The current Situation of Wildlife Management
in Central Asian Countries
UDS 502/504
LBC 20.1
T47
T47 The current Situation of Wildlife
Management in Central Asian Countries
B.: 2015.-100 p.
ISBN 978-9967-27-744-1
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 1502010000-15
ISBN 978-9967-27-744-1
Author(s)
Stefan Michel, Natalya Yakusheva, Markus Pesch,
Rolf D. Baldus
Responsible
Dr. Stepan Uncovsky
[email protected]
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
1. Wildlife management in Central Asian Countries
1.1 Kazakhstan
1.2 Kyrgyzstan
1.3. Tajikistan
1.4. Turkmenistan
1.5 Uzbekistan
2. Cooperation in Wildlife Management: Regional Aspects and Challenges
in Central Asia
3. Community-based wildlife management in Central Asia
List of Abbreviations
6
9
10
22
34
44
54
67
83
98
Foreword
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.
6
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.
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.
7
#1
Wildlife management in Central Asian Countries
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.
hunting moratorium is in place until 2020. 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 2003. Bukhara deer (Cervus elaphus bactrianus) are protected in the Karatchingil State
Hunting Reserve in the mid-Ili Valley.
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 2010-2012. 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 12.600;
Asiatic wild ass (Equus hemionus kulan), about 2.900; argali (Ovis ammon ammon, O.a.colium, O.a.
karelini, O.a. nigrimontana), about 13.900; saiga antelope, about 137.000 (The estimate for 2014 is
250.000!); wild boar, about 27.200; Altai and Tien Shan maral, about 10.800; Siberian roe deer, about
3
69.300; Siberian ibex, about 16.700.
12
The country endorsed a National Biodiversity and Action Plan in 1998. Its main objective is to conserve
and restore biodiversity and to achieve economic gains through the balanced use of its components.
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).
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 indi4
cates a higher number.
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, 2014.
4 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.
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
companies, which offer these services for around 20,000 USD. Other duties consist of the employment
of rangers for wildlife management and anti-poaching activities 5, the development of a certain infrastructure 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.
13
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.
14
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 2012. 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
International Conventions
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.
16
In the field of protection of rare or endangered species the Red Book takes a prominent position. In
general, species listed in the Red Book are legally protected from any extractive use. Any take of Red
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
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 categories of protected areas are in place, as is an institutional framework for their management.
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.
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
and biodiversity in Kazakhstan has been changed several times at intervals of two to three years. As a
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
to the frequent changes. Overlapping in institutional responsibilities and mandates also occurs.
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
17
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-
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 2009-2012 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: http://www.redbookkz.info
- The Forestry and Hunting Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture
of Kazakhstan: http://www.oopt.- kz (no content yet - April 2015)
- Okhotzooprom: http://ohotzooprompo.kz
- Kansonar: http://kansonar.kz/
Sources used:
Baldus, R. (2014). Consultancy Report on the Sustainable Use of Wildlife in Turkmenistan and Kasachstan. On behalf of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).
20
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
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
2
1
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.
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
trophy males have disappeared.3 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 2011. This survey counted about
15.300 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 20.900 O.a. polii,
and O.a. karelini, almost 49.000 ibex, about 1300 wild boar, 4800 roe deer and 440 maral.
24
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.
3 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.
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 2010-2014 were 70 per year (10 allocated for scientific pur4 This quota is actually for funding of research activities rather than for carrying out research work.
25
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 (2014-2016) 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.
26
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
2013. 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
2. Legal Framework
28
A new law “On Hunting and Wildlife Management” has been adopted in
2014. 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 1996. It became a party to CITES in 2007
and submitted its first annual report on trade with wildlife products in 2009.
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-
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.
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.
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.
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”.
30
4. Support provided by German Development Cooperation
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.
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
3.000 hectares.
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).
31
Web resources:
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry: http://nature.gov.kg
Wildlife of Kyrgyzstan: http://wildlife.kg
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
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 (10.000 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
(1992-97) 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
(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.
36
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.
In 2009 a large scale survey was conducted in key habitats of Marco Polo sheep in the Eastern Pamirs
1
and almost 24.000 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 2014.
1 It is important to note that not all suitable habitats could be surveyed and therefore this is a minimum number.
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.
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-
37
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 2010-2013 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
USD).3
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.
2. Legal Framework
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 2015. 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).
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
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.
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.
40
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.
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.
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.
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
2009-2014. 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
Web resources:
http://www.wildlife-tajikistan.org
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: 469‐481.
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.
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 sustain2
able use are listed there (in brackets the Red Book category and popula1 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. Endan-
gered (over 50% decline) III. Vulnerable (over 30% decline).
Hunting
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).
46
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. 2014. 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
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
International Conventions
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.
3
50
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
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
and different types of hunting are allowed or prohibited depending on the status of the land. “Areas
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.
Turkmenistan is party to CBD since 1996. 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
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
of other bodies in this sphere. The Ministry is responsible for wildlife management in the nine existing
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.
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
51
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 2011. The main subdivision of the institute is the laboratory of vertebrae that studies
large mammals.
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.
52
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.
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.
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.
Website of Ministry of Nature Protection: http://www.natureprotection.gov.tm
Website of the National institute of deserts, flora and fauna: http://science.gov.tm/en/organisations/
desert_institute/
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.
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.
53
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 km2 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-
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.
56
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 venati1
cus), and Turkmen kulan (Asiatic Wildass Equus hemionus kulan) . Other species such as the Persian
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), MacQueen’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 2009. 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
the GEF-UNDP project “National Schedule in Biodiversity in Support of the Implementation of the CBD
Strategic Plan in Uzbekistan in 2011-2020”, which addresses the country’s need to continue to fulfill its
obligations under the CBD, is in progress.
Hunting
58
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.
2. Legal Framework
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
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.
International Conventions
Uzbekistan is party to CBD since 1995. 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 1998. 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
62
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.
Web resources:
Website of State Committee for Nature Protection: http://www.uznature.uz/
Website of Institute of the Gene Pool of plants and animals: http://www.flora-fauna.uz/
Text of the Law on the Use and Conservation of Fauna: http://lex.uz/Pages/GetAct.aspx?lact_id=29246
Text of the Law on Protected Areas (Russian): http://www.lex.uz/pages/GetAct.aspx?lact_id=415228
Text of the Law on Ecological Examination (Russian): http://lex.uz/Pages/GetAct.aspx?lact_id=9760
Text of the Regulation on Hunting and Fishing in Uzbekistan: http://lex.uz/pages/getpage.aspx?lact_
id=1004486
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 1988-2007), 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.
#2
Cooperation in Wildlife Management:
Regional Aspects and Challenges in Central Asia
Cooperation in Wildlife Management:
Regional Aspects and Challenges in Central Asia
Natalya Yakusheva
Introduction
68
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 2009 – 2020 (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
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
70
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-sen-
sitive commodities and facilitation of the legal trade in these.
71
2012). 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.
72
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 2014 – 2024 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
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 http://www.globalsnowleopard.dreamhosters.com/
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
In addition to this, GIZ supported the establishment and maintenance of the information platform
“Argali Network” (https://argalinetwork.wordpress.com/) 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).
76
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
Sources used:
Argali network (2012). Central Asian countries develop road map towards trans-boundary conservation of argali https://argalinetwork.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/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) http://www.cic-wildlife.org/divisions/cross-division-activities/wicac/
Conservation International (CI) (2014) Biodiversity Hotspots. Mountains of Central Asia. http://www.
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.
78
Green Custom Initiative (GCI) (2012) http://www.greencustoms.org/workshops/Astana_workshop.
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.
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. http://www.cic-wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/FAO_CIC_Prague_2006_WS_Report_Final_02.pdf
Morgera, E.,Wingard, J., Fodella, A. (2009). Developing Sustainable Wildlife Management Laws in West-
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 1:95–101.
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.12
UNEP/CMS (a) (2010) Medium-Term International Work Programme for the Saiga Antelope (2011 2015). 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 2006-2010
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
UNEP/CMS (c) (2011) Overview Report for the First Meeting of Signatories to the Memorandum of Un-
79
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. 41-71
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 11.24
80
UNEP/CMS (c) (2014) Declaration of Intent. Workshop on Minimizing Conflicts between Migrating
Wildlife and Mining in Central Asia. http://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/Declaration_
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.
#3
Community-based wildlife management
in Central Asia
Community-based wildlife management in Central Asia
Stefan Michel
Description of the approach and its specifics in the region
84
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
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.
86
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
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.
88
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.
The quota for ibex could either be used for selling hunts to international hunters or for their own
subsistence hunting. Quota for markhor, urial, wild boar and argali would only be used for hunting
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.
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.
Description of the approach and its specifics in the region
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
best practices from this project into Kyrgyzstan in two communities, involving “AkTerek”, a national
NGO, as implementation partner for local community mobilization.
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
89
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
90
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.
In late autumn of 2012 the first hunting tourist took an ibex in the area managed by the NGO “Parcham”: 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.
91
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 (IssykKul 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
92
93
Note: In years for which no values are indicated the game management area was not surveyed
Facilitated by the “Kaiberen Project” of the National Center for Mountain Regions Development and
Panthera, since 2014 the traditional hunters in three areas in the Alay Valley (Osh Region) have established community-based NGOs and started the application process for getting assigned game management areas of about 2,400 km² in total. Participatory assessments and joint site visits indicate that
ibex populations in these areas are far below the capacity of the habitat and argali is only sporadically
present despite a suitable habitat being available and the species having been present in the past. The
dedication of the members of these NGOs and their protection activities give hope and expectations of
recovery of ungulate and snow leopard populations.
Success factors, challenges and risks
94
The major success factors are the recognition and mobilization of traditional hunters, the development
of community-based organizations which are inclusive and open to all community members, the assignment of rights and responsibilities over suitable areas with a long-term perspective, the authority
to prevent unauthorized hunting by outsiders, and the benefits directly associated to the presence of
healthy wildlife populations. Protection activities by community-based groups can be effective despite
low material benefits, as their members carry out their activities either voluntarily or in the context of
other activities like herding of livestock.
Marketing of hunts of Asiatic ibex is difficult as most foreign outfitters have already established relationships with concessionaires, and the international demand is limited. The more lucrative argali
hunts have thus far not been allocated to community-based conservancies. In Kyrgyzstan, private
concessions currently control all areas with huntable argali populations. In Tajikistan, an association
of private concessionaires has the right to distribute the country-wide argali quota, so far preventing
the allocation of a quota to the NGO managing argali habitat. Thus, the motivation of their members
is stimulated by the occasional income from tourism and hunting, meat obtained in hunts by foreign
hunters, and the option of some subsistence hunting. Achieving sustainability of the latter is a challenge, as game populations are too small to sustain higher harvest, and subsistence hunting brings a
risk of reducing trophy hunting and eco-tourism opportunities.
In the markhor areas the management units are fragmented, and collaboration between the different
organizations is hampered by competition. Given the high prices for which markhor hunts sell, outsiders, who want to get involved in this business, put pressure on the local organizations and on the state
agencies in charge of wildlife. Further, the share of the permit fee of USD 40,000 which is allocated to
the local level is not yet spent in a way creating incentives for the broader local population to support
markhor conservation. As Tajikistan is not yet a party to CITES, decisions about import permits for
markhor hunting trophies are made case by case by the authorities of the importing countries. This
uncertainty affects the market demand for markhor hunts.
In some community-based conservancies, internal control, peer-pressure and support from some community members are not yet sufficient to ensure full compliance, and the work is further hampered by
outsiders, including police and other officials, poaching or hunting without authorization. Some organizations are pushed to accept illegal trophy hunts.
Applicability of community-based wildlife management
in other Central Asian countries
The approach of community-based wildlife management as tested in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan has
potential of being replicated in other countries of Central Asia. The legal framework in Kazakhstan
allows for the assignment of game management areas to legal entities. Many hunting concessions have
been assigned to outsiders and many of these concessions turned out to be economically not viable.
Community-based management might be an alternative as local people can integrate wildlife management with other activities, and involvement of local hunters can improve compliance and thus reduce
costs. For this, formal requirements and bureaucratic burdens for game management would need to be
adapted to the capacity of community-based organizations. In Turkmenistan, the Union of Hunters and
Fisherman controls 43 game management areas, covering 27,000 km². This could be an entry point,
for devolution of rights and responsibilities at the community level, as all hunters are members of this
union, and game management areas could be assigned to its local units. Also in Uzbekistan, management rights and responsibilities can be assigned to legal entities, and suitable organizations could be
established at the local level.
While game species for trophy hunts demanded in the international market provide better opportunities for income, the approach would as well be applicable for local subsistence and domestic sport
hunting. An area-based management approach where local people are the legitimate managers allows
for the development of ownership and as a result more sustainable use and management of the game
95
Web resources:
populations. Domestic hunters from outside of the communities should pay local area managers for the
hunting opportunities they provide. Permission systems, where state agencies issue hunting permits
which are not bound to specific game management areas, create open access situations and cause an
overexploitation of wildlife. Sustainable management of game populations is more likely if hunting is
permitted only in assigned areas, and permits are issued via the organization—preferably community-based—managing the specific game management area and which then would provide access and
services to the hunters.
96
In Central Asia, community-based wildlife management so far has been tested only for argali and urial
sheep, ibex and markhor in mountain ecosystems. The approach would be similarly applicable for
more or less sedentary game species where a game population and its habitat are used only by one or a
few communities. The approach is difficult to apply and requires adaptation where many communities
share limited wildlife habitat and the use potential of game populations is small compared to the number of people expecting benefits. Also for migratory species like the saiga antelope, community-based
management is more difficult to develop than in the case of more sedentary species. In the Ustyurt in
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, few groups of poachers from a limited number of communities use the
migratory saiga population, and have driven it to near extinction despite internationally funded
projects focusing on research, education, law enforcement and other issues. Involvement of these local
poachers, providing them with a clear option of future subsistence and commercial use with a
quota depending on the population size might be a more effective option for the conservation of this
population.
Conclusions
Community-based wildlife management is far from a panacea for the conservation of wildlife and for the
improvement of local livelihoods. However, in societies where hunting bans cannot be realistically enforced, and where protected areas are limited in space and insufficiently guarded, incentive-based management of mountain ungulates is an important and effective approach. Sustainable use of game populations can contribute to the diversification of income and provide benefits to the communities. First
experiences in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan show that the assignment of rights over wildlife to community
organizations can reestablish a sense of local ownership. Even limited revenues from hunting and nature
tourism create incentives for local people to refrain from poaching and to protect mountain ungulates.
www.cic-wildlife.org/2014/10/cic-markhor-award-tajikistan-a-shining-example-for-wildlife-conservation-16-october-2014/
Sources used:
Alidodov M., Amirov, Z., Oshurmamadov, N., Saidov, K., Holmatov, I. (2014). Uchet vintorogogo kozla na
khrebte Hazratishoh i na Darvazskom khrebte, Tajikistan. Forestry Agency under the Government of
the Republic of Tajikistan, Dushanbe.
Baldus, R. and Michel, S. (2011). What does CITES mean for an African or Central Asian village? Some
experiences from Tanzania and Tajikistan. In: M. Abensperg-Traun, D. Roe and C.O’Criodain (eds.)
CITES and CBNRM: Proceedings of an international symposium on “The relevance of CBNRM to the
conservation and sustainable use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries”, pp. 52 - 58. IUCN/
IIED, London.
Davletbakov, A. T., Karimov, Kh. (2013). Otchet Polevykh Issledovaniy po Otsenke Okhotnichykh Resursov Okhotkhozyastva “Boz-Uchak”. Bishkek.
Davletbakov, A. T., Karimov, Kh. (2013). Otchet Polevykh Issledovaniy po Otsenke Okhotnichykh Resursov Okhotkhozyastva “Shumkar-Tor”. Bishkek.
Michel, S., Rosen Michel, T. and McCarthy, T. (2014). Chapter 13: Snow Leopard Conservation through
Hunting of Prey Species. Pp. 104–112 in: Snow Leopard Network (2014). Snow Leopard Survival Strategy. Revised Version 2014.1. Snow Leopard Network, Seattle.
Michel, S., Rosen Michel, T., Saidov, A., Karimov, Kh., Alidodov, M. and Kholmatov, I. (2014). Population
status of Heptner’s markhor Capra falconeri heptneri in Tajikistan: challenges for conservation. Oryx.
In press. Online: doi:10.1017/S0030605313000860
Panthera (2015). Unpublished data on wildlife surveys in community-based conservancies 2011-2014.
97
List of Abbreviations:
ACBK - Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan
MOU - Memorandum of Understanding
CBD - Convention on Biological Diversity
NGO - Non-governmental organization
CAMI - Central Asian Mammals Initiative
CBWM - Community Based Wildlife Management
CEP - Committee on Environmental Protection
CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation
CITES - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
98
CMS - Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
ECU - Eurasian Custom Union
EEU - Eurasian Economic Union
FLERMONECA - Forest and Biodiversity Governance Including Environmental Monitoring
GCI - Green Customs Initiative
GEF - Global Environment Facility
GIZ - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature
KGS - Kyrgyzstani som
LLC - Limited Liability Company
MEA - Multilateral Environmental Agreement
NBSAP - National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
TRAFFIC - Wildlife Trade Monitoring Network
UHF - Union of Hunters and Fishermen
UNDP - United Nations Development Programme
UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
ZGAP - Zoological Society for the Conservation of Species and Populations
99