The current Situation of Wildlife Management in Central Asian Countries

Transcription

1 The current Situation of Wildlife Management in Central Asian Countries

2 UDS 502/504 LBC 20.1 T47 T47 The current Situation of Wildlife Management in Central Asian Countries B.: p. ISBN This booklet takes a look at the wildlife situation and the use of wildlife, in particular hunting, in the different countries of the Central Asian region, namely Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It describes the institutional and legal framework which sets the conditions for conservation, and it presents in few words the support provided by German Deve- lopment Cooperation. Chapters on regional cooperation and community-based wildlife management conclude the view on this sector. The booklet was prepared and published in the framework of the project Forest and Biodiversity Governance Including Environmental Monitoring (FLERMONECA), funded by the European Union and implemented by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (German federal enterprise for international cooperation) in all countries of Central Asia. The content of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. All rights reserved. Total or partial reproduction, storage in computer system, the transmission channels of this publication in any form or by any means - electronic, mechanical, photocopying, magnetic governmental or otherwise without the prior permission of the authors is prohibited. T ISBN Author(s) Stefan Michel, Natalya Yakusheva, Markus Pesch, Rolf D. Baldus Responsible Dr. Stepan Uncovsky stepan.uncovsky@giz.de Edited by Rolf D. Baldus Layout Aleksandra Ustinova Photo credits Cover page, pages 4,8,11,14-15,19,23,26-27,29, 35,38-39,50-51,58-59,61,66,68-69,69,76-77,82, 86-88,87 - GIZ archive Page 8 - Kachel/Panthera/AoS/University of Delaware Page 45 - Sebastian Schmidt Page 49 - Rolf Baldus Page 54 - Rich Reading Maps and graphics - GIZ Printed by KIRLAND Ltd Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan As at May 2015 EU Project FLERMONECA, 2015 GIZ, 2015 UDC 502/504 LBC 20.1 Table of contents Foreword 6 1. Wildlife management in Central Asian Countries Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Cooperation in Wildlife Management: Regional Aspects and Challenges in Central Asia Community-based wildlife management in Central Asia 83 List of Abbreviations 98

3 Foreword

4 Foreword by Rolf Baldus Central Asia has been a region with a rich fauna. In particular, it was home to many charismatic species like mountain sheep and goats, red deer and antelopes, leopards and tigers and a great diversity of water and desert birds. Just some fifty years ago there was of the few great wildlife migrations that we know, comparable only to East Africa, when two million saiga antelopes annually migrated between summer and winter ranges. Today in many parts of the former habitat only inconspicuous remnants of the former natural wealth are left. The reasons are manifold. Saiga stocks have been massively reduced by destructive and inefficient industrial harvesting in Soviet times. Commercial poachers killed most of the remaining saiga for the illegal trade in meat and horns. In the turbulent years after the Soviet system collapsed in 1991, many people depended on forests and wildlife for survival. Innumerable wild animals of all species ended in cooking pots. Destruction of habitat, competition with livestock farming, and fences along new international borders took their toll too. Furthermore, poaching is still widespread, and this not only by poor peasants, who shoot the odd argali to feed the family. The military, affluent city nimrods, racketeers, illegal foreign trophy-hunters and even national-park personnel decimate the game populations. This way of harvesting is quite unsustainable. There is some legal hunting by foreign tourists, but their take-off is very limited in numbers and in no way threatens any species. Quite to the contrary, such trophy hunting gives wildlife a value and consequently stabilizes and increases populations. Empirical research shows therefore that the wildlife in carefully managed hunting blocks fares much better than in underfinanced and poorly run Government protected areas. Where local villagers have been involved in managing and protecting the game, the results were even better. Winning them is normally not difficult, as it is not rocket science for peasants to understand that selling the right to hunt an argali for several thousand dollars is more lucrative than just eating it. Despite the obvious advantages, safeguarding efficient and sustainable hunting regimes remains a permanent challenge, as is also true for the conservation regime in national parks. In recent years the Governments in the region are trying to stop the further decline of wildlife populations for conservation and economic reasons, but also to preserve this natural heritage for future generations. They are supported by development cooperation, some NGOs and the private sector. Four approaches deserve to be mentioned. - There is, firstly, the effort to modernize legislation, create more efficient conservation agencies, reorganize hunting, and manage the protected areas in line with modern policies and best practices. - Secondly: Recognizing that Government bureaucracies are not the best performers in managing natural resources, some countries have started to devolve power and pass more responsibility to the private sector, including the protection and use of game on public lands. Auctioning hunting concessions to private enterprises is the most progressive innovation in this respect. - Thirdly: Modern conservation strategies, recommended and applied by international development organizations and pragmatic conservation NGOs, complement protection with sustainable use, mainly in the form of recreational hunting. This is fully in line with the Convention on Biological Diversity, of which most countries in the region are members. - As a fourth innovation, another more recent approach involves local communities as custodians of wildlife on their land. Such Community Based Wildlife Management is successful in many parts of the world. Several pilot projects in the region have proven the potential. Some success has been achieved, but the reform process is still work in progress and far from reaching its objectives. Several game populations have started to recover, while others have been stabilized at best, or continue to decline. Natural resources have, however, the potential to recover. In the case of wildlife this is even possible in a short period of time, as compared to forests, for example. As long as the natural habitats and at least small remaining populations still exist and if the over-exploitation can been stopped and exchanged for sustainable use, wildlife will rapidly proliferate. However, there must be a political determination to achieve this, and there must be professional management to operate and steer the process. 6 7 German and European development cooperation through the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH has supported the reform processes in recent years through a number of bilateral and regional support activities. The assistance is coming to an end now. This booklet takes a look at the wildlife situation and the use of wildlife, in particular hunting, in the different countries of the region, namely Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It describes the institutional and legal framework which sets the conditions for conservation, and it presents in few words the support rendered by GIZ. Chapters on regional cooperation and community-based wildlife management conclude the view on this sector. Much has been achieved, but the challenges persist. Some private initiatives, associations of legal wildlife users as well as national and international NGOs, continue the work. They are dedicated to sustain successes achieved and replicate them. They need and deserve further continuous support and respect from the international community.

5 #1 Wildlife management in Central Asian Countries

6 1.1 Kazakhstan The current situation of wildlife management in the Republic of Kazakhstan Markus Pesch 1. Facts and figures on resources, users and use 10 Kazakhstan, by far the largest country in Central Asia, contains a wide variety of ecological systems: deserts and steppe (60%), mountains (10%), forests (4%). Agricultural lands, settlements, etc., make up the rest. Biodiversity is created, amongst others, from over 6,000 higher vascular planttypes, 178 mammal-, 490 bird-, 104 fish- and 12 amphibian species. The red data book contains 125 vertebrate species. Important game species include Altai and Tian Shan maral (Cervus canadensis sibiricus and C.c. songaricus), Siberian ibex (Capra sibirica), Siberian roe deer (Capreolus pygargus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), brown bear (Ursus arctos), marmot (Marmot spec.), and common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus). Most populations of the more spectacular and charismatic hoofed animals are declining, in particular the totally protected ones, despite all official protection measures. Reasons are widespread poaching by poor locals or wealthy townspeople and to a lesser degree competition with livestock, which is grazing in forests, on mountain slopes and even in protected areas of different status, which cover about 8% of the land (Baldus, 2014). Kazakhstan holds most of the global population of the saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica tatarica), and the government has made significant investments in its conservation since 2002, strengthening protection on the ground and investing in new protected areas. 1 Saiga is listed as a hunting species but a 1 The Saiga population has begun to recover, and numbers in the largest sub-population in Betpak-Dala have been increasing annually. During the last years poaching has increased again and male-female ratios are skewed, possibly affecting the fecundity. The Ural saiga population has shown a slower upward trend and was affected by a die-off in 2011 that killed circa 12,000 animals, while the Ustyurt population is still declining and might now be down to 1,500 animals.

7 hunting moratorium is in place until State programmes for the restoration of other rare and endangered ungulate species also exist. All argali subspecies are listed in the red book and are closed for 2 hunting since Bukhara deer (Cervus elaphus bactrianus) are protected in the Karatchingil State Hunting Reserve in the mid-ili Valley. 2 Some activities focus on improving population survey methods and monitoring techniques; joint monitoring activities on argali with Kyrgyzstan; Argali restoration in the Ulytau mountains; and anti-poaching activities along the Kyrgyz border. In 2004 a strictly protected area was established in the Karatau Range for conservation of O. a. nigrimontana. Further special protected areas, national parks and strictly protected areas exist in the range areas of all other subspecies of argali. 3 Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, At the end of the Soviet Union (1991) there were 220,000 registered hunters (ca. 1.4 % of the population). Hunting is possible for nationals as well as for foreigners on the basis of quotas and permits. Hunting for several Red Book species, in particular caprinae, continues to be illegal, although it remains questionable if such total protection coupled with an ineffective law enforcement system is really beneficial. For some species this might actually be counterproductive, and incentive based approaches with regulated and sustainable hunting might have higher chances of success. Hunting Hunting has a long history in the country and is widely practiced. In 2008 there were about 90,000 registered hunters, but the huge number of hunting weapons that were imported in recent years indicates a higher 4 number. According to the Institute of Zoology the population numbers of several species have been successfully raised within the last years. The population estimates for most relevant species are stable or increasing for the years Total saiga numbers are increasing, despite the population in the Ustyurt being in sharp decline due to intensive poaching and a border fence hindering migration. The numbers given for 2012 are: Bukhara deer, about 450; goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa), about ; Asiatic wild ass (Equus hemionus kulan), about 2.900; argali (Ovis ammon ammon, O.a.colium, O.a. karelini, O.a. nigrimontana), about ; saiga antelope, about (The estimate for 2014 is !); wild boar, about ; Altai and Tien Shan maral, about ; Siberian roe deer, about ; Siberian ibex, about Kazakhstan has opted for a hunting system, which is mainly based on private sector management, thus in principle giving value to wildlife. Hunting can take place on more than 80% of the country s territory (private hunting concessions, land leased by hunter s associations, military territories and some types of protected areas.) More than half of the hunting range consists of private hunting concessions. Due to the large territory they occupy, such concessions are of high ecological importance. About 700 private concessions exist that were assigned by a tendering process. Although the lease itself is free, concessionaires have to pay permit fees per animal taken and must take over a number of responsibilities in management and development that are quite costly. These include an initial inventory of the concession and the development of a management plan. This has to be done by professional private The country endorsed a National Biodiversity and Action Plan in Its main objective is to conserve companies, which offer these services for around 20,000 USD. Other duties consist of the employment 12 5 and restore biodiversity and to achieve economic gains through the balanced use of its components. of rangers for wildlife management and anti-poaching activities, the development of a certain infra- The performance of conservation seems to be rather uneven in different parts of the country. As a consequence, trends of game populations are equally diverse. In wide parts of the country, where game roamed freely 30 years ago, it has completely disappeared due to persecution pressure and grazing, while in some hunting areas that have been under one management for a long time game exists in high numbers (Baldus, 2014). 13 structure and annual monitoring of wildlife populations. The costs for implementing all requirements quickly add up to a minimum of 40,000 USD per year, and considerably more if the concessionaire is serious in offering hunting-tourism, as this entails buildings, staff, vehicles, etc. The Government s positive effort to outsource in this way many otherwise public responsibilities in conservation and maintaining biodiversity is doomed for failure for economic reasons in the case of many of the concessions. Under the present conditions and especially due to the costly obligations and duties, most concessions are economically not viable. As a matter of fact over 80% of all concessions are most probably in the red. They run on a loss. This creates the danger that sooner or later the promising privatization of wildlife use will stall (Baldus, 2014). While some concession-holders lease for strictly personal hunting use, most have commercial objectives. The concessions are rated on a scale of one to five (with one being the best score) depending on the size and composition of the territory and the game species present. Many of the present hunting areas (especially those rated three to five) will never qualify for a viable hunting operation due to a 5 Concessionaires do not receive any financial reimbursement for their anti-poaching activities in the form of percentages of the fine paid by apprehended poachers. Thus, in addition to the financial losses caused by poaching, they must cover all costs of anti-poaching efforts and of arresting offenders and taking them to court.

8 14 lack of wildlife and suitable environment. Another problem is a general lack of know-how regarding the management of a hunting operation. In the case of such unmanaged concessions, where nothing happens to maintain or improve biodiversity, the authorities are obliged to take the concession away from the leaseholder or to investigate whether the area is suitable for hunting at all. In order to enforce the principle of sustainable off-take, the authorities place great weight on attaining exact population data. Monitoring is a major issue and, for example, all concessionaires and hunting operators must regularly count all kinds of wildlife including birds. These data are then collected countrywide, and are aggregated and reported bottom up to create a national statistic. In this way national quotas for huntable game are established, using rather conservative take-off percentages. The distribution process of quotas to the different territorial entities and concessions does not, however, take into account differences between concessions regarding management capabilities and consequently high or low wildlife population numbers. Thus, no positive incentives are given, and an improper quota is often the beginning of illegal off-take. Furthermore the system is largely based on improper and outdated methodologies of counting wildlife and consequently leads to wrong results in spite of the great effort and finances that are spent on it (Baldus, 2014). The only way to earn substantial revenues from wildlife in most parts of the country is through hunting tourism. The main species marketed to foreign hunters are ibex and maral, and to a lesser degree Siberian roebuck. In addition to international trophy hunters there are a growing number of wealthy domestic hunters interested in trophy species. In many areas trophy quality has deteriorated as a result of overhunting. Many local hunting operators are unprofessional, and they either do not find the access to the market or are unable to perform according to the expectations of their clients. A number of excellent outfits also exist. They have been under the same management for many years, run their operations efficiently, maintain high, growing wildlife populations, and consequently produce consistently good trophies. The allocated quota determines the potential income through trophy hunting. The income from an average quota for a concession of four to five maral and five to six ibex is just not enough to allow break-even, given the high initial and running costs. The license fees to be paid to the government per animal are rather low for nationals, but have been recently increased ten-fold for foreigners without advance notice and in one single step. Such a sudden and sharp increase of costs has negative effects on business, as hunts are mostly sold at least one year in advance. Further hindrances to the business are the high costs, which result in relatively high prices for trophy hunts and burdensome administrative procedures for hunts by foreigners, in particular for trophy exports. 2. Legal Framework The Law on the Protection, Reproduction and Management of Wildlife (2004) contains the rules for the use and protection of wildlife in the country and also sets the institutional framework. The Rules on Running a Hunting Concession in Kazakhstan (2004) were amended in Further environmental laws, like the Law on Specially Protected Natural Areas (2006), Ministerial Decrees on specific issues, and orders of the Forestry and Wildlife Committee, are also relevant. Currently a new

9 law on flora and fauna is under preparation that would also regulate hunting issues. It is expected to be approved by the end of 2015 (D. Yermolyonok, pers. comm.). Wildlife is state property by law and can only become private property under certain conditions, e.g., as a result of breeding. Limits on taking wildlife are established and a number of principles guide wildlife management. These include biodiversity conservation, sustainability, the preservation of habitats and migration routes, protection of rare and endangered species, and the promotion of wildlife protection. The Ecological Code, another relevant legal instrument, formulates requirements for the use of natural resources including wildlife and aims to prevent negative effects. Rules for research, annual assessments of fauna, and environmental monitoring, are of particular importance in the legal framework. Habitat protection outside of protected areas formally exists; however, this receives much less attention. The same applies to the sustainable use of wildlife as compared to protection. Hunting procedures, areas, permits, related investments, and law enforcement are in principle regulated. Involvement of communities in wildlife management is only mentioned in the legislation as a general principle, but not further specified. Kazakhstan s legal framework for wildlife is extensive, rather comprehensive, and contains many positive elements including an attention to international conventions. However, there is a certain amount of overlapping and occasional contradictions. Coordination between different instruments is sometimes lacking. Details that can be beneficial for practical management are mostly missing, but in Kazakhstan the bureaucracy seems to use this feature for defining their own procedures, which are excessively bureaucratic and hinder the practical conduct of hunting. International Conventions Kazakhstan is member to a total of 22 international conventions related to environmental protection including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, since 1994) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, since 2000). The country is party to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS, since 2006) and has signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) on saiga antelope, Bukhara deer, Siberian crane and slender-billed curlew. 3. Institutional Framework In the phase of political transformation, the responsibility for the management of natural resources In the field of protection of rare or endangered species the Red Book takes a prominent position. In and biodiversity in Kazakhstan has been changed several times at intervals of two to three years. As a general, species listed in the Red Book are legally protected from any extractive use. Any take of Red consequence, officials, who are responsible for hunting issues, often lack specialized wildlife management knowledge and experience. Ongoing processes regarding law revisions, etc., are often stalled due Book species requires a Government decree, the decision about which can take many months and is issued only in exceptional cases. Thus, listing of a species in the Red Book removes any incentive for to the frequent changes. Overlapping in institutional responsibilities and mandates also occurs. stakeholders, like game area managers, to invest in its conservation in expectation of benefits from sustainable use. Kazakhstan is a member of CITES, and the relevant legislation is in place. Different catego ries of protected areas are in place, as is an institutional framework for their management. The Forestry and Wildlife Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture bears overall responsibility for forestry and wildlife. It has departments at the regional level. Hunting quotas are set by the Committee and must be approved by the Ministry of Agriculture. Some functions for managing hunting resources are delegated to the state owned enterprise Okhotzooprom. In 2012 the Union of Hunters and Fishermen of Kazakhstan (founded in 1958) together with other regional hunting organizations created the organization Kansonar as a single representation and lobby-organization of hunters and hunting enterprises in the country. Kansonar and the Union are independent organizations, but are regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture (Forestry and Wildlife Committee). Kansonar is a non-profit NGO, relying completely on financial contributions from its members (organizations, not individuals) and the small payments for services provided. It engages professionally in modern conservation and wildlife management issues, promotes publicity and represents the hunting sector nationally and internationally. It also renders advisory services towards modernizing and revising legislation. The Government is interested in outsourcing functions, which are not necessarily governmental, and has licensed Kansonar in 2013 for a period of four years to offer hunters training, conduct examinations and to give out hunters licenses. Other tasks delegated to Kansonar are reviewing wildlife monitoring data and quota requests from hunting concessions and distributing hunting quotas to the concessions. The latter is done based on quota limits set at regional levels by the

10 Forestry and Wildlife Committee and approved by the Ministry of Agriculture. Presently Kansonar endeavors to create an association of hunters in the Eurasian Customs Union (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan) in order to facilitate the transfer of hunting weapons over borders and simplify hunting procedures including those for hunting tourists. The Institute of Zoology (founded in 1930) is the only establishment in the country working scientifically on wildlife and hunting issues. During the time of the Soviet Union the institute was well supplied with funds and scientists and worked on a multitude of research and monitoring issues. At that time it advised on all aspects of hunting. Today, funds are minimal and hardly sufficient to cover the diverse tasks. The scientists are responsible for monitoring wildlife numbers, proposing quotas, recording data on wildlife use and preparing the editions of the Red Book (the next one in 2018). 18 The Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan (ACBK) is an NGO active in the field of biodiversity conservation. It has cooperated extensively with Frankfurt Zoological Society of Germany and has leased several concessions in order to manage them without hunting, mainly for saiga conservation. 4. Support provided by German Development Cooperation Activities were carried out under the Wildlife Management Component of the GIZ Regional Programme for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Central Asia. Through GIZ supported policy dialogue on sustainable wildlife use, key actors discussed the challenges and opportunities posed by the on-going privatization processes in the hunting sector. The Forestry and Wildlife Committee, private hunting concessions and civil society received international expertise and technical advice in this process. A series of stakeholder meetings were held to understand the current situation in the sector and develop recommendations on entry points for re-

11 Web resources: forms and changes in the field on sustainable use of wildlife. As a result of these consultations, regional knowledge exchange on best wildlife use practices has been triggered. ACBK received a small grant to improve the system of wildlife monitoring and data collection outside of protected areas and to enable the setting of sustainable limits for wildlife off-takes and hunting quotas. In ACBK, as sub-contractor of GIZ and in cooperation with Frankfurt Zoological Society and other partners, has implemented the project component on preservation of saiga antelope. The project included improved anti-poaching measures, monitoring, as well as stakeholder engagement and adaptation of the legislative framework. - Red Book of Kazakhstan: - The Forestry and Hunting Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture of Kazakhstan: kz (no content yet - April 2015) - Okhotzooprom: - Kansonar: Sources used: 20 Baldus, R. (2014). Consultancy Report on the Sustainable Use of Wildlife in Turkmenistan and Kasachstan. On behalf of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Jingfors, K. (2015). Sustainable Wildlife Management in Kazakhstan: Opportunities and Threats. On behalf of UNDP and Forestry and Wildlife Committee (Internal draft). Mallon, D. (2013). Trophy Hunting of CITES-listed species in Central Asia. Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Geneva. Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (2014). Fifth National Report on Progress in Implementation of the CBD in Kazakhstan. Report submitted to CBD Secretariat. 21

12 1.2 Kyrgyzstan The current situation of wildlife management in the Kyrgyz Republic Markus Pesch 1. Facts and figures on resources, users and use 22 Mountains cover more than 90% of the territory of Kyrgyzstan. Fauna is very diverse with more than 80 species of mammals, over 300 species of birds and about 30 species of reptiles and amphibians. Popular game animals include Asiatic or Siberian ibex (Capra sibirica), Siberian roe deer (Capreolus pygargus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), pheasant (Phasianus colchicus mongolicus, chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar), snowcock (Tetraogallus himalayensis), quail (Perdix perdix), and several waterfowl. Economically relevant species for international hunting tourism are argali (Ovis 1 2 ammon subspp.) and Siberian ibex. Wolf (Canis lupus), Siberian roe deer and partridges are also hunted by foreigners, but to a much lesser degree. The Red Book contains 26 species of mammals including many potential game species like argali, goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa; most likely extinct), Tien Shan maral (Cervus canadensis songaricus), Isabelline or Tien Shan brown bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus), snow leopard (Panthera uncia), Turkestan lynx (Lynx lynx isabellinus), and also black grouse (Lyrurus tetrix). The total population numbers of most game species are estimated to be well below the carrying capacities. As in other Central Asian countries a sharp decline set in during the early 1990s. At the same time livestock numbers also dropped significantly, so pasture competition during this time can 1 Three subspecies of Argali occur in Kyrgyzstan, in the Tien Shan, Alai, and Turkestan Ranges - Ovis ammon karelini, O. a. polii and O. a. severtzovi 2 After reporting on population and management of wolf, the Scientific Review Group of the EU in July 2013 has lifted the import ban from Kyrgyzstan.

13 24 be ruled out as a cause. Poaching by the local population, as well as by the border troops, has been identified as the main reason for the decline. Illegal hunting continues to be the most important factor limiting wildlife populations. Argali and ibex populations have not only declined but also the large 3 trophy males have disappeared. So far no systematic analysis has been done to assess the significance of this decline and to determine whether the number of old rams has declined and/or if old rams are reaching a smaller horn size than in the past. Over-harvesting of mature males, be it from legal or illegal hunting, is certainly the major cause of this development. Whether the continuous selective hunting and changed habitat conditions has had genetic consequences is unclear (Rosen, 2012). The distribution areas of argali also seem to be shrinking. Today, they are largely confined to the areas along the Chinese border, and trophy hunting takes place predominantly in the border zone. A large-scale survey of key argali habitats was conducted in December 2010 and May This survey counted about O.a. karelini and O.a. polii in the Issykkul, Naryn and Talas regions and 37 O.a. severtzovi in Batken. The survey results (based on user-based monitoring) for 2013 amount to almost O.a. polii, and O.a. karelini, almost ibex, about 1300 wild boar, 4800 roe deer and 440 maral. Hunting The law distinguishes between hunting ground users or game area managers (okhotpolzovateli) and hunters (okhotniki). Hunting ground users are entities of different legal forms who have been assigned user rights over defined hunting grounds (okhotugodie), where they are authorized and responsible for protection and management. Hunters are persons directly carrying out hunting for recreational or subsistence purposes. Hunting now takes place solely on the basis of defined hunting areas, which are under long-term lease by hunting ground users. Until recently the Department for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources under the State Agency of Forestry has managed all unassigned areas (about 8 million hectares) but it has announced its intention to gradually assign all hunting areas to non-governmental legal entities. Until then hunting will not be legally possible on unassigned areas. Currently about six million hectares are leased out to 63 hunting concessions, 45 of which belong to commercial enterprises, the remainder being assigned to hunting associations (okhotobshchestvo). The number of concessions used to be much higher, but as the majority of hunting grounds were too small for effective and sustainable management (due to small population sizes, migration and the uncertainty of shooting the desired trophy animal), minimum sizes for hunting grounds depending on the target species were introduced (see below) and the number of concessions was significantly reduced. Many hunting companies still lack specific technical knowledge in wildlife management, as the owners and even the managers often come from completely different sectors. Hunting companies usually employ local residents with good field knowledge as hunting guides and rangers. By law, antipoaching and monitoring activities must be carried out in all hunting concessions. These activities have contributed to stabilizing and increasing argali populations in some concessions, while in other concessions, where no effective conservation management takes place, numbers are still decreasing. Due to poor management and the low wages of rangers, poaching by local residents cannot effectively be controlled. In some cases in the recent past the rangers themselves were the main perpetrators, as they mainly for lack of sufficient pay - lived year-round primarily on poaching and the sales of meat. Up until recently, only about 20% of the hunting companies had foreign clients. With the recent reduction of hunting concessions, the rate is now substantially higher, but those companies without business still generate revenues mostly by poaching. There is strong rivalry between the hunting companies, both for clients and for trophy animals, which leads to low prices, the shooting of immature animals and to hunting on territories of other concessions. Most hunting areas are also used as grazing areas for livestock, which creates a potential cause for conflict. While concessionaires in the past had the sole option of leasing critical pasture areas from the pasture user associations, the new hunting law introduces mechanisms for establishing grazing exclusion zones for livestock in critical ungulate habitat. Many hunting concessions border protected areas, and this brings its own problems. For example, Sarychat-Ertash Strict Nature Reserve, which contains good populations of argali, is surrounded by seven hunting concessions. This close proximity is considered a potential threat (Rosen, 2012) and does not provide any financial benefits to the protected area. The new hunting law did not - as originally proposed - introduce a mechanism that would allocate a share of the hunting fees to protected areas in the vicinity of hunting concessions. As the State budget for protected areas is low and consequently park rangers are underpaid, in some cases they are reported to take bribes from trophy hunting concessionaires to allow foreign hunters to hunt in protected areas. The State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry annually distributes a nationwide quota for restricted species (all ungulate species except those listed in the Red Book, but including argali, fur-bearing animals, pheasant) to hunting ground managers. These quotas are based on the most recent surveys, which allows the quota to be adjusted as appropriate. The Department for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources obtains every year about 10 hunting permits for argali and 40 for ibex 4 for scientific purposes. Argali quotas for were 70 per year (10 allocated for scientific pur In the beginning of the 1990s argalis could be found with trophies of up to 1.40 m length; today, even 1.20 m are rare. In the mountains of Chuy region a world record-ibex with horns of 1.54 m was shot, while today in some regions it is hard to find ibex with horns of 1 m. 4 This quota is actually for funding of research activities rather than for carrying out research work.

14 26 poses and 60 for hunting). In 2012 the quota for ibex was 400 for foreign trophy hunters and 1200 for domestic hunters. Recently, the Government has reduced the domestic ibex quota (2013: 800; 2014: 400). For 2014 the ibex quota was 250 for foreign trophy hunters. Not all permits on quota for foreign trophy hunters are sold. In 2010, 53 argalis were taken and in 2011 the number was 69. Domestic hunters, on the other hand, are reported to often take more than the allowed one animal per permit. The State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry has issued a two year hunting restriction ( ) for domestic hunters on all ungulates that concerns all of the Issyk-Kul Region and some districts of the Naryn Region. Similar temporary restrictions are said to be issued in alternating regions in the coming years. All permits are assigned to specific hunting grounds and are marketed directly or through hunting tourism companies to international clients. The permit-fees are set by law. For argali the fee is 250,000 KGS (currently about 4,000 USD) for foreigners and Kyrgyz citizens alike, for ibex it is 600 KGS (10 USD) for national hunters and 36,000 KGS (565 USD) for foreign clients. The proceeds from the sale of all hunting permits are allocated as follows: 35% to the Department for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources for monitoring, planning and other management activities; 25% to the budgets of local sub districts, where the hunts take place; and 40% are given to the hunting ground user as reimbursement for his game management activities. In the past domestic hunters were free to choose where they would hunt non-restricted species and ibex within the oblasts, as permits were not area-bound. This has led to an over-utilisation of easily accessible or otherwise preferred hunting areas. Up until the passage of the new law on hunting and wildlife management much of the hunting by local hunters took place in areas which were managed by the hunting department. The management of these areas was insufficient at best, with one stateemployed ranger being responsible for areas between 100,000 to 200,000 hectares. Now, with the Department retreating from direct management of hunting grounds, no legal hunting can take place in areas not assigned to hunting ground users. Management of hunting grounds by community-based initiatives is generally possible and the Department for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources encourages local hunters to form legal entities for this purpose. However, with most of the good argali habitat already being assigned to commercial trophy hunting concessions, it will be difficult to set up community-based trophy hunting concessions that contain enough argali to qualify for a quota (Rosen, 2012). Siberian ibex is the only other viable target species, while populations of Siberian roe deer, Tian Shan maral and goitered gazelle are currently too low, and the total hunting ban on the latter two has so far discouraged initiatives for reintroduction and population rehabilitation. Two community-based hunting organizations were formed as NGOs around 2011 in Chong-Kemin (Chui Region) and Ak-Suu (Issyk-Kul Region). They received assigned wildlife management areas in Three more such initiatives in the Alay valley (Osh Region) are currently in the process of registration. A detailed description of community-based wildlife management in Kyrgyzstan is given in Chapter 3. 27

15 2. Legal Framework 28 A new law On Hunting and Wildlife Management has been adopted in It replaces a whole set of regulations in other laws, that were in parts contradictory to each other. Important innovations of the new law include the introduction of minimum size requirements for hunting areas. The size depends on the target species, and is set at 70,000 hectares in the case of argali, for example. This has already reduced the number of hunting areas in the argali range significantly. Hunting leases will last 15 years now instead of the hitherto customary three to four years. New applicants for hunting territories must submit business plans outlining their wildlife management strategy. The law introduces an area based management approach, so that permits for hunting can only be issued where the hunting area is assigned to a legal entity. This will effectively encourage local hunters and communities to request that rights and responsibilities over hunting management areas are assigned to them. State employed rangers, who generally earn meagre salaries are given enhanced authority to arrest poachers and will also receive a 30% share of the claims filed. Rangers of hunting ground users get similar rights and responsibilities as state employed rangers. The law further allows for setting land-use restrictions for protection of key habitats for argali and other species especially during migration. International Conventions Kyrgyzstan is member of CBD since It became a party to CITES in 2007 and submitted its first annual report on trade with wildlife products in In 2012 the CMS Workshop to Develop an International Action Plan on the Conservation of Argali and their Habitat was held in Bishkek. In 2014 the country became a party to CMS. 3. Institutional Framework Wildlife management is the responsibility of the State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry (SAEPF). The issuance of quotas and grant-

16 4. Support provided by German Development Cooperation ing of licenses are handled on the agency level, while most management and control activities a re delegated to the Department for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources (former Hunting Department), which is subordinate to the State Agency. The department has divisions on the regional level and inspectors in every district. Activities have been conducted in the framework of the Wildlife Management Component of the GIZ Regional Programme for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Central Asia. The implementation was carried out in close cooperation with the Hunting department of SAEPF. The local NGO Ak-Terek has been involved in various activities, such as the training of facilitators. According to the new hunting law, the role of the Department is primarily supervision and control of hunting and game management. However, the shift from the immediate area management function is a gradual process that still has to be fully understood by all employees. The Department of Protected Areas and the Department for Forest and Hunting Management Planning (Lesokhotustroystvo) are also a part of the same agency. Some unresolved competence divisions persist between the latter and the Department for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources. Project activities focused on legal framework development, capacity development for wildlife monitoring and improvement of hunting area management, in particular introduction of community-based approaches. Two pilot community-based wildlife conservation organizations have been established, equipped and trained in wildlife management, monitoring and conservation. Capacity building for facilitators for a countrywide allocation of hunting areas to groups of local hunters has been conducted (see Chapter 3). 30 The Institute of Biology and Soil Sciences of the Academy of Sciences is responsible for the implementation of the scientific population monitoring and gives recommendations for the establishment of take-off limits. A comprehensive and reliable monitoring system has been established with the support of GIZ. The Association of Hunters and Fishermen of Kyrgyzstan (Okhotrybolovsoyuz) was formed in 1959 and currently has about 12,000 members. In the past it had the official function to conduct the hunters examinations, and all hunters were required to become members. The membership ID served as a hunter s license. With the new hunting law the responsibility for the examinations is transferred to the Department for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, and a state hunter s license issued by this Department will be introduced. Furthermore, the association is the user of several hunting grounds, which are managed through its own territorial hunting organizations (Okhotobshchestvo) or through subsidiaries. There also is a Military Hunting Organization (Voennoe Okhotobshchestvo) with about 2,000 members, managing a small number of areas. A methodology for monitoring mountain ungulates using standardized field forms has been developed with the help of GIZ and IUCN Caprinae Specialist Group. A Russian language monitoring handbook and manual on the use of GPS have been developed. A monitoring system was established, which combines an annual user-based monitoring with an independent scientific monitoring carried out at greater intervals, led by the Department for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in close cooperation with the Academy of Sciences. Furthermore, GIZ assisted in the establishment of GPS tracking of wild sheep in order to determine migration routes and in genetic analyses to determine wild sheep subspecies and subpopulations. Also supported was the mapping of all assigned hunting concessions and planned hunting grounds in GIS. Substantial support has been provided to the development of the new hunting law that provides for clearer regulation and incentives for sustainable hunting and wildlife management. Strengthening the implementation of CITES has also been a special focus. 31 Currently 45 private hunting enterprises and two community-based hunting organizations are actively managing hunting grounds. The number of community-based wildlife management organizations is likely going to rise. Three more are already in the process of registration. There is also a state-owned hunting ground Kyrgool under the presidential apparatus in the Chui Region, which covers about hectares.

17 Web resources: State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry: Wildlife of Kyrgyzstan: Sources used: Mallon, D. (2013). Trophy Hunting of CITES-listed species in Central Asia. Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Geneva. Rosen, T. (2012). Analyzing gaps and options for enhancing Argali conservation in Central Asia within the context of the Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals. Report prepared for The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Bonn, Germany and the GIZ Regional Program on Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Central Asia. 32

18 1.3 Tajikistan The current situation of wildlife management in the Republic of Tajikistan Markus Pesch 1. Facts and figures on resources, users and use 34 Tajikistan is the smallest country in Central Asia by area. It has a large diversity of ecosystems compared to other countries of similar size. Mountains cover more than 90% of the territory, and only 7% of the country is arable. The wide range of ecosystems that are represented in the country offers habitats to an equally rich diversity of flora ( plant species) and fauna (500 vertebrate species). The main current pressure on the country s biodiversity and natural resources is their unsustainable use, while additional threats such as climate change, desertification and alien and invasive species may also be increasing. A major cause is rural poverty and the lack of livelihood alternatives to natural resource use. Tajikistan s wildlife resources have been heavily affected during the years of civil war ( ) and accompanying economic crisis, when firearms were abundant. For lack of alternatives many people had to rely for survival on natural resources at that time. After the war most weapons were confiscated, but in many areas poaching for meat (for subsistence, as well as for the market) is still prevalent (Michel, 2008). Tajikistan has one national park (a UNESCO Heritage Site since 2013) and 17 other protected areas (four strictly protected areas (zapovedniks), two natural parks and 11 resource management areas (zakazniks). They cover almost a quarter of the country, but wildlife protection is generally not working effectively. All large wild mammals are endangered or under pressure, in particular the snow leopard (Panthera uncia), striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena), the isabelline brown bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus), goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa), Tajik markhor (Capra falconeri heptneri), Bukhara urial

19 (Ovis vignei bochariensis) and Bukhara deer (Cervus elaphus bactrianus). They are all listed in the Red Book. All ungulates, except for wild boar, have been decreasing since the 1990s. In some areas the populations of Marco Polo sheep or Pamir argali (Ovis ammon polii) and Asiatic ibex (Capra sibirica) seem to be at least stable and the Tajik markhor (Capra falconeri heptneri) is recovering. This can be ascribed to the fact that all three species have been protected from poaching in private and family-based conservancies and are currently used in international trophy hunting. Still the threats to argali survival are manifold. Border troops in the Pamirs often lend out arms to shepherds to supply them with argali meat. The grazing pressure by domestic livestock is increasing and a slow growing dwarf shrub (teresken) that serves as an important fodder plant for argali is collected for fuel on a large scale. Border fences from Soviet times have not been dismantled, and reportedly in some areas a new border fence has recently been erected by the Chinese border authorities. These fences largely reduce cross border Pamir argali migration, hinder access to seasonally important habitats and cause genetic isolation. To mitigate some of these negative impacts, trans-boundary cooperation with conservationists in China would be necessary. The numbers of Central Asian ibex, which is widely distributed in all mountain regions of the country, remain low after the sharp decline in the 1990s but have recovered in some community-based game management areas and private hunting concessions. Poaching of ibex for meat is still a problem in many areas. This reduces the availability of prey for snow leopards, thus possibly contributing to attacks on livestock. Populations of Bukhara deer exist in the Zeravshan valley (transboundary with Uzbekistan) and in Tigrovaya Balka Strictly Protected Area, with few animals occasionally observed in other areas along the Pyanj River (transboundary with Afghanistan). Due to the small remaining areas of floodplain forests (tugai), the key habitat, and poaching, the population numbers remain low. The goitered gazelle is restricted to small semi-desert areas in Tigrovaya Balka. Population numbers remain low despite artificial restocking with animals from Uzbekistan. A small population in Sughd Region, confirmed being extant in 2008, might recently have been poached to extinction. 36 In 2009 a large scale survey was conducted in key habitats of Marco Polo sheep in the Eastern Pamirs 1 and almost animals were counted. Another argali species, Severtzov s or Kyzylkum sheep (O.a.severtzovi) have been found in small numbers in the Sughd region in the North of the country. The Bukhara urial, another species of wild sheep, has been severely decimated, mainly due to poaching. Now it is found only in scattered subpopulations (each totaling less than 100 animals) within its former habitation zone. Formerly it was used for trophy-hunting, with no official quota announced during the last years based on recommendations by the Academy of Sciences, except the season 2013/2014. No assigned game management area has an urial population of sufficient size, suitable for sustainable trophy hunting, most hunts took place in unassigned areas and trophy hunting contributed to the decline of the species numbers. The urial population in the Wakhan in the Pamirs of Tajikistan, which had possibly belonged to another subspecies, the Ladakh urial (O.v.vignei), is most likely extinct. The Tajik or Bukhara markhor is now restricted to a small distribution area in the Hazratishoh and Darvaz Mountain Ranges, while it is extinct in other areas of its former range. In late 2010 a pneumonia outbreak occurred among the markhor population killing at least 64 animals. The disease most probably has spread from domestic goats. During surveys in 2012 and 2014, 1018 and 1300 animals were recorded, indicating a significant increase. A quota of six markhor was issued in 2013 and again in Hunting Hunting by Tajik nationals is organized through the Association of Hunters and Fishermen. The management of international trophy hunting (mainly on argali) was transferred in the early 1990s to private concessions that have been allocated to hunting companies by the government. Currently most trophy hunting is carried out in six concessions. The concessionaires are responsible for management and an annual survey of the game population, as well as implementing year-round anti-poaching measures. When a two-year hunting moratorium on argali was imposed in 2009, challenging the sustainability of private argali management, the concessionaires formed an Association of hunting concessionaires to represent their interests. There is one concession, active in Tajik National Park, which is not part of the Association. Some of the hunting companies have invested quite successfully in the protection of game populations and provide employment opportunities for local people as rangers and service staff. Risks to the sustainability of hunting companies can be the short duration of their contracts and the lack of contract security as well as insufficient monitoring and wildlife management at population level and intense poaching in the areas surrounding the hunting concessions (Michel, 2008). In addition to the big private concessions, three family-based conservancies have been established in the markhor range. They market ibex, wild boar and markhor hunts. Beginning in 2008 several com It is important to note that not all suitable habitats could be surveyed and therefore this is a minimum number.

20 2. Legal Framework munity-based initiatives, organized as NGOs and oriented towards the sustainable use of mountain ungulates, have been formed and have received international clients from 2012 onward. (A detailed description of community based wildlife management (CBWM) in Tajikistan is given in Chapter 3). The harvest of smaller game animals like fox, hare, badger, chukar partridge and several water fowl, that are mainly used by local hunters, is regulated by a bag limit (maximum number of captured animals) per hunter and hunt. For restricted game species, including those listed in the Red Book an annual quota is set by the government. For the years the annual quota were set at 80 Marco 2 Polo Sheep, 60 Siberian ibex and 10 brown bear. A quota of six permits for markhor was announced in 2013 and the same number again in 2014, with five and six permits issued respectively. The official annual take-off creates significant financial means for state budgets and private business. Revenues from the sale of hunting permits earned by the government during the 2010/2011 hunting season (with 51 argali legally harvested) totaled more than 3.6 million Tajik Somonis (equivalent to roughly 630,000 3 USD). A new law On Hunting and Game Management was passed in July 2014 and establishes the basic principles and competences in the field of hunting and wildlife management. Relevant by-laws are currently under development and are expected to be adopted later in The law introduces an area based management approach, promoting the allocation of hunting management areas to legal entities, e.g., private enterprises and community-based organizations. Management plans are made obligatory and minimum requirements for these are set in the law. A division of the functions is established between the authorized body being in charge of planning, supervision and control, and of legal entities, carrying out game management and hunting business. A further positive innovation is the introduction of a system of benefit sharing for the revenues gained from the sale of permits: 40% of the permit fees will be allocated to the budget of the local administration on whose territory the hunt has taken place and 20% goes to a special fund for protected areas. Other laws relevant to wildlife management are the law On the Animal World (2008), which seems to forbid the harvesting of species listed in the Red Book, and the law On Specially Protected Natural Areas (2011). 38 Research by Valdez, et al., confirms the positive effects of well managed hunting on Marco Polo argali populations. 2 The brown bear quota is set for specified regions where bears have attacked livestock or threaten the lives of the local population. 3 Government permit fees per head are approx. 9,000 USD for Argali and 40,000 USD for Markhor. Ibex licences cost 90 USD. The Association of Hunting Concessionaires adds a surcharge on the prices. International Conventions Tajikistan is signatory to CBD since 1998 and to CMS since 2001 (The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning Conservation and Restoration of the Bukhara deer was signed in 2002). The country is not yet member to CITES, but the accession process has been started the last several years. The Committee on Environmental Protection is the CITES management authority and issues export permits for respective trophies (argali, markhor, wolf, bear). CITES signatory states accept these permits as documents comparable to CITES permits. 39

21 3. Institutional Framework Only recently, the State Agency of Forestry has received the responsibility for supervision of hunting and game management in the whole country. A hunting department was established in the agency consisting of three people. As there are presently no representatives in the field, the department is largely restricted to administrative work. Additionally, the establishment of forest and hunting inspection under the State Agency is planned, which will eventually employ one state inspector in every rayon. One commercial company managing a hunting concession and the three family-based enterprises and five NGOs managing community-based conservancies are not members of the Association of concessionaires. The NGOs managing game areas are in the process of establishing their own association, possibly involving family-based enterprises as well. 40 The Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP) is generally responsible for nature protection and Red Book species. The CEP also issues licenses to hunting ground users for the management of game species listed in the Red Book. These licenses are initially issued for three years and can be renewed. The Institute of Zoology and Parasitology undertakes research and co-organizes independent nationwide population surveys for ungulate species that should take place at least every five years. A special commission, consisting of representatives of the Forestry Agency, the Committee for Environmental Protection, the Academy of Sciences and the Association of Hunters and Fishermen, establishes the annual quota for species listed in the Red Book. The Association of Hunters and Fishermen of Tajikistan (okhotobshestvo) was founded in 1956 and currently has about 20,000 members. As membership is mandatory for domestic hunters, this number is equivalent to the number of all legal hunters in Tajikistan. The association is in charge of taking hunter s examinations and issuing hunters licenses. It manages a number of hunting areas and is financed exclusively through member fees and revenues from hunts. During the hunting moratorium on argali (2009/10), several major hunting companies formed the Association of Hunting Concessionaires to represent their common interests. The association is now given the entire hunting quota for argali in the Pamirs region and is expected to distribute them to all companies and organizations in the market including to non-members. In fact this Association has a monopoly, and so far community-based NGOs that manage argali populations could not obtain a quota. 4. Support provided by German Development Cooperation Activities have been mainly carried out within the framework of the wildlife component of the Regional Programme for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Central Asia, implemented by GIZ from The main focus in Tajikistan was on the development of community-based groups of hunting managers taking over wildlife use and protection in specific designated areas, as well as the improvement of management in family-based conservancies. The project has been instrumental in introducing and facilitating the community-based wildlife management approach in Tajikistan. Local communities have started to benefit after five years of conservation activity. The improved management of these areas has already resulted in stabilization and rehabilitation of their wildlife populations. However, the approach is not yet robust, and the communities are in need of further support. Further activities under this component were the analysis of the existing legal framework, support in the drafting of the new hunting law, facilitation of multi-stakeholder dialogue (round tables, seminars), and the development of a monitoring system for mountain ungulates. A Tajik and Russian language monitoring handbook and a manual on the use of GPS have been developed. Comprehensive surveys were carried out for argali and markhor in 2009 and 2012 with financial, technical and organizational support from GIZ. 41 As the quota is limited and for some species below the demand, it remains unclear on which basis the allocation does take place. Conflicts seem to exist in this regard, and the Association is also trying to push into the recently opened market for markhor hunts, despite none of its member companies managing any markhor areas.

22 Web resources: Sources used: Baldus, Rolf (2011). Final Report: Review Mission to Assess and Analyze the Results of the Wildlife Component in Tajikistan, Implemented under the Regional Programme on Sustainable use of Natural Resources in Central Asia. [Internal Report] Damm, G. & Franco, N. (2014). The CIC Caprinae Atlas of the World. CIC Budakeszi in cooperation with Rowland Ward Publications, Johannesburg. Mallon, D. (2013). Trophy Hunting of CITES-listed species in Central Asia. Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Geneva. 42 Michel, S. (2008). Conservation and use of wild ungulates in Central Asia potentials and challenges. In: Baldus, R. D.; Damm, G. R. & Wollscheid, K. (eds.): Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting A Guide to Best Practices from Around the World. CIC Technical Series Publication No.1. CIC International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation. FAO. Michel, S. (2010). Community-based conservation and management of mountain ungulates in Tajikistan. Galemys 22: Michel & Muratov, (2010). Survey on Marco Polo sheep and other mammal species in the Eastern Pamirs (Republic of Tajikistan, GBAO). Committee for Environmental Protection and Nature Protection Team. Wotschikowsky, U. (2014). Community based hunting in Tajikistan. Current situation and recommendations. [Internal Report] Valdes, R., Michel, S., Subbotin, A. and Klich, D. (2015). Status and population structure of a hunted population of Marco Polo Argali Ovis ammon polii (Cetartiodactyla, Bovidae) in Southeastern Tajikistan. Mammalia.

23 1.4 Turkmenistan The current situation of wildlife management in the Republic of Turkmenistan Markus Pesch 1. Facts and figures on resources, users and use 44 Turkmenistan has a continental dry climate and consists 80% of desert. Less than 10% of the country is covered with forest. The common vegetation cover consists of shrubs and salt-tolerant species. Major wildlife species in the plains are saiga (Saiga tatarica), goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa), kulan (Asiatic Wildass Equus hemionus kulan) and dry country birds such as bustards and sand grouse. The mountains in the south of the country along the borders with Iran and Afghanistan hosted and still do to some extent populations of urial (Ovis vignei), Tajik markhor (Capra falconeri heptneri), bezoar (Capra aegagrus) and Persian leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor). These mountain ecosystems have a high biodiversity with the highest percentage of endemism in Central Asia. There are nine protected areas, which occupy around 8000 km². The previous high wildlife populations were greatly reduced in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union and resulting lawlessness and poaching. The formerly estimated 300,000 goitered gazelles, for example, were reduced to ca. 5,000 and kulan 1 from more than 5,000 to 1,500. Urial in Central Kopetdag were estimated 8,000 in 1984 and bezoar 6,600 in 1984, as compared to less than 2,000 each at the end of the century. The Red Book in its recent edition from 2011 contains amongst others 40 birds and 29 mammals. The following mammals with relevance for sustainable use are listed there (in brackets the Red Book category and 2 popula- 1 Estimated 6,000 in 1993 in Badkhyz Strictly Protected Area only. 2 The red data categories are: I. Critically endangered (over 80% decline/disappearing) II. Endangered (over 50% decline) III. Vulnerable (over 30% decline).

24 Hunting 46 tion guesstimate): brown bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus; I), lynx (Lynx lynx isabellinus; I), caracal (Caracal caracal; II), leopard (I), kulan (III; 1,500), Bukhara red deer (Cervus elaphus bactrianus; I; few hundred), goitered gazelle (III; 5,000); saiga (III); bezoar wild goat (II; 1,000); markhor (I; 600), urial (II). Tiger, brown bear and lynx are regarded as extinct. The Red Book is largely deficient in naming the reasons for stagnation or even further population decline, and the proposed action is at best destitute. The existing conservation and anti-poaching workforce in the country is not able to offer sufficient protection. Thus, none of the major mammals has seen much recovery success during the last 15 years, even if the official figures are regarded as correct. Whether this is the case, remains an open question, as no verifiable information on counting methodology is available. Only markhor is reported to have increased by 150% in the last 15 years. Although significant growth could be expected, given there were no poaching in the strictly protected area in the Kugitang mountains, this high rate does not seem realistic (Baldus, 2014). Although officially tabooed, one can expect much local consumptive poaching. There has been some unofficial and possibly official trophy hunting for Red Book species in the 1990s. Since 1992 two to three markhor were offered annually for a few years. Urial, goitered gazelle and bezoar were also open for hunting at that time. The new CIC Caprinae Atlas mentions: Hunting of markhor is illegal, but it has been reported that markhor have been illegally taken in clandestine trophy hunts in the Kugitang Mountains during the 1990s, as evidenced by a small number of entries in the hunting records. Turkmenistan is not a signatory of CITES and hence does not have a CITES export-quota for markhor; however, it had been reported that Turkmenistan had set an internal export quota for markhor immediately after independence, although we have seen no evidence of this. (Damm et al Vol. II, p. 429) Habitat loss, overgrazing, deforestation and poaching presently threaten biodiversity. Wildlife-loss is in general human-inflicted. The protected areas are meant to provide a safe haven for wildlife, but cannot serve this purpose due to inefficient management and a general lack of effective protection. In general it is a misconception to restrict species conservation to protected areas. 96% of the country is unprotected and species conservation cannot succeed if these areas are not included. In its 2002 Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan the Government envisaged the development of hunting as a sustainable land use option. No action has followed, however. In the same year a National Environment Protection Plan was adopted, but seemingly not implemented as far as wildlife and hunting is concerned. The country urgently needs a concrete action plan for conservation outside the protected areas, and this should include a management approach for sustainable use. The country offers limited hunting for its citizens. Hunting is regarded as a hobby or sport and as a means to obtain meat for subsistence consumption. It is neither seen as economically relevant nor as a conservation related activity. Most hunting is for small mammals such as hares or for game birds (many of them migratory) and is organized via the Union of Hunters and Fishermen (UHF), a state-controlled non-governmental organization. The UHF issues hunters licenses. Thus membership is mandatory for hunters. Per hunting trip (unlimited in number) a hunter can shoot up to 20 game birds (excluding those he consumes while hunting), six pigeons and four hares. Pheasant is protected. There is no legal hunting for ungulates except wild boar, and even these seem to be rare, as hunters attempt to create favorable fodder conditions or even breed them behind fences. Permits for hunting wild boar are issued by the Ministry of Nature Protection. Hunting weapons (mainly shotguns) are licensed by Government authorities and are generally available (Baldus, 2014). While most hunters are said to originate from Ashgabat, it would be expected that there are more hunters in the rural areas. A possible explanation could be that sport hunters from the cities obtain official licenses for their hunting trips, whereas rural hunters do not bother about paper work, when they go shooting near their villages. The Government has assigned 43 hunting areas to the UHF, covering 2,7 million hectares (6% of the country). Two of the areas are actually owned by the Union and are presently not used for hunting, but rather for research and monitoring of migrating waterfowl. The other areas are in public or private ownership. Third parties use them for agricultural purposes, and the Union has no influence on land use. It is also not able to establish some basic infrastructure for hunting or create favorable conditions for game animals. In addition hunting can take place on all other land except protected areas. As a result, hunting can take place on about three quarters of the country, at least in theory. Most resident hunters seem to have only a very limited knowledge of game, wildlife biology and conservation. They do not see the possible influence of their activities on the ecology and therefore do little to contribute to conservation or to support the respective activities of the Union. Hunting tourism for foreign hunters does generally not take place, although there might be exceptions: The Government can grant special permits for protected ungulates in the form of presidential licenses to foreign VIPs. Likewise, falconry by Arab dignitaries on migratory MacQueen s bustard (Chlamydotis macqueeni) might occur. Due to the scarcity of game, the potential for creating hunting tourism is very limited. It would necessitate the opening of hunting for the presently protected, rare ungulates in order to take off and to be lucrative. The UHF proposes the development of hunting tourism for wild boar, hare, fox and game birds. For the time being this does not seem to be realistic, as this is not in demand on the international market. Possible revenues would be very low and probably not cost effective. This 47

25 fact, combined with the very low payments of resident hunters, makes it difficult to give a value to wildlife, which is a precondition for its survival outside of protected areas. Hunting with falcons, eagles, similar raptors and with sighthounds (tazy) is an old tradition in the country and continues to be practiced. In 2012 UNESCO has inscribed falconry on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. 2. Legal Framework 48 The legislative basis for the protection and use of fauna is spread out over several laws: The Law on Hunting and Game Management (1998) defines areas, types, methods and limitations for hunting and regulates game management activities. It establishes competences of the central and local executive government bodies, and also the role of social associations in the organization of hunting and game management, including control mechanisms. The Law on Nature Protection (1991) establishes the main principles of environmental protection, including the protection of fauna. It is the basic document regulating social, economic and ecological legal norms, and lists all environmental objects subject to protection. It further defines the competences of local authorities and the state, ecological requirements of economic and other activities, natural territories and objects subject to special protection and the rights and duties of citizens. The Law on Protection and Rational Use of Wildlife (1997) determines the competences of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Ministry of Nature Protection in the area of protection and rational use of fauna as well as the types and order of fauna use. It further regulates the protection of habitat, reproduction conditions and migratory routes of wild animals during the allocation, planning and building of settlements, enterprises, structures and other activities such as forestry and pasture use, geological research, mining, and touristic development. Other laws dealing with wildlife are the Law on State and Specially Protected Natural Areas (1992), which covers the

26 integrity of marine and land ecological systems, including rare and endangered kinds of animals and plants, and the Forest Code (1993). This legal set-up, spread over several acts, is complicated and in need of some interpretation. Although there are contradictions and occasionally a lack of clarity, the legislation on the whole covers the relevant topics and provides a satisfactory legal umbrella for the present wildlife policy of the Government. It seems to serve the purpose, as the hunters, who have to deal with the regulatory framework on a daily basis, are not concerned about practical shortcomings, which certainly exist on a small scale. International Conventions Turkmenistan is party to CBD since The country is not a member to CMS, but has signed the MOU concerning the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of the saiga antelope, as well as MOUs concerning Bukhara deer and Siberian crane. The country is not a member of CITES and respective legislation is lacking. Joining the convention is presently not an urgent requirement due to the lack of trade with endangered species, but the country would be supportive in case trophy hunting on CITES listed species is considered as a conservation tool. 3. Institutional Framework All wildlife is the property of the state and collectively forms a State Hunting Fund. The law defines different types of wildlife use, necessary permits, licensing and the obligations of users. The institutional structure of the Government including local authorities is given and management competences The Ministry of Nature Protection is the principal government body regulating the issue of environmental protection. It implements the state policy and interdepartmental control in the sphere of protection and rational use of natural resources, including the forest fund, and also coordinates activities are distributed to different authorities. State cadastres of wildlife as well as of protected areas are established. Protection of species and area-based protection for different categories of land are regulated of other bodies in this sphere. The Ministry is responsible for wildlife management in the nine existing and different types of hunting are allowed or prohibited depending on the status of the land. Areas nature reserves and also for all wildlife outside of these areas. A staff of 564 persons works in the reserves and an additional 200 inspectors work in the regions. of common use are defined as areas where hunting is possible with permits issued by the Union of Hunters and Fishers. This Union is defined in the law as the main user. Foreigners may also hunt in principle, provided they obtain licenses and pay the respective fees. The laws define hunting weapons and methods and regulate the import and export of hunting trophies. Wildlife users in principle have the right to participate in decision-making regarding wildlife protection and use and may make suggestions and obtain information. 3 This quota is actually for funding of research activities rather than for carrying out research work. 3 The Ministry determines quotas and hunting seasons and issues all licenses for fauna use. Its main body is the Department for Flora and Fauna protection, which exercises state control for protection of ecological systems, flora (including forests) and fauna. The Institute of Desert, Flora and Fauna works under the Ministry of Nature Protection and is the principal scientific institution carrying out fundamental and applied research on bio-resources and

27 Web resources: environmental protection. It also collaborates with the nine national parks. A major task is servicing the Red Book of endangered flora and fauna and publishing a new one every ten years. The current one was published in The main subdivision of the institute is the laboratory of vertebrae that studies large mammals. Website of Ministry of Nature Protection: Website of the National institute of deserts, flora and fauna: desert_institute/ 52 The Union of Hunters and Fishermen was formed in 1959 by associations of hunters and fishermen that were active from 1947 onwards. Although it is a private sector organization, it is firmly integrated into the centralized state organization of society. This is a remarkable feature in Turkmenistan, in particular as the Union has been vested with functions that are governmental in most countries. The functions of the Union are clearly described in the hunting legislation. The UHF is a self-financing body. Its main income derives from member-fees. In addition the Union sells hunting permits to members. Profits are taxed, and the income is barely sufficient to administer the Union at its present level of activities. The Union is responsible for the training of new hunters and conducting the hunting examination. It also runs several stores for hunting equipment and weapons as well as a rather simple repair facility on its office compound. During the hunting season volunteers check on a small basis whether hunters in the field carry the necessary licenses and stick to the rules, in particular quotas and species they take. Text of the Law on Hunting and Game Management: faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/tuk42576.doc Sources used: Baldus, R. (2014). Consultancy Report on the Sustainable Use of Wildlife in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. On behalf of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Damm, G. & Franco, N. (2014). The CIC Caprinae Atlas of the World. CIC Budakeszi in cooperation with Rowland Ward Publications, Johannesburg. Ministry of Nature Protection of Turkmenistan et al. (2009). Fourth National Report on the Implementation of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity on National Level. Ashgabat. 53 At least the top leadership is aware of issues around sustainable use and conservation and sees the need to develop hunting in the country towards these objectives. The Union employs several scientists who advise on conservation issues and conduct monitoring and research. Due to the small budget, however, conservation related activities in the hunting areas can hardly be carried out. Saparmuradov Dzh. & Karryeva Sh.B. (2008). Report about current State of Ustyurt population of saiga in Turkmenistan and problem questions. In Graf, M. et al. (2008). Bericht über die Projektprüfung und Projektplanung zum Projekt Nachhaltige Naturressourcennutzung und Erhalt von Biodiversität der Region Zentralasien. GIZ. Other NGOs active in the field of environment protection and natural resources are the Social Union for Environment Protection and the National Society of Falconers. 4. Support provided by German Development Cooperation In October 2014 the Union of Fishers and Hunters of Turkmenistan decided to conduct an inventory of all their 43 hunting areas as a first step towards a more rational, sustainable and conservation oriented hunting management. GIZ on behalf of the European Union within the framework of the project Forest and Biodiversity Governance Including Environmental Monitoring (FLERMONECA) is supporting this project that has a time-frame of just over one year.

28 1.5 Uzbekistan The current situation of wildlife management in the Republic of Uzbekistan Elena Bykova 1. Facts and figures on resources, users and use 54 The Republic of Uzbekistan covers approximately 447,400 km 2 and is bordered by Kazakhstan to the north, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan to the south, and Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to the east. Nearly 85% of its territory is occupied by desert or semi-desert, including the largest desert in Central Asia, the Kyzylkum. These deserts are flanked by the extensive Tien Shan and Hissar-Alai mountain systems in the east and southeast. The territory of Uzbekistan shelters a number of globally significant flora and fauna species, including snow leopard (Panthera uncia), saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica), Bukhara and Ustyurt or Transcaspian urial (Ovis vignei bochariensis and arkal), Severtzov argali (Ovis ammon severtzovi), Menzbier s marmot (Marmota menzbieri), striped hyaena (Hyaena hyaena), Tien Shan brown bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus), Tajik markhor (Capra falconeri heptneri), black vulture (Aegypius monachus), MacQueen s bustard (Chlamydotis macqueeni) and others. The particular geographical position of Uzbekistan at a junction of several biogeographic provinces within Central Asia has determined the significant richness of its fauna. At the same time, the biodiversity of Uzbekistan reflects the exceptional diversity of natural conditions. Vast plains occupied by different types of deserts and semi-deserts, mountain grasslands (steppes), forests and alpine meadows, gallery poplar forests (tugai) along riverbeds, wetlands and water reservoirs, and oases represent typical ecosystems with unique faunal complexes. The fauna of Uzbekistan has a unique history and complex zoogeographic relationships. A significant role belongs to Turan and Turkestan endemic and autochthon species. Additio-

29 56 nally, in Uzbekistan there are groups of animals that have migrated here from other regions, including Central Asian deserts and mountains, grasslands of Eurasia and from the Mediterranean and Indo-China. On the whole, the present fauna of vertebrate animals of Uzbekistan includes 688 species. Of these, 105 are mammalian species; 464 are birds; 60 are reptiles; 3 are amphibians and 76 are fishes. It is estimated that there are 15,000 species of invertebrates as well. During the last decades, as a result of intensive economic development, many species of wild animals in Uzbekistan have been subjected to considerable anthropogenic pressure. This has led to a decrease in the range and number of many species and total extinction of others. The greatest threats exist for large mammals and birds that are of practical or commercial value. Endemic and locally distributed species with narrow ranges are also under threat of extinction due to a habitat degradation resulting from human development. The Red Book lists amongst others 51 birds and 24 mammals with the respective categories of extinction risk and guesstimates of population size in the country. Among these are species regarded as extinct such as the Caspian tiger (Panthera tigris turanica), Asiatic cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus venaticus), and Turkmen kulan (Asiatic Wildass Equus hemionus kulan). Other species such as the Persian 1 Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor), Striped hyena, honey badger (Mellivora capensis), great bustard (Otis tarda) saiga antelope, and Ustyurt urial are near to extinction. The third group of animals such as Bukhara urial, markhor, Severtsov argali, goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa), Bukhara red deer (Cervus elaphus bactrianus), snow leopard, caracal (Caracal caracal), Turkestan lynx (Lynx lynx isabellinus), Tien Shan brown bear, Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra), Menzbier s marmot, white-headed duck (Oxyura leucocephala), mute swan (Cygnus olor), marbled teal (Marmaronetta angustirostris), Mac- Queen s bustard, and pin-tailed sandgrouse (Pterocles alchata), are endangered and vulnerable. Finally, a number of animal species have not reached critical levels yet, but a steady decline in their numbers has been observed. Most dramatically changed is the fate of saiga antelope. According to current estimates only a few hundred may permanently or seasonally live in Uzbekistan. The species faces an immediate risk of extinction in the country. For comparison saiga seasonally migrating to Uzbekistan in the 1980s numbered 70,000-80,000 individuals. The main threat is poaching and barriers to migration like border fences, railways and other linear infrastructure. The number of goitered gazelle decreased from 5,000-6,000 in the late 19th century to 4,000 in the 2000s due to poaching and development and fragmentation 1 Asiatic Wild Ass is still listed as extinct in the Wild in Uzbekistan but has been rediscovered in Ustyrt Plateau in 2012, a population that migrates from Turkmen Kaplankyr Zapovendik. of habitats. Conversely, the number of Bukhara red deer has been restored and increased from 70 in the 1960s (Aral Paigambar Reserve, that currently doesn t exist) to 700 in Bukhara red deer survived only in protected areas of Uzbekistan (Baday Tugai, Kyzlkum and Zeravshan strict nature reserves). The main threats are habitat loss and poaching. The globally significant biodiversity of Uzbekistan is protected in a system of protected areas, while in unprotected landscapes, with few remarkable exceptions, due to intensive agricultural use the natural biodiversity has been largely lost. Uzbekistan s protected area system is composed of: eight strict nature reserves (zapovedniks): Chatkal, Hissar, Zaamin, Zeravshan, Kyzylkum, Nutarau, Surkhan and Kitab with a total area of around 2,024 km², two national parks: Ugam Chatkal NP and Zaamin NP with total 5987 km²; 10 State reserves for special purposes (zakazniks 15,092 km²) and five state nature monuments (35 km²). Baday Tugay strict nature reserve in 2013 was included within the Lower Amudarya Biosphere Reserve (687 km²). The National Ecocenter Jeyran is a large enclosure (about 200 km²) for semi-captive breeding of rare desert animal species including goitered gazelle, Turkmen kulan, and Przewalski s horse. Endangered MacQueen s bustards are reared under artificial conditions in a number of nurseries in the Navoiy and Bukhara regions for subsequent release into the wild. They are hunted by falconers from Arab countries. The development and update of the Red Book is the responsibility of the Uzbek Academy of Sciences. The Red Book, as it is defined in the statute, is a permanent publication and must be reviewed at least once in ten years. Since 2003 the national Red Book applies categories that are based on the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, version 3.1 (2001), using quantitative criteria for the evaluation of species extinction risk in the wild. However, the categories applied in the recent Red Book edition do not yet reflect entirely the extinction risk as evaluated according to these IUCN Red List criteria. For instance, markhor is assessed as CR, despite of a growing population number recorded over the past three generations, while saiga is still assessed as VU although numbers have dramatically declined. This is just an example as to why the customary Red List concept needs review and modernization. Major threats to biodiversity consist presently in poaching, overgrazing, deforestation and other habitat loss. The protected areas are meant to provide a safe haven for wildlife, but cannot serve this purpose due to inefficient management and a general lack of effective protection. In general it is a misconception to restrict species conservation to protected areas. About 95% of the country is unprotected and species conservation cannot succeed, if these areas are not included in a broader species conservation approach. The ratification of CBD in 1995 stimulated the development and approval of the National Strategy and Action Plan of the Conservation of Biological Diversity (1998). Currently 57

30 2. Legal Framework 58 the GEF-UNDP project National Schedule in Biodiversity in Support of the Implementation of the CBD Strategic Plan in Uzbekistan in , which addresses the country s need to continue to fulfill its obligations under the CBD, is in progress. Hunting Local hunters are mostly members of the Association of Hunters and Fishers, which has about 38,000 members. International trophy hunting tourism is not well developed in Uzbekistan, and there are just a few hunting tourists visiting the country each year. There are five companies which offer trophy hunting for Siberian ibex, roe deer and wild boar. One company advertises in the Internet hunts on several species that are endangered. Argali hunting is prohibited, as they are listed in Red Book, but the Government of Uzbekistan has approved small annual quotas in the past. Arab falconers intensively hunt the MacQueen s bustard despite its status as Red Book species during migration; and the impact of these hunts and the effect of the release of captive bred bustards on the native populations are not well studied. Quotas for game animals are issued once a year. They are based on recommendations by the Academy of Sciences (Institute of the Gene Pool of Flora and Fauna), which are reviewed by an interagency panel commission. The suggested quotas are submitted to two different decision- making bodies, depending on the status of the species in question. For rare species, the institute s quota recommendations are submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers for final approval. For all other species, the State Committee for Nature Protection is the final authority. While the institute s recommendations probably carry significant weight, they are legally only recommendations and can be changed by the final decision makers. In Uzbekistan, all wildlife is the property of the state (Constitution of Republic of Uzbekistan 55). Overall, wildlife management is regulated by the Law on the Use and Conservation of Fauna (1997) with regulatory details specifically for hunting supplied by the Regulation on Hunting and Fishing in Uzbekistan (2006). In addition, Appendix No. 2 to Cabinet of Ministers Decree No. 290 (2014) establishes the procedures for regulation the use of animals species including import and export of species listed in CITES Appendices across Uzbekistan s borders. The Law on the Use and Conservation of Fauna (LUCF) establishes the framework for wildlife use and conservation in Uzbekistan. The LUCF follows a relatively standard format in the breakdown of its sections. The first section focuses on the general framework for wildlife management, defining the overall purpose of the law, rights and duties of government and private citizens, monitoring requirements, inter-agency coordination, and economic incentives. The second section defines the types of users and uses of wildlife, outlines permissions and prohibitions, and provides for ex-situ wildlife management. The third section establishes various requirements and procedures for wildlife conservation including culling, habitat conservation, and the listing and protection of rare and threatened species. The fourth section is concerned with civil and criminal sanctions and dispute resolution. The LUCF is a framework law that requires specification through a series of bylaws. Supplementing the framework requirements of the LUCF is the Regulation on Hunting and Fishing in Uzbekistan (RHF), one of the most important legislative acts relevant to hunting. This regulation is divided into two major sections treating hunting and fishing separately. The RHF details the status of wildlife ownership, establishes hunting seasons for certain species, designates hunting areas, delegates specific authorities to identified government agencies, and sets forth a detailed list of rights and 59

31 responsibilities of hunters. Appendix 2 to Cabinet Ministry Decree No. 209 (CMD No. 290) is a critical part of Uzbekistan s hunting management legislation. Among other things, it establishes permitting procedures for trophy hunting, regulates hunting by foreign citizens, and implements CITES import and export requirements. 60 The purpose of the LUCF and RHF together is to regulate the hunting and trapping of game animals, the use of hunting grounds, the conservation of rare and threatened species, and habitat protection. The RHF divides hunting into four major categories commercial, sport and leisure, special purpose, and scientific and delegates primary management responsibility to Gosbiokontrol, the Department of Protected Areas, National Parks and Hunting Management, and the Institute of the Gene Pool of Flora and Fauna, although an important decision making function remains with the Cabinet of Ministers (approval of trophy hunting quotas for Red Book listed species). The CMD No. 209 regulates domestic procedures for the implementation of CITES requirements and is relevant in this respect for its actual or potential impact on trophy hunting of CITES listed species in Uzbekistan. The scientific authority is the Institute of the Gene Pool of Flora and Fauna and the management authority is Gosbiokontrol. The Law on Protected Areas (2005, 2014) regulates establishment, protection and use of natural protected areas in Uzbekistan. Protected areas are state owned and protected by the state. They are supposed to form an ecological network designed for biological and landscape diversity and maintaining ecological balance. The Law on Protected Areas addresses territorial protection of typical, unique, valuable natural landscapes, genetic diversity of animals and plants, and the prevention of negative human effects, as well as monitoring of biodiversity and environmental education in protected areas.

32 62 International Conventions Uzbekistan is party to CBD since The country is a member of CITES since 1997, but owes to the CITES Trust Fund unpaid contributions since then, amounting currently in total USD 13,118 (2015). Also Uzbekistan is a member of CMS since In 2006 Uzbekistan signed the MOU concerning the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of the Saiga antelope, as well as MOUs concerning Bukhara deer and Siberian crane. 3. Institutional Framework The State Committee for Nature Protection (Goskompriroda) is responsible for coordinating general nature protection activities and implementing government policy on protection of the natural environment and the use and restoration of natural resources. Within Goskompriroda, the State Inspection for the Protection of Wildlife and Plants (Gosbiokontrol) is responsible for conservation of flora and fauna and protected area management. Protected area management is limited to one Strict Nature Reserve (Hissar), the Jeyran Ecocenter, and eight zakazniks. The Main Department of Forestry (Glavleskhoz), formerly known as the State Committee for Forestry (Goskomles), was transferred in 1998 to the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources. Its Department of Protected Areas, National Parks and Hunting Management has primary responsibilities for the management and protection of forests and forest resources, including zakazniks, strictly protected areas and national parks on forested lands. It also manages and supervises hunting on forestlands, including setting up joint ventures for foreign hunting tourism activities. The protection of forestry resources is carried out by the State Forestry Inspection, with a staff of more than 1,000 inspectors (as of 1996), including those from the main department s headquarters, regional departments, forest nurseries, and state reserves. The State Committee on Geology and Mineral Resources is responsible only for one preserve Kitab strict nature reserve. The Hokimiyat of Tashkent region (province administration) is responsible for management of two protected territories: Ugam-Chatkal national park and Chatkal reserve, which is core zone of the park. The Academy of Sciences, which includes the Institute of the Gene Pool of Flora and Fauna, leads Uzbekistan s academic institutions. It conducts scientific research on taxonomy, biology and ecology of animals and plants, their monitoring and status evaluation. The Institute is responsible for the update of the Red Book. It also suggests annual quota for game animals to the respective decision making bodies. These suggestions are non-binding, thus often resulting in decision making that at least partially diverges from a purely science-based approach. Among the non-governmental organizations relevant to wildlife management, the most prominent is Uzbekistan s Association of Hunters and Fishermen (Uzbekokhotribolovobedinenie, formerly Uzbekokhotribolovsoyuz). It is essentially a non-governmental organization established under Soviet rule and fulfilling some functions of public administration. Local branches are located throughout the territory and they are a major player in the licensing of hunters and the issuance of hunting permits, as well as the sale of firearms. The organization does not own any land, but the individual hunting societies have territories assigned as hunting grounds. Other non-governmental organizations involved in the field of environment protection and natural resources are Uzbekistan s Zoological Society, Uzbekistan Society for the Protection of Birds, and others. 4. Support provided by German Development Cooperation GIZ has not supported wildlife management in Uzbekistan, but the country benefitted from regional support.

33 Web resources: Website of State Committee for Nature Protection: Website of Institute of the Gene Pool of plants and animals: Text of the Law on the Use and Conservation of Fauna: Text of the Law on Protected Areas (Russian): Text of the Law on Ecological Examination (Russian): Text of the Regulation on Hunting and Fishing in Uzbekistan: id= Sources used: 64 Alihanov, B.B. (2008). About a Condition of Environment and Use of Natural Resources in Republic of Uzbekistan (the Retrospective Analysis for ), National Report of the State Committee for Nature Protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent. IUCN. (2001). IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: version 3.1. IUCN/SSC. IUCN, Gland & Cambridge. Lim V.P., Marmazynskay N.V. (2007). Bukhara red deer in Uzbekistan. Tashkent. Kreuzberg, A.V.-A., Kreuzberg-Mukhina, E.A., Bykova, E.A. (2003). Animal biodiversity status survey and redlisting process in the Republic of Uzbekistan. In: De longh, H.H., O.S. Banki, W. Bergmans and M.J. van der Werfften Bosch. Harmonisation of National Red Lists in Europe. Proceedings of International Seminar 27 and 28 November 2002, The Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection, Mededelingen, N 38, Leiden. Nature Conservation International (NCI). (2006). Assessment Report for the Hunting Section of the Sub-Component Eco-Tourism and Sustainable Hunting of GEF/UNDP project Establishment of the Nuratau-Kyzylkum Biosphere Reserve as a Model for Biodiversity Conservation In Uzbekistan. Red Data Book of the Republic of Uzbekistan (2009). Animals. V.2, Tashkent.

34 #2 Cooperation in Wildlife Management: Regional Aspects and Challenges in Central Asia

35 Cooperation in Wildlife Management: Regional Aspects and Challenges in Central Asia 68 Natalya Yakusheva Introduction Central Asia is a strategic region located on the crossroads between major growing markets of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. It is in the process of rapid transformation, facing common socio-economic, political, environmental and security challenges (Rakhimov, 2010). The region holds significant deposits of mineral, energy and transboundary water resources that are currently under extensive exploitation or development. The importance of Central Asia as a transport corridor between Asia and Europe is increasingly acknowledged and several large-scale infrastructure projects (roads, railroads, and pipelines) are underway across the region (Wingard et al., 2014, Rakhimov, 2010). Potentially the region s transit capacity can double in the period (Vinokurov, 2009). However, it is also a region where ethnic tensions, border disputes, and military conflicts pose significant threats to political stability. Furthermore, the level of social inequality is high and despite economic growth rural population in large parts of Central Asia is impoverished and dependent on subsistence farming and livestock herding, and very limited alternative employment opportunities are available (Karlstetter & Mallon, 2014). At the same time, it is one of the few remaining regions in the world where ecologically important large mammals migrations can be still observed (UNEP/CMS (a), 2014). The global importance of the unique combination of wildlife and plants in this region is recognized and the mountains of Central Asia (the Tien Shan, the Pamir) are named as biodiversity hotspots (CI, 2014). The region hosts important populations of wild mountain ungulates such as argali, Siberian ibex, and big cats, e.g., snow leopard. The lower elevations are inhabited, among other species, by critically endangered saiga antelope, goitered gazelle, and Bukhara deer. The populations of many species are also transboundary, i.e., migrate across national borders; thus, cooperation among countries is required to ensure that up to date information is available and proper management measures are in place. The rapid socio-economic development through extensive use of natural resources and building of infrastructure without taking into proper consideration the environmental aspects and needs of wildlife may lead to irreversible negative impacts on the ecosystems. Further, habitat fragmentation and increasing barriers to migrations from such development will add to existing threats to wildlife such as overgrazing already resulting in habitat degradation, expansion of human settlements, and illegal hunting and poaching (Wingard et al., 2014). And Central Asia is more prone to climate change and is warming faster than the global average. This is likely to have detrimental effects on wildlife through increasing habitat degradation and driving animals to higher elevations and unfavorable conditions (Karlstetter & Mallon, 2014). Wildlife is one of the most valuable renewable resources in Central Asia. Its sustainable consumptive and non-consumptive uses (trophy hunting, nature tourism) can create commercial opportunities and provide further economic, social and environmental benefits (Mischler, 2006). The obtained financial resources can contribute to reducing rural poverty (e.g., through provision of employment), improving local livelihoods (e.g., through investing in local small-scale infrastructure), and supporting biodiversity conservation and other environmental objectives (e.g., through providing resources to protected 69

36 70 areas) (Rosen, 2012). The sustainability aspect of wildlife management in Central Asia should be further addressed at the international, regional, national and local levels as it is of crucial importance for securing long-term benefits for both species populations and socio-economic development. Regional cooperation in wildlife management aiming to promote synergies, share experiences and find solutions for common challenges can further support countries in building up resilient systems of wildlife management and ensure more coherent approaches to the existing threats. Regional cooperation under international conventions There are number of global conventions and Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) relevant to biodiversity conservation in Central Asia including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), and others. This review particularly focuses on the above-mentioned agreements, as others either have less direct relevance for wildlife management or are less active in the region. Table 1. Status of accession to CBD, CITES and CMS of the countries in focus, as of March 2015 The CBD is the key biodiversity convention defining overall global targets and principles for conservation of biodiversity. A National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) sets countries commitments under the CBD. All the countries discussed here are parties to CBD and adopted NBSAP thereby defining national priorities on ecosystems, habitats and species conservation. However, often these plans are rather generic and do not provide a detailed description (Karlstetter & Mallon, 2014). The CBD and NBSAP are important frameworks defining the scope of national commitments and a framework for other MEAs and regional initiatives reviewed below. In line with the adopted MOU (2002), CITES and CMS work closely together, aiming to strengthen their cooperation and bring more coherent regional approaches to the conservation and sustainable use of species covered by these Conventions. In Central Asia the collaboration on the saiga antelope and the argali are of special significance (UNEP/CMS (a) 2011). All the countries discussed here, except Turkmenistan and Tajikistan (the process of accession is underway and expected to be finalized soon), are parties to CITES. CITES activities in the region seek to strengthen capacities to implement the convention, to prevent overexploitation, and to ensure legal trade in wild fauna and flora does not exceed sustainable levels (Mallon, 2014). In order to fulfill these tasks the CITES Secretariat, together with the wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC, regularly issues various reports focused on monitoring of legal trade, technical aspects of trade on the listed species significant for trophy hunting (e.g., argali, brown bear, wolf, saiga) and undertakes a scope assessment of poaching and illegal trade (e.g., Meibom et al., 2010, Mallon 2013, Parry-Jones 2013). These reports are important tools for collection of knowledge and fostering of information exchange on a regional scale. They also provide unified technical guidance for various aspects of wildlife trade (especially in regards to trophy hunting) highly demanded by national CITES authorities. The recent EU-CITES capacity building project is focused on CITES implementation and issues of wildlife trade within established Eurasian Custom Union (ECU), a common economic space of Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). The ECU was established in 2011, when internal physical border controls between member states Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation were eliminated. Armenia and Kyrgyzstan joined the Union in 2014 and 2015, respectively. It is likely that also Tajikistan will join in the near future. Potentially the establishment of such wide border-free space may have implications for wildlife trade and complicate the implementation and enforcement of CITES at the regional level as internal control is weakened. According to some anecdotal evidences, illegal trade of wildlife, including hunting trophies, already persist across the Tajik-Kyrgyz border and are likely to increase if border control weakens (e.g., in case of ECU) (Rosen, 2012). In order to mitigate the possible impacts the following measures are recommended: i) addressing gaps in national legislation, ii) enhancing the co-operation between the CITES management authorities and enforcement staff, iii) ensuring regular training for enforcement staff, and iv) improving reporting to CITES (both on legal and illegal trade) (Vaisman et al., 2013). Improvement of coordinated law enforcement at the regional level thus deserves further attention and support to address current political changes. Furthermore, the CITES Secretariat aims to enhance the implementation of the convention through supporting 1 capacity-building training and workshops, by e.g., the Green Customs Initiative (GCI) and TRAFFIC. The GCI Workshop in Kazakhstan specifically addressed the issue of wildlife trade within the ECU (GCI, 1 The Green Customs Initiative is a partnership of international organizations cooperating to prevent the illegal trade in environmentally-sensitive commodities and facilitation of the legal trade in these. 71

37 ). Significant efforts under the Wildlife Management Component of the GIZ Regional Programme for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Central Asia are made in assisting countries in the development/review of national legislations and enforcement systems, strengthening the provisions of the CITES nationally and regionally. With the exception of the Russian Federation and Turkmenistan, the Central Asian countries are parties to the CMS. The recent accession of Kyrgyzstan (2014) became an important milestone strengthening CMS presence in the region. The existing CMS instruments for Central Asia vary greatly starting from single species and threat based instruments to a recently adopted comprehensive conservation framework: Central Asian Mammals Initiative (CAMI). Three instruments addressing conservation of single species are: MOU Concerning Conservation and Restoration of the Bukhara Deer (2002), MOU Concerning Conservation, Restoration and Sustainable Use of the Saiga Antelope (2006) and the International Single Species Action Plan for the Conservation of Argali (2014). The Bukhara Deer MOU was signed by Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan and its implementation was supported by the Action Plan adopted on the First Meeting of Signatories (UNEP/CMS (b), 2011). The Saiga MOU was signed by all range states, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, the Russian Federation and Turkmenistan, and a Medium-Term International Work Programme is also in place (UNEP/CMS (a), 2010). Both MOUs managed to bring together key range states, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the research community to work in close collaboration for the conservation of the species, consolidate available resources, promote information exchange and raise awareness on the threats and conservation needs of the respective species at the national and regional levels (UNEP/CMS (c), 2011, UNEP/ CMS (b), 2010). Thanks to the joint efforts of governments, NGOs, scientists and donor organizations 2 populations of both species have stabilized and currently show slight increase. The argali is the world biggest wild sheep, and its trophies are highly valued among international trophy hunters. In countries where hunting is allowed it brings significant budget revenues. This charismatic animal is also crucial for the Central Asian mountain ecosystems, as it is an important prey species for snow leopard and wolf (Rosen, 2012). The argali has been listed under the CMS Appendix II in 2011 (UNEP/CMS (d), 2011). The listing gave momentum to the development of further conservation measures. The consultations with key regional stakeholders (governments, NGOs, scientists and representatives of hunting concessions) during the Vilm workshop (see below) contributed to such development. Additionally, the CMS Secretariat with financial support of GIZ commissioned a study Analizing 2 The population of Bukhara deer has recovered from about 350 individuals (1999) to around 1900 (2011), excluding population numbers from Afghanistan and China. The saiga population was as low as 50,000 by 2002 and to date is estimated at 200,000. However, trends on different saiga populations vary greatly (data from Karlstetter & Mallon, 2014). Gaps and Options for Enhancing Argali Conservation in Central Asia within the Context of the CMS to identify the best options for the conservation of the argali. Due to the transboundary character of their migration a non-legally binding instrument (MOU and Action Plan) under the umbrella of CMS was considered the best way forward (Rosen, 2012). With the continuous support from GIZ, the first draft of the Action Plan was developed during the second workshop, which took place in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan (2-4 December 2012). Finally, after additional rounds of consultation on the updated version the Action Plan for argali was submitted and adopted by the 11th CMS Conference of the Parties (Mallon et al., 2014). The plan covers the period of and suggests activities related to the research and monitoring, protection of argali habitat and migration routes, sustainable use, policy and governance, and regional cooperation (Mallon et al., 2014). The future success of implementation directly depends on the continuous collaboration and efforts undertaken by all the parties involved. The CMS also promotes regional cooperation to address the threats arising from rapid growth of linear infrastructure in Central Asia, specifically to understand and reduce its impact on migratory mammals. Removing barriers to migration has become a key priority for the conservation and free movement of many steppe and mountain ungulates (Lkhagvasuren et al, 2011, Olson 2013). The installation of new border fences, e.g., between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and between several Central Asian countries and China, might be a case in point. These developments pose a physical barrier and prevent large mammals movement causing fragmentation of populations (e.g., saiga, argali) and resulting in higher vulnerability and genetic isolation. Regional cooperation in finding a balance between national border security and landscape permeability, essential for wildlife migration, could bring a real conservation impact. Thus, the adopted CMS Guidelines for Addressing the Impact of Linear Infrastructure on Migratory Large Mammals in Central Asia seek to provide a coherent approach to mitigation of these impacts on wildlife across the region (Wingard et al., 2014). Recognizing common existing threats to wildlife across Central Asia and building upon multiple CMS mandates to work in the region, CMS endorsed the concept of the CAMI. It is a coherent framework for coordinated conservation action on migratory mammals in Central Asia. The CAMI covers 15 species, 3 including argali, snow leopard, Bukhara deer, saiga and others that occur in 14 range states (Afghanistan, Bhutan, China, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) (UNEP/CMS (b), 2014). The CAMI aims to make the best use of synergies among existing projects and conservation activities, to promote information exchange and raise awareness on the importance of Central Asian wildlife, and 3 Additionally it includes: wild camel, wild yak, cheetah, Mongolian gazelle, goitered gazelle, kulan, kiang, chiru, Przewalski s horse, Tibetan gazelle and chinkara. 73

38 potentially provide a more strategic distribution of funding. The initiative, including the prior assessment study of gaps and needs, received financial and in-kind support from the Governments of Switzerland, Germany and the European Union through the GIZ implemented FLERMONECA project (Karlstetter & Mallon, 2014). The list of the above-mentioned initiatives is not exclusive and rather presents common approaches and trends in regional cooperation facilitated by the international conventions, e.g., knowledge exchange, stakeholder consultations, steering of a dialogue, and providing common guidelines to address threats and technical aspects of conservation. It is hard to evaluate the actual on the ground success of regional cooperation promoted by international actors. However, the emergence 4 of region-wide conservation programmes, such us Global Snow Leopard Ecosystem Program (GSLEP), initiated and launched by the range states themselves with the support of various international stakeholders (e.g., CMS, CITES, World Bank) can be seen as a sign of learning the importance of regional cooperation and also indicate readiness of Central Asian countries to undertake a proactive approach to development of comprehensive conservation collaboration. Regional learning and knowledge exchange The importance of knowledge and experience sharing among countries cannot be overestimated. The updates on legal and policy measures, status of the populations, monitoring results and actual threats are the key for adoption of sound and timely conservation and sustainable use measures. Central Asia has long been a focus of the International Academy for Nature Conservation Isle of Vilm (INA) of the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) for training and capacity building. A series of workshops specifically designed to address various issues of wildlife management were held by INA and BfN and co-organized by GIZ and CMS. The first workshop, Monitoring of Wildlife Populations and Determining Sustainable Hunting Levels Methods of Resource Assessment, Data Processing and Quota Setting in the Context of International Requirements (2011), brought together experts from governmental agencies and scientific institutions from Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to discuss methods for monitoring wildlife populations and determining sustainable hunting levels. Participants agreed on first steps to improve their cooperation on the transboundary management of endangered mountain ungulates, such as argali, urial sheep, wild goats and the saiga antelope (Argali network, 2012). The second workshop, 4 Global Snow Leopard & Ecosystem Protection Programme Sustainable Management of Central Asian Game Animals (2012), focused on the cooperation for the transboundary management and sustainable use of the argali. Representatives of governmental agencies, hunting companies, scientific institutions and NGOs shared their experiences on sustainable hunting approaches and wildlife management, including quota setting, population monitoring and wildlife diseases. Speakers from Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Denver Zoological Foundation, TRAFFIC, International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), GIZ, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and CMS provided insight into good international practices of wildlife conservation such as the development of economic incentives for local communities engagement and appropriate ways to organize regional cooperation (WS Report, unpublish., 2012). This workshop greatly contributed to the development of the International Single Species Action Plan for the Conservation of Argali under CMS (see above) and provided an initial input on necessary measures and tasks. In 2013 a Vilm workshop on Minimizing Conflicts between Migrating Wildlife and Mining in Central Asia brought to the discussion the threats to wildlife migration posed by rapid industrial and infrastructure development in the region. The workshop identified international best practices and discussed challenges to implementing effective mitigation measures. Participants from Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan agreed on a Declaration of Intent and Joint Action Plan to address ongoing developments in a timely manner and possibly avoid irreversible impacts (UNEP/CMS (c), 2014). Another regional platform addressing sustainable use and conservation of wildlife resources was organized under a collaboration between the Wildlife Initiative for Central Asia and the Caucasus (WICAC) collaboration led by FAO Forestry Department and the CIC and supported by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, the Czech National FAO Committee, the Czech Forestry and Game Management Research Institute, the Turkish Forestry Department, and GIZ. Four workshops were held in the Czech Republic (2006 and 2009), Turkey (2008), and Kazakhstan (2010) (CIC, N/A). The workshops covered various topics related to wildlife management including game management, legal aspects and law development, research and monitoring, poaching and illegal trade, wildlife diseases, and economic benefits and perspectives of the community-based wildlife programmes in the region. Further, the workshops introduced the best international practices for the topics in focus. Overall workshops encouraged the knowledge exchange and provided a forum for the discussion among countries in the region on the current state of the wildlife law, policy and management. The knowledge and experiences shared during the workshops were documented in the synthesis report Developing Sustainable Wildlife Management Laws in Western and Central Asia that reviewed existing national legislations on the topic and suggested review/revision where required (Morgera et al., 2009). 75

39 76 In addition to this, GIZ supported the establishment and maintenance of the information platform Argali Network ( for knowledge gathering and exchange. Overall, regional stakeholders acknowledge improved cooperation, communication and networking between national and international stakeholders that indicate positive results of the efforts undertaken (Karlstetter & Mallon, 2014). Challenges and lessons learnt Despite the above described numerous activities and initiatives, regional cooperation in Central Asia still faces a number of challenges. The reasons for this are manifold from mere practical (availability of resources, language barrier) to more strategic, including wider influence of economic and geopolitical situation, and cultural perceptions (different value of wildlife and hunting). Further continuous financing of the regional cooperation, ensured over a long-term period to support wildlife management in accordance with the best international practices, seems to be a crucial challenge for Central Asia (Karlstetter & Mallon, 2014). The donor support should continue to aim to strengthen governance, staff capacity and law enforcement at the national and regional levels, as well as empowering local communities. There is a clear need for young professionals in wildlife management and for conservation scientists that could take a lead on the national or regional level. Raising the attractiveness of this career perspective among young people through the promotion of training and post-graduate education in close cooperation with national universities and schools (e.g., through exchange programmes, themed scholarships) is necessary (Karlstetter & Mallon, 2014). The common research and monitoring programmes aiming to standardize the methods employed are needed in order to ensure comparability and quality of the available data. The joint projects especially for transboundary populations of species may bring further improvement to the policy employed and management instruments. Lastly, regular research on the socio-economic aspects of wildlife use and threats may also facilitate policy measures. The continuous communication and the exchange of knowledge and best practices on science, policy, management and coordination at the regional level continue to be a challenge and need to be further strengthened. The success of conservation measures requires multi-stakeholder partnership and integrated efforts as the threats and challenges faced are complex and solutions need a consolidation of considerable resources. Ongoing conservation programmes include simultaneously stakeholders from all governance levels (from international to local). Thus, the question of ownership frequently arises. Who is responsible for the ultimate results and whose responsibility is it to ensure a follow-up and dissemination of the information? Experience demonstrates that regional cooperation has higher chances to bring tangible results when strong leading partners on the ground take initiative, support implementation and develop a sense of ownership for the conservation and sustainable use of species. Thus, further empowerment of the national and local stakeholders is a key to success. 77

40 Sources used: 78 Argali network (2012). Central Asian countries develop road map towards trans-boundary conservation of argali International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) (n/a) Wildlife Initiative for Central Asia and the Caucasus (WICAC) Conservation International (CI) (2014) Biodiversity Hotspots. Mountains of Central Asia. cepf.net/resources/hotspots/europe-and-central-asia/pages/mountains-of-central-asia.aspx Fischer, M., Joldubaeva, L., Yermolyonok, D. (2014). Sustainable Management of Wildlife in Central Asia. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Bonn. Green Custom Initiative (GCI) (2012) htm Karlstetter, M. & Mallon, D. (2014). Assessment of gaps and needs in migratory mammal conservation in Central Asia. UNEP/CMS Secretariat. Bonn. Lkhagvasuren, B., Chimeddorj, B., Sanjmyatav, D. (2011). Barriers to Migration: Case Study in Mongolia. Analysing the Effects of Infrastructure on Migratory Terrestrial Mammals in Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar. ern and Central Asia. Joint publication of FAO and CIC. Budapest. Olson, K. (2013). Saiga Crossing Options Guidelines and Recommendations to Mitigate Barrier Effects of Border Fencing and Railroad Corridors on Saiga Antelope in Kazakhstan. Parry-Jones, R. (2013). Framework for CITES Non-Detriment Findings for Hunting Trophies, with a Focus on Argali (Ovis Ammon). TRAFFIC Report. Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. (CITES), Geneva. Rakhimov, M. (2010). Internal and external dynamics of regional cooperation in Central Asia. Journal of Eurasian Studies 1: Report of the workshop Sustainable Management of Central Asian Game Animals, Isle of Vilm, Germany 22nd 26th March 2012 (Unpublished). Rosen, T. (2012) Analizing Gaps and Options for Enhancing Argali Conservation in Central Asia within the Context of the CMS. UNEP/CMS Secretariat and GIZ GmbH. Bonn. UNEP/CMS (2002). MOU between The Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. UNEP/CMS/ScC12/Inf Mallon, D. (2013). Trophy Hunting of CITES Listed Species in Central Asia. CITES Secretariat. Geneva. Mallon, D., Singh, N., Röttger, C. (2014). International Single Species Action Plan for the Conservation of the Argali (Ovis Ammon). UNEP/CMS Secretariat. Bonn. von Meibom, S., Vaisman, A., Neo Liang, S.H., Ng, J., Xu, H. (2010). Saiga Antelope Trade: Global Trends with Focus on South-East Asia. TRAFFIC Europe & CITES Secretariat. Brussels. Mischler, A. (2006). Wildlife Policy and Institutions for Sustainable Use and Conservation of Wildlife Resources. Joint FAO/Czech Republic Workshop. UNEP/CMS (a) (2010) Medium-Term International Work Programme for the Saiga Antelope ( ). UNEP/CMS/SA-2/Report UNEP/CMS (b) (2010) Progress Towards the Fulfillment of the CMS Medium-Term International Work Programme for the Saiga Antelope for UNEP/CMS (a) (2011) Cooperation between CMS and CITES. 8th Meeting of the Standing Committee. Bergen, Norway. UNEP/CMS/StC38/Doc.3 UNEP/CMS (b) (2011) Action Plan concerning Conservation and Restoration of the Bukhara Deer (Cervus elaphus bactrianus). UNEP/CMS/BKD1/Inf.2 Morgera, E.,Wingard, J., Fodella, A. (2009). Developing Sustainable Wildlife Management Laws in West- UNEP/CMS (c) (2011) Overview Report for the First Meeting of Signatories to the Memorandum of Un-

41 derstanding Concerning Conservation and Restoration of the Bukhara Deer. UNEP/CMS/BKD1/Doc.6 UNEP/CMS (d) (2011) Proposal for the Inclusion of Species on the Appendices of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Ovis Ammon. Proposal II/ 1. Proposals for the Amendment of the Appendices I and II for the Consideration by the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Bergen, Norway, pp UNEP/CMS (a) 2014 Central Asian Mammals Initiative: Saving the Last Migrations. UNEP/CMS Secretariat. Bonn. UNEP/CMS (b) (2014) COP Resolution 11.24: The Central Asian Mammals Initiative. UNEP/CMS/Resolution UNEP/CMS (c) (2014) Declaration of Intent. Workshop on Minimizing Conflicts between Migrating Wildlife and Mining in Central Asia. of%20intent_vilm_conference.pdf Vaisman, A., Mundy-Taylor, V. and Kecse-Nagy, K. (2013). Wildlife Trade in the Eurasian Custom Union and in Selected Central Asian Countries. Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Geneva. Vinokurov, E., Dzhadraliyev, M., & Shcherbanin, Y. (2009). The EurAsEC Transport Corridors. Eurasian Development Bank, Sector Report. Wingard, J., Zahler, P., Victurine, R., Bayasgalan, O., Buuveibaatar, B. (2014). Guidelines for Addressing the Impact of Linear Infrastructure on Large Migratory Mammals in Central Asia. UNEP/CMS Secretariat. Bonn.

42 #3 Community-based wildlife management in Central Asia

43 Community-based wildlife management in Central Asia 84 Stefan Michel Description of the approach and its specifics in the region Where local people control natural resources, like pastures, forests or wildlife, in the sense that they possess rights and responsibilities and receive direct benefits from their sustainable use, they are likely to manage them sustainably, and to prevent harmful use practices and illegal activities; and thus these resources are more likely to be preserved. This approach can be an effective and cost efficient strategy for the conservation of wildlife, complementary to protected areas and legal regulations. The potential of this approach for the management of game animal populations depends on the specific biology of the target species, social and economic conditions, the market situation for possible sustainable use of wildlife vs. alternative land uses, legal frameworks empowering local people, and various other factors. Local people can benefit through extractive use of wildlife, i.e., hunting, as well as non-extractive use, like nature observation, tourism or the cultural and other values associated with wild animals. Wildlife is also an integral part of functioning and resilient ecosystems, providing services and goods for local people. These benefits are not mutually exclusive and can be of relevance to different parts of local communities. In its strict sense, community-based management refers to a situation where the population of a well-defined rural community, consisting of one or several villages, jointly manages a natural resource as a common property belonging to all households. This resource would formally, or based on customary rights, belong to this community as a whole, and there would institutions in place through which its members make decisions about the use of the resource. In Central Asia such a situation exists where pastures are jointly used by groups of households. In a wider sense, the term community-based is also used in situations where not an entire community is involved, but only some community members, and to some extent other community members or the community as a whole benefit. An example is so-called community-based tourism, where households provide services to tourists; and the community as a whole benefits indirectly due to the overall improvement of the economic situation. Similarly, community-based wildlife management in Central Asia does not fit into the strict definition, but tries to achieve involvement of the community members in a relatively broad manner. In Central Asia, populations of many ungulates like Asiatic ibex (Capra sibirica), argali (Ovis ammon), markhor (Capra falconeri), urial (Ovis vignei), saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica), goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa) and maral (Cervus canadensis), as well as carnivores like snow leopard (Panthera uncia), leopard (P. pardus), cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) and brown bear (Ursus arctos) have declined due to poaching or unsustainable hunting, forage competition with an increasing livestock population and habitat degradation. Protected areas, in particular those with strict restrictions on economic activities, are limited by size; the enforcement of rules is weakened by the lack of financial and human resources and/or insufficient political support. With growing human and livestock populations, even strictly protected areas (zapovedniki, zapovednye zony natsional nykh parkov) are increasingly challenged by pressures to convert them into areas with fewer restrictions on land-use. Outside of protected areas, ungulates may be hunted based on quotas determined by the authorities. Enforcement of hunting bans or of hunting limitations is often difficult for the same reasons as the enforcement of PA regulations. Experience shows that hunting bans do not necessarily prevent serious decline and extinction of local wildlife populations. On the other hand, sustainable use of wildlife - in particular ungulates can provide an important alternative or complementary land-use option. Hunting has a centuries-long tradition in Central Asia. Some of these hunting traditions, like in hunting with falcons, golden eagles and traditional dog breeds, are considered as cultural heritage. Legends related to hunting, as the Kaiberen legend in Kyrgyzstan, highlight sustainability and ethical standards of hunting. Many people still remember traditional hunting restrictions like limits of off take, selection for sex and age of game, seasonal and area limitations, as well as the maximum number of hunters in a community. These customary rules largely lost their power with the state taking over formal ownership of wildlife and the introduction of externally imposed regulations, which were nevertheless often violated, as the Red Books published in the 1980s already indicated. These regulations were widely ignored when the Soviet Union dissolved; and members of local communities as well as outsiders poached intensively. During these years, e.g., saiga population numbers in Kazakhstan dropped by more than 95%, the urial population was exterminated from the Wakhan of Tajikistan, and many other ungulate populations were reduced to very low levels. International hunting tourism started in this region in the late 1980s. Some areas became assigned to companies, owned by outsiders, as hunting concessions. Local people got only involved as temporary service staff, in particular as hunting guides. Contract periods for hunting concessions were short, areas were poorly defined and often too small. Many of these concessionaires used the resource opportunistically and partly illegally and often abandoned the areas after a few years. However, sustainable wildlife management was effective in some concessions, and game populations were rehabilitated and conserved. 85

44 86 With game populations and thus opportunities for local traditional hunters diminishing and at the same time hunting tourism largely benefiting outsiders, members of communities in Tajikistan started to think about how to rehabilitate game populations for trophy hunting, in particular markhor. With the introduction of Joint Forest Management by which management responsibilities on forest plots and benefits from their use are shared between state forest enterprises and local households, local project partners suggested trying similar approaches for wildlife. In model sites in Tajikistan that have potential for being managed by the communities and providing suitable habitat for ungulates, a facilitation and empowerment process started aiming at traditional hunters and other interested community members. During the participatory analysis and planning processes, they understood that past declines of game numbers were a direct effect of unregulated and intensive hunting. While poaching was considered less intense than in the 1990s, continuous pressure prevented a recovery of ungulate populations. Local hunters agreed to establish legally recognized control over the areas used by them, to prevent community members as well as outsiders from poaching, and after recovery of the populations to start a regulated use. Benefits from hunting and tourism would be used to cover costs of wildlife management, reward the participating traditional hunters and support the socio-economic development of the communities. The discussion process within the local initiatives in Tajikistan, and later in Kyrgyzstan, showed that the formal institutions at sub-district and village levels have no authority over wildlife, as all wild animals are in state ownership, with central level agencies being in charge, and wildlife management not being in the mandate of the local levels. An alternative considered in Tajikistan was vesting community-based wildlife management in the non-governmental Village Organizations and their associations at the sub-district (jamoat) level. These organizations, however, did not see conservation and wildlife management as part of their mandate. On the other side, traditional hunters had no interest in integrating their resource in a broader institutional context. Many villages in Central Asia use their pastures and maintain irrigation networks as common property, but people are skeptical towards collective approaches with automatic membership of all households. Such approaches are associated with the former collective farm system and related lack of individual responsibility. People fear that the sustainable use of wildlife would not provide tangible material benefits, if spread evenly among all households. For these reasons, traditional hunters created their own organizational structures and included in their bylaws the conservation and sustainable use of game animals in designated areas, eco-tourism, and support of the wellbeing and development of their communities. In Tajikistan five initiatives choose the form of local non-commercial, non-governmental organizations (NGO, obshchestvennyye organizatsii), while in markhor range areas several family-based small enterprises emerged, which are registered as Limited Liability Companies (LLC). In Kyrgyzstan two community-based initiatives became registered as NGO (obshchestvennyye ob edineniya) and three initiatives are in the process of registering as community-based organizations (jamaat). While LLCs are controlled by very few people, usually by a single family, the NGOs tend to be more inclusive. However, they too can be controlled by a few powerful people and be perceived as serving individual interests, while on the other hand LLCs can benefit the broader community as well. The registered local organizations applied then for the assignment of game management areas (okhotnich i ugod ya). Game management is formally independent of the land-use rights; i.e., land-use rights on a certain area do not include the rights to manage wildlife, while a legal entity to which the rights of game management are assigned, does not have other land-use rights. However, community-based 87

45 Description of the approach and its specifics in the region wildlife management provides the opportunity that local land-users manage the wildlife on their lands as well, if game management areas are assigned to legal entities established by them. Due to uncertainty about the legal procedure in Tajikistan, some areas were leased from forest enterprises, others were assigned as fixed-term land-use of state reserve land; some areas were assigned as hunting grounds by district authorities, while others were assigned by the republic level agency in charge of forestry and hunting. In Kyrgyzstan, the Department for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources (formerly called the Hunting Department) assigns game management areas in a competitive process. Additionally, some of the members of local organizations acquired the status of voluntary rangers of the forest, hunting or nature protection authorities. On the basis of their assigned rights and responsibilities in game management, the active members of these organizations act as rangers and engage in activities like protection against poaching, some habitat management, population monitoring and guiding. Harvest of game animals is based on permits issued by the state agencies in charge of hunting management. The quotas are suggested by the local organizations on the basis of their game survey results. For trophy hunts, the local organizations purchase all permits on behalf of the hunting tourist and provide all services. Their members guide the tourist and process the trophy for shipping. Other services like pack animals, vehicle-transport, accommodation and cooking might be provided by other community members. The price of the package includes all these costs and the commission, if sold via an outfitter. Expenses for permit fees, payments for import and export of the hunters rifles and ammunition, food purchased outside of the community and transportation from the airport to the hunting area are included in the price of the hunt too. Only a certain part of what the client pays stays in the community, normally around 50-70%. From this remaining income, services provided by members of the organization and other community members are paid, thus providing individual income at the community level. Similarly, income from nature tourism benefits those providing local services, while the local organizations so far do not charge a share or fee. Profit made by the local organization from the trophy hunts covers the operating costs of the organization and of specific activities, and projects for local social-economic development are supported. In the case of LLCs shareholders earn income. The German government in 2007 had commissioned GIZ to plan and implement a regional project on sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity in Central Asia with a focus on wildlife. The project assessment mission in 2008 identified Kazakhstan and Tajikistan as project countries. In 2009 this project was integrated in the Regional Programme for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Central Asia, which then partnered with two NGOs that received grant support (Tajikistan) and grant support and later a subcontract (Kazakhstan). Integrated experts provided by CIM provided technical guidance to both NGOs. These NGOs got additional funding from other donors for wildlife conservation activities. From September 2012 until September 2014, consulting companies implemented the activities in Tajikistan on behalf of GIZ. The partner NGO in Kazakhstan did not engage with community-based wildlife management, but focused on other issues. In Tajikistan the project team integrated the GIZ support into a broader project on Community-based Conservation and Management of Mountain Ungulates involving a number of community-based NGOs and LLCs and collaborating with national agencies and scientific institutes. The project was additionally supported by international organizations like the Zoological Society for the Conservation of Species and Populations (ZGAP) and Panthera. From 2010 until 2014 the Regional Programme replicated 88 tourism. Subsistence hunting so far does not play any role, as permit fees are too high compared to the value of meat, population numbers are too low for combining subsistence and trophy hunting, and most of the members of local organizations do not possess hunting rifles. The quota for ibex could either be used for selling hunts to international hunters or for their own best practices from this project into Kyrgyzstan in two communities, involving AkTerek, a national subsistence hunting. Quota for markhor, urial, wild boar and argali would only be used for hunting NGO, as implementation partner for local community mobilization. 89 The activities supported until September 2014 by the Regional Programme included facilitation and empowerment of community initiatives in model areas, assistance in the development of community-based NGOs and in the assignment of game management areas to them, provision of basic equipment (uniforms, field and optical equipment), technical advice and training on population surveys, management planning and provision of services to tourists and trophy hunters. Further, the Regional Programme (together with the CIM expert) supported an enabling legal environment, in particular, the development of laws on hunting and game management in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Community based wildlife management: Achievements and status of introduction In Tajikistan the first community-based NGO for wildlife management, Parcham in the Ravmeddara Gorge, was registered in November 2008, and acquired land-use rights over 470 km² that were assigned by the district authorities. Soon after, the Committee on Environmental Protection of GBAO Region recognized the 12 active members of the NGO as voluntary inspectors. The State Forestry

46 Agency in September 2011 assigned to Parcham the rights and responsibilities on game management in this area. Following this example, other communities established similar organizations and applied for the assignment of game management areas. Some attempts were unsuccessful where communities lacked sufficiently energetic organizers; private concessionaires had already been assigned the rights; or where areas were not suitable. To date three additional conservancies have been established in the Pamirs: Darshaydara, managed by the NGO Yoquti Darshay (2010; 413 km²); Zong, managed by the NGO Yuz Palang (2013; 415 km²), and Alichur, managed by the NGO Burgut (2013; 927 km²). Overview of CBWM-areas in Tajikistan The area of these community-based conservancies at the end of 2014 covered 2,248 km², protected and managed by 40 volunteer rangers. In the markhor range areas in the Darvaz and Hazratishoh mountain ranges one NGO Muhofiz (since 2011) and the three family-based LLCs M-Sayod (since 2004), Morkhur (since around 2008) and Saidi Tagnob (since 2012) manage together about 600 km². The area where community-based organizations actively protect wildlife covers now almost 3,000 km². Project staff together with the rangers surveyed game populations through direct counts. Trends in population sizes are difficult to determine due to variations in survey effort and detectability. Still, these surveys show minimum population numbers in each game management area. In December 2014 in all four sites in the Pamirs in total, Panthera staff and rangers recorded 1,459 ibex and 251 argali. In the markhor areas that are protected by the above-mentioned organizations a survey in March 2014 yielded 1,113 markhor, 158 ibex and 37 urials. Comparison of survey data over the years shows stable or increasing numbers, good reproduction and presence of trophy age males. Ungulates are now less shy and easier to observe, a response to reduced poaching. Panthera s camera trap records of 21 snow leopards in total from five game management areas additionally indicate healthy ungulate populations. 90 In late autumn of 2012 the first hunting tourist took an ibex in the area managed by the NGO Parcham : 91 for the first time its members and the community earned legal income from wildlife use, as well as meat and a contribution to a micro-credit scheme. In community-based conservancies in the Pamirs, during the hunting seasons of 2012/13 through 2014/15, 12 foreign hunters legally harvested 11 Asiatic ibex in three conservancies. A number of tourists hunted wild boar in the markhor areas, and during the hunting seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15 foreign hunters took legally 11 markhor. Additionally, nature tourism provides some income for conservancies and community members, but hunting tourism provides much more substantial income per client. At the 12th meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2014 the Tajikistan Mountain Ungulates Project with the involved community-based organizations has been honored with the CIC Markhor Award. With this prize the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation recognizes and celebrates outstanding conservation performance by personalities, private and government institutions, enterprises or conservation projects that link the conservation of biodiversity and human livelihoods through the application of the principles of sustainable use, in particular hunting.

47 Diagram population development in four community-based game management areas in the Pamirs of Tajikistan: In Kyrgyzstan, since 2010 two local NGOs registered in Chong-Kemin (Chuy Region) and Ak-Suu (Issyk- Kul Region) and the Department for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources assigned them game management areas of about 180 km² and 700 km², respectively. The smaller of these areas includes grasslands, coniferous forests and cliffs and thus suitable habitat for each of the ungulate species roe deer, maral and ibex is possibly small for supporting population sizes allowing for sustainable hunting. The Department therefore considers an expansion of the assigned area, thus allowing for a viable operation. Currently populations of all game species are low in both areas, and the NGOs focus on non-extractive use through guided nature tourism. Overview of CBWM-areas in Kyrgyzstan Note: In years for which no values are indicated the game management area was not surveyed