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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


Traditional agricultural practices

Diverse herbal resources

Sacred forests

Genetic diversity

Development of seed bank

Traditional medicine

Recognition of sacred forests in land use policy


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


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


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


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


1. Mr. Jake Brunner IUCN

2. Mr. Petch Manopawitr IUCN

3. Ms. Julia Fogerite IUCN

4. Mr. Jinhua Zheng UNEP

Documents

Hosted by the Ministry of Environmental Conservation and