Setting priorities for protected area planning in a conflict zone – Afghanistan’s National Protected Area System Plan

Biological Conservation 148 (2012) 146–155

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon

Setting priorities for protected area planning in a conflict zone – Afghanistan’s National Protected Area System Plan McKenzie F. Johnson a,⇑, Nina Kanderian a, Christopher C. Shank a, Haqiq Rahmani a, David Lawson a, Peter Smallwood b a b

Wildlife Conservation Society, Afghanistan Program, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460, United States Biology, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 12 August 2011 Received in revised form 9 January 2012 Accepted 15 January 2012 Available online 17 February 2012 Keywords: Afghanistan Protected area planning Conservation planning Conflict Conservation hotspots

a b s t r a c t Planning for protected area networks is often done on an ad hoc basis, especially in data-poor countries. Afghanistan, a country mired in conflict for the past 30 years, has little of the relevant data to plan a protected area network, and security concerns hinder collection of new data. However, conservation of Afghanistan’s natural resources will be critical to recovery efforts. To assist Afghanistan in planning for its protected area network, we conducted an analysis to identify ecologically important areas for conservation. We overlaid data from ecoregion, floral, and faunal analyses on a grid map of Afghanistan (313 cells each 2500 km2), and used a ranking system to determine those cells containing diverse and/or threatened ecosystems. A color gradation was applied to each cell (white – least diverse to black – most diverse) to produce a map visually depicting ecological diversity across Afghanistan. Those cells with the highest scores were labeled as Priority Zones – defined as areas in which Afghanistan should prioritize conservation activities for protected area designation. Our results formed the basis of the National Protected Area System Plan of Afghanistan, a document setting quantitative protected area targets and outlining a concrete plan of action for the designation of a protected area network. We found the Priority Zone model to be useful in helping Government partners locate areas potentially important for conservation and prioritize activities for protected area designation. This process may be useful for other conflict or post-conflict countries working to establish protected area networks in a data deficient environment. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Protecting Afghanistan’s unique natural heritage after decades of conflict and continuing political turmoil is one of the most challenging issues facing Afghans today. Although conflict can sometimes produce beneficial effects for wildlife through the creation of demilitarized or buffer zones where wildlife can thrive unperturbed by humans (Martin and Szuter, 1999; McNeely, 2003), conservation practitioners suspect that the conflict in Afghanistan has been highly detrimental to the country’s natural resources (Formoli, 1995; UNEP, 2003). Over the last 30 years, Afghanistan has witnessed rapid declines in floral and faunal populations due to a variety of causes, the most prevalent of which include deforestation in

⇑ Corresponding author. Present address: Nicholas School of the Environment, Box 90328, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, United States. Tel.: +1 919 638 6094. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.F. Johnson), nina.wcs@ gmail.com (N. Kanderian), [email protected] (C.C. Shank), haqiq.rahmani@ gmail.com (H. Rahmani), [email protected] (D. Lawson), [email protected] (P. Smallwood). 0006-3207/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.021

the eastern provinces, overhunting, shrub collection, overgrazing, and widespread drought (Bhatnagar et al., 2009; Formoli, 1995; Kanderian et al., 2011; MAIL, 2009; Mishra and Fitzherbert, 2004; Saba, 2001; Shank, 2006; Smallwood et al., 2011; Stevens et al., 2011; UNEP, 2003). Afghanistan’s natural resource base is critical to any recovery measures as it forms the basis of the country’s economy and is required for basic day-to-day living in rural areas (Smallwood et al., 2011; UNEP, 2003; Zahler, 2010). Furthermore, scholars working across diverse disciplines continue to emphasize important linkages between human security and environmental security (Baral and Heinen, 2006; Dudley et al., 2002; Hammill, 2005; Hanson et al., 2009; Machlis and Hanson, 2008). Slowing current levels of degradation and reversing damages already inflicted in the long-standing conflict is critical both to preserving Afghanistan’s environment and restoring the security of its people. 1.1. Protected areas in Afghanistan Protected areas remain one of the most important mechanisms to conserve biodiversity (Miller et al., 2011; Watson et al., 2010) and recent research supports the theory that protected areas may

M.F. Johnson et al. / Biological Conservation 148 (2012) 146–155

stimulate social and economic development after decades of war (Scherl and Emerton, 2008). In 2007, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (hereafter GIRoA) enacted the Environment Law (GIRoA, 2007), which called for a national protected area system and a comprehensive plan for the establishment and implementation of that system. The Environment Law was the first piece of legislation passed under the interim Government after the fall of the Taliban and was intended to provide a regulatory framework from which more detailed legislation would evolve. It provided an important starting point in a chaotic regulatory landscape, and its emphasis on protected areas made the planning and development of parks a priority for implementing agencies (primarily the National Environmental Protection Agency [NEPA] and the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock [MAIL]). Although the legal mandate for the design of a protected area system is recent, work on Afghanistan’s protected area system began in the 1960s (Sayer and Vander Zon, 1981; Shank and Larsson, 1977; Shank et al., 1977). By the late 1970s, Afghanistan had identified fourteen areas that served as hunting reserves, proposed protected areas, or wildlife sanctuaries (Fig. 1). Two of the fourteen areas were gazetted; however, the legal designations did not survive the ensuing conflict. These areas became increasingly difficult to access after the Soviet invasion in 1979 and the extent to which the almost continuous strife in Afghanistan has affected many of these initial priority areas is relatively unknown. Work on protected areas in Afghanistan has recommenced. Afghanistan declared one provisional protected area (not yet legally gazetted), Band-e-Amir National Park in Bamyan Province. Two protected areas in the Wakhan Corridor are being proposed (the Big Pamir Wildlife Reserve and the Little Pamir Wilderness Area) and NEPA and MAIL, with assistance from the United Nations

147

Environment Program, are also working to propose a second protected area in Bamyan Province (Shah Foladi). We categorized these fourteen previously proposed protected areas into three groups (Type I, Type II, and Type III) based on data available for each and expected time to establishment. Type I protected areas are expected to be gazetted by 2014; however, Type II protected areas (expected 5–10 years to establishment) and Type III protected areas (expected > 10 years to establishment) require further work to determine whether they remain viable as potential protected areas. Surveys have been conducted in Type I protected areas (Band-e-Amir, Shah Foladi, Ajar Valley, Little Pamir, and Big Pamir) within the past 5 years and data for these areas are recent. Data on Type II and Type III previously proposed protected areas are out of date. Plans for these types of protected areas must be considered provisional, pending updated information. 1.2. Challenge: establishing a protected area network Developing a network of protected areas in Afghanistan is a challenge given the ongoing violence, which hampers both onthe-ground collection of data and the institutional presence necessary to develop protected areas. However, the GIRoA has made it a priority to undertake the initial planning entailed in identifying priority areas for protection so that more detailed investigations can follow when and where the security situation allows. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the UN Program of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) partnered with NEPA and MAIL in Afghanistan (hereafter Protected Area Working Group or PAWG) to produce a National Protected Area System Plan (NPASP) that prioritizes areas for conservation activity while addressing Afghanistan’s lack of data and its inability to ground-truth many

Fig. 1. Previously proposed protected areas of Afghanistan. Blue areas are defined as Type I protected areas (expected establishment by 2014). Green areas are defined as Type II protected areas (expected 5–10 years to establishment). Purple areas are defined as Type III protected areas (expected > 10 years to establishment).

148

M.F. Johnson et al. / Biological Conservation 148 (2012) 146–155

areas identified as important. The goals of the NPASP were fourfold: to provide guidelines to develop and implement a protected area network; guide research and fieldwork; coordinate protected area activities; and recommend practices for financing the protected area system. In this publication, we specifically address the first two NPASP targets. Protected area planning has been done on an ad hoc basis and can be biased toward rugged landscapes with low economic value (Klein et al., 2009; Knight and Cowling, 2007; Kremen et al., 1999; Margules and Pressey, 2000; Pressey, 1994; Rodrigues et al., 2004). The PAWG aimed to avoid a situation in which the GIRoA selected areas for protection based on political or economic feasibility rather than conservation value. Many sophisticated software programs have been developed both for mapping species distributions and identifying potential protected area networks (Knight and Cowling, 2007; Lawler and White, 2008); however, the paucity of data existing in Afghanistan (much of which is presence only data) meant that programs like MARXAN or MaxENT would have been ineffectual. In response to these challenges, the PAWG devised a model (Priority Zone model) to begin the process of designing and implementing a protected area network in Afghanistan. We overlaid actual and estimated data on floral and faunal distributions with ecoregion and biome classifications proposed by Olson et al. (2001) to produce a model useful for setting protected area targets and directing field work over the short-term (to 2015) and longterm (to 2030). This method of modeling, in which disparate data are overlaid to produce a cohesive picture of biodiversity patterns, has been utilized in recent years (Bini et al., 2006; Lawler and White, 2008; Parviainen et al., 2009) with mixed results (Eken et al., 2004; Funk and Fa, 2010). Accordingly, the Priority Zone model was used to identify priority areas that could potentially serve as the basis for a protected area network. We expect that as data are obtained, the model and the emerging protected area network will shift to accommodate new findings. The resulting NPASP establishes a flexible schedule of activities to guide the GIRoA in gathering more data and in moving toward their protected area goals. In this way, we aimed to provide numerical targets while pinpointing potentially important conservation areas without committing Afghanistan to protect areas already too degraded to be of use in a protected area network. The PAWG believed this process would spur both the GIRoA and potential conservation donors to action. Current research emphasizes the importance of maintaining support for protected areas through periods of conflict (Hanson et al., 2009). The Afghanistan case study clearly demonstrates the potential for conservation planning in conflict-prone areas. We were able to piece together limited data sets, combine them with ongoing work in the larger conservation community (Margules and Pressey, 2000; Olson et al., 2001; Rodrigues et al., 2004), and produce a targeted protected area plan for Afghanistan that can be realistically achieved within the current political context. Our methods and results can be used as a baseline for conducting similar work in other countries contextually similar to Afghanistan, especially those with large data gaps (Baral and Heinen, 2006). Furthermore, our work continues to push the boundaries of development aid within countries experiencing war. Although Hanson et al. (2009) note that ongoing wars generally divert money and emphasis away from less traditional development goals such as biodiversity conservation, we contend that national environmental objectives can be met even in the most challenging circumstances.

2. Methods and materials We designed a ‘‘Priority Zone’’ model, emphasizing current approaches to biodiversity conservation including the use of ecoregions (Funk and Fa, 2010; Olson et al., 2001) and key biodiversity

areas (Eken et al., 2004; Langhammer et al., 2007). Our general strategy was to set protected area targets at two spatial levels (the biome and ecoregion) while also identifying those areas at the ecoregion level likely to be important in the future protected area network. We created seven data layers (including data on ecoregions, faunal and floral distributions, elevation, and human settlements – described in detail below) and overlaid them on an ET Geo Wizards polygon vector grid clipped to Afghanistan’s borders (hereafter ‘‘base map’’) (Tchoukanski, 2007). The base map divided Afghanistan into 313 cells, each 2500 km2. The resulting map of Afghanistan, depicting ecological diversity across the country, was used to set quantitative targets, identify conservation areas in Afghanistan, and direct future field studies. 2.1. Ecoregional analysis We produced a data layer depicting the ecoregions and biomes of Afghanistan. Biomes were included to ensure ecological representativeness at the broadest spatial scale. The WWF biome classification was considered too coarse for setting upper level targets for Afghanistan. The WCS created a new biome level of classification assigning WWF ecoregions (Olson et al., 2001) to biomes based on Freitag’s (1972) classification of potential natural vegetation into ‘‘vegetation types’’. The resulting biome map is similar to the WWF biome map, but with a differentiation between the Desert and Semi-desert biome and the Open Woodland biome, which were combined in the WWF classification. The spatially nested ecoregions, excluding biomes, were subsequently used in designating Priority Zones. The WWF ecoregion classification following Olson et al. (2001) was chosen as the primary data layer within the Priority Zone model because it represents an intuitively appropriate scale of resolution for protected area planning and is recognized internationally as an effective classification system (Funk and Fa, 2010). Furthermore, Afghanistan’s ecoregions were largely defined by the detailed and science-based Freitag vegetative classification (Freitag, 1971, 1972). Ecoregion and biome data from Afghanistan were downloaded from WWF WildFinder (WWF, 2006) and manipulated in ArcGIS 9.3 (ESRI, 1995–2011). We use ecoregion as a generic term to denote any unit smaller than a biome within an ecological land classification generally characterized by a distinctive combination of landforms, climate, ecological features, and plant and animal communities. In designating Priority Zones, we further ranked Afghanistan’s ecoregions according to their vulnerability and global importance as measured by the Global 200 – an assessment that prioritized 238 of the world’s ecoregions for protection based on their irreplaceability or distinctiveness (Olson and Dinerstein, 2002). Priority Zone designations were largely dependent on the vulnerability status of Afghanistan’s ecoregions within the Priority Zone model. 2.2. Faunal distribution modeling We produced three data layers by modeling potential faunal distributions within Afghanistan. In the first, 31 mammals, 4 reptiles, one amphibian, one arthropod and 4 bird species were selected for habitat modeling. These species were selected based on a prioritization process that included criteria such as data availability, threat status, and global population trends. We modeled the selected species’ potential distributions in Afghanistan by matching habitat preferences for each species, based upon extensive literature reviews, historic survey results, ongoing survey work in Afghanistan (Aye et al., 2010; BirdLife International, 2009; Harris et al., 2010; WCS, 2006), presence data, and expert opinion, with GIS data including land cover classes, ecoregional classifications (Olson et al., 2001), and elevation models. Combining land cover, ecoregion, and elevation data, we created a preliminary distribution

149

M.F. Johnson et al. / Biological Conservation 148 (2012) 146–155

model for each target species in Afghanistan. Refinements were made for certain species according to environmental variables such as elevation, slope, hydrogeography, winter snow cover and summer precipitation. Land cover was mapped by photointerpretation of available Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite data at 30 m resolution covering Afghanistan (FAO, 1990) and complemented with Landsat data from parts of the country acquired in 1992 and 1993. The WWF WildFinder database (WWF, 2006) was used to assess the ecoregions in which each species occurred. Once land cover and ecoregion categories for each species had been specified, we reclassified the land cover and ecoregion data sets and overlaid them on the preferred elevation range for the species (obtained from the literature or from personal correspondence with experts on the species in question). Elevation data were extracted from Space Shuttle Radar Topography Digital Elevation Models at 90 m spatial resolution across Afghanistan (Jarvis et al., 2008). To ensure accuracy in the modeling process, actual species occurrence was compiled from a number of sources. These included historical (650 years old) and recent databases, reliable observations of live or freshly dead specimens, camera trap photographs, and species-specific DNA fragments retrieved from field-collected feces. These data were obtained primarily from WCS seasonal surveys conducted in several parts of Afghanistan since 2006 under the USAID Afghanistan Biodiversity Program (Aye and Busuttil, 2008; Hatch, 2009; Johnson and Wingard, 2008; Kanderian et al., 2009; Karlstetter, 2008; MAIL, 2009; Ostrowski, 2007; Ostrowski et al., 2008; Schaller, 2004; Shank, 2006; WCS, 2006; Winnie and Harris, 2007). We produced estimated range maps for 41 species that delineated high and low priority Areas of Interest (AoIs), defined as the areas in which a species is predicted to most likely occur. For mammalian species, AoIs were based primarily on areas of significant overlap between potential habitat and identified species range. However, this breadth of information was not available for many of the other focal species (primarily amphibians and arthropods) meaning that AoI demarcation often relied heavily on museum and sighting records or habitat associations. We created two other faunal ‘‘layers’’ to be used within the Priority Zone model. We examined the distribution of two major bird groupings in Afghanistan – 105 avian species considered ‘‘biomerestricted’’ by BirdLife International and 21 species considered ‘‘at-risk’’ by the IUCN (i.e. critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable or near-threatened). The range for each species in the ‘‘biome-restricted’’ or the ‘‘at-risk’’ groups were digitized from the maps in Rasmussen and Anderton (2005). Individual bird ranges in both groups were combined in ArcGIS 9.3 to produce two single polygon shapefiles. The two single polygon shapefiles were intersected with the base map in ArcGIS to produce two large

excel-readable database files. We ranked each cell from 1 to 9 (for the biome-restricted bird map) or 1 to 6 (for the at-risk bird map) according to the number of these species found within the 313 individual grid cells. A cell ranked 1 contained the fewest number of observed species while cells ranked 9 (in the case of the biomerestricted birds) or 6 (in the case of the at-risk birds) contained the greatest number of observed species. In ArcGIS, we combined the ranked values with the original base map to display cells according to their ranked value (i.e. how many species from either group fell within each cell). 2.3. Other source layers Three other data layers were created for the Priority Zone model. First, we produced a data layer depicting the potential natural vegetation of Afghanistan using data from Breckle (2007). Breckle (2007) updated Freitag’s original work (1971) to define 17 different types of ‘potential natural vegetation’. The potential natural vegetation types represent what vegetation cover might resemble in the absence of human activities (e.g. grazing, agriculture, irrigation, and deforestation) (Hatch, 2009; Kanderian et al., 2009). Second, we downloaded elevation data to produce an elevation map of Afghanistan (Table 1) (Jarvis et al., 2008). The PAWG concluded that areas with greater elevation range (measured by subtracting the lowest elevation from the highest elevation for each cell) might have greater ‘refuge potential’ since plant species would have more opportunity to respond to varying temperatures and moisture regimes. Although our measure of elevation range is rather crude at this stage of the analysis, we expect it will be refined as more concrete data is obtained. Third, we created a map of human settlements using data obtained from the Afghanistan Information Management Services (AIMS, 2002). 2.4. Priority Zones An ArcGIS database and excel matrix spreadsheet were generated from the 7 source map layers so that each of the 313 cells could be individually examined in terms of its ecological diversity. We devised a scoring and weighting system to allow for a direct comparison between cells (Table 1). Each cell was given a score (1–4) for each of seven criteria. This score was then weighted by its relative importance (e.g. protecting endangered ecoregions was considered very important, thus the Ecoregion criterion was given the heaviest weighting of the seven criteria) and summed with each of the other weighted criterion scores for the cell. Weights were chosen in consultation with the PAWG and a range of experts. Specifically, WCS hosted round table discussions in Kabul in cooperation with MAIL and NEPA to prioritize those criteria most important to the GIRoA in protected area planning. Although

Table 1 Scoring and weighting system in determining Priority Zones within Afghanistan. Data layer

Potential Vegetation Elevation Faunal areas of interest Biome-restricted birds At-risk birds Ecoregions Human settlements

Scoring criteria

Performance scores

Weight

1

2

3

4

Number of potential vegetation types Elevation range (High Priority AoIs  5) + (Low Priority AoIs  2) Total number of species

1–2 types

3 types

4 types

P5 types

5

0–470 m 641

480–1,364 m 42–52

1365–2,171 m 53–63

P2172 m P64

6 7

0–28

29–32

33–37

P38

3

Total number of species Global or Regional status

0–4 Vulnerable P156

7–9 Critical or endangered 10–69

P10 2  critical/endangered or critical/ endangered + vulnerable 0–9

3 8

Total number of settlements

5–6 2  vulnerable ecoregions 70–155

4

150

M.F. Johnson et al. / Biological Conservation 148 (2012) 146–155

the scoring and weighting process was subjective, we felt it was a necessary component of the process required to capture protected area priorities of the GIRoA. The final synthetic cell score represented the summation of each of the weighted criteria, and theoretically reflected its value in terms of biodiversity content. Cells scoring P 100 generally contained either critically endangered or globally important ecoregion(s), a relatively high number of potential vegetation types and key faunal species, large elevation differences and few human settlements. The synthetically scored cells were divided into 10th percentiles to more easily demonstrate differences between cells. We defined Priority Zones as all cells that were in the top 10th percentile (i.e. had a Synthetic Score of >120). The excel spreadsheet containing the rankings of all the 313 cells was merged with the base map and a color gradation was applied to the cells (white to black) based on their ranking from 1 to 10. Cells with a rank of 1 are white on the base map and represent low biodiversity areas while cells with a rank of 10 are black and represent high biodiversity areas. 3. Results 3.1. Quantitative Targets Afghanistan contains 4 major biomes and 17 ecoregions (Table 2, Fig. 2) (Shank et al., 2009). According to the Global 200 (Olson and Dinerstein, 2002), 38% of Afghanistan’s land area is comprised of ecoregions that are globally endangered, 61% as vulnerable, and only 1% as stable. The GIRoA used these land class results to set short-term (to 2015) and long-term (to 2030) protected area targets. Afghanistan’s long-term objective is to have 10% of the country (ca. 65,000 km2) in protected areas by 2030. This decision was based on the target agreed upon by the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Conference of the Parties in March 2006 to effectively conserve at least 10% of each of the world’s ecological regions. To achieve a balanced representation of Afghanistan’s ecosystems, the GIRoA refined its primary target using the ecoregion and biome classifications. The PAWG agreed that Afghanistan should strive to conserve at least of 10% of each of its 17 ecoregions and at least of 10% of each of its four biomes. Recognizing that some ecoregions will be more difficult to conserve, the working group also specified that if the 10% target cannot be reached it would be necessary to compensate by increasing the percent protected in another ecoregion within the same biome to meet the 10% biome target. Percentage minimums were set for each ecoregion to ensure that all achieved at least some protection. The PAWG selected eight ‘relatively secure’ ecoregions to assist in setting short-term strategies to achieve the long-term objectives (Afghan Mountains Semi-desert, Badghyz and Karabil Semi-desert, Ghorat-Hazarajat Alpine Meadow, Gissaro-Alai open woodlands, Hindu Kush Alpine Meadow, Karakoram-West Tibetan Plateau Alpine Steppe, Pamir Alpine Desert and Tundra, Paropamisus Xeric

Woodlands). The working group agreed that Afghanistan should attempt to protect at least 2% of each of the eight ‘‘secure’’ ecoregions by the end of 2015 to begin working toward the total 10% target. 3.2. Priority Zones Twenty-nine grid cells with a score of ‘10’ (i.e. most biologically diverse) were identified in the base map (Fig. 3). These cells were primarily concentrated in the eastern and northeastern portions of the country, including Afghanistan’s Eastern Forests Complex (running from the border of Badakhshan Province in the north to Paktika Province in the southeast). A total of 126 cells scored within the range of 6–9, indicating that the model predicts many areas of potentially important conservation value remain across Afghanistan. The PAWG outlined five steps to be employed within identified Priority Zones to work towards Afghanistan’s protected areas goals. These included: (1) a reconnaissance mission (defined as a basic, rapid survey of a Priority Zone grid); (2) community and natural resource assessments (defined as comprehensive biological and social surveys of areas identified as important by the reconnaissance mission); (3) protected area proposal; (4) protected area preliminary establishment; and (5) protected area establishment. 3.3. Utilizing Priority Zones and ecoregions in Afghanistan We combined the final Priority Zone map with the eight secure ecoregions selected by the PAWG to identify those areas in which surveys could commence immediately (Fig. 3). Sixteen grid cells were selected as the top priority for the first round of surveys. Five of these high priority grid cells are located in the Badghyz and Karabil Semi-desert, six in the Paropamisus xeric woodlands, eight in the Hindu Kush Alpine Meadow, and seven in the Gissaro-Alai Open Woodlands Ecoregions. 4. Discussion The working group successfully completed the NPASP in April 2010 and received approval for its implementation in November 2010 by Executive Order of the Director General of NEPA. The completed NPASP meets the objectives set forth for conservation planning by Margules and Pressey (2000) in that it clearly defines surrogates used to measure biodiversity, provides explicit quantitative goals, employs simple, explicit methods to locate and design new reserves, and identifies those conservation goals already met by the GIRoA. It also provides a new baseline for future work, including specific actions and timelines, to encourage efforts (by the GIRoA and international community) in meeting Afghanistan’s protected area goals. Despite large data gaps and political instability, the NPASP allows the GIRoA to set short-term and long-term protected area

Table 2 Afghanistan’s biomes and ecoregions used for determining protected area targets within Afghanistan. Desert and Semi-desert biome (252,044 km2) 4 Ecoregions

Open woodlands biome (240,745 km2) 4 Ecoregions

Closed woodlands biome (47,354 km2)

Alpine and subalpine biome (106,584 km2)

3 Ecoregions

6 Ecoregions

Registan-North Pakistan sandy desert Badghyz and Karabil Semi-desert

Central Afghan xeric woodlands Sulaiman Range alpine meadows

Baluchistan xeric woodlands East Afghan montane conifer forests

Central Persian desert basins

Paropamisus xeric woodlands

Western Himalayan subalpine conifer forests

Ghorat-Hazarajat alpine meadow Karakoram-West Tibetan Plateau alpine steppe Hindu Kush alpine meadow

Afghan Mountains Semi-desert

Gissaro-Alai open woodlands

Northwestern Himalayan alpine shrub and meadows Pamir alpine desert and tundra Rock and Ice

M.F. Johnson et al. / Biological Conservation 148 (2012) 146–155

151

Fig. 2. Afghanistan’s 17 ecoregions (Olson et al., 2001) downloaded from WWF WildFinder (WWF, 2006) and manipulated in ArcGIS 9.3 (ESRI, 1995–2011).

goals to begin the process of establishing a protected area network. The greatest utility of Afghanistan’s NPASP lies in its ability to assist the GIRoA in understanding the steps required to attain its protected area goals while providing flexibility in achieving these goals. Flexibility is crucial in conservation planning as it helps to minimize conflict (Margules et al., 2002) and maximize efficiency (Knight and Cowling, 2007). As Afghanistan currently finds itself in a state of flux, the Priority Zone method and the NPASP have been intended to serve as living documents in which incoming field and national security data are used to both update the Priority Zone model and refine protected area targets. In creating a dynamic system plan, we aimed to avoid problems associated with static conservation plans that are not immediately implemented after their design (i.e. shifting political landscapes, land use change, Meir et al., 2004). Identifying key biodiversity areas has become important in today’s conservation landscape to ensure conservation efforts are efficient and effective (Abbitt et al., 2000) and to provide common standards for selecting conservation sites (Eken et al., 2004). Our methods attempted to provide balanced representation of Afghanistan’s ecosystems by setting percentage targets at the biome/ecoregion level and to designate quantitative criteria to identify areas that remain potentially viable for conservation. However, we also chose to include data on national security (in selecting ‘‘secure’’ ecoregions in which to prioritize work) and human settlements to address political and social factors that may inhibit the GIRoA from conducting protected area activities in all locations defined as ecologically important. In doing so we hoped to avoid problems identified with the general Key Biodiversity Areas approach, which has been charged with excluding social, economic, and political factors at the regional level (Knight and Cowling, 2007), and to

incorporate data that would help the GIRoA identify those areas in which the best opportunity for biodiversity conservation exists. 4.1. Ecoregion analysis We believe the ecoregion/biome analysis proved useful in helping the GIRoA set realistic and quantitative protected area targets. We employed the ecoregion/biome division to ensure the GIRoA had maximum flexibility in protecting a balanced representation of Afghanistan’s ecosystems. Biomes will help Afghanistan balance the protected area network at a larger scale and ensure roughly equal representation between its four ecological divisions. Ecoregions will help the GIRoA refine that balance by providing flexible conservation targets across ecoregions within biomes. Although the use of percentage targets has been criticized in the literature (Rodrigues et al., 2004), we felt that they were necessary in helping the GIRoA break down the process of establishing a protected area network, which can be daunting even in stable, developed countries. There is a risk that the GIRoA may ultimately choose the politically expedient route of protecting 10% of landscapes that matter little to the conservation of Afghanistan’s biodiversity; however, the PAWG addressed this risk by setting minimum ecoregion and biome targets (P5% for ecoregions and P7% for biomes). This approach provided flexibility in protected area network development while ensuring that all ecological types receive at least some protection. We addressed the concern of ‘‘representativeness’’ (Margules et al., 2002; Rodrigues et al., 2004) and accounted for biodiversity patterns within Afghanistan by combining percentage targets at the ecoregion/biome level with the Priority Zone model to identify biologically important areas in each of Afghanistan’s ecological divisions.

152

M.F. Johnson et al. / Biological Conservation 148 (2012) 146–155

Fig. 3. Priority Zone Map of Afghanistan. Grid cells are ranked from least diverse (score of 1 or white) to most diverse (score of 10 or black). Results suggest darker grid cells (ranked 7–10) have higher conservation potential than lighter grid cells (ranked 1–4). Grid cells outlined in yellow are those located in the 8 secure ecoregions defined by the PAWG. The GIRoA prioritized these cells for the first set of reconnaissance missions.

4.2. Priority Zones The goal of the Priority Zone analysis was to use available data for Afghanistan to predict those areas that remain viable options for a protected area network. The PAWG recognized potential problems associated with predicting species distributions and biodiversity ‘‘hotspots’’ based on limited data, such as: overestimating the extent of ranges (Pineda and Lobo, 2009); sensitivity of distribution models to predictor variables (Parviainen et al., 2009); and distortions of priority areas based on issues of scale (Shriner et al., 2006) and weighting (Ceballos-Silva and Lopez-Blanco, 2003). However, other studies have employed similar methods to predict biodiversity patterns across specific landscapes and found that, while more work is required to refine such modeling, it can positively contribute to rapid and cost-effective conservation efforts (Bini et al., 2006; Parviainen et al., 2009). Thus, the PAWG agreed that despite its limitations the Priority Zone model would provide the GIRoA with the best possible starting point to begin work on Afghanistan’s protected area system and help to focus donor funding. Furthermore, when combined with the ecoregion analysis, the Priority Zone model made obvious those areas that can be systematically surveyed for future protected areas in relative safety. This result is exceptionally important to a country like Afghanistan, in which such work is often dismissed as impossible. Even with our limited data sources, we found relatively good agreement between those areas identified as potential protected areas before the outbreak of conflict and our Priority Zone model. The Northwest Afghanistan Game Reserve, Nuristan and the Big

Pamir Wildlife Reserve fell within cells ranked between 8 and 10, suggesting they retain features that would be of importance in a protected area network. Furthermore, Band-e-Amir Provisional National Park and previously proposed protected areas such as Dasht-i-Nawar, Darqad Wildlife Reserve and the Little Pamir Wildlife Reserve occurred within Priority Zones ranked from 6 to 9. When we compared results of the Priority Zone model with Important Bird Areas (IBAs) for Afghanistan mapped by BirdLife International (BirdLife International, 2009), we found that many of the IBAs fell within priority grid cells. We also found that many high scoring grid cells contained threatened plants recorded in historical plant sightings made during field surveys in the 1970s (Breckle, 2007; Freitag, 1971, 1972). However, we did find that biologically significant wetlands (e.g. the northern wetland areas of Takhar and Kunduz provinces) were not well represented within the high scoring grid cells. Many wetlands fell within cells ranked between 3 and 7. The underrepresentation of wetlands suggests that the scoring and weighting system may need to be adjusted to capture ecosystems that currently do not rank highly. In the current analysis, few wetland species were included and there was no layer designed that captured wetlands effectively. Future refinements should include an assessment of biologically significant habitat types and ensure that the analysis captures them effectively. This result emphasizes that while Priority Zones serve as a potential starting point for conservation planning in Afghanistan, target areas for protection may need to change according to incoming field data and/or conservation priorities set by the GIRoA.

M.F. Johnson et al. / Biological Conservation 148 (2012) 146–155

4.3. Conservation in conflict: the challenges Aside from the severe lack of ecological data in Afghanistan, two other prominent issues will make implementation of the NPASP challenging. First, the conflict in Afghanistan continues to be volatile, which makes long-term conservation planning difficult. The security situation shifts rapidly in Afghanistan and places that were once safe to travel and work can become no-go areas within a matter of days. On-the-ground practitioners rely primarily on local communication networks for up-to-date information as these informal networks are often more reliable. However, NGOs also utilize more formal reporting mechanisms provided through the military and other security channels (e.g. the UN’s Afghanistan NGO Security Organization or ANSO). The PAWG selected the 8 ecoregions and 16 grid cells (Fig. 3) for more immediate survey activities based upon their informal knowledge of the current security situation in those areas and the existence of potentially important ties to community members willing to work with conservation practitioners. In a country like Afghanistan, establishing good community relations and connections to community leaders (the khans) helps protect conservation workers because the khan can provide an important layer of security by taking responsibility for ensuring the safety of ‘‘guests’’ under culturally established hospitality rules (Rubin, 2002). The PAWG also took into consideration more formal security reports that have consistently rated these grid cells as lower risk (ICOS, 2009). Afghanistan’s uncertain security environment suggests there are two critical factors necessary to successfully implementing the NPASP: careful attention to and respect for social structures at the community level and patience on behalf of donors in accomplishing goals according to set timelines. Unexpected events such as disagreements between community leaders or security issues can delay projects in Afghanistan for many months; however, if practitioners

153

and donors are persistent in their resolve to continue to cultivate relationships with community leaders then successful outcomes are possible. The second issue that will challenge implementation of the NPASP is navigating the apparent contradiction between the importance of assisting the GIRoA in establishing rule of law through strong centralized governance and the need to empower communities to achieve conservation goals through decentralized natural resource management. Rubin (2007) notes that attempts to centralize public policy in Afghanistan have created a fundamental paradox for modern Afghanistan, where ‘‘a country that needs decentralized governance to provide services to its scattered and ethnically diverse population has one of the world’s most centralized governments.’’ He concludes, ‘‘That paradox has left the basic needs of Afghanistan’s citizens largely unfulfilled.’’ This paradox is currently underscored by the fact that Afghanistan’s environmental governance institutions lack the resources, capacity, and, in some cases, legitimacy with the Afghan people to implement and enforce natural resource policy. The PAWG responded to these issues by incorporating elements of decentralized natural resource governance into the NPASP without undermining Afghanistan’s attempts to establish and strengthen rule of law through the development of formal national legislation (i.e. the Environment Law). In establishing communities as an integral part of the protected area process, the PAWG attempted to interpret text in the Environment Law stating that NEPA shall ‘‘cooperate with. . .Village Councils and local communities. . .’’ (GIRoA, 2007) and set a precedent for exactly how such ‘‘cooperation’’ might look. In particular, step 2 and step 3 in the five-step process described in Section 2 require that the GIRoA incorporate communities into the process of proposing and establishing protected areas. These ‘‘steps’’ were modeled from the process utilized to designate Band-e-Amir National Park in which the Band-e-Amir Protected Area Committee, consisting of

Table 3 Indicators for meeting the 2% target of protected areas in eight ecoregions (and three NPASP biomes) deemed ‘‘secure’’. Type I Protected Areas are indicated in blue. Band-e-Amir Provisional Protected area is indicated in green.

154

M.F. Johnson et al. / Biological Conservation 148 (2012) 146–155

individuals from local communities, wrote the protected area management plan and designated park boundaries with only superficial supervision from both NEPA and MAIL (MAIL, 2008). Although decentralized natural resource governance has been stressed in the literature as a necessary response to centrally planned conservation agendas (Larson and Soto, 2008), we believe that setting a sound foundation for the GIRoA to adequately manage its natural resources in coordination with local actors will be important in reconstructing a relationship built on trust and confidence between the Afghan Government and its people (Smallwood, 2012). However, achieving this goal will require that outside partners continue to provide reliable programs and support that buttress the GIRoA in its reconstruction phase – even in the most difficult of circumstances. Case studies from Africa (Plumptre, 2003) and Asia (Baral and Heinen, 2006) suggest that non-governmental organizations and/or individuals are best suited to continue to bridge conservation efforts in conflict and post-conflict contexts. These conclusions highlight the importance of international organizations like WCS and UNEP in facilitating and financing conservation activities in Afghanistan, and aiding the GIRoA in its attempts to ultimately shoulder these responsibilities without external support. 4.4. Moving forward with protected areas in Afghanistan The analyses undertaken to produce the NPASP have provided the GIRoA with focused activities that can be conducted over the next 4–5 years to establish a viable protected area network in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has declared 416 km2 as a protected area (Band-e-Amir) in the Afghan Mountains and Semi-desert Ecoregion. If the GIRoA declares the Type I previously proposed protected areas (which have been surveyed within the past five years) by the end of 2012 (Ajar Valley, Big Pamir, Teggermansu, Wakhjir Valley, and Shah Foladi), it would need to protect a further 3605 km2 within the eight identified secure ecoregions by 2015 to meet its short-term targets (Table 3). Both the GIRoA and the people of Afghanistan have agreed that their natural heritage is worth protecting. The Government continues to devote scarce resources to protected area development and support field projects that are operating within the current political climate. The WCS is presently working with communities in the Wakhan Corridor to write a protected area plan for the Big Pamir while UNEP has been working with communities in central Afghanistan to designate potential boundaries for Shah Foladi. The NPASP will make it significantly easier for the GIRoA to understand and undertake those actions needed to move toward its protected area goals, but it requires further international financing and assistance. Conservation planning, even in today’s war-torn climate, can significantly impact Afghanistan’s attempts to stabilize as the current political struggle recedes. The working group produced a protected area plan with realistic objectives and quantitative targets – it requires only the belief that Afghanistan’s environment is worth the effort. Acknowledgements This study was made possible by the generous support of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). We would like to thank our working group partners including the National Environmental Protection Agency of Afghanistan (especially His Excellency Mostapha Zaher, Mr. Sulaimanshah Sallari, and Mr. Najibullah Yamin), the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock (especially Mr. Moh. Hashim Barikzai and Mr. Abdul Samai Sakhi), the Biodiversity Support Program through ECODIT, the Program of Work on Protected Areas

Support Consortium (especially Jamison Ervin) and the United Nations Environment Program in Afghanistan. We would also like to thank the numerous communities in northern and eastern Afghanistan who participated in consultations to improve the NPASP. Finally, we would like to thank the Wildlife Conservation Society Asia Program, especially Colin Poole and Peter Zahler, for their logistical and program support.

References Abbitt, R.J.F., Scott, J.M., Wilcove, D.S., 2000. The geography of vulnerability: incorporating species geography and human development patterns into conservation planning. Biol. Conserv. 96, 169–175. AIMS, 2002. Afghanistan population density 2002. Kabul, Afghanistan. March 2009. . Aye, R., Busuttil, S., 2008. Ornithological Survey in Hazarajat. Kabul, Afghanistan. Wildlife Conservation Society. Aye, R., Hertwig, S.T., Schweizer, M., 2010. Discovery of a breeding area of the enigmatic large-billed reed warbler Acrocephalus orinus. J. Avian Biol. 41, 452– 459. Baral, N., Heinen, J.T., 2006. The Maoist people’s war and conservation in Nepal. Polit. Life Sci. 24, 2–11. Bhatnagar, Y.V., Ahmad, R., Kyarong, S.S., Ranjitsinh, M.K., Seth, C.M., Lone, I.A., Easa, P.S., Kaul, R., Raghunath, R., 2009. Endangered markhor Capra falconeri in India: through war and insurgency. Oryx 43, 407–411. Bini, L.M., Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., Rangel, T.F.L.V.B., Bastos, R.P., Pinto, M.P., 2006. Challenging Wallacean and Linnean shortfalls: knowledge gradients and conservation planning in a biodiversity hotspot. Divers. Distrib. 12, 475–482. BirdLife International, 2009. BirdLife International’s online database – location of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Afghanistan. January–April 2009. . Breckle, S.W., 2007. Flora and vegetation of Afghanistan. Basic Appl. Dryland Res. 1, 155–194. Ceballos-Silva, A., Lopez-Blanco, J., 2003. Delineation of suitable areas for crops using a Multi-Criteria Evaluation approach and land use/cover mapping: a case study in Central Mexico. Agric. Syst. 77, 117–136. Dudley, J.P., Ginsberg, J.R., Plumptre, A.J., Hart, J.A., Campos, L.C., 2002. Effects of war and civil strife on wildlife and wildlife habitats. Conserv. Biol. 16, 319–329. Eken, G., Bennun, L., Brooks, T.M., Darwall, W., Fishpool, L.D.C., Foster, M., Knox, D., Langhammer, P., Matiku, P., Radford, E., Salaman, P., Sechrest, W., Smith, M.L., Spector, S., Tordoff, A., 2004. Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. Bioscience 54, 1110–1118. ESRI, 1995–2011. ArcGIS 9.3, Redlands, California. FAO, 1990. Afghanistan land cover map. January 2009. . Formoli, T., 1995. Impacts of the Afghan-Soviet war on Afghanistan’s environment. Environ. Conserv. 22, 66–69. Freitag, H., 1971. Die naturliche vegetation Afghanistans: Beitrage zur flora und vegetation Afghanistans I. Vegetatio 22, 286–344. Freitag, H., 1972. Studies in the natural vegetation of Afghanistan. In: Davies, P.H. (Ed.), The Plant Life of South-West Asia, 1st ed. Royal Botanical Gardens, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 89–106. Funk, S.M., Fa, J.E., 2010. Ecoregion prioritization suggests an armoury not a silver bullet for conservation planning. PLoS ONE 5, e8923. GIRoA, 2007. Environment Law. Gazette No. 912, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Hammill, A., 2005. Protected aras and the security community. In: McNeely, J.A. (Ed.), Friends for Life: New partners in support of protected areas. IUCN and International Institute for Sustainable Development, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 81–90. Hanson, T., Brooks, T.M., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J.F., Machlis, G., Mittermeier, C.G., Mittermeier, R.A., Pilgrim, J.D., 2009. Warfare in biodiversity hotspots. Conserv. Biol. 23, 578–587. Harris, R.B., Winnie, J., Amish, S.J., Beja-Piereira, A., Godinho, R., Costa, V., Luikart, G., 2010. Argali abundance in the Afghan Pamir using capture–recapture modeling from fecal DNA. Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 668–677. Hatch, C., 2009. Preliminary gap analysis of Afghanistan flora for use in identifying research priority zones in Afghanistan Unpublished Report submitted to the Global Environment Facility on behalf of the Wildlife Conservation Society, Kabul, Afghanistan. Biodiversity Support Program for NEPA, Ecodit. ICOS, 2009. Afghanistan Map – Areas of Taliban presence in Afghanistan during January–August 2009. . The international Council on Security and Development (ICOS) 2010. Jarvis, A., Reuter, H.I., Nelson, A., Guevara, E., 2008. Hole-filled SRTM for the globe version 4. January–April 2009. . Johnson, M., Wingard, J., 2008. Wildlife Trade in Afghanistan. Unpublished report. USAID-funded Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management Program of the Wildlife Conservation Society, Kabul, Afghanistan. Kanderian, N., Johnson, M., Shank, C., Rahmani, H., Sanger, R., 2009. The fauna approach to identifying Afghanistan’s biodiversity priority zones. Unpublished Report submitted to the Global Environment Facility on behalf of the Wildlife Conservation Society, Kabul, Afghanistan. Wildlife Conservation Society.

M.F. Johnson et al. / Biological Conservation 148 (2012) 146–155 Kanderian, N., Lawson, D., Zahler, P., 2011. Current status of wildlife and conservation in Afghanistan. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 68, 281–298. Karlstetter, M., 2008. Preliminary Findings of Wildlife Surveys in Nuristan, Afghanistan. Draft/unpublished report. Kabul, Afghanistan. USAID-funded Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management Program of the Wildlife Conservation Society. Klein, C.J., Wilson, K.A., Watts, M., Stein, J., Carwardine, J., Mackey, B., Possingham, H.P., 2009. Spatial conservation prioritization inclusive of wilderness quality: a case study of Australia’s biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 142, 1282–1290. Knight, A.T., Cowling, R.M., 2007. Embracing opportunism in the selection of priority conservation areas. Conserv. Biol. 21, 1124–1126. Kremen, C., Razafimahatratra, V., Guillery, R.P., Rakotomalala, J., Weiss, A., Ratsisompatrarivo, J.-S., 1999. Designing the Masoala National Park in Madagascar based on biological and socioeconomic data. Conserv. Biol. 13, 1055–1068. Langhammer, P.F., Bakarr, M.I., Bennun, L.A., Brooks, T.M., Clay, R.P., Darwall, W., N. De Silva, Edgar, G.J., Eken, G., Fishpool, L.D.C., Fonseca, G.A.B.d., Foster, M.N., Knox, D.H., Matiku, P., Radford, E.A., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Salaman, P., Sechrest, W., Tordoff, A.W., 2007. Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas: Targets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems (Issue 15 of the Best Practice Protected Area Guideline Series). Gland, Switzerland. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Larson, A.M., Soto, F., 2008. Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33, 213–239. Lawler, J.J., White, D., 2008. Assessing the mechanisms behind successful surrogates for biodiversity in conservation planning. Anim. Conserv. 11, 270–280. Machlis, G.E., Hanson, T., 2008. Warfare ecology. Bioscience 58, 729–736. MAIL, 2008. Band-e-Amir Provisional National Park: A Preliminary Management Plan, Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock, Kabul, Afghanistan, p. 63. MAIL, 2009. Afghanistan’s Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Kabul. Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock. Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L., 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243–253. Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L., Williams, P.H., 2002. Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. J. Biosci. 27, 309– 326. Martin, P.S., Szuter, C.R., 1999. War zones and game sinks in Lewis and Clark’s west. Conserv. Biol. 13, 36–45. McNeely, J.A., 2003. Conserving forest biodiversity in times of violent conflict. Oryx 37, 142–152. Meir, E., Andelman, S., Possingham, H.P., 2004. Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecol. Lett. 7, 615–622. Miller, T.R., Minteer, B., Malan, L.C., 2011. The new conservation debate: the view from practical ethics. Biol. Conserv. 144, 948–957. Mishra, C., Fitzherbert, A., 2004. War and wildlife: a post-conflict assessment of Afghanistan’s Wakhan Corridor. Oryx 38, 102–105. Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., 2002. The Global 200: priority ecoregions for global conservation. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 89, 199–224. Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgess, N.D., Powell, G.V.N., Underwood, E.C., D’amico, J.A., Itoua, I., Strand, H.E., Morrison, J.C., Loucks, C.J., Allnutt, T.F., Ricketts, T.H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J.F., Wettengel, W.W., Hedao, P., Kassem, K.R., 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51, 933–937. Ostrowski, S., 2007. An annotated list of bird species observed by the Ecosystem Health Team in Wakhan in November–December 2006. Unpublished survey report. USAID-funded Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management Program of the Wildlife Conservation Society, Kabul, Afghanistan. Ostrowski, S., Rajabi, A.M., Noori, H., 2008. Birds and Mammals in Dasht-e Nawar, Afghanistan: occurrence and hunting pressure, 2007 surveys. Unpublished survey report. Kabul, Afghanistan. USAID-funded Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management Program of the Wildlife Conservation Society. Parviainen, M., Marmion, M., Luoto, M., Thuiller, W., Heikkinen, R.K., 2009. Using summed individual species models and state-of-the-art modelling techniques to identify threatened plant species hotspots. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2501–2509. Pineda, E., Lobo, J.M., 2009. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models to predict amphibian species richness patterns. J. Anim. Ecol. 78, 182–190. Plumptre, A.J., 2003. Lessons learned from on-the-ground conservation in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. J. Sust. Forest. 16, 69–88. Pressey, R.L., 1994. Ad Hoc reservations: forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems? Conserv. Biol. 8, 662–668.

155

Rasmussen, P.C., Anderton, J.C., 2005. Birds of South Asia: The Ripley Guide. Smithsonian Institution and Lynx Edicions. Rodrigues, A.S.L., Andelman, S.J., Bakarr, M.I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T.M., Cowling, R.M., Fishpool, L.D.C., daFonseca, G.A.B., Gaston, K.J., Hoffmann, M., Long, J.S., Marquet, P.A., Pilgrim, J.D., Pressey, R.L., Schipper, J., Sechrest, W., Stuart, S.N., Underhill, L.G., Waller, R.W., Watts, M.E.J., Yan, X., 2004. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428, 640–643. Rubin, B.R., 2002. The Fragmentation of Afghanistan: State Formation and Collapse in the International System, second ed. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. Rubin, B., 2007. Saving Afghanistan. Foreign Affairs 86, 57–78. Saba, D.S., 2001. Afghanistan: environmental degradation in a fragile ecological setting. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World Ecol. 8, 279–289. Sayer, J.A., Vander Zon, A.P.M., 1981. National Parks and wildlife management, Afghanistan. A contribution to a conservation strategy Unpublished FAO, report. FO/DP/AFG/74/016. Schaller, G.B., 2004. The status of Marco Polo sheep in the Pamir Mountains of Afghanistan. Unpublished general survey report. Wildlife Conservation Society and the National Geographic Society, New York, U.S.A. Scherl, L.M., Emerton, L., 2008. Protected areas contributing to poverty reduction. In: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Ed.), Protected Areas in Today’s World: Their Values and Benefits for the Welfare of the Planet. Montreal, pp. 4–17. Shank, C.C., 2006. A biodiversity profile of Afghanistan in 2006. A component of the National Capacity self-assessment (NCSA) & National adaptation programme of action (NAPA) for Afghanistan, Kabul. United Nations Environment Program. Shank, C.C., Larsson, J.Y., 1977. A strategy for the establishment and development of Band-e-Amir National Park. FO:DP/AFG/AFG/74/016, field document no. 8, December, Kabul, Afghanistan. United Nations Development Programme and Food and Agriculture Organization. Shank, C.C., Petocz, R.G., Habibi, K., 1977. A Preliminary Management Plan for the Ajar Valley Wildlife Reserve. FO:DP/AFG/74/016, Kabul, Afghanistan. United Nations Development Programme and Food and Agriculture Organization. Shank, C., Kanderian, N., Johnson, M., Rahmani, H., 2009. The Ecoregional Approach to Identifying Afghanistan’s Protected Area Network. Unpublished report. Kabul, Afghanistan. Wildlife Conservation Society. Shriner, S.A., Wilson, K.R., Flather, C.H., 2006. Reserve networks based on richness hotspots and representation vary with scale. Ecol. Appl. 16, 1660–1673. Smallwood, P., 2012. The risks of greening in the red zone: creating Afghanistan’s First National Park in the midst of conflict. In: Tidball, K.G., Krasny, M.E. (Eds.), Greening in the Red Zone: Disaster, resilience and community greening. Springer, New York. Smallwood, P., Shank, C., Dehgan, A., Zahler, P., 2011. Wildlife conservation. . .in Afghanistan? Bioscience 61, 506–511. Stevens, K., Dehgan, A., Karlstetter, M., Rawan, F., Tawhid, M.I., Ostrowski, S., Ali, J.M., Ali, R., 2011. Large mammals surviving conflict in the eastern forests of Afghanistan. Oryx 45, 265–271. Tchoukanski, I., 2007. ET Geo Wizards 9.7 for ArcGIS. January–April 2009. . UNEP, 2003. Afghanistan Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment. Geneva. United Nations Environment Programme. Watson, J.E.M., Evans, M.C., Carwardine, J., Fuller, R.A., Joseph, L.N., Segan, D.B., Taylor, M.F.J., Fensham, R.J., Possingham, H.P., 2010. The capacity of Australia’s protected-area system to represent threatened species. Conserv. Biol. 25, 324– 332. WCS, 2006. Annual Report 01. Unpublished Report submitted to the United States Agency for International Development, Kabul, Afghanistan. Wildlife Conservation Society. Winnie, J., Harris, R., 2007. Marco Polo (Argali) Research in the Big Pamir Mountains of Afghanistan. Unpublished year-end summary report. USAID-funded Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management Program of the Wildlife Conservation Society Kabul, Afghanistan. WWF, 2006. WildFinder: Online database of species distributions, ver. Jan-06. . Zahler, P., 2010. Conservation and governance. Lessons from the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan. In: Fearn, E. (Ed.), State of the Wild III: a global portrait of wildlife, wildlands, and oceans 2010–2011. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 72–80.