Andean Bear Priority Conservation Units in Bolivia & Peru

Full text

Andean Bear Priority
Conservation Units
in Bolivia & Peru
Robert Wallace, Ariel Reinaga, Teddy Siles, Jan Baiker, Isaac Goldstein,
Boris Ríos-Uzeda, Russ Van Horn, Renzo Vargas, Ximena Vélez-Liendo, Luis
Acosta, Viviana Albarracín, Jessica Amanzo, Paula De La Torre, Enrique
Domic, Marco Enciso, Cecilia Flores, Alicia Kuroiwa, Renata Leite-Pitman,
Karen Noyce, Susanna Paisley, Bader Peña, Heinz Plenge, Roxana Rojas,
Vera Pinto, Trinidad Tapia, Héctor Vela
Noviembre 2014
Results of the Binational Workshop for the Conservation of the Andean Bear in Bolivia and Peru, November 8th & 9th 2008, held as part of the II
International Symposium on the Andean Bear in Lima, Peru.
Robert Wallace, WCS

Andean Bear Priority
Conservation Units
in Bolivia & Peru
Robert Wallace, Ariel Reinaga, Teddy Siles, Jan Baiker, Isaac Goldstein,
Boris Ríos-Uzeda, Russ Van Horn, Renzo Vargas, Ximena Vélez-Liendo, Luis
Acosta, Viviana Albarracín, Jessica Amanzo, Paula De La Torre, Enrique
Domic, Marco Enciso, Cecilia Flores, Alicia Kuroiwa, Renata Leite-Pitman,
Karen Noyce, Susanna Paisley, Bader Peña, Heinz Plenge, Roxana Rojas,
Vera Pinto, Trinidad Tapia, Héctor Vela
November 2014
Results of the Binational Workshop for the Conservation of the Andean Bear in Bolivia and Peru, November 8th & 9th 2008,
held as part of the II International Symposium on the Andean Bear in Lima, Peru.

Title:
Andean Bear Priority Conservation Units in Bolivia
& Peru
First edition:
November 2014
Editor:
Robert B. Wallace
Collaborators:
Robert B. Wallace, Ariel Reinaga, Teddy Siles, Jan
Baiker, Isaac Goldstein, Boris Ríos-Uzeda, Russ Van
Horn, Renzo Vargas, Ximena Vélez-Liendo, Luis
Acosta, Viviana Albarracín, Jessica Amanzo, Paula
De La Torre, Enrique Domic, Marco Enciso, Cecilia
Flores, Alicia Kuroiwa, Renata Leite-Pitman, Karen
Noyce, Susanna Paisley, Bader Peña, Heinz Plenge,
Roxana Rojas, Vera Pinto, Trinidad Tapia, Hector
Vela
Participating institutions:
Wildlife Conservation Society, Centro de
Biodiversidad y Genética de la Universidad Mayor
de San Simón de Bolivia, Universidad Cayetano
Heredia de Perú and Antwerp University.
Photographs:
Robert Wallace,
WCS, Mileniusz Spanowicz,
WCS, Julie Larsen
Design:
Salinasanchez Comunicación
Suggested citation:
Wallace, R.B., A. Reinaga, T. Siles, J. Baiker, I.
Goldstein, B. Ríos-Uzeda, R. Van Horn, R. Vargas, X.
Vélez-Liendo, L. Acosta, V. Albarracín, J. Amanzo,
P. De La Torre, E. Domic, M. Enciso, C. Flores, A.
Kuroiwa, R. Leite-Pitman, K. Noyce, S. Paisley, B.
Peña, H. Plenge, R. Rojas Vera Pinto, T. Tapia &
H. Vela. 2014. Andean Bear Priority Conservation
Units in Bolivia & Peru. Wildlife Conservation
Society, Centro de Biodiversidad y Genética de
la Universidad Mayor de San Simón de Bolivia,
Universidad Cayetano Heredia de Perú & Antwerp
University. La Paz, Bolivia. 80 pp.
Legal deposit: 4-1-2806-14
ISBN: 978-99974-812-2-1
Printed in Bolivia

Author order is based on the following criteria. The rst three authors were
involved in the design, execution and analysis of questionnaires and/or the
design and execution of the workshop and/or the analysis of the results
and production of the nal report. The next six authors participated in the
workshop and made major suggestions on the manuscript. The next sixteen
authors either attended the workshop and made minor comments, or made
major comments following the workshop.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A special thanks to the organizers of the II Andean Bear International
Symposium, Lima, Peru, November 2008, which facilitated the realization of the
Binational Workshop on the Distribution y and Conservation Status of Andean
Bear in Bolivia and Peru, which formed the basis for the elaboration of this
document.
We also thanks Robyn Appleton, Javier Vallejos and José Vallejos, who
participated in the binational workshop.
We especially thank Elvira Salinas and Lilian Painter who translated the
document into Spanish.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 8
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 10
INTRODUCTION 12
METHODOLOGY 13
General Range-Wide Priority Setting Methodology 13
Pre-Workshop Methodology 14
Workshop Objectives 14
Workshop Methodology 14
Post-Workshop Methodology 15
PRELIMINARY RESULTS 15
ANDEAN BEAR DISTRIBUTION IN BOLIVIA AND PERU 16
Summary of Systematized Data 16
Summary of Data Received from 16
Questionnaires 16
HISTORICAL RANGE OF THE ANDEAN BEAR IN BOLIVIA AND PERU 16
AREAS WITH AND WITHOUT ANDEAN BEAR EXPERT KNOWLEDGE IN BOLIVIA AND PERU 18
ANDEAN BEAR EXTIRPATED AREAS FOR BOLIVIA AND PERU 18
PRIORITY ANDEAN BEAR CONSERVATION UNITS ABCU IN BOLIVIA AND PERU 18
Workshop Preliminary Results 18
REVIEWED POSTWORKSHOP RESULTS 28

DESCRIPTION OF MODIFIED PRIORITY ANDEAN BEAR CONSERVATION UNITS ABCU IN BOLIVIA AND PERU 34
ABCU Central Andes 1: Northwestern Peru 34
ABCU Central Andes 2: Northeastern Peru 38
ABCU Central Andes 3: Central Peru 41
ABCU Central Andes 4: Southern Peru-Northern Bolivia 44
ABCU Central Andes 5: Cotapata-Lambate-Altamachi 47
ABCU Central Andes 6: Carrasco-Amboro 50
ABCU Central Andes 7: Iñao-Tariquia 53
DISCUSSION 56
Andean Bear Historical Range 56
Expert Knowledge Coverage within the Andean Bear Historical Range 56
Andean Bear Actual Range 56
Priority Andean Bear Conservation Units (ABCU) 58
Next Steps and Recommendations 62
LITERATURE CITED 64
APPENDICES 66
Appendix I. Workshop Announcement 66
Appendix II. Letter of Invitation, Range Wide Priority Setting Questionnaire Forms and Instructions 67
Appendix III. Instructions for the Questionnaires concerning the Distribution of the Andean Bear
(Tremarctos ornatus) 69
Apéndice IV: Geographical regions for the Andean Bear (Tremarctos ornatus) 77

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
TABLE 1. Total number of potential contacts and respondents for the Andean Bear Distribution and Conservation Status
Questionnaires in Bolivia and Peru 15
FIGURE 1. Distribution of Conrmed Andean Bear Localities in Bolivia and Peru 17
FIGURE 2. Baseline Historical Range for Bolivia and Peru (Peyton 1990) 19
FIGURE 3. Revised Historical Distribution of Andean Bear in Peru 20
FIGURE 4. Revised Historical Distribution of Andean Bear in Bolivia 21
FIGURE 5. Areas With and Without Expert Knowledge for Andean Bear Distribution in Peru 22
FIGURE 6. Areas With and Without Expert Knowledge for Andean Bear Distribution in Bolivia 23
FIGURE 7. Areas in Peru where Andean Bears no longer occur 24
FIGURE 8. Areas in Bolivia where Andean Bears no longer occur 25
FIGURE 9. Priority Andean Bear Conservation Units in Peru identied by workshop participants 26
FIGURE 10. Priority Andean Bear Conservation Units in Bolivia identied by workshop participants 27
TABLE 2. Size and Percentage of Historical Distribution Range of Andean Bear Conservation Units (ABCU) identied by workshop
participants in Bolivia and Peru 28
TABLE 3. Adjusted Post-workshop Summary for Andean Bear Knowledge across the Historical Range in Bolivia and Peru 28
FIGURE 11. General Map of the Andean Bear Conservation Units 30
FIGURE 12. General Map of the Human Inuence Index 31
FIGURE 13. General Map of the Human Footprint 32
TABLE 4. Human footprint summaries for polygons identied by experts as areas where a) Andean bears are present, b) without
knowledge about Andean bears, and c) Andean bears no longer occur 33
TABLE 5. Fragmentation analyses for polygons identied by experts as areas where a) Andean bears are present, b) without
knowledge about Andean bears, and c) Andean bears no longer occur 34
TABLE 6. Size and name of Andean Bear Conservation Units (ABCU) identied in Central Andes during the workshop and nal post-
workshop modied ABCU 35
FIGURE 14. ABCU Central Andes 1: Northwestern Peru considering Human Footprint analysis (Post-Workshop Modied) 36
FIGURE 15. Final Post-workshop Modied ABCU Central Andes 1: Northwestern Peru 37
FIGURE 16. ABCU Central Andes 2: Northeastern Peru considering Human Footprint analysis (Post-Workshop Modied) 39
FIGURE 17. Final Post-workshop Modied ABCU Central Andes 2: Northeastern Peru 40
FIGURE 18. ABCU Central Andes 3: Central Peru considering Human Footprint analysis (Post-Workshop Modied) 42
FIGURE 19. Final Post-workshop Modied ABCU Central Andes 3: Central Peru 43
FIGURE 20. ABCU Central Andes 4 – Southern Peru-Northern Bolivia considering Human Footprint analysis (Post-Workshop Modied) 45
FIGURE 21. Final Post-workshop Modied ABCU Central Andes 4: Southern Peru-Northern Bolivia 46
FIGURE 22. ABCU Central Andes 5: Cotapata-Lambate-Altamachi considering Human Footprint analysis (Post-Workshop Modied) 48
FIGURE 23. Final Post-workshop Modied ABCU Central Andes 5: Cotapata-Lambate-Altamachi 49
FIGURE 24. ABCU Central Andes 6: Carrasco-Amboro considering Human Footprint analysis (Post-Workshop Modied) 51
FIGURE 25. Final Post-workshop Modied ABCU Central Andes 6: Carrasco-Amboro 52

FIGURE 26. ABCU Central Andes 7: Iñao-Tariquia considering Human Footprint analysis (Post-Workshop Modied) 54
FIGURE 27. Final Post-workshop Modied ABCU Central Andes 7: Iñao-Tariquia 55
TABLE 7. Historical range areas, range perimeters and perimeter to range ratios for four Latin American large mammal species 58
TABLE 8. Fragmentation analyses Human Footprint analysis categories within each Andean Bear Conservation Units 59
TABLE 9. Theoretical Andean bear population sizes in seven Andean Bear Conservation Units using most recent estimates
of population density 60

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 10
Luís Acosta, Museo de Historia Natural Noel
Kemp Mercado, Universidad
Autónoma Gabriel René
Moreno, Avenida Irala 565,
Casilla 2489, Santa Cruz de la
Sierra, Bolivia: l.jubatus096@
gmail.com
Viviana Albarracín Dávalos, Investigadora
Asociada Centro de Estudios
en Biología Teórica y Aplicada
(BIOTA), La Paz, Bolivia:
vivianaalba@yahoo.es
Jessica Amanzo, Laboratorio de Estudios
en Biodiversidad, Facultad
de Ciencias y Filosofía,
Universidad Peruana
Cayetano Heredia. Av.
Honorio Delgado 340, SMP,
Lima. jessica.amanzo@upch.
pe
Jan R. Baiker, Department of Geography,
University of Zurich,
Winterthurerstrasse 190,
CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland:
apurimacperu@gmail.com
Paula De La Torre: pdelatuc@gmail.com
Enrique Domic, Wildlife Conservation
Society, Casilla 3-35181 SM.,
La Paz, Bolivia: edomic@wcs.
org
Marco A. Enciso, Faculdade de Medicina
Veterinária e Zootecnia,
Universidade de São Paulo,
Av. Prof. Dr. Orlando Marques
de Paiva nº87, Cidade
Universitária, São Paulo, Brasil:
marco.enciso@gmail.com
Cecilia Flores Universidad Mayor de
San Simón, Centro de
Biodiversidad y Genética,
Cochabamba, Bolivia:
ceciorturde@gmail.com
Isaac Goldstein, Wildlife Conservation
Society, Resd. Los Frailejones,
Apto 102, Av. Carnevalli,
Mérida, Venezuela:
igoldstein@wcs.org
Alicia Kuroiwa, Wildlife Conservation
Society, Av. 15 de Enero
591, Miraores. Lima, Perú:
akuroiwa@wcs.org
Renata Leite-Pitman, 1129A Elmwood Ave.
Evanston, IL 60202, USA:
mrpl@duke.edu
Karen Noyce, 15542 County Road 72, Warba,
MN, 55793, USA. HYPERLINK
Karen.noyce @state.mn.us
Susanna Paisley, Durrell Institute of
Conservation and Ecology,
University of Kent, Giles Lane,
Canterbury, Kent, CT2, UK:
S.Paisley@kent.ac.uk
Bader Peña, Gobierno Autonomo Municipal
de La Paz, Casilla 10654, La
Paz, Bolivia: bader.pena@
gmail.com
Heinz Plenge, Calle Manuel Seoane 721,
Pimentel, Chiclayo, Perú.
chaparri@plenge.com
Ariel Reinaga, Wildlife Conservation Society,
Casilla 3-35181 SM., La Paz,
Bolivia: areinaga@wcs.org
Boris Ríos-Uzeda, Doutorando em Ecologia,
Laboratório de Vertebrados,
Programa de Pós-Graduação
em Ecologia Instituto de
Biologia Universidade Federal
do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil:
borisriosu@hotmail.com
Roxana Rojas Roxana Rojas-Vera Pinto,
Frankfurt Zoological Society
Peru/Proyecto Isnachi, Calle
Los Cipreses H-21, Residencial
Huancaro, Santiago, Cusco,
Perú: roxyrvp@gmail.com
Teddy Siles, Wildlife Conservation Society,
Casilla 3-35181 SM., La Paz,
Bolivia: tsiles@wcs.org
Trinidad Tapia, ttrinidad@hotmail.com
Russ Van Horn, San Diego Zoo Institute
for Conservation Research,
15600 San Pasqual Valley
Road, Escondido, California
92027-7000, USA: rvanhorn@
sandiegozoo.org
Renzo Vargas-Rodríguez, Departamento
de Biología, Universidad de
La Serena. Campus Andrés
Belloc/ Raúl Bitran 1305,
Casilla 554, La Serena, Chile.
Departamento de Ecología
y Medio Ambiente, Instituto
de Filosofía y Ciencias de la
Complejidad. c/ Los Alerces
3024, Ñuñoa. Código postal:
7780192, Santiago, Chile:
rvargas@userena.cl
Hector Vela Quispe, Calle Marañon N°137,
Urbanización Santa Luisa,
La Perla Alta, Callao, Peru:
hector_vq@hotmail.com
Ximena Vélez-Liendo, Bear Specialist Group –
IUCN, Centro de Biodiversidad
y Genetica, Universidad
Mayor de San Simon, Casilla
538, Cochabamba, Bolivia:
x.velezliendo@gmail.com
Robert Wallace, Wildlife Conservation
Society, Casilla 3-35181 SM.,
La Paz, Bolivia: rwallace@wcs.
org
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Mileniusz Spanowicz, WCS

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 12
INTRODUCTION
Shrouded in mystery the Andean or spectacled
bear (Tremarctos ornatus) is characterized by a
white or light brown marking that covers part of
its face around the eyes often appearing as spec-
tacles, although the form and amount of white
or brown is variable. It is a solitary animal, which
nests in trees or caves and is South America’s only
bear species (Peyton, 1990). The Andean bear is
primarily herbivorous and frugivorous, though
will opportunistically take some animal prey, and
is the enigmatic agship for the atmospheric fairy
tale cloud forests and adjacent Andean meadows
of the Tropical Andes. However, habitat loss and
human-animal conict issues threaten the Ande-
an bear across much of its continental range.
Given the importance of the Andean bear for
conservation eorts across the Tropical Andes
and the lack of systematized information regard-
ing distribution and ecology, an eort was made
at the beginning of the millennium to gather
and collectively analyze existing Andean bear
data for the Northern Andes. Lead by the World
Wildlife Fund (WWF), with institutional support
from a number of other conservation NGO’s, par-
ticularly the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
and Ecociencia, this exercise encompassed the
entire known northern range for the species in
Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela, as well as the
extreme northern portions of Peru (Rodríguez et
al., 2003). A parallel analysis of these results were
also published in an internationally recognized
journal (Kattan et al., 2004), and the ndings and
recommendations have been widely cited (Gar-
cia-Rangel, 2012) and incorporated into conser-
vation planning eorts across the range covered
by the analysis (Peralvo et al., 2005).
Nevertheless, the majority of the known Andean
bear range (almost 70%) is in Peru and Bolivia,
countries which have also been the setting for
much of the groundbreaking research on Andean
bear ever since the pioneering work of Peyton in
the mid-seventies (Peyton, 1980; 1990). As such
despite the vital importance of the Northern An-
des analysis, a pressing demand for the Andean
bear research and conservation community was
to try and replicate a systematization of existing
Andean bear data for the Central Andes of Bolivia
and Peru.
In 2007 the Andean bear expert team (Bear Spe-
cialist Group – IUCN) announced their intention
to hold the II International Symposium on the
Andean Bear in Lima, Peru in November 2008. In
Mileniusz Spanowicz, WCS

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 13
2008, WCS, Center of Biodiversity and Genetics,
San Simon University (Bolivia), Cayetano Heredia
University (Peru) and Antwerp University (Bel-
gium) enquired as to whether we could incor-
porate a specic workshop into the Symposium
agenda in order to systematize existing distribu-
tional knowledge on the Andean bear using the
Range-Wide Priority Setting Exercise developed
by WCS for landscape and globally threatened
species (Sanderson et al., 2002). This proposal
was approved and the workshop was scheduled
for the two days prior to the beginning of the II In-
ternational Symposium on the Andean Bear.
METHODOLOGY
GENERAL RANGEWIDE PRIORITY
SETTING METHODOLOGY
The Range-Wide Priority Setting Methodology
was developed by the Wildlife Conservation So-
ciety in response to the need to systematize
scarce and usually disparate data regarding the
global distribution of threatened wildlife species
in order to make informed management deci-
sions regarding their conservation (Sanderson et
al., 2002). Conceptually the methodology is es-
sentially an expert driven opinion on where the
most important conservation sites are for a given
species, but based on a current spatially explicit
analysis of systematized distributional data for
the species. To date the methodology has been
successfully used to systematize data for the fol-
lowing species: jaguar (Sanderson et al., 2002;
Marieb, 2007), American crocodile (Thorbjarnar-
son et al. 2006), white-lipped peccary and low-
land tapir (Taber et al., 2009) in Latin America, and
bison in North America (Sanderson et al., 2008),
as well as ongoing processes for tiger, four Asiatic
Bears, chimpanzees, Mongolian gazelle, lion and
snow leopard (WCS, unpublished data).
The basic conceptual steps to this methodology
are as follows:
1. Systematize existing public information on the
distribution of the species,
2. Request a community of experts to provide up-
dated and/or unpublished information on the
distribution of the species in a spatially explicit
manner,
3. Consult a community of experts on the threats
facing the species across its range,
4. Request experts to identify the most important
Conservation Units or conservation strongholds
for the species across its range as a function of
population sizes,
5. Gather information and provide rst spatially
explicit drafts of distribution (historical range &
current range), threats and conservation units for
the species,
6. Bring together contributing experts to review
and improve drafts of distribution (historical
range & current range), threats and conservation
units for the species, and make decisions regard-
ing priority conservation actions,
7. Complete write-up and analysis of results for
publication and decision-making use in the fu-
ture.
The following are some of the key denitions
of the Range-Wide Priority Setting Methodol-
ogy:
Area of Knowledge: Areas where experts are able
to express opinion about the presence or ab-
sence Andean bear.
Locality Records: Localities where Andean bears
surveys have been conducted in the last 20 years
including dates, results, type of land use, and
type of records.
Potential Range or Historical Range: Areas where
Andean bears may have existed in the last 100
years.
Proposed Actual Distribution: Areas (polygons)
where experts believe the Andean bear has oc-
curred in the last 20 years.
Andean Bear Conservation Units (ABCU): Areas
important for the long-term conservation of the
Andean bear divided into two types with details
on current threats:
Type I – population resident and stable,
Type II – population resident but under threat.

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 14
PREWORKSHOP METHODOLOGY
Using models previously designed for jaguars
(Panthera onca; Sanderson et al., 2002), white-
lipped peccaries (Tayassu pecari; Taber et al.,
2009) and lowland tapirs (Tapirus terrestris; Taber
et al., 2009) we developed three specic ques-
tionnaires for the Andean bear (see Appendices
I-IV):
Questionnaire A: Andean bear localities in the
last 10 years,
Questionnaire B: Threats to the conservation of
the Andean bear across its distribution,
Questionnaire C: Andean Bear Conservation
Units (ABCU).
Once these questionnaire forms along with an
explanation document had been revised by a
small committee of Andean bear experts we sent
the forms to people the committee had identi-
ed as either a) recognized Andean bear experts
in Bolivia and Peru or b) people, such as park
guards, with potentially important information
on the distribution of Andean bears in Bolivia and
Peru. Identied people also received the explana-
tion document, as well as maps of Bolivia and/
or Peru in GoogleEarth™ format as an additional
tool with which to draw polygons and/or place
distribution points (see Appendices I-IV).
Over a period of three months we awaited re-
ception of responses to the questionnaires and
as data came in from dierent respondents we
then processed this information into one overall
GIS and associated databases for Andean bear in
Bolivia and Peru.
Once the reception period closed in September
2008, we then assessed which of the respondents
we could invite to the workshop to be held in No-
vember 2008 in Lima, Peru immediately preceding
the II International Symposium on the Andean
Bear. The selection of workshop participants was
based on a) budget constrictions, b) geographic
coverage of Andean bear knowledge for Bolivia
and Peru, c) participant availability, and d) the
amount of data provided by each respondent.
WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES
The 2-day workshop in Lima had the following
objectives:
• Update distributional knowledge of the Andean
bear in Bolivia and Peru and analyze the connec-
tivity of identied populations,
• Evaluate the conservation status of the Andean
bear in Bolivia and Peru through identifying
ABCU (Andean Bear Conservation Units) and
analysis of habitat integrity,
• Determine priority conservation areas for the An-
dean bear in Bolivia and Peru,
• Develop a binational working group for the An-
dean bear in Bolivia and Peru,
• Identify and prioritize concrete and local inves-
tigation and conservation actions that will also
contribute to the binational conservation of the
Andean bear.
WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY
On the morning of the rst day of the workshop
recipients rst presented themselves to the group
before receiving three brief presentations:
• Binational Workshop on the Distribution and
Conservation Status of the Andean Bear in Bolivia
and Peru - Rob Wallace,
• Questionnaire Results and Systematization of
Data on the Distribution of the Andean Bear in
Bolivia and Peru - Rob Wallace, Teddy Siles, Boris
Rios-Uzeda & Paola De La Torre,
• Spatial Results on the Distribution of the Andean
Bear in Bolivia and Peru - Rob Wallace & Teddy
Siles.
Following the presentations providing instruc-
tions for the workshop tasks, the participants
were divided into two national working groups:
one for Bolivia and one for Peru. Using printed
map material, digital versions in portable com-
puters and the denitions detailed above, each
group was asked to review the historical range
draft maps, then the current distribution and
knowledge maps, and nally the proposed An-
dean Bear Conservation Units. Groups were
asked to work in the order requested and clearly
mark changes on the printed satellite image
maps with populations and thoroughfares in-
cluded, and/or digital versions in kmz format
(Google Earth™). The groups were also asked to
revise and ll in the corresponding digital ques-
tionnaire forms (Forms A, B, C) so that detailed

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 15
# Invitations Sent # Addresses Blocked # Responses*
# Responses
Including Completed
Questionnaires
# Email Responses
Including Kmz Files
Bolivia Peru Bolivia Peru Bolivia Peru Bolivia Peru Bolivia Peru
Total 60 70 15 12 20 8 7 7 6 3
*Of 45 valid email addresses in Bolivia we received 20 responses. Of 58 valid email addresses in Peru we
received 8 responses.
TABLE 1. Total number of potential contacts and respondents for the Andean Bear Distribution
and Conservation Status Questionnaires in Bolivia and Peru
data for each record and/or polygon could be
included in the Table of Attributes of the GIS.
Finally each group elected a secretary to re-
cord the decisions and progress of the working
groups.
Upon conclusion the two national working
groups reported back to each other, which was
particularly important from the perspective of
the transboundary area between Bolivia and
Peru. This plenary session was also a key moment
of reection on the dierence in interpretation of
the Andean Bear Conservation Unit denitions
used by each group (see post-workshop method-
ology below).
POSTWORKSHOP METHODOLOGY
After the workshop the maps were digitized
and modied according to the corrections and
proposals of the workshop participants and de-
cisions. Subsequently we sent the modied his-
torical range map to the workshop participants,
as well as additional recognized experts for nal
approval.
Finally, following the modifications detailed
in subsequent sections, we sent the draft ver-
sion of this document to all authors for com-
ment and analysis and revised this document
according to responses from 24 of 28 contrib-
uting authors, before sending a final draft for
comments.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
In this section we present the preliminary results
as presented on the nal day of the II International
Symposium on the Andean Bear in Lima. Based on
the information provided by the expert commu-
nity prior to the workshop we produced a series of
maps to summarize Andean bear distribution, his-
torical range, knowledge areas of the participating
expert community, areas where knowledge was
not available during the workshop, and nally the
priority Andean Bear Conservation Units identied
in Peru and Bolivia. These maps provided the basis
for the workshop review activities.
In total we sent the questionnaires to 60 contacts
in Bolivia and 70 contacts in Peru and received a
total of 28 responses that included distributional
data, although only 14 respondents answered
the more detailed questionnaires (Table 1). In or-
der to obtain those responses we sent the ques-
tionnaires out on four dierent occasions.
Based on the criteria described above we invited
11 experts from Bolivia to the workshop and 17
experts from Peru, of whom 10 Bolivia experts at-
tended the workshop along with 13 Peru experts
(see List of Participants prior to Introduction).
These experts spent two days reviewing the draft
maps and produced modied versions (Figures 1
– 10, Tables 2 & 3: see below) as nal products of
the workshop including the denition of Andean
Bear Conservation Units (ABCU).

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 16
ANDEAN BEAR DISTRIBUTION IN
BOLIVIA AND PERU
SUMMARY OF SYSTEMATIZED DATA
In Bolivia we used the working version of the Na-
tional Medium and Large Sized Mammal Distri-
bution Database (Wallace et al., 2013) developed
by the Wildlife Conservation Society in collabora-
tion with a number of participating institutions
as a tool with which to complete a recently pub-
lished book (Wallace et al., 2010). This database
contains distribution points for the Andean bear
with details of type of register and locality for
each point. After eliminating distribution points
with insucient geographic information such as
geographic coordinates, for the purposes of the
binational Andean bear workshop 532 distribu-
tion points were retained.
In Peru we used the National Database for Land-
scape Species developed by Fundación Cayeteno
Heredia and Wildlife Conservation Society be-
tween 2006 and 2008. This database contains
distribution points for the Andean bear, and once
again having removed the distribution points
with insucient geographic information such as
geographic coordinates for the purposes of the
binational Andean bear workshop 172 distribu-
tion points were retained.
In total systematized data from historical records
provided a 704 distribution points with which to
examine Andean bear distribution in Bolivia and
Peru.
SUMMARY OF DATA RECEIVED FROM
QUESTIONNAIRES
Once data from questionnaires had been pro-
cessed we added 362 distribution points (219
in Bolivia and 143 in Peru) to those that had
been systematized from the two national da-
tabases thereby reaching a total of 1066 dis-
tribution points for use in the workshop (Fig-
ure 1).
The data coverage of distribution points across
the revised historical range was rather impres-
sive for Bolivia (751 distribution points), although
a little less so for Peru (315 distribution points)
with signicant gaps between known distribu-
tion points in central Peru.
HISTORICAL RANGE OF THE ANDEAN
BEAR IN BOLIVIA AND PERU
Participants at the workshop redened the his-
torical range of the Andean bear in Bolivia and
Peru using a base map for the historical range
Mileniusz Spanowicz, WCS

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 17
FIGURE 1. Distribution of Conrmed Andean Bear Localities in Bolivia and Peru
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 18
detailed in Peyton (1990), as well more up to
date information regarding altitude, vegeta-
tion cover and habitat types in both countries.
Both national groups worked independently to
resolve the map for each country and then met
to discuss the results which was especially im-
portant for the border area of southern Peru and
northern Bolivia. Some errors were corrected in
northwestern Peru, as well as excessive range
on the original historical range map on the al-
tiplano of southern Peru and northern Bolivia.
The original historical range map from Peyton
(1990) and the modied versions for each coun-
try from the workshop are provided in Figures
2, 3 and 4.
AREAS WITH AND WITHOUT ANDEAN
BEAR EXPERT KNOWLEDGE IN BOLIVIA
AND PERU
An important aspect of the Range-Wide Priori-
ty Setting methodology is identifying the areas
where knowledge exists for a species across its
distribution and correspondingly recognizing
the areas where knowledge is lacking or ab-
sent. This ensures that the dataset distinguish-
es between a lack of knowledge and at least
some knowledge for a given area. Whilst avail-
able knowledge will be variable between those
areas in the second group, the methodology
ensures that the expert community recognizes
that there are some places where we simply
know nothing about a given species. This has
proved especially important for subsequently
targeting large and potentially important con-
servation areas for basic surveys for the species
in question.
In the case of the Andean bear in Bolivia and Peru
experts detailed areas with or without knowl-
edge in the Figures 5-6. To a certain extent the
polygons areas with and without knowledge for
both countries reect the distribution of known
localities detailed in Figure 1. Larger portions of
the distribution in Peru are without knowledge
than Bolivia, although there are important areas
in both countries that will require further survey
work in the near future.
ANDEAN BEAR EXTIRPATED AREAS FOR
BOLIVIA AND PERU
Workshop participants were also asked to iden-
tify areas where Andean bears no longer occur
within their historical range in Bolivia and Peru
(Figures 7 & 8). In Peru these areas were restricted
to three small polygons in the northern part of
the country. In Bolivia three small polygons were
also identied: one in the Apolo dry montane
grasslands of northern La Paz, and two in the vi-
cinity of the Department limits of Cochabamba
and Santa Cruz.
PRIORITY ANDEAN BEAR
CONSERVATION UNITS ABCU IN
BOLIVIA AND PERU
WORKSHOP PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Once the preceding analyses were reviewed
and completed by the working groups the par-
ticipants analyzed the proposed priority Andean
Bear Conservation Units. The conclusions of the
working groups regarding the Andean Bear Con-
servation Units are detailed in Table 2 and Figures
9 & 10 below. Our revised historical distribution
analysis for the two countries revealed that Bo-
livia has 23.88% of the historical range, and Peru
76.12%. Participating experts identied similar
proportions of the historical range in each coun-
try as Andean Bear Conservation Units: 42.28%
for Bolivia and 45.12% for Peru (Table 2). In Peru
the working group at the workshop identied
three Andean Bear Conservation Units (Table
2, Figure 9), two very large ABCUs covering the
majority of the Andean bear range in Peru on the
eastern side of the Andes, and the third in the
northern dry forests of the Pacic coast.
In Bolivia the working group proposed six
Andean Bear Conservation Units (ABCU), two
large ABCUs in the extreme north and extreme
south of the country respectively, two medium
sized ABCUs in the middle of the country, and
two rather small ABCUs in the central northern
part of the Andean bear range in Bolivia (Table
2, Figure 10).

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 19
FIGURE 2. Baseline Historical Range for Bolivia and Peru (Peyton 1990)
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 20
FIGURE 3. Revised Historical Distribution of Andean Bear in Peru
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 21
FIGURE 4. Revised Historical Distribution of Andean Bear in Bolivia
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 22
FIGURE 5. Areas With and Without Expert Knowledge for Andean Bear Distribution in Peru
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 23
FIGURE 6. Areas With and Without Expert Knowledge for Andean Bear Distribution in Bolivia
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 24
FIGURE 7. Areas in Peru where Andean Bears no longer occur
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 25
FIGURE 8. Areas in Bolivia where Andean Bears no longer occur
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 26
FIGURE 9. Priority Andean Bear Conservation Units in Peru identied by workshop participants
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 27
FIGURE 10. Priority Andean Bear Conservation Units in Bolivia identied by workshop participants
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 28
Polygon Total area of polygon
(Km2)
Area in Peru
(Km2)% Peru Area in Bolivia
(Km2)
%
Bolivia
Historical range Tremarctos ornatus 607,256.76 462,252.46 76.12 145,004.30 23.88
Area with Knowledge 332,043.04 247,844.50 74.64 84,198.53 25.36
Area where No longer occur 18,075.82 16,469.24 91.11 1,606.58 8.89
Area without Knowledge 257,137.90 197,938.72 76.98 59,199.18 23.02
TABLE 3. Adjusted Post-workshop Summary for Andean Bear Knowledge across the Historical
Range in Bolivia and Peru
REVIEWED POSTWORKSHOP RESULTS
Following the workshop, we further consulted
with participating experts and reviewed data to
produce nal results regarding the extent of An-
dean bear knowledge in Bolivia and Peru. In total,
we estimate that Andean bears historically oc-
curred in almost 607,257 km2 in Bolivia and Peru,
roughly three quarters of that area in Peru and
one quarter in Bolivia (Table 3). Experts identied
54.68% of the historical distribution polygon as
areas where Andean bears are known to occur,
2.98% as areas where Andean bears are thought
to no longer occur, and 42.34% as areas where no
participating expert could express opinion about
presence or absence (Table 3). The Bolivian and
Peruvian proportions of those knowledge classes
were very similar to the overall historical distribu-
tion proportions except for areas where Andean
bears no longer occur, 91.11% of which were
identied in Peru and only 8.89% in Bolivia.
We then made additional steps to analyze the
results of the workshop particularly given con-
cerns in dierences between the interpretation
of Andean Bear Conservation Units between
the Bolivian and Peruvian working groups at the
TABLE 2. Size and Percentage of Historical Distribution Range of Andean Bear Conservation Units
(ABCU) identied by workshop participants in Bolivia and Peru
Polygon Area in Peru (km2) Peru % Area in Bolivia (km2) Bolivia %
Historical Distribution Range of Tremarctos ornatus in Peru & Bolivia 462,252.46 76.12 145,004.30 23.88
Size of ABCU % Historical
Range Size of ABCU % Historical
Range
ABCU 1 Peru 88,117.78 19.06
ABCU 2 Peru 100,098.12 21.65
ABCU 3 Peru 20,364.40 4.41
Total ABCU Peru 208,580.3 45.12
ABCU Norte La Paz 22,833.64 15.75
ABCU Lambate 2,508.88 1.73
ABCU Altamachi 2,438.00 1.68
ABCU Carrasco-Amboro 8,894.10 6.13
ABCU Iñao-Parabanó 8,930.84 6.16
ABCU Huacareta-Tariquia 15,701.54 10.83
Total ABCU Bolivia 61,307 42.28

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 29
workshop. The Peruvian Andean Bear Conserva-
tion Units were fewer (n=3) and markedly larger
(mean=69,526.77 km2) than those identied in
Bolivia (n=6; mean=10,217.83 km2), even though
national human population density in Bolivia
(9.46 persons per 1 km2) is less than half that of
Peru (22.95 persons per 1 km2). The same analysis
described below also served as a proxy to assess
the connectivity between the identied Andean
Bear Conservation Units.
For these analyses we used available data from
the Sanderson (2002) global study “The Human
Footprint and the Last of the Wild” which devel-
oped two measures of human inuence: the Hu-
man Inuence Index “HII” and the Human Foot-
print “HFP” (both with a resolution of 1km x 1km).
The Human Inuence Index measures the level
of human impact and inuence in terrestrial eco-
systems through eight criteria: population den-
sity, infrastructure (major roads and railroads),
navigable rivers, nighttime stable lights, urban
polygons, land cover categories and coast lines
(http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/wildareas/
methods.jsp), with total values between 0 (no
human inuence) and 64 (maximum human in-
uence).
The Human Footprint is a quantitative analysis of
the human inuence based on geographic data
on human population density, land cover change,
access, and electric energy infrastructure (www.
wcs.org/humanfootprint). The Human Footprint
does not measure impact but does permits the
identication of which areas have more human
inuence and uses a score of 0 (no human inu-
ence) to 100 (maximum human inuence).
Using the Andean Bear Conservation Unit
boundaries identied in Bolivia and Peru during
the workshop (Figure 11), we mapped on the
corresponding values and classes (0-16; 17-32;
33-48; 49-64) from the global Human Inuence
Index (Figure 12) and the global Human Foot-
print (0-25; 26-50; 51-75; 76-100) (Figure 13).
Values within the previously identied Andean
Bear Conservation Units for the Human Inu-
ence Index ranged between 0-60 (maximum pos-
sible=64), while values for the Human Footprint
ranged between 0-70 (maximum possible=100).
In both analyses the higher values within parts
of some of the Andean Bear Conservation Units
identied in the workshop conrmed our con-
cern that some of the units had been dened too
optimistically.
Nevertheless, in all following sections we have
chosen to present one of these analyses, the Hu-
man Footprint (Figure 13), because there was
almost complete agreement between the two
analyses across the Andean bear distribution
within the Central Andes. We have included the
Human Inuence Index results for comparison in
Appendix V.
Mileniusz Spanowicz, WCS

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 30
FIGURE 11. General Map of the Andean Bear Conservation Units
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 31
FIGURE 12. General Map of the Human Inuence Index
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 32
FIGURE 13. General Map of the Human Footprint
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 33
Indeed, an examination of the six polygons iden-
tied by workshop participants as areas where
Andean bears no longer occurred conrmed that
those polygons had high values within the Hu-
man Footprint (Table 4, Figures 12 & 13), thereby
validating our approach to cut away areas with
high values within workshop identied ABCUs.
Almost 75% of the polygons identied as areas
where Andean bears no longer occur had higher
Human Footprint (HFP) values indicating high
human inuence, whereas only just over 25% of
the polygons had lower HFP values indicating
low levels of human inuence. Whereas in poly-
gons identied as areas where Andean bears are
known to occur only 22% had higher HFP values
and 78% with lower HFP values, and this contrast
is even more dramatic in the proposed Andean
Bear Conservation Units (ABCUs) where 87.5%
had lower HFP values and low human inuence.
In areas with no expert knowledge from partici-
pants the relationship was 61% with lower HFP
values and 39% with higher HFP values suggest-
ing signicant unidentied ABCUs maybe pres-
ent. Future analyses might use the HFP analyses
to identify further ABCUs for subsequent eld
verication.
In addition, using the FRAGSTATS Large Patch In-
dex or LPI (McGarigal & Marks, 1995) we analyzed
fragmentation levels within each knowledge
class polygon for two levels of human activity
in the Human Footprint (HFP) analysis (0-25 and
26-50) which account for >98% of the evaluated
area. For the lowest human activity HFP category
(0-25) this analysis revealed a high LPI of 32.4
(Table 5) indicating low fragmentation levels
for the areas where participating experts con-
rmed the presence of Andean bears, in contrast
to rather lower values for areas with conrmed
absence (8.89) and areas without knowledge
about Andean bears (7.13). For the second HFP
category (26-50) the relationship was the inverse,
with a relatively low LPI value for the area with
conrmed presence (5.74) indicating signicant
fragmentation of areas with this higher level
of human activities. As expected for areas with
conrmed absence, fragmentation levels for ar-
eas with higher levels for human activities were
much lower (50.75). Finally, for the area without
knowledge there was an intermediate LPI value
(16.24), again suggesting the potential in the fu-
ture to further examine these areas for additional
ABCUs in areas classied as without knowledge
about Andean bears.
We therefore decided to use the global data
sets to take a more conservative approach using
cut-o points at 25% of the maximum allowed
value: 25 or below for the Human Footprint. As
such we reduced or expanded the boundaries
of the previously identied Andean Bear Con-
servation Units to those areas that had the low-
est values for human inuence avoiding large
human population concentrations and major
thoroughfares. Consequently, there are very few
areas within the nal Andean Bear Conservation
Variable Andean Bears Present Without Knowledge
About Andean Bears
Andean Bears No
Longer Occur ABCUs
Total area (km2) 332,043.04 257,137.90 18,075.82 350,689.63
Lower Human Footprint values (0-25) km2257,927.91 157,668.33 4,615.71 306,997.80
Higher Human Footprint values (>26) km274,115.09 99,469.57 13,460.12 43,691.83
Percentage lower Human Footprint values 77.68 61.32 25.54 87.54
Percentage higher Human Footprint values 22.32 38.68 74.46 12.46
TABLE 4. Human footprint summaries for polygons identied by experts as areas where a) Andean
bears are present, b) without knowledge about Andean bears, and c) Andean bears no longer
occur

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 34
Units that have high levels of human inuence.
When revising the ABCU borders we also took
into account the limits of existing national pro-
tected areas, such that areas of Andean bear
distribution with higher Human Footprint and/
or Human Inuence Index values within exist-
ing national protected areas in Bolivia and Peru
were retained due to presumed existing man-
agement capacity. Finally, we also took into ac-
count the opinions of contributing experts and
the revised Andean bear historical distribution,
whereby we extended the limits of ABCUs to
meet the boundary of the historical distribution
(Figures 12 & 13).
The newly dened ABCUs actually expanded
into parts of the polygons previously dened as
without knowledge for Andean bears since they
were areas with very low Human Footprint values
and as such low levels of human activity. There-
fore, the polygons for areas without knowledge
were reduced by 61,364.68 km2 from a total of
257,137.9 km2 to 195,773.22 km2. This reduction
suggests that the possibility of identifying addi-
tional ABCUs in unknown areas is greater in Peru
than Bolivia, because in Bolivia the reduction of
areas without knowledge was from 59,199.18
km2 to just 26,113.96 km2, whereas in Peru the
area without knowledge was originally greater,
and under the new ABCU limits was reduced
from 197,938.72 km2 to a still signicant area of
169,659.26 km2.
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFIED PRIORITY
ANDEAN BEAR CONSERVATION UNITS
ABCU IN BOLIVIA AND PERU
Originally the working group identied nine
ABCUs in the Central Andes, three for Peru and
six for Bolivia with a total size of 270,968.63 km2,
however, following post-workshop revisions
we reduced the number of ABCUs to seven, but
increased the overall area within these ABCUs
29.42% to 350,689.63 km2 (Table 6). The average
size of the seven ABCUs is 49,890.53 km2 (Range:
15,628.01 – 114,919.64 km2).
We also calculated the percentage of each ABCU
that is currently found under protection using
three dierent categories of protected areas: 1)
National Protected Areas; 2) Departmental (Bo-
livia) and Regional (Peru) Protected Areas; and 3)
Municipal (Bolivia) and Private (Peru) Protected
Areas (Table 6). This categorization recognized
the diering protected area hierarchies between
Bolivia and Peru.
ABCU CENTRAL ANDES 1:
NORTHWESTERN PERU
The ABCU Central Andes 1 in northwestern Peru
was originally relatively large (20,364.4 km2), how-
ever, the levels of human inuence are signicant
for this region due to roads and local communi-
ties (Figure 14), and using the general criteria
Knowledge Polygon Class HFP Value Categories % Polygon # Patches LPI
Area with knowledge of Andean bear
presence
0_25 77.73 219 32.40
26_50 21.89 811 5.74
Area without knowledge 0_25 61.36 414 7.13
26_50 37.90 793 16.24
Area with knowledge of Andean bear
absence
0_25 25.41 50 8.89
26_50 71.51 42 50.75
TABLE 5. Fragmentation analyses for polygons identied by experts as areas where a) Andean
bears are present, b) without knowledge about Andean bears, and c) Andean bears no longer
occur

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 35
for ABCU denition used herein it is question-
able whether this area would qualify as an ABCU
due to very signicant excessive fragmentation.
However, the dry Pacic forests of northwestern
Peru represent a unique ecosystem within the
range of the Andean bear, and as such there was
a strong feeling among workshop participants to
maintain an ABCU in the best remaining patch of
the ecosystem. Nevertheless, post-workshop we
adjusted the ABCU according to Human Foot-
print criteria (Figure 14), and this signicantly in-
creased the size of the ABCU to 33,463.08 km2.
The post-workshop adjusted ABCU Central Andes
1 (Figure 15) is a horseshoe shaped polygon in the
dry pacic forests of northwestern Peru, which
includes eight small national protected areas:
Bosques Nublados de Udima, Calipuy, Chancay-
baños, Cutervo, Laquipampa, Pagaibamba, Sun-
chubamba and Tabaconas Namballe, that in total
cover 1,182.75 km2, just 3.65% of the ABCU. One
regional protected area: Bosque Moyan-Palacio
of 3.74 km2, just 0.01% of the ABCU, and nally
four private protected areas: Bosques de Neblina
y Páramos de Samanga, Chaparri and La Huerta
del Chaparrí, that in total cover 234.44 km2, just
0.7% of the ABCU. As such in total only 4.25% of
this ABCU is under formal protection in a series of
protected areas that are all rather small.
A close examination of this ABCU raises con-
cerns about actual connectivity for the Andean
bear population in both the western and east-
ern arms of the horseshoe, and we suggest that
verifying presumed connectivity should be a
priority conservation research action for this
ABCU. Similarly, given the precarious shape of
this ABCU from a connectivity perspective, fu-
ture possibilities for maintaining connectivity
should be evaluated and appropriate conserva-
tion actions developed. Finally, an updated eval-
uation of connectivity with southern Ecuador is
required, although Kattan and colleagues (2004)
suggested that important connectivity existed
with Southern Ecuador up until the 2001 analy-
sis included therein.
TABLE 6. Size and name of Andean Bear Conservation Units (ABCU) identied in Central Andes
during the workshop and nal post-workshop modied ABCU
Original Workshop
ABCU Name Km2Post-Workshop Modied ABCU Name Km2
% ABCU in
National Formal
Protection
% ABCU in
Regional Formal
Protection
% ABCU in
Municipal/
Private Protection
ABCU 3 Peru 20,364.40 ABCU Central Andes 1: Northwestern
Peru 33,463.08 3.53 0.01 0.7
ABCU 2 Peru 100,098.12 ABCU Central Andes 2: Northeastern Peru 43,487.51 16.91 2.75 0.34
ABCU Central Andes 3: Central Peru 76,104.71 31.68 0.13 0.67
ABCU 1 Peru 88,117.78 ABCU Central Andes 4: Southern Peru-
Northern Bolivia 114,902.25 45.09 0.86 0.31
ABCU Norte La Paz 22,833.64
ABCU Lambate 2,508.88 ABCU Central Andes 5: Cotapata,
Lambate y Altamachi 24,165.54 18.69 19.79 0
ABCU Altamachi 2,438.00
ABCU Carrasco-Amboro 8,894.10 ABCU Central Andes 6: Carrasco-Amboro 15,629.12 75.17 2.35 0
ABCU Iñao-Parabanó 8,930.84 ABCU Central Andes 7: Iñao-Tariquia 42,937.41 13.83 11.89 2.13
ABCU Huacareta-Tariquia 15,701.54
TOTAL 269,887.30 FINAL TOTAL 350,689.63 30.41 3.58 0.62

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 36
FIGURE 14. ABCU Central Andes 1: Northwestern Peru considering Human Footprint analysis (Post-Workshop
Modied)
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 37
FIGURE 15. Final Post-workshop Modied ABCU Central Andes 1: Northwestern Peru
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 38
ABCU CENTRAL ANDES 2:
NORTHEASTERN PERU
Following the Human Footprint analyses, which
showed several areas within the ABCU with a
high level of human inuence, we divided the
previously massive ABCU (100,098.12 km2) into
two smaller ABCUs, which from now on we re-
fer to as ABCU Central Andes 2: Northeastern
Peru and ABCU Central Andes 3: Central Peru. Al-
though we divided these two ABCUs, collectively
following the Human Footprint analyses the area
under both ABCUs actually increased to a total of
119,608.19 km2.
The ABCU Central Andes 2: Northeastern Peru
now totals some 43,487.51 km2, includes por-
tions of the Alto Mayo, Chayu Nain, Cordillera de
Colan, Cordillera del Condor, Rio Nieva, Santiago
Comaina and Tuntanain national protected areas
that cover 16.91% of the ABCU (Figure 16), and is
now dened by low levels of human inuence. It
also includes one regional protected area: Cordil-
lera Escalera (2.75% of the ABCU area), and two
private protected areas: Copallin and La Pampa
del Burro (0.34% of the ABCU area). As such this
ABCU has a total of 19.99% under protection, is
located in extreme northeastern Peru (Figure 17),
and borders with Ecuador. An evaluation of actual
and future connectivity with potential ABCUs in
southern Ecuador is required as an immediate
conservation research action. Similarly, we would
like to stress the need to establish whether eec-
tive connectivity exists between this ABCU and the
neighboring ABCU Central Andes 3: Central Peru.
Our analysis suggests connectivity may still exist,
although we preferred to separate the two AB-
CUs because this suspected connectivity is along
the lower elevations of the range for the Andean
bear, which might be considered marginal habitat.
There is also the need to evaluate if connectivity
exists with the Huiquilla Private Conservation Area
where Andean bear presence has recently been
reported (Enciso, 2008; Enciso et al., 2012), as well
as the southern and western portions of the Alto
Mayo protected area where populations of An-
dean bear may be seriously threatened by habitat
fragmentation related to agricultural activities and
hunting respectively (Vela, pers. obsv., 2013).
Julie Larsen Maher, WCS

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 39
FIGURE 16. ABCU Central Andes 2: Northeastern Peru considering Human Footprint analysis (Post-Workshop
Modied)
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 40
FIGURE 17. Final Post-workshop Modied ABCU Central Andes 2: Northeastern Peru
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 41
ABCU CENTRAL ANDES 3: CENTRAL PERU
This ABCU is located in the center of Peru (Figure
18), and includes at least part of nine jurisdictional
regions (Amazonas, Cajamarca, Huanco, Junin, La
Libertad, Loreto, Pasco, San Martín, Ucayali) and
six national protected areas (Río Abiseo, Cordillera
Azul, El Sira, San Matias-San Carlos, Yanachaga-
Chemillen and Yanesha; 31.68% of the ABCU area),
as well as seven small private protected areas
(Huaylla Belen-Colcamar, Huiquilla, Larga Vista I y
II, Los Chilchos, Milpuj-La Heredad, and Panguana:
0.67% of the ABCU area) and one small regional
protected area, Cordillera Escalera (0.13% of the
ABCU area). After eliminating areas with a high Hu-
man Inuence and Human Footprint, this ABCU is
still a very large ABCU (76,104.71 km2; Figure 19),
and 32.48% of this area is found in the aforemen-
tioned protected areas. Once again potential con-
nectivity with the previous ABCU Central Andes
2: Northeastern Peru needs to be evaluated as a
priority conservation research action.
Mileniusz Spanowicz, WCS

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 42
FIGURE 18. ABCU Central Andes 3: Central Peru considering Human Footprint analysis (Post-Workshop
Modied)
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 43
FIGURE 19. Final Post-workshop Modied ABCU Central Andes 3: Central Peru
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 44
ABCU CENTRAL ANDES 4:
SOUTHERN PERUNORTHERN BOLIVIA
It is important to emphasize that this ABCU com-
bines the previously dened ABCU in southern
Peru with the continuous ABCU in northern Bo-
livia and taken together this merged ABCU forms
the largest proven swathe of Andean bear habi-
tat (110,951.42 km2) in the distribution of the An-
dean bear. Following the human footprint analy-
sis (Figure 21) we increased the size of the ABCU
Central Andes 4 in southern Peru and northern
Bolivia to 114,902.25 km2 (Figure 22), though its
shape changed signicantly with the southern
portion eliminated including the Cotapata Na-
tional Park, and the western limit extended to in-
clude more of Pilón Lajas Biosphere Reserve and
Indigenous Territory (Figure 22).
Encouragingly, this huge ABCU includes several
(13) national protected areas and sanctuaries
(45.09% of the ABCU area): Amarakaeri, Ampay,
Ashaninka, Bahuaja-Sonene, Machiguenga, Ma-
chupicchu, Manu, Megantoni, Otishi and Tam-
bopata in Peru, and Apolobamba, Pilón Lajas and
Madidi in the La Paz Department, as well as six
municipal and private protected areas (0.31% of
the ABCU area): Boa Wadack Dari, Bosque Nubla-
do, Japu-Bosque Ukumari Llaqta, Pillco Grande-
Bosque de Pumataki, Qosqoccahuarina and San
Juan Bautista in Peru. Finally, this ABCU intersect
with one regional protected area (0.86% of the
ABCU area): Choquequirao in Peru. In total these
areas cover 46.26% of the ABCU. However, it also
includes 10 major roads and more than 20 sec-
ondary roads and development and associated
threats to habitat along the Inter-Oceanic High-
way may jeopardize the integrity of this ABCU in
the future.
Interestingly, this ABCU probably has the most
complete information on Andean bear distri-
bution and habitat use in Bolivia (Paisley 2001;
Rios-Uzeda et al., 2006, 2007; Wallace et al. 2010,
2013) and Peru (Figueroa & Stucchi, 2013), as
well as excellent information on the distribution
of human activities for most of the ABCU (WCS,
unpublished data). As such it represents a great
opportunity to “ground truth” the large-scale
Human Footprint analyses made here with ner
scale human landscape analyses (WCS, unpub-
lished data).
Robert Wallace, WCS

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 45
FIGURE 20. ABCU Central Andes 4 – Southern Peru-Northern Bolivia considering Human Footprint analysis
(Post-Workshop Modied)
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 46
FIGURE 21. Final Post-workshop Modied ABCU Central Andes 4: Southern Peru-Northern Bolivia
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 47
ABCU CENTRAL ANDES 5:
COTAPATALAMBATEALTAMACHI
Following analyses of human inuence we
merged the ABCU Central Andes: Lambate and
ABCU Central Andes: Altamachi ABCU´s with
the extreme southern portion of the Northern
La Paz ABCU containing Cotapata that had been
cut away from ABCU Central Andes 4. Originally
when identied at the workshop, both the ABCU
Lambate (2,508.88 km2) and the ABCU Altamachi
(2,438 km2) were comparatively small, and post-
workshop after analyzing the Human Inuence
were reduced even further in size. However, this
area borders onto the relatively small Cotapata
National Park for which connectivity for its An-
dean bear populations is a very important man-
agement objective. Hence, we combined ABCU
Central Andes: Lambate with ABCU Central An-
des: Altamachi and the extreme southern por-
tion of ABCU Central Andes: Northern La Paz to
form a redened and larger ABCU Central Andes:
Cotapata-Lambate-Altamachi (Figure 22).
This redened ABCU is now 24,165.54 km2
(Figure 23), 38.47% of the ABCU is covered by
portions of three national protected areas: Co-
tapata, Isibore-Secure and Tunari (18.69% of the
ABCU area), and two departmental protected ar-
eas: Incacasani Altamachi and an adjacent area
in Altamachi which is in the process of being
approved (19.79% of the ABCU area). Major con-
servation action priorities for this ABCU are to a)
evaluate connectivity to the northwest with the
ABCU Central Andes 4: Southern Peru-Northern
Bolivia, b) similarly evaluate connectivity to
the southeast with the ABCU Central Andes 6:
Carrasco-Amboro, and c) most critically, conrm
presumed connectivity within the ABCU, par-
ticularly along the Yungas road that descends
from La Paz but also other important roads that
cut across the ABCU Central Andes 5: Cotapata-
Lambate-Altamachi (Figure 22). Here, Andean
bears are known to occur very close to the
roads (WCS, unpublished data) and establishing
movement across the roads is the most pressing
task for the conrmation of this ABCU.
Mileniusz Spanowicz, WCS

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 48
FIGURE 22. ABCU Central Andes 5: Cotapata-Lambate-Altamachi considering Human Footprint analysis (Post-
Workshop Modied)
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 49
FIGURE 23. Final Post-workshop Modied ABCU Central Andes 5: Cotapata-Lambate-Altamachi
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 50
ABCU CENTRAL ANDES 6: CARRASCOAMBORO
This ABCU is centered on the Carrasco National
Park, Amboro National Park and Natural Area
of Integrated Management and Cavernas del
Repechón Wildlife Refuge. At the southern tip the
ABCU intersects with the Rio Grande Valles Cru-
ceños Departmental Protected Area. This ABCU
has 77.52% of the area under protection (Figure
24) within these three national parks (75.17%
of the ABCU area) and one Departmental Park
(2.35% of the ABCU area). The Human Inuence
and Human Footprint analyses actually increased
the original area, and the nal ABCU is 15,629.12
km2 (Figure 25). Important conservation action
tasks will be to evaluate possible connectivity to
the northwest and southeast with ABCUs Central
Andes 5 and 7 respectively, especially because
the expansion of the agricultural frontier is ex-
tremely relevant in this region of Bolivia, which
may potentially aect connectivity within the
currently dened ABCU.
Mileniusz Spanowicz, WCS

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 51
FIGURE 24. ABCU Central Andes 6: Carrasco-Amboro considering Human Footprint analysis (Post-Workshop
Modied)
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 52
FIGURE 25. Final Post-workshop Modied ABCU Central Andes 6: Carrasco-Amboro
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 53
ABCU CENTRAL ANDES 7: IÑAOTARIQUIA
This ABCU combined the two southernmost
ABCU dened in the original workshop (Table 4)
and is situated in southern Bolivia in the Santa
Cruz, Chuquisaca and Tarija Departments (Fig-
ures 26), and indeed comprises the Austral conti-
nental distribution limit of the Andean bear. This
ABCU includes the Aguarague, Iñao and Taruquia
national protected areas (13.83% of the area), the
Rio Grande Valles Cruceños departmental pro-
tected area (11.89% of the area), and the Paraba-
no and Serrania-Sararendo municipal protected
areas (2.13% of the area), with a total of 27.85%
of the total area under protection. The Human
Footprint and Human Inuence Index analyses
revealed that this area does not have high levels
in most of the originally dened ABCU, and in
fact we actually increased the size of the ABCU
to 42,937.41 km2 (Figures 27), and includes the
Pilcomayo River that cuts across the ABCU. Con-
servation action priorities for this ABCU are once
again to establish potential connectivity to the
north with ABCU Central Andes 6, considering
the intensication of agricultural activities in this
region of Bolivia.
Julie Larsen Maher, WCS

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 54
FIGURE 26. ABCU Central Andes 7: Iñao-Tariquia considering Human Footprint analysis (Post-Workshop
Modied)
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 55
FIGURE 27. Final Post-workshop Modied ABCU Central Andes 7: Iñao-Tariquia
LEGEND CARTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 56
DISCUSSION
ANDEAN BEAR HISTORICAL RANGE
The historical range presented herein is consid-
ered an improvement on previously published
versions (Peyton, 1990), in large part because the
digital elevation and especially vegetation type
information currently available and used for this
exercise is of considerably better quality with the
advent of GIS technology and increased avail-
ability of satellite images. Overall our version of
the historical range increased by 1.8% from the
area previously proposed by Peyton (1990). The
historical range of a species is an important per-
spective with which to measure the decline of
species to date, as well as with which to set con-
servation targets in the future.
According to this updated version of the his-
torical range the total range of the Andean bear
in Bolivia and Peru was once approximately
607,256.76 km2. Whilst impressive this pales in
comparison to the continental distribution of
other large carnivores in Latin America. For ex-
ample, the jaguar continental range was once
approximately 19,000,000 km2 (Sanderson et al.,
2002), and the puma’s continental range was
once probably more than double that. Indeed, in
general larger mammals have signicantly larger
distributions than smaller mammals (Gaston
& Blackburn, 1996a, 1996b). As such, pound for
pound, the Andean bear has always been a rela-
tively range-restricted species.
EXPERT KNOWLEDGE COVERAGE WITHIN
THE ANDEAN BEAR HISTORICAL RANGE
In total the Andean bear experts that participat-
ed in this exercise felt comfortable expressing
opinion about Andean bear presence in 54.68%
of the revised historical range and absence in
2.98% of the revised historical range amount-
ing to a total knowledge coverage of 57.66%.
There were large ‘holes’ in knowledge coverage
in central Peru that accounted for the majority
of the areas where Andean bear knowledge was
not available according to Andean bear experts
(42.34%). Evidently, knowledge does exist for
some of these areas in central Peru and we hope
that in the future we will be able to improve the
analyses herein.
There were concerns at the beginning of this ini-
tiative about the breadth of expert knowledge for
this species, and knowledge coverage of 57.66%
is considerably lower than species previously
considered in a complete Range-Wide Priority
Setting Exercise. For example, in 1999 the origi-
nal jaguar analysis revealed ‘knowledge holes’
amounting to 17% indicating an overall knowl-
edge area of 83% of the historical range (Sand-
erson et al., 2002), that was later increased in
2006 to 96% (Marieb, 2007). For more abundant,
visible and easier to study species in the region,
such as white-lipped peccaries and lowland ta-
pirs, expert knowledge covered 99.1% and 99.6%
of the historical range respectively (Taber et al.,
2009). It is probable that knowledge coverage
would increase somewhat if Ecuador, Colombia
and Venezuela were included in this analysis as
a complete Range Wide Priority Setting Exercise.
Moreover, knowledge coverage of 57.66% under-
lines the need for basic survey work for Andean
bears in Bolivia and Peru.
As mentioned previously, there is a particular need
in Peru to assess large areas currently found out-
side the ABCUs within this document and without
knowledge on Andean bears from the participat-
ing experts and evaluate whether additional AB-
CUs might be dened using the Human Footprint
in association with protected area limits.
ANDEAN BEAR ACTUAL RANGE
Workshop participants were able to conrm
six polygons, three in Bolivia and three in Peru,
where Andean bears are considered as extir-
pated or where populations are signicantly de-
clined. Although these polygons accounted for
just 2.98% of the revised historical range, this in-
creases to 45.32% when areas where experts con-
sidered they could not reliably provide knowl-
edge on Andean bear presence are considered.
From a positive perspective this means that cur-
rent knowledge suggests that Andean bears are
still present in at least 54.68% of their historical
range, but the conrmation on local extirpations
underlines the need for conservation planning
and actions for this species. Given that 42.34%

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 57
of the revised historical range has no knowledge
coverage from participating experts, the need
to engage additional experts is emphasized. It
seems likely that upon further expert participa-
tion and/or eldwork in these currently unknown
portions of the Andean bear revised historical
range, the percentage of areas where Andean
bears still occur will increase dramatically.
By way of comparison, jaguars are considered ex-
tirpated in 39% of their historical range (Marieb,
v2007), and white-lipped peccaries and lowland
tapirs in 20% and 14% of their historical ranges
respectively (Taber et al., 2009). As such, in Bolivia
and Peru at least, Andean bears are still doing
rather well, but as major transport and infrastruc-
ture projects increase in the Tropical Andes this
situation is expected to deteriorate signicantly
over the next decade. Also, at a range wide level
the situation for Andean bears maybe a little less
promising, because, given higher human popu-
lation densities, conservation pressures in the
northern range countries of Ecuador (61 people
per km2), Colombia (41 people per km2) and Ven-
ezuela (32 people per km2) are almost certainly
higher than Peru (24 people per km2) and Bolivia
(9 people per km2).
Currently, 19.99% of the Andean bear’s historical
range in Bolivia and Peru is under formal protec-
tion. This actually exceeds the 17% recommend-
ed by the Convention on Biological Diversity as a
2011-2020 goal in the Aichi targets, but of course,
Andean bears occur in the Tropical Andes - the
most biologically diverse ecoregion in the world
– and so the percentage under protection might
be expected to exceed global recommendations.
In any case, in Bolivia and Peru, as can be seen
in the currently identied ABCU’s there are a se-
ries of protected areas protecting Andean bears,
at least some of which are large enough to be
biologically signicant for the Andean bear. The
challenge into the future will be to secure the
sustainable and eective management of these
protected areas, and the broader ABCUs.
We compared the historical distributions of An-
dean bear, Tayasu pecari, Panthera onca and Tapi-
rus terrestris, analyzing the relationship between
perimeter length and area (Table 7), given that if
the shape of the historical distribution is less cir-
cular then edge eects will be higher (Woodroe
& Ginsberg, 1998, Laurance et al., 2002, McKinney,
2005). To calculate historical ranges and perimeter
lengths we used recent Range Wide Priority Setting
Mileniusz Spanowicz, WCS

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 58
exercises for jaguars, white-lipped peccaries and
lowland tapir (Sanderson et al., 2002; Marieb, 2007;
Taber et al., 2009). For Andean bear we used our
adjusted historical range for Bolivia and Peru and
merged this with previous best estimations for Ec-
uador, Colombia and Venezuela (Peyton, 1999).
At the overall global distribution scale there is
clearly a major dierence in the perimeter to area
ratios for the Andean bear compared to the other
three species, with those species having six to
thirteen more km2 per km of perimeter. Across
the range Andean bears have just 21.61 km2 per
km of perimeter, although this value improves to
37.26 km2 when only considering the range in Bo-
livia and Peru (Table 7). These dierences suggest
that the overall Andean bear distribution range
is more susceptible to fragmentation than white-
lipped peccaries, lowland tapirs and jaguars.
PRIORITY ANDEAN BEAR CONSERVATION
UNITS ABCU
After considerable post-workshop analysis we
propose a total of seven Andean Bear Conserva-
tion Units, three in Peru, one that bridges Peru
and Bolivia and three in Bolivia. According to
the experts these seven areas represent the best
hope for the long-term conservation of Andean
bears in the two countries that comprise almost
70% of the actual range. The proposed ABCUs
cover approximately 57.75% of the estimated ac-
tual range of the species in Bolivia and Peru.
The original workshop dened Andean Bear Con-
servation Units range from relatively small areas
of just 2,438 km2 (ABCU Bolivia Altamachi) to
massive areas of more than 100,098 km2 (ABCU
Peru 2). Post-workshop analyses using the Hu-
man Footprint analysis changed that range from
15,628 km2 for the smallest ABCU Central Andes
6: Carrasco-Amboro to 114,902 km2 for the larg-
est ABCU Central Andes 4: Southern Peru-North-
ern Bolivia. For the purposes of further analyses
we divided the ABCUs into three size classes:
i) Relatively small ABCUs of less than 25,000
km2,
ii) Medium-sized ABCUs of between 25,001 to
50,000 km2,
iii) Relatively large ABCUs of more than 50,001
km2.
Of the seven identied Andean Bear Conserva-
tion Units, two are relatively small ABCUs (ABCU
Central Andes 5: Cotapata-Lambate-Altamachi,
ABCU Central Andes 6: Carrasco-Amboro), three
are medium sized ABCUs (ABCU Central Andes
1: Northwestern Peru ABCU Central Andes 2:
Northeastern Peru, ABCU Central Andes 7: Iñao-
Tariquia), and two are relatively large ABCUs
(ABCU Peru 3: Central Peru, ABCU Peru 4: South-
ern Peru-Northern Bolivia). As might be expected
ABCUs have a greater percentage under protec-
tion than the overall range in Bolivia and Peru.
Taken together a total of 34.6% of the ABCUs
are under formal protection, although there is
Historical Range Polygon Area (km2) Perimeter Perimeter to Area Ratio*
Total Tremarctos ornatus 739,182.01 34,201.37 21.61
Total Tayassu pecari 14,220,487.57 66,617.84 213.46
Total Panthera onca 11,952,190.84 96,582.18 123.75
Total Tapirus terrestris 13,129,873.41 47,116.02 278.67
Bolivia & Peru Tremarctos ornatus 607,256.76 16,289.02 37.26
Bolivia & Peru Panthera onca 1,500,637.00 18,241.42 82.27
Bolivia & Peru Tapirus terrestris 1,571,924.04 21,848.66 71.95
Bolivia & Peru Tayassu pecari 1,558,063.58 22,068.38 70.6
*km2 range area per km of perimeter
TABLE 7. Historical range areas, range perimeters and perimeter to range ratios for four Latin
American large mammal species

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 59
considerable variation between ABCUs with the
ABCU Central Andes 1: Northwestern Peru as
little as 4.25%, contrasting with ABCU Central An-
des 6: Carrasco-Amboro where 77.52% is under
formal protection.
The Human Footprint (HFP) analyses within each
identied ABCU are detailed in Table 8, and for all
identied ABCUs over 99% of the area is found
within the two lowest HFP categories (0-25 & 26-
50), with no area in any of the ABCUs in the high-
est HFP category (76-100). Indeed, strikingly the
lowest HFP category (0-25) accounts for at least
89% of the area for ve of seven of the ABCUs,
and at least 80% for six out of seven identied
ABCUs. This underlines the excellent conserva-
tion status of the majority of the ABCUs.
The exception is the ABCU Central Andes 1:
Northwestern Peru where only 43.23% of the
ABCU is within the lowest HFP category. Frag-
mentation statistics are also rather dierent for
this ABCU (Table 8), with low FRAGSTATS Large
Patch Index (LPI) values (McGarigal & Marks,
1995) of 12.52 for the lowest HFP category (0-
25) compared to the other six ABCUs (Range:
76.15 to 94.19), and higher LPI values of 26.88
for the second category (26-50) compared to
others (Range: 1.24-10.45). When LPI approach-
es zero it signies that small patches form the
analysis area, and LPI values nearer 100 signify
a large single patch. The Northwestern Peru
ABCU is found in the Pacic dry montane for-
ests that represent a very dierent ecosystem
for the Andean bear and using the evolutionary
distinctiveness argument, workshop partici-
pants felt that a large ABCU was required in this
ecosystem.
Andean Bear Conservation Unit (ABCU) HFP Value Categories % Polygon # Patches LPI
ABCU Central Andes 1: Northwestern Peru
0_25 43.23 150 12.52
26_50 56.15 203 26.88
51_75 0.62 30 0.28
ABCU Central Andes 2: Northeastern Peru
0_25 92.65 4 91.89
26_50 7.35 34 4.36
51_75 0.00 1 0.00
ABCU Central Andes 3: Central Peru
0_25 93.71 9 92.99
26_50 6.29 208 1.93
51_75 0.01 3 0.00
ABCU Central Andes 4: Southern Peru-Northern Bolivia
0_25 94.26 18 94.19
26_50 5.71 223 1.24
51_75 0.03 9 0.01
ABCU Central Andes 5: Cotapata, Lambate y Altamachi
0_25 89.63 9 86.65
26_50 10.36 46 4.76
51_75 0.01 2 0.00
ABCU Central Andes 6: Carrasco-Amboro
0_25 80.13 13 76.15
26_50 19.80 57 10.45
51_75 0.08 2 0.06
ABCU Central Andes 7: Iñao-Tariquia
0_25 89.62 30 88.41
26_50 10.29 223 4.88
51_75 0.09 7 0.03
TABLE 8. Fragmentation analyses Human Footprint analysis categories within each Andean Bear
Conservation Units

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 60
Available data on Andean bear population den-
sity is scarce and often statistically imperfect
(Garshelis, 2011). However, recent estimates from
camera trap surveys, genetic analyses, and te-
lemetry based studies all converge on estimates
of between 3 and 12 Andean bears per 100 km2
(Rios-Uzeda et al., 2007, Viteri, 2007, Garshelis,
2011). Using this range of density estimates Table
9 details the theoretical population sizes for the
seven Andean Bear Conservation Units identi-
ed herein. More than anything this projection
stresses the pressing need to develop more reli-
able density estimates across a range of realities
for the Andean bear. Fortunately camera-trap-
ping technology is catching up with the rigors
of Andean cloud forest conditions (Goldstein
pers. comm. to R. Wallace, 2011; Wallace pers.
obs., 2012), and can also deal with many of the
recommendations made in the rst forays into
camera trapping for Andean bear in the region
(Rios-Uzeda et al., 2007; Wallace pers. obs., 2012),
and so in the short-term future density estimates
for Andean bear are expected to dramatically im-
prove. For the moment though, and according to
currently available data, Table 9 provides us with
a decision-making framework population sizes
within the ABCUs.
For the two relatively small ABCUs (ABCU Central
Andes 5: Cotapata-Lambate-Altamachi, ABCU
Central Andes 6: Carrasco-Amboro), the ques-
tion of how sustainable Andean bear popula-
tions really are remains pertinent. Using the low-
est density estimate these smaller ABCUs have
populations of around 500 animals, considered
a minimum for population viability. Whether
populations of this size are truly sustainable in
the long-term is currently the subject of some de-
bate in the minimum viable population literature
(Reed et al., 2003; Traill et al., 2007), but even the
smallest of these relatively small ABCUs are clear-
ly important potential strongholds for Andean
bear conservation, and under the medium and
Name of Andean Bear
Conservation Unit (ABCU) Size (km2)Ratio of Edge to
Interior Area
Theoretical Population
Size using Lower
Population Density
Estimate 3 bears/100 km2
Theoretical Population
Size using Mid Population
Density Estimate 7
bears/100 km2
Theoretical Population Size
using Upper Population
Density Estimate 12
bears/100 km2
Ratio Area vs
Perimeter of
Historical Range
(Shape Index)
ABCU Central Andes 1:
Northwestern Peru 33,463.08 5.5 1004 2,342 4,015 6.74
ABCU Central Andes 2:
Northeastern Peru 43,487.51 7.3 1,304 3,044 5,218 1.90
ABCU Central Andes 3:
Central Peru 76,104.71 12.9 2,283 5,327 9,132 2.03
ABCU Central Andes 4:
Southern Peru-Northern
Bolivia
114,902.25 19.5 3,447 8,043 13,788 3.10
ABCU Central Andes 5:
Cotapata, Lambate y
Altamachi
24,165.54 3.6 725 1,691 2,900 2.55
ABCU Central Andes 6:
Carrasco-Amboro 15,629.12 2.6 469 1,094 1,875 3.21
ABCU Central Andes 7:
Iñao-Tariquia 42,937.41 7.3 1,288 3,005 5,152 2.77
TOTAL 350,689.63 10,520 24,546 42,080
TABLE 9. Theoretical Andean bear population sizes in seven Andean Bear Conservation Units
using most recent estimates of population density

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 61
upper population density estimates their viabil-
ity is more promising, especially considering their
potentially critical connectivity role between the
larger ABCUs.
In the case of the ABCU at the southern limit of
the Andean bear distribution in Bolivia recently
published information has both supported and
denied the presence of the species at its south-
ern limit (Vargas & Azurduy, 2006; Rumiz et al.,
2012). This debate is most fervent in Argentina
where Andean bear presence has recently been
denied (Rumiz, 2012), despite being previously
published and accepted internationally (Del
Moral & Lameda 2011; IUCN 2008 in Rumiz et al.,
2012).
Populations of any organism at distributional
extremes may be important for conservation be-
cause peripheral populations of species under-
going extensive distribution contractions may
persist more than central populations (Channell,
2004). This is particularly true for those peripheral
populations that diverge genetically from central
populations and are potentially important for the
protection of evolutionary processes in changing
environments, as might occur in the context of
climate change (Lesica & Allendorf, 2002; Hampe
& Petit, 2005). From an Andean bear perspective
we should therefore work to understand the sta-
tus of peripheral populations, particularly those
in the southern distributional limit, because of
the present and potential importance of these
populations under future climate change sce-
narios.
Using these lower population density estimates,
the three medium-sized ABCUs (ABCU Central
Andes 1: Northwestern Peru, ABCU Central An-
des 2: Northeastern Peru, ABCU Central Andes
7: Iñao-Tariquia) might be expected to house
populations of between 1004 to 1,304 Andean
bears, far better long-term prospects and yet, in
the case of the upper density estimates (4,015
to 5,018), just reaching some of the more recent
estimates of large vertebrate population viability.
Indeed, under the lower and more realistic An-
dean bear density estimates the only ABCUs that
approach the ‘magic number’ of 5000 animals for
a minimum viable population (Reed et al., 2003;
Traill et al., 2007) would be the two larger sized
ABCUs (ABCU Central Andes 3: Central Peru,
ABCU Central Andes 4: Southern Peru-Northern
Bolivia), surpassing this objective under the me-
dium and upper population density estimate sce-
narios.
Here it is important to stress that this debate is
essentially academic, as the total global popula-
tions of many of the most threatened vertebrates
such as tigers and mountain gorillas do not reach
this magic number for population viability, let
alone individual populations. Nevertheless, irre-
spective of the debate regarding the population
viability of the smaller identied ABCUs, clearly
the larger ABCUs are potentially the most impor-
tant for the long-term conservation of the Ande-
an bear. As such we suggest considering the pro-
posed ABCUs herein within a two-tiered system
where the most important and priority ABCUs are
the medium and larger sized ABCUs.
We suggest that these medium and large-sized
ABCUs are the ABCUs where limited resources
should rst be invested for Andean bear con-
servation as in the long-term they represent the
best scenario for viable populations. This rst tier
of ve ABCUs covers approximately 89% of the
areas identied as priority areas for the conser-
vation of the Andean bear in Bolivia and Peru
(ABCUs) including all the major habitat types for
Andean bears, predominantly humid montane
forests and neighboring Andean grasslands, but
also the Pacic dry forests of northwestern Peru
and the southern limits of Andean bear distribu-
tion in the dry montane valleys of southern Bo-
livia.
The two smaller ABCUs are also very important
especially from a potential connectivity perspec-
tive, however, it is important to recognize that
given the maximum possible size of Andean bear
populations in these ABCUs, conservation invest-
ment will be more of a risk. Finally, it is also worth
stressing that currently the populations of many
neighboring ABCUs may still be connected and
so establishing longer-term connectivity through
strategic management activities should be con-
sidered, which in the longer term of course, is es-
pecially important for the smaller ABCUs.
In summary, to date this process has resulted in
a set of maps regarding a) the historical distribu-
tion of the Andean bear in Bolivia and Peru, b) the
current distribution of Andean bear in Bolivia and

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 62
Peru, c) a systematized database of Andean bear
distributional records in Bolivia and Peru, and d)
a proposed suite of priority areas for Andean bear
conservation or Andean Bear Conservation Units
(ABCUs). These results were presented in very
preliminary form at the II Andean Bear Sympo-
sium in Lima (Wallace et al., 2008), and here we
have revised them according to more specic
geographic information on human inuence.
NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We propose the following next steps and recom-
mendations:
1) Develop more specic recommendations for pri-
ority conservation research actions to evaluate
connectivity possibilities between identied An-
dean Bear Conservation Units.
2) Use the results to produce a scientic publication
for an international audience.
3) Produce a list of priority sites for developing den-
sity estimates for Andean bears that will provide
a range of reliable values across the range in Bo-
livia and Peru with which to better inform conser-
vation decisions in the future.
4) Evaluate the response of Andean bear popula-
tions to dierent levels and combinations of
threats. For example, at what point does habitat
fragmentation aect Andean bears and when
does conict with people over crops or livestock
signicantly aect populations?
5) Over time, and for the actualization of the infor-
mation included herein, we would like to more
comprehensively include valuable data from
areas with scarce information from other ac-
tors such as protected areas, national protected
area authorities, universities and local communi-
ties through appropriately designed question-
naires.
6) Form a binational working group and develop
a binational Action Plan for the Andean bear in-
cluding specic priority conservation actions,
for example, targeted conservation research on
the species distribution, abundance and biology,
environmental education and communication to
the general public, and management programs
for human-wildlife conicts involving Andean
bears.
7) Hold future meetings at a binational level to
talk about, analyze, improve and evaluate prior-
ity interventions for the conservation of Andean
bears.
8) Propose new national or local protected areas as
a function of our revised binational analysis of
Andean Bear Conservation Units.
9) Develop specic conservation actions to insure
connectivity and corridors within the conrmed
Andean Bear Conservation Units (ABCUs).
10) In the medium term, develop specic but com-
prehensive analyses and conservation plans with
integrated and diverse conservation actions
for the identied Andean Bear Conservation
Units.
11) Perform evaluations regarding the presence of
areas without knowledge about Andean bears,
or with very poor knowledge within existing An-
dean Bear Conservation Units, especially areas
where very little data exists such as central Peru
and southern Bolivia.
12) Test the validity of the Human Footprint analyses
utilized herein by comparing with available ner
scale human landscape analyses.

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 63
Foto trampa cámara: Guido Ayala & María Viscarra, WCS Foto trampa cámara: Guido Ayala & María Viscarra, WCS
Foto trampa cámara: Guido Ayala & María Viscarra, WCS

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 64
Channell, R. 2004. The conservation value of peripheral popula-
tions: the supporting science. Pp. 1-17. In: T.D. Hooper
(Ed.) Proceedings of the Species at Risk 2004 Pathways
to Recovery Conference. 1 March 2–6, 2004, Victoria,
B.C. Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Con-
ference Organizing Committee, Victoria, B.C.
Del Moral, J.F. & F.I. Lameda Camacaro. 2011. Registros de ocur-
rencia del oso andino (Tremarctos ornatus Cuvier,
1825) en sus límites de distribución nororiental
y austral. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias
Naturales 13:7-19.
Enciso, M.A. 2008. Presence of Andean bear in the mountain for-
est and “pajonal” in Luya, Amazonas, northeastern
Peru. International Bear News 17:16-17.
Enciso, M.A., D. Galvez-Roeder & J. La Torre. 2012. Pursuing the
spectacled bear footprint at the Huiquilla’s for-
est, northern Peruvian Yungas. International Bear
News 21:45-47.
Figueroa, J. & M. Stucchi. 2013. Presencia del oso andino
Tremarctos ornatus (Carnivora: Ursidae) en el Cor-
redor de Conservacion Vilcabamba-Amboro, sur-
este del Perú. Therya 4:511-538.
Garcia-Rangel, S. 2012. Andean bear Tremarctos ornatus natu-
ral history and conservation. Mammal Review
42:85–119.
Garshelis, D. 2011. Andean bear density and abundance esti-
mates — How reliable and useful are they? Ursus
22:47–64.
Gaston, K.J. & T.M. Blackburn. 1996ª. Conservation implications
of geographic range size-body size relationships.
Conservation Biology 10:638–646.
Gaston, K.J. & T.M. Blackburn. 1996b. Range size-body size re-
lationships: evidence of scale dependence. Oikos
75:479–485.
Hampe, A. & R.J. Petit. 2005. Conserving biodiversity under cli-
mate change: the rear edge matters. Ecology Let-
ters 8:461–467.
Kattan, G., O. LucíaHernández, I. Goldstein, V. Rojas, O.Murillo,
C.Gómez, H. Restrepo & F.Cuesta. 2004. Range
fragmentation in the spectacled bear Tremarc-
tos ornatus in the northern Andes. Oryx 38:155-
163.
Lesica, P. & F.W. Allendorf. 1995. When are peripheral popula-
tions valuable for conservation? Conservation Bi-
ology 9:753-760.
Marieb, K. 2007. Jaguars in the new millennium data set update:
The state of the jaguar in 2006. Wildlife Conserva-
tion Society (WCS), New York.
McGarigal, K. & B. Marks. 1995. Fragstats*Arc. General Technical
Report, USDA Forest Service, USA.
Paisley, S. 2001. Andean Bears and People in Apolobamba, Bo-
livia: Culture, Conicts and Conservation. Ph.D.
Thesis. Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecol-
ogy, UK.
Peralvo, M.F. F. Cuesta & F. van Manen. 2005. Delineating prior-
ity habitat areas for the conservation of Andean
bears in northern Ecuador. Ursus 16:222-233.
Peyton, B. 1980. Ecology, distribution, and food habits of spec-
tacled bears, Tremarctos ornatus, in Peru. Journal
of Mammalogy 61:639-652.
Peyton, B. 1990. Spectacled bear conservation Action Plan. Pp
157-164 In: Bears, Status Survey and Conservation
Action Plan, C. Servheen, S. Herrero and B. Peyton,
eds. IUCN, Bear and Polar Bear Specialist Groups.
IUCN, Switzerland and Cambridge.
Reed, J.M., D.D. Murphy & P.F. Brussard. 1998. Ecacy of popu-
lation viability analysis. Wildlife Society Bulletin
26:244-251.
Rios, B., H. Gomez & R.B. Wallace. 2006. Spectacled bear
(Tremarctos ornatus) habitat preferences in the
northwestern Bolivian Andes. Journal of Zoology
268:271-278.
Literature Cited

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 65
Rios-Uzeda, B., H. Gomez & R.B. Wallace. 2007. First density es-
timation of spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatos)
using camera trapping methodologies. Ursus
18:124-128.
Rodríguez, D., F. Cuesta, I. Goldstein, A.E. Bracho, L.G. Naranjo
& O.L. Hernandez. 2003. Ecoregional strategy for
the conservation of the spectacled bear (Tremarc-
tos ornatus) in the northern Andes. WWF Colom-
bia, Fundación Wii, EcoCiencia, Wildlife Conserva-
tion Society & Red Tremarctos.
Rumiz, D.I., A.D. Brown, P.G. Perovic, S.C. Chalukian, G.A.E.
Cuyckens, P. Jayat, F. Falke & D. Ramadori. 2012. El
Ucumar (Tremarctos ornatus), mito y realidad de
su presencia en la Argentina. Mastozoología Neo-
tropical 19:359-366.
Sanderson, E., K. Redford, C. Chetkiewicz, R. Medellin, A. Rabi-
nowitz, J. Robinson & A. Taber. 2002. Planning to
save a species: the jaguar as a model. Conserva-
tion Biology 16:58-72.
Sanderson, E., K. Redford, B. Weber, K. Aune, D. Baldes, J. Berger,
D. Carter, C. Curtin, J. Derr, S. Dobrott, E. Fearn, C.
Fleener, S. Forrest, C. Gerlach, C. Cormack Gates,
J.E. Gross, P. Gogan, S. Grassel, J.A. Hilty, M. Jensen,
K. Kunkel, D. Lammers, K. Minkowski, T. Olson, C.
Pague, P.B. Robertson & B. Stephenson. 2008. The
ecological future of the North American bison:
Conceiving long-term, large-scale conservation
of wildlife. Conservation Biology 22:252-266.
Taber, A., S.C. Chalukian, M. Altrichter, K. Minkowski, L. Lizár-
raga, E. Sanderson, D. Rumiz, A.M. Edsel, C. de
Angelo, M. Antúnez, G. Ayala, H. Beck, R. Bodmer,
B.B. Salvador, J.L. Cartes, S. de Bustos, D. Eaton, L.
Emmons, N. Estrada, L. Flamarion de Oliviera, J.
Fragoso, R. Garcia, C. Gomez, H. Gómez, A. Keu-
roghlian, K. Ledesma, D. Lizcano, C. Lozano, O.
Montenegro, N. Neris, A. Noss, J.A. Palacio Vieira,
A. Paviolo, P. Perovic, H. Portillo, J. Radachowsky,
R. Reyna-Hurtado, J. Rodriguez Ortiz, L. Salas, A.
Sarmiento Dueñas, JA. Sarria Perea, K. Schiano,
B. de Thoisy, M. Tobler, V. Utreras, D. Varela, R.B.
Wallace, & G. Zapata Rios. 2009. El Destino de los
Arquitectos de los Bosques Neotropicales: Evalu-
ación de la Distribución y el Estado de Conserva-
ción de los Pecaríes Labiados y los Tapires de Tierras
Bajas. New York, Pigs, Peccaries and Hippos Spe-
cialist Group (IUCN/SSC); Tapir Specalist Group
(IUCN/SSC); Wildlife Conservation Society; and
Wildlife Trust. 210p.
Thorbjarnarson, J., F. Mazzotti, E. Sanderson, F. Buitrago, M.
Lazcano, K. Minkowski, M. Muñiz, P. Ponce, L.
Sigler, R. Soberon, A.M. Trelancia & A. Velasco.
2006. Regional habitat conservation priorities for
the American crocodile. Biological Conservation
128:25-36.
Traill, L.W., C.J.A. Bradshaw & B.W. Brook. 2007. Minimum vi-
able population size: A meta-analysis of 30 years
of published estimates. Biological Conservation
139:159-166.
Vega Castelán, H. & C. Zaldívar Tevera. 2000. Manual Or-
denamiento del Territorio Municipal, Centro
de Servicios Municipales Heriberto Jara, A.C.
CESEM,México.
Viteri, M.P. 2007. Conservation genetics of Andean bears (Tremarc-
tos ornatus) in northeastern Ecuador: Molecular
tools, genetic diversity and population size. Thesis,
University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA.
Wallace, R. et al. “Resultados preliminares del I Taller Binacional
sobre la Distribución y Estado de Conservación
del Oso Andino en Bolivia y Perú”, en Lima, Perú,
el 12 de Noviembre de 2008.
Wallace, R.B., H. Gómez, Z.R. Porcel & D.I. Rumiz (Eds.). 2010. Dis-
tribución,Ecología y Conservación de los Mamífer-
os Medianos y Grandes de Bolivia.Editorial: Centro
de Ecología Difusión Simón I. Patiño.Santa Cruz
de la Sierra, Bolivia. 906 pp.
Wallace, R.B., H. Lopez-Strauss, N. Mercado & Z.R. Porcel. 2013.
Base de Datos sobre la Distribución de los Mamífer-
os Medianos y Grandes de Bolivia. DVD Interactivo.
Wildlife Conservation Society, La Paz, Bolivia.
Woodroe, R. & J.R. Ginsberg. 1998. Edge eects and the ex-
tinction of populations inside protected areas.
Science 280: 2126–2128.

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 66
APPENDIX I. WORKSHOP ANNOUNCEMENT
Binational Workshop on the Distribution and Conservation Status of the
Andean Bear in Bolivia and Peru
8th - 9th of November, 2008
Universidad Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Perú
Considering the number of persons interested in the research and conservation of the
Andean bear in Peru and Bolivia that are expected to attend the I Congress of the Peru-
vian Society of Mammalogy and the II International Symposium on the Andean Bear, and
considering the lack of a regional analysis of the status of populations for the southern
part of the Andean bear range, several researchers associated with the Centro de Bio-
diversidad y Genética of the Universidad Mayor de San Simón in Bolivia, Centro para la
Sostenibilidad Ambiental de la Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia in Perú, and the
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) proposed the realization of a workshop on the dis-
tribution and conservation status of the Andean bear in Bolivia and Peru as an activity
associated to both the I Congress of the Peruvian Society of Mammalogy and the II Inter-
national Symposium on the Andean Bear.
The objectives of the workshop are
1. Update the knowledge about the distribution and potential connectivity of Andean bear
populations in Bolivia and Peru.
2. Evaluate the conservation status of the Andean bear in Bolivia and Peru through the iden-
tication of “Andean Bear Conservation Units”.
3. Determine priority areas for the conservation of the Andean bear in Peru and Bolivia.
4. Develop a binational working group on the Andean bear.
5. Identify and prioritize research and conservation actions at a binational level.
This eort is divided in two stages: a) recompilation and systematization of information
in the months prior to the symposium analyzing the formats mailed to dierent stake-
holders; b) during the 8th and 9th of November, 25-30 people will review and complete
the nal analysis and systematization. The preliminary results of the analysis will be pre-
sented during one of the afternoon workshops of the II International Symposium on the
Andean Bear.
For more information please contact Dr. Robert Wallace (rwallace@wcs.org)
APPENDICES

ANDEAN BEAR PRIORITY CONSERVATION UNITS IN BOLIVIA & PERU 67
APPENDIX II. LETTER OF INVITATION, RANGE WIDE PRIORITY SETTING
QUESTIONNAIRE FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS
CONSULTA PARA EVALUAR EL ESTADO DE CONSERVACIÓN DEL OSO
ANDINO A TRAVÉS DE SU DISTRIBUCIÓN HISTÓRICA Y ACTUAL PARA
BOLIVIA Y PERÚ
Estimado
De nuestra mayor consideración.
A tiempo de saludarle, le hacemos conocer que nos encontramos recopilando información
sobre el oso andino (Tremarctos ornatus), para poder realizar una evaluación preliminar del
estado de conservación y estimación de su distribución actual y poder generar una estrate-
gia binacional (Bolivia y Perú) para esta especie tan carismática, simbólica y representativa.
Es importante mencionar que la iniciativa actual es un esfuerzo conjunto del Centro de
Biodiversidad y Genética de la Universidad Mayor de San Simón en Bolivia, Centro para la
Sostenibilidad Ambiental de la Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia en Perú, y la Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS). También es importante mencionar que la iniciativa esta vin-
culado al II Simposio Internacional sobre el Oso Andino como al I Congreso de la Sociedad
Peruana de Mastozoología que se realizaran en Perú en noviembre de 2008.
Todo este esfuerzo se enfoca a generar información dedigna acerca de la distribución
histórica y actual del oso andino en Bolivia y Perú, para determinar áreas y acciones po-
tenciales para la conservación a largo plazo de esta especie. Para esto se han elaborado y
adaptado formularios usados anteriormente de manera exitosa para jaguares y tapires en
Latín América, que se encuentran explicados y adjuntos a este mensaje.
Tomando en cuenta su conocimiento sobre el tema, nos tomamos la libertad de solicitar
su colaboración para el llenado de los siguientes formularios y mapas:
FORMULARIO A: Localidades de observación del oso en los últimos 20 años
FORMULARIO B: Amenazas a la conservación del oso andino a través de su área de distribu-
ción
FORMULARIO C: Unidades de Conservación del Oso (UCO).
Adjuntando versiones de los formularios en Excel para su llenado en digital y los mapas
en formato KML para su llenado en GoogleEarth, adjuntando sus respectivas instruccio-
nes de llenado.
Nos permitimos recordarle que Usted recibirá los créditos respectivos por la información
suministrada en cualquier documento que se genere.

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 68
Aprovechamos esta oportunidad para agradecerle anticipadamente su participación y
colaboración en este esfuerzo binacional para evaluar el estado de conservación del oso
andino.
Esperamos su respuesta hasta el día viernes 29 de agosto, al correo electrónico rwallace@
wcs.org, o de ser necesario impreso a nombre de Alicia Kuroiwa a “Casa Honorio Delgado”
Av. Armendariz 445, Miraores, Lima-18, Perú o Robert Wallace, Casilla de Correo 3-35181
S.M., La Paz, Bolivia, sin otro particular y agradeciendo su apoyo en este emprendimiento
nos despedimos.
Atentamente,
Robert B. Wallace
Director
Programa de Conservación Gran Paisaje Madidi-Tambopata
Wildlife Conservation Society

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 69
APPENDIX III. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRES CONCERNING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE ANDEAN BEAR TREMARCTOS ORNATUS
Instrucciones para el llenado de formularios sobre la distribución
nacional del Oso Andino (Tremarctos ornatus)
Agradeciéndoles por su participación, les recordamos que en un esfuerzo conjunto de
Wildlife Conservation Society en Bolivia y Perú, además de la Fundación Cayetano He-
redia del Perú y el Centro de Biodiversidad y Genética de la Universidad Mayor de San
Simón en Bolivia, están haciendo un intento de evaluar el estado de conservación del
oso andino (Tremarctos ornatus) a través de su área de distribución histórica en ambos
Países para elaborar línea base que describa su distribución geográca a nivel binacional
en el territorio boliviano y peruano. En el informe técnico nal serán reconocidas todas
las personas e instituciones que contribuyan con esta información.
Para ello se tiene previsto desarrollar una base de datos sobre avistamientos a nivel bina-
cional de oso andino, a través de consultas a investigadores e instituciones que tengan
información al respecto en los últimos 20 años. Esto nos permitirá obtener reportes de las
localidades en donde han sido observados en los últimos 20 años, determinar el grado
de conocimiento sobre el oso, las áreas ocupadas actualmente por la especie y las áreas
importantes para su conservación a largo plazo dentro del territorio boliviano y peruano.
En este sentido, nuestros objetivos son:
• Determinar el grado de conocimiento sobre el oso andino a través de su área de distribu-
ción histórica en Bolivia y Perú
• Obtener reportes de las localidades en donde han sido observados en los últimos 20 años
• Determinar las áreas ocupadas actualmente por la especie
• Determinar las áreas importantes para su conservación a largo plazo
Esta metodología fue adaptada de la metodología original desarrollada durante el taller
sobre el tigre asiático (Panthera tigris) que Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) convocó
junto con World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) en 1996. En Latínoamérica la metodología
ha sido utilizada para jaguares, tapires, pecaríes de labio blanco y actualmente está sien-
do utilizado para un esfuerzo binacional sobre cóndores andinos. Conceptualmente la
metodología sigue lo propuesto por Sanderson et al. (2002) y Marieb (2006). Si usted
desea recibir estos dos trabajos, puede escribirnos un email.
Con el n de establecer un marco de referencia común para analizar los datos sobre oso, utiliza-
mos un mapa de Ecoregiones de Bolivia y Perú, los cuales son una revisión del mapa de ecorre-
giones de Ibisch, et al. (2003) y WWF (2001). El área de distribución histórica del oso se distribuye
en 6 ecorregiones en Bolivia y 7 en Perú (Descripción resumida de las mismas en el Anexo 1).
Para cada ecorregión usted estará registrando localidades puntuales de avistamiento de
osos, áreas de distribución que conozca y áreas críticas para su conservación. Para cada
uno de estos tipos de datos espaciales deberán responder preguntas adicionales en for-
mularios adjuntos al mapa. También se le pedirá que registre áreas de las que no tiene
certeza para estimar la distribución del oso, de tal manera que podamos determinar los
vacíos en nuestro conocimiento.
Si tiene información adicional más allá del área de distribución histórica de la especie por
favor inclúyala, rotulando las áreas y llenando los formularios. Estas áreas adicionales son
de particular importancia. Si tiene alguna duda por favor contáctenos.

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 70
INSTRUCCIONES
I. Por favor verique que los siguientes documentos le hayan sido enviados:
Archivo de Mapas digitales Mapa de poblaciones de referencia, caminos de referencia, Ecorregiones y formularios: Localidades de Observación, Amenazas
y Unidades de Conservación.
Archivo de mapas manuales Mapa de Ecorregiones de Bolivia o Perú (WWF-Perú) para imprimir y ser llenado manualmente.
Formularios FORMULARIO A: Localidades de observación del oso andino en los últimos 10 años.
FORMULARIO B: Amenazas a la conservación del oso andino a través de su área de distribución.
FORMULARIO C: Unidades de Conservación del oso andino (UCO). Áreas con una o más poblaciones permanentes según su
criterio. Puede incluir áreas con categoría de conservación Estatal, áreas de conservación privada o áreas sin protección.
II. Por favor lea estas instrucciones por completo y revise los archivos para llenar los
formularios A, B y C antes de empezar. Si tiene cualquier pregunta o falta alguno de los
documentos, por favor póngase inmediatamente en contacto con nosotros para que
podamos solucionarlo.
Se les está dando la opción de poder llenar los mapas ya sea de manera digital (con ayuda
del programa Google Earth), o para los que preeren lo hagan de manera manual.
NO SE PREOCUPE SI NO PUEDE LLENAR TODOS LOS FORMULARIOS O TODOS LOS CAM-
POS, LLENE AQUELLOS CAMPOS PARA LOS QUE UD. TIENE DATOS. TODA INFORMACIÓN
RECIBIDA SERÁ DE MUCHA UTILIDAD.
III. Llenado de los mapas digitales
Estimado colega, para llenar los mapas adjuntos a los formularios primero es necesario
que usted tenga instalado el programa Google Earth, en caso contrario puede obtenerlo
en la siguiente página web:
http://earth.google.com/
¿CÓMO VISUALIZAR LA INFORMACIÓN ENVIADA?
Una vez instalado el Google Earth, usted puede ver el archivo de oso andino Perú.kmz
o de oso andino Bolivia.kmz, cargándolo desde la barra de tareas (Open le). Observará
que automáticamente el programa realizará un acercamiento al área de trabajo. En caso
que no pueda visualizar las coberturas, asegúrese que el nombre del archivo esté mar-
cado en la barra lateral izquierda del panel de “Lugares”.
CONTENIDO DEL ARCHIVO ENVIADO
El archivo enviado contiene información agrupada en carpetas que podrá observar en el
panel izquierdo de “Lugares”:

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 71
1) Poblaciones de referencia
2) Caminos de referencia
3) Ecorregiones
4) Carpeta “Formularios” en la que encontrará tres subcarpetas, cada una de ellas corre-
sponderá a los formularios enviados:
a. Localidades observadas
b. Amenazas a la conservación
c. Unidades de conservación.
MANEJO DE LA INFORMACIÓN
Usted puede seleccionar las coberturas que desea visualizar de manera independiente,
marcando en su respectiva casilla o dentro del panel izquierdo de “Mis Lugares” (My plac-
es). También es posible darle transparencia a una o a todas las coberturas mientras se
encuentren activas; seleccione (haciendo un clic) la cobertura que desea transparentar
y se habilitará un barra en la parte inferior, mueva el botón de manera transversal hasta
obtener la transparencia deseada.
CREACIÓN DE LA INFORMACIÓN DE LAS CARPETAS:
En la barra lateral del panel de lugares, desglose la carpeta respectiva y la carpeta de
formularios.
En Google Earth sólo se puede introducir puntos con coordenadas geográcas en forma-
to de grados, minutos y segundos (64° 22” 32 S) o grados decimales (-64,1234), la opción
para introducir la coordenada UMT no se encuentra habilitada. Si sus datos se encuentran
en UTM, será necesario convertirlos a coordenadas geográcas utilizando los archivos de
conversión adjuntos o cualquier otro tipo de convertidor.
Localidades observadas (relacionado al Formulario A)
• Seleccione la carpeta A) Localidades observadas.
• Apriete el botón derecho del “mouse” y seleccione AÑADIR
• Luego seleccione MARCA DE POSICIÓN, Se le habilitará la ventana de propiedades de
“marca de posición” y en el mapa aparecerá un icono.
• En la ventana de propiedades “marca de posición”:
i. Coloque el nombre del Registro, Ej. P1.
ii. Si tiene coordenadas, puede introducirlas.
iii. Si no tiene coordenadas, usted puede desplazar el icono hasta la posición de-
seada.
• Si usted tiene varios avistamientos y desea cambiar el estilo simultáneamente seleccione
la carpeta A) Localidades observadas botón derecho del mouse, Propiedades, y en la vi-
ñeta de Estilo, Color seleccione “compartir estilo” y realice los pasos anteriores.
Importar datos a Google Earth
Si tiene varios puntos y desea importarlos directamente al Google Earth, existen varios
programas gratuitos, le sugerimos la siguiente página web:
http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/map?form=googleearth

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 72
Para utilizar este programa usted deberá tener todos los datos en una Hoja de Excel (Ver
Ejemplo 1), los campos deben ser creados en inglés y el separador de decimales debe ser
un punto (.) y no una coma (como en español).
NOTA: Si sus datos están en otra proyección UTM es necesario convertirlos a coordenadas
geográcas.
Ejemplo 1:
nombre latitud longitud color
P1 -15.3535385 -67.0889301 azul
P2 -16.0937667 -67.7058833 azul
Entre a la página http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/map?form=googleearth, en la sección
de “Upload your GPS data les here:”, ubicada a mano derecha en su pantalla, selecci-
one EXAMINAR y busque el archivo deseado, luego presione CREATE KML FILE. Una vez
creado el archivo ábralo y automáticamente se observarán los puntos en el GoogleEarth,
arrastre la carpeta que contiene los puntos a la de “A) Localidades observadas”,
B) Amenazas a la conservación (relacionada al formulario B)
• Seleccione la carpeta B) Amenazas a la conservación
• Apriete el botón derecho del mouse y seleccione AÑADIR
• Luego seleccione POLÍGONO.
Para dibujar el polígono correspondiente al área, puede hacerlo de dos formas:
• Mantenga presionado el botón derecho del Mouse y mueva el cursor por el área de-
seada.
• O también pude hacer clic en el botón derecho del mouse para marcar sólo los vértices
y así crear un área.
En la ventana de propiedades de polígono:
• Coloque el nombre del polígono
• En la viñeta de “estilo, color” cambie el color a VERDE y seleccione Relleno+Contorno.
C) Unidades de conservación (relacionado al formulario C)
• Seleccione la carpeta C) Unidades de conservación
• Apriete el botón derecho del mouse y seleccione AÑADIR
• Luego seleccione POLÏGONO
Para dibujar el polígono correspondiente al área, puede hacerlo de dos formas:
• Mantenga presionado el botón derecho del Mouse y mueva el cursor por el área deseada.
• O también pude hacer clic en el botón derecho del mouse para marcar sólo los vértices
y así crear un área.
En la ventana de propiedades de polígono:
• Coloque el nombre del polígono
• En la viñeta de “estilo, color” cambie el color a FUCCIA y seleccione Relleno+Contorno.

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 73
GUARDAR LA INFORMACIÓN
Seleccione la carpeta “Formularios” en el botón derecho del mouse y seleccione “guardar
como”, guarde el archivo con los siguientes datos:
NOMBRE, FECHA (día, mes, año)_PAÍS
JuanCarlosPerez_02_MARZO_2008_Bolivia
Puede guardar el archivo con las siguientes extensiones KML o KMZ.
IV. LLENADO DE LOS MAPAS DE MANERA MANUAL
Imprima los mapas adjuntos. En el archivo mapas físicos.
a. Delineando el área de su conocimiento
En el mapa de distribución histórica del oso (Tremarctos ornatus) dibuje polígonos de col-
or rojo, delineando aquellas áreas dentro del área de distribución histórica del oso donde
Ud. considera que se tiene suciente información sobre el osos (al menos presencia /
ausencia) para responder las siguientes preguntas. Dibuje una X grande y negra a través
de aquellas áreas donde no tengan seguridad para completar el siguiente ejercicio.
b. FORMULARIO A: Observaciones puntuales sobre oso andino
En el mapa de Ecorregiones de Bolivia o Perú (en la parte que corresponda a su obser-
vación) dibuje una marca puntual (un signo de más “+”) utilizando el color azul en cada
localidad en donde uno o más osos hayan sido observados en los últimos 10 años. Se
considera que cada punto representa un área circular con un radio de 20 km. Agrupe
todas las observaciones dentro del área de un círculo de aproximadamente 20 km. bajo
el mismo punto. Trate que la intersección entre la línea vertical y horizontal del signo “+”
marque con exactitud la localidad puntual.
Codique cada marca puntual de manera única con un número, con el prejo “P” (p. ej. P1,
P2, P3, etc.). Coloque una marca puntual si ha cumplido con las siguientes condiciones:
1. Usted o alguien en cuyo juicio confía ha visto uno o varios osos andinos en libertad, o
2. Usted o alguien en cuyo juicio confía ha visto osos alimentándose de un animal muerto
adulto o juvenil , o
3. Usted o alguien en cuyo juicio confía ha encontrado un animal devorado por oso andino
y no hay confusión con otros carroñeros, o
4. Usted o alguien en cuyo juicio confía ha colectado la piel, huesos, u otros restos de oso
andino, con la documentación apropiada o prueba indiscutible de su origen, y
5. Si la evidencia posee menos de 10 años de antigüedad.
Para cada marca puntual, indique en el formulario “A” las fechas de la primera y última
observaciones en esa localidad (si corresponde), las coordenadas exactas de esa locali-
dad (si las tuviera, preferiblemente en latitud/longitud del sistema UTM especicando
la zona ó en coordenadas en geográcas decimales), el número de los distintos tipos de
observación hechos en esa localidad, el número de osos observados, estimado y los tipos
de hábitat y uso de la tierra en la misma.

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 74
c. FORMULARIO B: Amenazas a la conservación
del oso andino a través de su área de distribución
En el mismo mapa, ahora dibuje uno o varios polígonos utilizando el marcador verde,
delineando aquellas áreas donde sabe con cierta seguridad que existen osos. Dentro de
cada polígono escriba un código único para identicarlo, rotulado como “R” y luego un
número (p. ej. R1, R2, R3, etc.).
Estime el porcentaje de área del polígono en el cual los osos son amenazados por diver-
sas causas (p. ej. cacería, envenenamiento, conversión del hábitat, etc.)
NOTA: Utilice un formulario por polígono para completar la información requerida.
d. FORMULARIO C: Unidades de conservación del osos andino (UCO)
En el mismo mapa ahora dibuje uno o varios polígonos usando el color fucsia, delin-
eando aquellas áreas que son críticas para la sobrevivencia del oso andino (Unidades de
Conservación del Oso Andino o UCO). Dentro de cada polígono, escriba un código único
para identicar el polígono, utilizando “U” y luego un número (por ejemplo U1, U2, U3,
etc.). Una UCO está denida como un área:
Tipo 1. Con una comunidad estable de recursos alimenticios, que se sabe o se cree que contiene
una población residente de osos lo sucientemente grande (por lo menos 10 parejas pro-
creando) que potencialmente sea autosustentable para los próximos 100 años; o
Tipo 2. Que contenga menos osos, pero con un hábitat adecuado y una base de recursos alimen-
ticios estable y diversa, de tal manera que las poblaciones de osos en el área se puedan
incrementar si las amenazas son mitigadas.
Una UCO no necesita estar restringida a o contener áreas protegidas
Para cada una de estas áreas indiquen en el formulario C la siguiente información:
a. Si es una UCO tipo 1 o tipo 2 (véase la descripción anterior) y la evidencia utilizada para
asignarlo.
b. Lo que sabe o cree que es el estado general de la población de osos en el área (aumentan-
do, estable o desconocida). Estime el tamaño poblacional (más de 500, entre 500 y 100,
entre 50 y 100, entre 10 y 50 o menos de 10). ¿En qué se basa para aseverarlo?, ¿Cuáles
son las especies que consume el oso en esa área?, ¿Cuáles son las amenazas para el oso
en esa UCO?
c. ¿Qué características tendría esa UCO con respecto a los factores que contribuyen a la
sobrevivencia a largo plazo de los osos (p. ej. conectividad de hábitat, calidad del hábitat,
tamaño del hábitat, presión por cacería, estado de conservación de la población, envene-
namiento)?, ¿Qué tan importante es cada uno de estos factores, en relación con los otros,
para la conservación de los osos en esta UCO?
d. ¿Qué sistemas legales de tenencia de la tierra se aplican a esta UCO? Estime el porcen-
taje de área de la UCO bajo cada sistema de tenencia de la tierra. ¿Qué tan efectiva es la
protección real (al contrario de la protección esperada legalmente) de cada sistema de te-
nencia de la tierra, para esta UCO? (p. ej. un ganadero o una comunidad preocupada por
la conservación de los osos puede proporcionar más protección efectiva que un parque
nacional con poca vigilancia).

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 75
V. LLENADO DE LOS FORMULARIOS EN EXCEL
a) FORMULARIO A: Observaciones puntuales sobre oso andino
El cual está dividido en tres partes, que son simplemente una continuación y el código de
la observación o localidad corresponde a la misma observación en las tres partes. Codi-
que cada marca puntual de manera única con un número, con el prejo “P” (p. ej. P1, P2,
P3, etc.).
Para cada marca puntual, indique en el formulario “A” las fechas de la primera y última
observaciones en esa localidad (si corresponde), las coordenadas exactas de esa locali-
dad (si las tuviera, preferiblemente en latitud/longitud del sistema UTM especicando
la zona ó en coordenadas en geográcas decimales), el número de los distintos tipos
de observación hechos en esa localidad (pensar en individuos), la ecorregión (según el
mapa adjunto), los tipos de hábitat y uso de la tierra en la misma, las actividades humanas
en el sitio mismo de observación (en estos tres últimos casos marcar con una X donde
se realizo la observación), la metodología de investigación que se estaba empleando el
momento de la observación, las actividades humanas próximas al sitio de observación.
Al nal de este formulario esta una sección en la que se debería llenar la información adi-
cional o especica que no está incluida en la primera parte. Por ejemplo, en otro tipo de
registro se puede anotar senda, trilla, rasgados, restos alimenticios.
b). FORMULARIO B: Amenazas a la conservación del oso andino a
través de su área de distribución
Tanto en la tabla Denición del área de distribución del oso como en la de Amenazas a
la distribución del oso, en la columna Notas/especícos se debe ser lo más especíco
posible, y mejor si se anota una pequeña justicación de la respuesta.
NOTA: Utilice un formulario por polígono para completar la información requerida.
c). FORMULARIO C: Unidades de Conservación del Oso Andino (UCO)
Una UCO está denida como un área:
Tipo 1. Con una comunidad estable de recursos alimenticios, que se sabe o se cree que contiene
una población residente de osos lo sucientemente grande (un estimado de por lo me-
nos 10 parejas procreando) que potencialmente sea autosustentable para los próximos
100 años; o
Tipo 2. Que contenga menos osos (un estimado de menos de 10 parejas procreando), pero con
un hábitat adecuado y una base de recursos alimenticios estable y diversa, de tal manera
que las poblaciones de osos en el área se puedan incrementar si las amenazas son miti-
gadas.
Una UCO no necesita estar restringida a o contener áreas protegidas.
Para cada una de estas áreas indiquen en el formulario C la siguiente información:
a. Si es una UCO tipo 1 o tipo 2 (véase la descripción anterior) y la evidencia utilizada para
asignarlo.
b. Lo que sabe o cree que es el estado general de la población de osos en el área (aumentando,

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 76
estable o desconocida). Estime el tamaño poblacional (más de 500, entre 100,y 500, entre 50
y 100, entre 10 y 50 o menos de 10). ¿En qué se basa para aseverarlo?, ¿cuáles son las especies
que consume el oso en esa área?, ¿cuáles son las amenazas para el oso en esa UCO?
c. ¿Qué características tendría esa UCO con respecto a los factores que contribuyen a la
sobrevivencia a largo plazo de los osos (p. ej. conectividad de hábitat, calidad del hábitat,
tamaño del hábitat, presión por cacería, estado de conservación de la población)?, ¿Qué
tan importante es cada uno de estos factores, en relación con cada uno, para la conserva-
ción de los osos en esta UCO?
d. ¿Qué sistemas legales de tenencia de la tierra se aplican a esta UCO? Estime el porcentaje
de área de la UCO bajo cada sistema de tenencia de la tierra. ¿Qué tan efectiva es la pro-
tección real (al contrario de la protección sancionada legalmente) de cada sistema de te-
nencia de la tierra, para esta UCO? (p. ej. un ganadero o una comunidad preocupada por
la conservación de los osos puede proporcionar más protección efectiva que un parque
nacional con poca vigilancia).
NOTA: Utilice un formulario por polígono para completar la información requerida.
Ibisch, P.L., S.G. Beck, B. Gerkmann y A. Carreteros. 2003. Eco-
regiones de Bolivia. En: Ministerio de Desarrollo
Sostenible y Planicación (Editores: Mérida, G., M.
Oliveira y P.L. Ibisch) 2003. Estrategia Nacional de
Biodiversidad de Bolivia. Resumen Ejecutivo. Edi-
torial FAN, Santa Cruz.
Marieb, K. 2006. Jaguar in the new Millenium data set update:
The state of the jaguar in 2006. A report prepared
by the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Jaguar Con-
servation Program. Technical Report. March 27.
Sanderson, E. W., K. H. Redford, Amy Vedder, Peter B. Coppoli-
llo, Sarah E. Ward. 2002. A conceptual model for
conservation planning based on landscape spe-
cies requirements. Landscape and Urban Plan-
ning, 58: 41-56.
REFERENCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS
WWF. 2001. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: Biomes and
Biogeographical Realms. Neotropic. http://www.
worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/neotropic.
cfm
WWF-WCS. 1997. A Framework for Identifying High Priority
Areas and Actions for the Conservation of Tigers
in the Wild. World Wildlife Fund-US and Wildlife
Conservation Society.
WWF-PERU. Global 200: Mapa de Ecorregiones Prioritarias en
el Perú. http://www.wwfperu.org.pe/donde_tra-
bajamos/ecorregiones/index.htm

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 77
APÉNDICE IV: GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS FOR THE ANDEAN BEAR TREMARCTOS ORNATUS
BOLIVIA
Resumen de la descripción del Mapa de las Ecorregiones de Bolivia (Ibisch et al., 2003)
Bosque Tucumano Boliviano
Ubicación geográca Chuquisaca, (L. Calvo, H. Siles, B. Boeto, Sud Cinti, Tomina) Santa Cruz, (Cordillera, Florida, Vallegrande), Tarija (Arce, O´Connor).
Altitud Entre 800 a 3.900 msnm.
Paisaje Laderas escarpadas, valles, cimas.
Vegetación Bosques semihúmedos (semi-) deciduos con lapacho ( Tabebuia lapacho) hasta siempre verdes en pisos inferiores (con Myrtaceae:
Blepharocalyx saliciius, Myrcianthes spp., y Lauraceae) En pisos superiores (18000/2200 m hasta 2500/3200 m) Bosques siempre
verdes con pino (Podocarpus parlatorei) y bosques deciduos con Alnus acuminata. Más arriba, en altitudes hasta 3900 m se encuentran
relictos de Polylepis crista-galli, que podrían considerarse como parte de la ecoregión de Bosque-Tucumano; hoy consiste de matorrales
y pajonales semejantes a la puna semihúmeda. Los limites altitudinales entre los pisos de Myrtaceae y de pino bajan al sur.
Áreas Protegidas Reserva Nacional de Flora y Fauna Tariquia, Parque Nacional y Área Natural de Manejo Integrado Amboró.
Chaco Serrano
Ubicación geográca Chuquisaca (L. Calvo, H. Siles, B.Boeto, Zudañez, Sud Cinti), Santa Cruz (Cordillera), Tarija (Gran Chaco, O´Connor, Arce).
Altitud Entre 700 a 2.000 msnm.
Paisaje Serranías bajas de las últimas estribaciones de la Cordillera Oriental de los Andes, valles bajos, pie de monte.
Vegetación Bosque seco deciduo (menos de 25 m).
Áreas Protegidas Una pequeña parte de la Reser va Nacional de Flora y Fauna Tariquia.
Bosques Secos Interandinos
Ubicación geográca Chuquisaca, Cochabamba, La Paz, Potosí, Tarija.
Altitud Entre 500 a 3.300 msnm.
Paisaje Valles más o menos disectados, pequeñas planicies.
Vegetación Bosque seco deciduo (10 a 20 m). En su mayoría destruido o fuertemente perturbado. Diferentes formaciones y tipos orísticos;
importantes bosques de la vegetación potencial, natural, espcicamente: bosques mixtos con Schinopsis haenkeana y Aspidosperma
quebracho-blanco (2300 a 3000m) , bosques de churquis (Prosopis ferox, especialmente en Potosí), bosques con Acacia visco y Prosopis
alba (debajo de los 2300 m), bosque con Schinopsis brasiliensis (800 a 1300 m, especialmente en La Paz). Parcialmente con suculentas
columnares muy altas (Neoraimondia herzogiana, Cactaceae).
Áreas Protegidas Áreas pequeñas y en su mayoría fuertemente perturbadas en los Parques Nacionales Amboró, Carrasco, Tunari y Toro Toro.
Bosque Montano (Yungas)
Ubicación geográca La Paz, Cochabamba, Santa Cruz.
Altitud Entre 1000 a 4200 msnm. (incluye el Páramo Yungueño).
Paisaje Valles profundos y disectados con laderas escarpadas.
Vegetación Bosque húmedo siempre verde mediano a bajo,. Mosaico de diferentes fases de sucesión causada por derrumbes naturales. Hay varios
pisos altitudinales con diferentes tipos de vegetación siempre verde.
Áreas Protegidas Parque Nacional Madidi, Área Natural de Manejo Integrado Nacional Apolobamba, Área Natural de Manejo Integradi Cotapata, Reserva
de la Biosfera y Territorio Indígena Pilón Lajas, Parque Nacional y Territorio Indígena Isidoro Secure, Parque Nacional Carrasco, Parque
Naciona y Área Natural de Manejo Integrado Amboró.

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 78
Bosque Amazónico subandino (Faja subadina)
Ubicación geográca Beni (Ballivián), Cochabamba (Ayopaya, Chapare, Tiraque, Carrasco), La Paz (Iturralde, F. Tamayo, Larecaja), Santa Cruz (Ichilo, Sara, A.
Ibáñez).
Altitud 500 – 1000 msnm.
Paisaje Últimas estribaciones de los Andes hacia la llanura, serranías con valles profundos y crestas pronunciadas.
Vegetación Bosque húmedo siempreverde, varios estratos, frecuente epítas y lianas. Azonal: Palmares con Mauritia emosa.
Áreas Protegidas Parque Nacional y Área Natural de Manejo Integrado Madidi, Reserva de la Biosfera y Territorio Indígena Pilón Lajas, Parque Nacional y
Territorio Indígena Isidoro Sécure, Parques Nacional Carrasco, Parque Nacional y Área natural de Manejo Integrado Amboró.
Puna Semihúmeda
Ubicación geográca Cochabamba (Arque, Ayopaya, Carrasco, Chapare, Quillacollo, Tapacari), Chuquisaca (sobre todo Nor Cinti, Sud Cinti, Zudañez, Azurduy,
Oropeza).
Altitud Entre 3.200 a 4.200 msnm.
Paisaje Serranías, mesetas altas, valles.
Vegetación Pajonal con arbustos, césped bajo en lugares húmedos, pajonal más o menos abierto, matorrales de arbustos resinosos, restos de
bosques de diferentes especies de Polylepis (especialmente P. besseri ssp. sudtusalbida, P. b.ssp. besseri, P. tomentella). Azonal: bofedales.
Áreas Protegidas Parque Nacional Tunari, Reserva Biológica de la Cordillera de Sama.
PERÚ
Yungas Bolivianas
Ubicación geográca Extremo sur-este del Perú y centro-oeste de Bolivia. Límites entre latitudes 13º y 17º y longitudes 69º y 63º (Madre de Dios y Puno).
Altitud 400-3500 msnm.
Paisaje Transición en pendiente oriental de los Andes entre selva alta y puna. Topografía compleja. Cimas.
Vegetación Bosque de niebla, bosque tropical y subtropical húmedo y bosques siempre verdes. Gran cantidad de epitas(orquídeas y bromelias).
Áreas Protegidas Parque Nacional Bahuaja-Sonene.
Yungas Peruanas
Ubicación geográca Centro del Perú. Recorre varios departamentos de norte a sur (Amazonas , Cajamarca, San Martín, Huanuco, Pasco, Junín, Cuzco y
Madre de Dios).
Altitud Encima de 2500 msnm.
Paisaje Escarpado, montañoso, valles y cimas.
Vegetación Bosques montanos deciduos y siempre verdes. Vegetación muy diversa.
Áreas Protegidas Parque Nacional Cutervo, Parque Nacional Tingo Maria, Parque Nacional Manu.
Bosques Montanos de la Cordillera Real Oriental
Ubicación geográca Recorre desde el sur de Colombia hasta el norte del Perú (Cajamarca, Amazonas y Piura). Localizada en pendiente occidental de los
andes centrales.
Altitud 900-2100 msnm.
Paisaje Colinas, pequeños bosques y ceja de montaña.
Vegetación Cambia dramáticamente con altitud. Bosques tropicales siempre verdes (sesonal broad-leaved) y bosque de niebla. Alto endemismo,
depresiones conectan amazonia y andes.
Áreas Protegidas Santuario Nacional Tabaconas Namballe y Parque Nacional Ichigkat Muja - Cordillera del Cóndor.

ANdeAN BeAR PRIoRIty CoNSeRvAtIoN UNItS IN BoLIvIA & PeRU 79
Bosques Secos del Marañón
Ubicación geográca Noroeste del Perú (Cajamarca).
Altitud 0-1000 msnm
Paisaje Valles.
Vegetación Tropical residuo y bosque seco, páramo.
Áreas Protegidas Santuario Nacional Tabaconas Namballe.
Bosques Secos Piura-Tumbes
Ubicación geográca Norte del Perú. (Tumbes, Piura, Lambayeque y Cajamarca) y sur de Ecuador. Entre el Pacíco y la pendiente occidental de los Andes.
Altitud Debajo de 1300 msnm.
Paisaje Plano, pequeñas colinas, áreas costeras y pequeñas cadenas de montañas hacia el interior del continente.
Vegetación Bosques secos estacionales, chaparral y cactáceas.
Áreas Protegidas Parque Nacional Cerros de Amontape, Zona Reservada Tumbes y Coto de Caza El Angolo.
Bosques Húmedos del Ucayali
Ubicación geográca San Martín, Ucayali , Huanuco y Amazonas.
Altitud 200-1100 msnm.
Paisaje Plano, pies de la cordillera.
Vegetación Bosques transicionales entre bosques húmedos elevados y bosques inundables.
Áreas Protegidas Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul, Bosque de Protección Alto Mayo, Zona Reservada Cordillera de Colán y Reserva Comunal Llanesha.
Bosques secos del centro- Valles interandinos
Ubicación geográca Junín, Huancavelica, Ayacucho, Apurímac y Cuzco.
Altitud 500-2500 msnm.
Paisaje Valles, ríos.
Vegetación Bosque casi homogéneo constituido por árboles caducifolios, siendo la especie representativa el pasallo. Bosques subhúmedos
constituidos por árboles caducifolios, epitas y algunas cactáceas lamentosas.
Áreas Protegidas Santuario Nacional Ampay, Reserva Paisajistica Sub Cuenca del Cotahuasi y Santuario Histórico Pampa de Ayacucho.
Fuente: World Wildlife Fund Scientic Report (WWF, 2001)