
in order to prioritize regional Action Plans.
Many of the threats to biodiversity lie outside the scope of MOECAF, highlighting the importance
of mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into other sectors. Increasing FDI is a double-edged
sword, and biodiversity conservation must be mainstreamed to encourage investment that will
benefit Myanmar’s environment and residents over the long term. Group discussions of FDI and
agriculture highlighted the need to set standards for the type of investments and development
projects that Myanmar wants to attract. Preservation of traditional crop varieties and adding value
to smallholder production should be encouraged over adoption of high-input monocultures and
large-scale concessions for agribusiness.
Community-managed protected areas, forests, and marine and freshwater fisheries provide an
opportunity to meet multiple ATBs. Traditional knowledge and practices play a key role in
sustainable community management of resources, and should be recognized, preserved, and
incorporated into management plans.
Coastal and marine management is a priority area for the NBSAP update. Recent data on the
declining state of marine fisheries demand immediate action to reduce fishing effort to sustainable
levels, adopt and ecosystem approach to fisheries management, and coordinate work between the
Department of Fisheries, MOECAF, NGOs, INGOs, and communities in coastal areas.
This update of the NBSAP to include the Aichi Biodivesity Targets is also an opportunity to raise
awareness in the public and with key stakeholders about the value of biodiversity and functioning
ecosystems. Broad participation in consultations is one avenue to raise awareness. A
communication strategy for the NBSAP should be developed to include more stakeholders,
especially those outside of the conservation sphere, in the update process and to engage the general
public.
Aichi Biodiversity Targets
Strategic Goal A: Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming
biodiversity across government and society
Target 1: By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they
can take to conserve and use it sustainably
Target 2: By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local
development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being
incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems
Target 3: By 2020, at the latest, incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are
eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to minimize or avoid negative impacts, and positive
incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are developed and applied,
consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant international obligations, taking
into account national socio economic conditions
Target 4: By 2020, at the latest, Governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have taken
steps to achieve or have implemented plans for sustainable production and consumption and
have kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits
Strategic Goal B: Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use
Target 5: By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and
where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced
Target 6: By 2020 all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and
harvested sustainably, legally and applying ecosystem based approaches, so that overfishing is
avoided, recovery plans and measures are in place for all depleted species, fisheries have no
significant adverse impacts on threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of
fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits
Target 7: By 2020 areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed
sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity
Target 8: By 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients, has been brought to levels that are
not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity
Target 9: By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority
species are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their
introduction and establishment
Target 10: By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable
ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to maintain
their integrity and functioning
Strategic Goal C: Improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and
genetic diversity
Target 11: By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of
coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem
services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative
and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation
measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes
Target 12: By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their
conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained
Target 13: By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated
animals and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable
species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing
genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity
Strategic Goal D: Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services
Target 14: By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to
water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored and safeguarded, taking
into account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable.
Target 15: By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has
been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 per cent
of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to
combating desertification
Target 16: By 2015, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and
Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization is in force and operational, consistent
with national legislation
Strategic Goal E: Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge
management and capacity building
Target 17: By 2015 each Party has developed, adopted as a policy instrument, and has commenced
implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action
plan
Target 18: By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and
local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their
customary use of biological resources, are respected, subject to national legislation and relevant
international obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention
with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels.
Target 19: By 2020, knowledge, the science base and technologies relating to biodiversity, its
values, functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widely
shared and transferred, and applied
Target 20: By 2020, at the latest, the mobilization of financial resources for effectively
implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 from all sources, and in accordance
with the consolidated and agreed process in the Strategy for Resource Mobilization, should increase
substantially from the current levels. This target will be subject to changes contingent to resource
needs assessments to be developed and reported by Parties
Participants
National Steering Committee Members
No. Name Status Organization
1. U Sein Tun Director Department of Water Resources and Rivers
Development
2. U Aung Myint Than Director Planning Department
3. U Aye Cho Director Public Works
4. Dr. San Thar Tun Professor Department of Marine Sciences,
Mawlamyine University
5. U Win Naing Thaw Director NWCD
6. U Moe Kyaw Swar Director Nay Pyi Taw City Development Committee
7. U Zaw Myo Aung Deputy Director Settlement and Land Record Department
8. U Nyunt Win Deputy Director Department of Fisheries
9. Dr. Oak Kar Soe Deputy Director Department of Livestock and Fisheries
10. Dr. Kyi Lwin Soe Deputy Director Depatment of Health
11. U Thar Tun Kyaw Section Head Mandalay City Development Committee
12. U Than Myint Country
Representative
Widlife Conservation Division (WCS)
13. Dr. Khin Gyee Maung Associate Professor Department of Zoology, Yangon University
14. U Khin Maung Oo Secretary ECCDI
15. Daw Se Se Sat Assistant Director Directorate of Industry
16. U Kyaw Win Assistant Director Directorate of Hotels and Tourism
17. Dr. Naing Zaw Htun Assistant Director NWCD
18. U Sein Aun Min Assistant Director Environmental Conservation Department
19. Daw May Dar Win Tun Staff Officer Nay Pyi Taw City Development Committee
20. U La Yaw Staff Officer General Administration Department
Forest Department
No. Name Status Organization
1. U Bo Ni Director Watershed Management Division (WMD)
2. U Ye Htut Director Zoological Garden Division
3. Dr. Toe Toe Aung Staff Officer WMD
4. Dr. Tin Zar Kywe Staff Officer NWCD
5. U Pyi Soe Aung Range Officer NWCD
6. U Zin Phyo Han Tun Range Officer NWCD
7. Daw Aye Myat Thu Range Officer NWCD
8. Daw Myat Su Mon Range Officer NWCD
9. Daw Htike San Soe Range Officer NWCD
10. U Zaw Min Tun Ranger NWCD
Representatives from NGOs/INGOs
No. Name Status Organization
1. Daw Ye Ye Maw Senior Policy Manger WWF
2. Dr. Khin Ni Ni Thein Country Director WWF
3. Ms. Michelle Owen Conservation Manager WWF
4. Mr. David Abrahamson Consultant FREDA
5. U Zau Lunn Project Coordinator FFI
No. Name Status Organization
6. U Ngwe Lwin Project Coordinator FFI
7. U Maung Maung Than Member FREDA
8. U Myint Aung Country Director IMC/FOW
Representatives from IUCN and UNEP
No. Name Status Organization
1. Mr. Jake Brunner IUCN
2. Mr. Petch Manopawitr IUCN
3. Ms. Julia Fogerite IUCN
4. Mr. Jinhua Zheng UNEP