Key Biodiversity Area Special Series
Key Biodiversity Areas in the
Indo-Burma Hotspot: Process, Progress and Future Directions
A.W.
Tordoff 1, M.C. Baltzer 2, J.R. Fellowes 3, J.D. Pilgrim 4 & P.F. Langhammer 5
1Critical
Ecosystem Partnership Fund, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202,
USA
2c/o WWF
Malaysia, 49, Jalan SS23/15, Taman SEA, 47400 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
3c/o
Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, Lam Kam Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong
Kong
4132
Thoday Street, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB13AX, United Kingdom
5 c/o
Arizona State University, School of Life Sciences, PO Box 874601, Tempe, AZ
85287, USA
Email: 1 j.tordoff@conservation.org (corresponding author), 2 mbaltzer@wwf.org.my, 3 jrfellowes@yahoo.com, 4 astrapia@gmail.com, 5 penny.langhammer@asu.edu
Date of publication (online): 06 August 2012
Date of publication (print): 06 August 2012
ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)
Manuscript details:
Ms
# o3000
Received
08 November 2011
Final
revised received 08 February 2012
Finally
accepted 02 June 2012
Citation: Tordoff, A.W., M.C. Baltzer, J.R. Fellowes, J.D. Pilgrim & P.F. Langhammer (2012). Key
Biodiversity Areas in the Indo-Burma Hotspot: Process, Progress and Future
Directions. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(8): 2779–2787.
Copyright: © A.W. Tordoff, M.C. Baltzer, J.R. Fellowes, J.D. Pilgrim & P.F. Langhammer 2012. Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this
article in any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by
providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Author Details:
Jack Tordoff is a
grant director with the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Previously, Jack
worked for BirdLife International, during which time he coordinated the Key
Biodiversity Area identification process for the Indo-Burma Hotspot. He has two
decades’ experience of biodiversity conservation, predominantly in Asia.
Michael Baltzer is
presently the leader of WWF’s Tiger’s Alive Initiative. Previously, Michael worked as director
of WWF’s Danube-Carpathian Programme. He also worked as conservation director
for the WWF Mekong Programme (then known as WWF Indochina) and has many years’
experience in biodiversity conservation in other areas of South-East Asia and
in Africa.
John Fellowes is a
consultant to Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden, whose South China rapid
biodiversity assessments he initiated in 1997, and to other organisations,
including CEPF. He is based in London and has a range of environment-related
roles in the UK and Asia.
John Pilgrim was a
grant director with the Global Conservation Fund at Conservation International
before moving to BirdLife International in Indochina and managing the
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund Regional Implementation Team for the
Indo-Burma Hotspot. He now consults on issues related to Net Positive Impact,
biodiversity offsetting, and conservation planning.
Penny Langhammer is a
PhD candidate at Arizona State University, where she studies the impact of the
fungal disease chytridiomycosis on Caribbean frogs. She previously worked at
Conservation International for nearly a decade, supporting the identification
and conservation of Key Biodiversity Areas in Latin America, Africa, and the
Asia-Pacific region.
Author Contribution: JT,
MB, JF and PL are contributed directly to the study. JT, MB, JF, JP and PL are contributed to
the current paper.
Acknowledgements: The KBA
list for the Indo-Burma Hotspot was based upon the IBA analyses prepared by
BirdLife International and its governmental and non-governmental partners. The
authors would like to thank all those who contributed to the identification of
IBAs in the hotspot, particularly the editors of the relevant national
directories: Pech Bunnat, Simba Chan, Fion Cheung, Mike Crosby, Peter Davidson,
Etienne Delattre, Wang Dezhi, Hua Fangyuan, Sipivan Inthapatha, Roongroj
Jukmongkol, Seng Kim Hout, Khamsene Ounekham, Rungratchanee Pimathai, Colin Poole,
Philip Round and Samson So. The IBA data were supplemented by data on other
taxonomic groups and verified at a series of expert round table meetings held
during 2003. The authors would like to thank all participants at these
meetings, who contributed their expertise to the definition of the KBAs of the
Indo-Burma Hotspot. The authors would also like to thank the Critical Ecosystem
Partnership Fund (CEPF) for supporting the KBA analysis as part of the
Ecosystem Profiling process for the Indo-Burma Hotspot. The Critical Ecosystem
Partnership Fund is a joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement,
Conservation International, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of
Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. A fundamental goal is to
ensure civil society is engaged in biodiversity conservation. The authors would also like to thank
Naamal De Silva for her useful comments on a draft of this paper, as well as
Kellee Koenig for her help with preparing the maps and calculating the figures
in Table 1.
Abstract: Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) provide geographic targets for the
expansion of protected area coverage, and identify sites for urgent
conservation action. Identification of KBAs in the Indo-Burma Hotspot was
undertaken during 2003, for a region of analysis comprising Cambodia, Lao PDR,
Myanmar (Burma), Thailand and Vietnam, plus parts of southern China. The starting point was information on
282 Important Bird Areas identified by BirdLife International and
collaborators. These data were then
overlaid with point locality data on globally threatened mammals, reptiles,
amphibians, freshwater fish and plants, with additional KBAs identified as
required. Through this process, a
total of 438 KBAs were identified, covering 258,085km2 or 11.5
percent of the region of analysis. Only 58 percent of the KBAs are wholly or
partly included within protected areas, suggesting that there may be a need for
further expansion of protected area networks, particularly in Myanmar and
Vietnam. The criteria for KBA
identification are triggered by 812 species, of which 23 are believed only to
occur at a single KBA globally. The
KBAs have proven to be a useful conservation priority setting tool in
Indo-Burma, helping to guide investments by various donors and application of
environmental safeguard policies by international financial institutions. There are fewer examples of KBAs being
used to guide expansion of protected area systems in Indo-Burma. In large part,
this is because the period of rapid expansion of protected areas in most
hotspot countries predated the KBA identification process, and political
support for further significant expansion is currently limited.
Keywords: Hotspot, Indo-Burma, Key
Biodiversity Area, priority setting, protected area.
The Key
Biodiversity Area series documents the application of the concept and showcases
the results from various parts of the world. The series is edited
under the auspices of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas/Species Survival
Commission Joint Task Force on ‘Biodiversity and Protected Areas’, with the
editors supported by BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN,
National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, NatureServe, Parks Canada, and
Plantlife International.
For images, tables -- click here
Introduction
The
Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot is centered on the Indochinese Peninsula, and
comprises Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand and Vietnam, plus parts
of southern China and northeastern India. The topography of the hotspot is complex, and is characterized by a
series of north-south mountain ranges, which descend from the Himalayan chain
and its south eastern extensions. These mountain ranges are drained by several major rivers, including the
Ayeyarwaddy, Salween, Chao Phraya, Mekong and Red, whose floodplains and deltas
are the main centers of human settlement.
The
biota of Indo-Burma is a mixture of the floras and faunas of India, the
Himalaya, southern China and the Sundaic Region, with a significant endemic
component, particularly in the case of plants. Centers of endemism include montane
isolates (such as Myanmar’s Mount Victoria and Vietnam’s Da Lat Plateau),
limestone karst areas (such as those in northern Vietnam and China’s Guangxi
Zhuang Autonomous Region), and lowland evergreen forests (most notably the
Annamese lowlands of Vietnam and Lao PDR, which are home to flagship species
such as Saola Pseudoryx nghetinhensis).
A
conservative estimate of total plant diversity in the hotspot reveals about
13,500 vascular plant species, of which about 7,000 (52 percent) are endemic
(van Dijk et al. 2004). Of the
1,277 bird species found in Indo-Burma, 74 are endemic (van Dijk et al.2004). Similarly, 71 of the 430
mammal species in the hotspot are endemic (van Dijk et al. 2004). Other vertebrate groups show much higher
levels of endemism, with 189 of the 519 non-marine reptile species and 139 of
the 323 amphibian species being endemic to the hotspot (van Dijk et al.
2004). Among these species,
Indo-Burma supports probably the highest diversity of freshwater turtles in the
world (van Dijk et al. 2004). The hotspot also has a remarkable freshwater fish
fauna, with 1,262 documented species, accounting for about 10 percent of the
world total, including 566 endemics (van Dijk et al. 2004). Available information
on non-vascular plants, invertebrates and fungi is generally inadequate for
conservation evaluation of species or sites.
With
over 315 million people, Indo-Burma has the largest human population of the
world’s 34 hotspots (Mittermeier et al. 2004). This is reflected in the fact that
remaining natural habitat is restricted to only five percent of its original
extent (Mittermeier et al. 2004). The large and rapidly expanding human population, coupled with some of
the fastest rates of economic growth in the world, is placing increasing
pressures on remaining natural ecosystems. Expansion of agriculture (such as rice, rubber and oil palm),
infrastructure development (especially roads and hydropower dams), timber
extraction and a rapacious illegal trade in wildlife are the major current
threats to the hotspot’s biodiversity, with impacts of climate change and
energy shortfalls set to exacerbate these dramatically in coming decades.
As
of 2004, the total area under protection was 236,000km², representing roughly
10 percent of the original extent of terrestrial ecosystems in the hotspot,
although out of this only 132,000km² (a little under six percent) was in
IUCN protected area categories I to IV (Mittermeier et al. 2004). Moreover, not all ecosystem types are
adequately represented within the protected area systems of the hotspot, with
lowland evergreen forests, lowland rivers and intertidal habitats being notably
under-represented (van Dijk et al. 2004). Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) provide
geographic targets for the expansion of protected area coverage, and identify
sites for urgent conservation quickly, simply, and cheaply (Langhammer et al. 2007). The synthesis paper and
Langhammer et al. (2007) <http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAG-015.pdf> provide an overview of the KBA criteria
and terminology. This paper
describes how KBAs have been identified in the Indo-Burma Hotspot, and briefly
discusses opportunities for further improvement of the analysis and application
to conservation planning and priority setting.
Methods
The
identification of KBAs in the Indo-Burma Hotspot was undertaken during 2003 as
part of the process to develop an investment strategy (‘Ecosystem Profile’) for
the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF). The region of analysis (Image 1)
included only part of the original Indo-Burma Hotspot, which, as defined by
Mittermeier et al. (1999), included areas that were later split off to form the
Himalaya Hotspot (Mittermeier et al. 2004). Specifically, the region of analysis
excluded parts of the original Indo-Burma Hotspot within northeastern India and
eastern Bangladesh, as well as the small part of peninsular Malaysia that falls
within the hotspot. The Andaman
Islands, which are politically part of India, were also excluded from the
analysis.
The
KBA identification process was led by BirdLife International in Indochina, with
technical support from the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at
Conservation International. The
starting point was the network of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the region,
defined by BirdLife International and its partners. For Cambodia, Lao PDR,
Thailand and Vietnam, published or draft IBA directories were available
(Tordoff 2002; Ounekham & Inthapatha 2003; Seng et al. 2003; Pimathai et
al. 2004). For southern China,
draft IBA accounts prepared for the IBA directory of China were used, some of
which were not, ultimately, included in the directory (Chan et al. 2009);
the rapid biodiversity assessments of Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden
(2001–2004) were also a major information source. For Myanmar, a preliminary list of IBAs
was prepared as part of the KBA analysis (Chan et al. 2004).
KBA
designation is triggered by the presence of species meeting certain
criteria. For birds, the
vulnerability criterion (regular occurrence of a globally threatened species)
was applied, as well as three of the irreplaceability criteria: (a)
restricted-range species; (c) globally significant congregations; and (e)
bioregionally restricted assemblages. For the most part, the application of these criteria was consistent with
the guidelines set out in Langhammer et al. (2007). The main departure from these guidelines
was that a small number of KBAs were defined on the basis of either the regular
occurrence of congregations of at least 20,000 waterbirds or migratory
bottlenecks for at least 20,000 raptors and/or cranes (a criterion used in
identifying IBAs), whereas the only threshold for globally significant congregations
given in the guidelines was the regular occurrence of one percent of the global
population of a species. One
implication of this was that five KBAs defined solely on this criterion had no
KBA trigger species, because although they regularly support at least 20,000
waterbirds, raptors and/or cranes, they do not necessarily support one percent
of the global population of any particular species.
Based
on the IBA data, a starting list of 282 KBAs was prepared. The IBA data were then overlaid with
point locality data for other taxonomic groups, specifically mammals, reptiles,
amphibians, freshwater fish and plants, with additional KBAs identified as
required. Due to lack of data on
global range and population sizes for most species in these other groups, the
only KBA criterion applied was the vulnerability criterion. The principal data source on the global
conservation status of species was the 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species, which represented the best available data at the time. In Myanmar,
where the KBA identification process continued into 2004, updates contained
within the 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species were taken into
account. For amphibians,
preliminary results of the Global Amphibian Assessment (IUCN-SSC & CI-CABS
2003) were used in lieu of the IUCN Red List, which was only updated with the
final results of this comprehensive amphibian assessment in 2004. An implication of this is that several
amphibians used as KBA trigger species based upon the assessments in IUCN-SSC
& CI-CABS (2003) were later assessed by IUCN (2004) as not globally
threatened.
The
analysis of other taxonomic groups was initially conducted through review of
published and unpublished literature. The preliminary results were then peer reviewed and improved at a series
of expert roundtables, held in Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Vientiane, Lao PDR;
Yangon, Myanmar; Bangkok, Thailand; and Hanoi, Vietnam. No expert roundtable was held in
southern China due to the outbreak of the SARS virus; instead, stakeholders
were consulted individually. The
expert roundtables were attended by more than 150 representatives of national
and international conservation organizations, academic institutions, donor
agencies, and government institutions in the region, and the results were
published as the Ecosystem Profile for the Indochina Region of the Indo-Burma
Hotspot (Tordoff et al. 2007) and as a separate, stand-alone document for
Myanmar (Tordoff et al. 2005).
The
starting point for KBA boundary delineation was the IBA boundaries. In most cases, when the IBAs were
overlaid with point locality data for other taxonomic groups, these could be
adopted as KBA boundaries without any adjustment. In a few cases, the IBA clearly did not
contain sufficient area of suitable habitat to support species from other
taxonomic groups (mainly large, wide-ranging mammals, such as Tiger Panthera
tigris and Asian Elephant Elephas maximus). In these cases, the KBA boundary was
enlarged, where feasible, by incorporating contiguous areas of suitable habitat
outside of the IBA.
For
KBAs defined for non-bird globally threatened species, two approaches were
adopted. Where locality data
overlapped with existing protected areas, KBA boundaries were based upon these
areas. In cases where existing
protected areas were considered to form biologically sensible units, containing
sufficient suitable habitat to support the KBA trigger species, each protected
area was delineated as a separate KBA. If two or more contiguous protected areas were not considered individually
large enough to form biologically sensible units, they were delineated as a
single KBA. Eighty nine KBAs were
delineated based on existing protected areas. The remaining 67 KBAs were identified
outside both IBAs and existing protected areas. To delineate their boundaries, point
locality data were overlaid onto land cover data and hydrological data, and
biologically sensible units were delineated based on a consideration of the
ecological requirements of the KBA trigger species. In most cases, it was relatively
straightforward to reconcile the ecological requirements of different species
because the KBAs identified outside both IBAs and existing protected areas were
defined for relatively few species each (see Langhammer et al. 2007, Box 14).
Results
A
total of 438 KBAs were identified in the Indo-Burma Hotspot through the process
outlined above (Table 1, Image 2). Of these, 244 sites (equivalent to 55 percent of the total) were defined
for globally threatened mammals, 284 (65 percent) were defined for globally
threatened, restricted-range, congregatory or biome-restricted birds, 110 (25
percent) were defined for globally threatened reptiles, 42 (10 percent) were
defined for globally threatened amphibians, 16 (4 percent) were defined for globally
threatened freshwater fish, and 177 (40 percent) were defined for globally
threatened plants (Table 3).
Only
58 percent of the KBAs identified to date in the Indo-Burma Hotspot are wholly
or partly included within protected areas (Table 1). The figures for
each country may not be strictly comparable, due to the varying concentration
of survey effort in protected areas; in southern China, for example, little
information was available from unprotected forest sites, and the figures may
thus overestimate protected area inclusion overall. In any case, the low total indicates that there may be a need for
further expansion of protected area systems, particularly in Myanmar and
Vietnam, where over 60 percent of the KBAs lack formal protection. It also suggests that there may be
opportunities in all countries for alternative approaches to site-based
conservation, such as community-based conservation and partnership with private
landholders.
Three-quarters
of KBAs were triggered by 20 or fewer species, with half being triggered by
seven or less. Eighty three KBAs
were triggered only by a single species (Table 4). At the other end of the spectrum, nine
KBAs were triggered by over 100 species, with the highest number occurring at
Thailand’s Hala Bala (153 species) and Vietnam’s Fan Si Pan (140 species),
owing to the very high numbers of biome-restricted bird species at these
sites. In the Indo-Burma Hotspot,
where KBA identification built upon the network of IBAs previously identified
by BirdLife International and partners, the bioregionally restricted
assemblages criterion was applied on the basis of the occurrence of bird
species restricted to a major regional ecological community or ‘biome’. Specifically, this criterion was
triggered if a site supported over 25% of the species restricted to a specific
biome within a particular country, or supported individual species found at two
or less other sites in that country.
A
total of 812 species triggered KBA criteria for at least one site, comprising
488 globally threatened, restricted-range, congregatory and biome-restricted
bird species (60 percent), and 324 globally threatened species from other
taxonomic groups (40 percent; Table 2). A few trigger species have been recorded at many KBAs, with the most
widespread being the threatened mammal, Southern Serow Capricornis
sumatraensis, recorded at 96 KBAs. However, three-quarters of trigger species have been recorded at 10 or
fewer KBAs, with 142 species only recorded at a single KBA in the hotspot
(Table 4). The majority of these
species were congregatory birds or globally threatened plants at the edge of
their global ranges. However, 23
trigger species are believed to only occur at a single KBA globally (Table 5). These 23 species trigger 19 KBAs, five
of which are recognized as Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites (AZE 2010).
The discrepancy between the two figures can be explained by the fact that AZE
sites, at least in the 2010 update, have not been defined for single
populations of Vulnerable species (but only Critically Endangered and
Endangered species), and have only been defined for certain taxonomic groups
(specifically not vascular plants or fish, which trigger most of the KBAs
listed in Table 5).
Discussion
To
date, the KBAs of the Indo-Burma Hotspot have proven to be a useful
conservation priority setting tool, helping to guide investments by various
donors, including the Asian Development Bank and CEPF. They have also played an important role
in guiding the application of environmental safeguard policies by international
financial institutions, such as the World Bank, which typically include
commitments not to finance activities that degrade or damage critical natural
habitat. Because the KBA criteria
correspond closely to the safeguard policies of these institutions, there are
multiple examples of KBAs being used to identify and avoid potential negative
environmental impacts of development projects, particularly in areas outside
formal protected areas.
There
are fewer examples of KBAs being used to guide expansion of protected area
systems in Indo-Burma, although there are a few notable exceptions, such as the
recent declaration of Boeung Prek Lapouv and Kampong Trach KBAs in southern
Cambodia as Sarus Crane Reserves. This is largely because the period of rapid expansion of the protected
area networks in most countries in the hotspot predated the KBA identification
process, and political support for further significant expansion is currently
limited. The one exception may be Myanmar, where 68% of KBAs remain unprotected
(Table 1), and there remain major gaps in the coverage of the national
protected area system.
With
all conservation priority setting exercises, priorities change over time, as
new information becomes available and the status of biodiversity changes on the
ground. The KBA analysis for
Indo-Burma, conducted eight years ago, is not immune from these changes. Certainly, there is a need to update the
analysis to take into account taxonomic changes, new distributional
information, and changes to species’ Red List status. In addition, a small number of sites
(mainly wetlands) have been seriously degraded in the intervening period and
are believed to have lost the values that led them to qualify as KBAs in the
first place. For the most part,
however, simply refreshing the analysis would not be expected to lead to many
changes to the KBA list itself. KBA
trigger species may be added or removed from some sites but few sites would be
added or removed from the list.
The
key priorities for future work are to incorporate the results of two major Red
List assessments currently underway in the Indo-Burma Hotspot. The first of these is a plant Red List
assessment, led by Missouri Botanical Garden, with support from CEPF. This initiative will assess the global
threat status of non-tree vascular plants for the first time in the hotspot, as
well as update and expand the assessments of many tree species. The second assessment, led by the IUCN
Species Programme, with support from CEPF and the MacArthur Foundation, focuses
on four groups of aquatic species: fish, odonates, molluscs and plants. This initiative will, for the first
time, enable comprehensive identification of KBAs in freshwater ecosystems,
which has hitherto been restricted by the small number of trigger species. These two assessments will enable a
significant expansion of the KBA analysis in the Indo-Burma Hotspot,
particularly with regard to freshwater ecosystems and limestone karst isolates.
In
the long term, a more robust KBA analysis will require a better understanding
of the population size, ecological requirements and minimum area requirements
of KBA trigger species. For the most part, KBAs have been triggered based on
the recorded presence of a species and the availability of supposed suitable
habitat. This is not, by itself,
sufficient evidence that the site in question, alone or as part of a network
with other sites, can sustain a population of the species indefinitely. As part of developing a more complete
understanding of the suitability of KBAs to sustain populations of trigger
species over the long-term, there is also a need to better understand the
potential impacts of climate change on the ecological parameters that determine
the distribution of KBA trigger species. Such an analysis may argue for maintaining or reinforcing ecological
connectivity among KBAs, to allow for changing species’ distributions in
response to climate change. It may
also reinforce the need for improved in situ conservation management, so as to
ensure healthier, more resilient populations of species and assemblages.
References
AZE (2010). Alliance for Zero Extinction:
2010 Update. Downloaded from http://www.zeroextinction.org. Downloaded on
05 February 2011.
Chan, S., M.J. Crosby, M.Z. Islam, Rudyanto & A.W. Tordoff (eds.)
(2004). Important Bird Areas in Asia:
Key Sites for Conservation. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK,
xvi+297pp.
Chan, S., M. Crosby, S. So, D.Z. Wang, F. Cheung & F.Y. Hua (2009). Directory of Important Bird Areas in China
(Mainland): Key Sites for Conservation. BirdLife International, Cambridge,
UK, 231pp. [In Chinese]
IUCN (2002). The 2002 IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Downloaded from http://www.redlist.org
IUCN (2004). The 2004 IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Downloaded from http://www.redlist.org
IUCN-SSC & CI-CABS (2003). Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Gland; and Conservation
International, Washington DC. xxxpp?
Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden (2001-2004). South China
Forest Biodiversity Survey Report Series: Nos. 1-40. KFBG, Hong Kong SAR,
1109pp.
Langhammer, P.F., M.I. Bakarr, L.A. Bennun, T.M. Brooks, R.P. Clay, W.
Darwall, N. De Silva, G.J. Edgar, G. Eken, L.D.C. Fishpool, G.A.B. de Fonseca,
M.N. Foster, D.H. Knox, P. Matiku, E.A. Radford, A.S.L. Rodrigues, P. Salaman,
W. Sechrest & A.W. Tordoff (2007). Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas: Targets
for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems. IUCN Best Practice Protected Area
Guidelines Series No. 15. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, xiv+117pp.
Mittermeier, R.A., P. Robles-Gil, M. Hoffmann, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks,
C.G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreaux & G.A.B. da Fonseca (eds.) (2004). Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and
Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX, Monterrey; Conservation International, Washington D.C.; and
Agrupación Sierra Madre, Mexico, 390pp.
Mittermeier, R.A., N. Myers, P. Robles-Gil & C.G. Mittermeier (eds.)
(1999). Hotspots: Earth’s
Biologically Wealthiest and Most Threatened Ecosystems. CEMEX, Mexico,
430pp.
Ounekham, K. & S. Inthapatha (2003). Important Bird Areas in Lao P.D.R. Department of Forestry,
BirdLife International in Indochina and the Wildlife Conservation Society Lao
Program, Vientiane, viii+122pp.
Pimathai, R., R. Jukmongkol, P.D. Round & A.W. Tordoff (2004). Directory of Important Bird Areas in the Kingdom
of Thailand: Key Sites for Conservation. Bird Conservation Society of
Thailand and BirdLife International, Bangkok. 192pp.
Seng, K.H., B. Pech, C.M. Poole, A.W. Tordoff, P. Davidson & E.
Delattre (2003). Directory of Important Bird
Areas in Cambodia: Key Sites for Conservation. Department of Forestry and
Wildlife, Department of Nature Conservation and Protection, BirdLife
International in Indochina and the Wildlife Conservation Society
Cambodia Programme, Phnom Penh, 116pp.
The World Bank (2011). The World Bank:
data. Downloaded from http://data.worldbank.org.
Downloaded on 07 February 2011.
Tordoff, A.W. (ed.) (2002). Directory
of Important Bird Areas in Vietnam: Key Sites for Conservation. BirdLife
International in Indochina and the Institute of Ecology and Biological
Resources, Hanoi, 233pp.
Tordoff, A.W., M.C. Baltzer, P. Davidson, J. Fellowes, H.Q. Quynh &
T.T. Tung (2007). Ecosystem Profile: Indo-Burma
Biodiversity Hotspot, Indochina Region. Critical Ecosystem Partnership
Fund, Washington DC, ix+153pp.
Tordoff, A.W., J.C. Eames, K. Eberhardt, M.C. Baltzer, P. Davidson, P.
Leimgruber, U. Uga & U.A. Than (2005). Myanmar: Investment Opportunities in Biodiversity Conservation.BirdLife International, Yangon, xxii+124pp.
van Dijk, P.P., Tordoff, A.W., Fellowes, J., Lau, M. & Ma J.S.
(2004). Indo-Burma, pp. 323–330.
In: Mittermeier, R.A., P. Robles-Gil, M. Hoffmann, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C.G.
Mittermeier, J. Lamoreaux & G.A.B. da Fonseca (eds.). Hotspots
Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial
Ecoregions. CEMEX, Monterrey; Conservation International, Washington D.C.;
and Agrupación Sierra Madre, Mexico, 390pp.