1

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION

FORESTRY DEPARTMENT

FORESTRY AND GAME MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR GAME

WILDLIFE SECTION OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

Joint FAO/Czech Republic Workshop

in collaboration with

the Czech Forestry and Game Management Research Institute

and

the CIC – International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation

Wildlife Policy and Institutions for Sustainable Use and Conservation of Wildlife Resources

11-15 September 2006 Prague, Czech Republic

Facilitator’s Report by Anna Mischler

Rome, 27 September 2006

2

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3

WORKFLOW ........................................................................................................................... 5

STEP1 IDENTIFYING MAIN PROBLEMS AREAS AND PRIORITY ISSUES ............................................. 6

STEP 2 STAKEHOLDERS ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 8

STEP 3 SEARCHING FOR SOLUTIONS .......................................................................................... 9

Group 1: Wildlife Policy and Legislation ........................................................................ 10

Group 2: Management ..................................................................................................... 10

Group 3: Socio-economic problems ................................................................................. 11

STEP 4 ACTIVITIES AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS .......................................................................... 12

Group 1: Wildlife Policy and Legislation ........................................................................ 13

Group 2: Management ..................................................................................................... 15

Group 3: Socio-economic problems ................................................................................. 17

STEP 5 FORMULATION OF SHORT PROJECT OUTLINE ................................................................. 19

Armenia ........................................................................................................................ 20

Kyrgyzstan ................................................................................................................... 21

Mongolia and Uzbekistan ............................................................................................. 22

Russia ........................................................................................................................... 23

Tajikistan ...................................................................................................................... 24

Turkmenistan ................................................................................................................ 25

PARTICIPANTS’ FEEDBACK TO THE WORKSHOP ................................................... 26

ANNEX 1 ................................................................................................................................ 28

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................................................... 28

ANNEX 2 ................................................................................................................................ 31

AGENDA ................................................................................................................................ 31

ANNEX 3 ................................................................................................................................ 33

COMPOSITION OF THE GROUPS ............................................................................................... 33

3

Introduction

Background

Many of the CIS countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia region have natural resources with great potential for local and national development. However, they face substantial challenges in realizing this potential. Many of these are related to the economic restructuring process of the central planning system into a market economy, and to the need to develop capacities in natural resources policies and practices, which are not only multifunctional and sustainable in terms of their ecological and social aspects, but also economically viable and profitable, hence, sustainable in the wider sense.

Wildlife is one of the most valuable renewable natural resources in the region. Its sustainable management can create commercial opportunities and provide sustained economic, social and environmental benefits. The added value through its sustainable use (trophy hunting, nature-tourism) can provide further employment and income-earning opportunities to reduce rural poverty, improve livelihoods and contribute to the local and national economy. Wildlife products (trophies, horns, teeth, skin) support village-level arts and crafts as well as processing enterprises. Wildlife income-generating activities contribute towards foreign exchange earnings and at the same time support biodiversity conservation and other environmental objectives (in situ conservation of wildlife in hunting reserves, alternative for local people to livestock grazing).

The technical aspects of wildlife conservation and valorization through hunting and nature-tourism are nowadays generally well-known and practiced in numerous countries. The most significant constraints to their effective implementation in other countries are often weak institutional frameworks, out-of-date legislation, centralized power and a lack of national strategies aimed at tackling the issue. There is a recognized need for clear policies to engage public and government interest in sustainable management of forest and wildlife. There is also a need for capacity building and awareness raising to enhance stakeholder participation in policy formulation and implementation.

The FAO Forestry Department organized, in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, the Czech Forestry and Game Management Research Institute and the CIC – International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, a regional workshop for selected CIS countries from Central Asia on wildlife management and conservation. The workshop was organized in the framework of the Cooperation Agreement between the Czech Republic and FAO under the programme GCP/INT/790/CEH – “Training Programmes in Selected Areas”.

Objectives

This workshop’s aim was to propose activities that would strengthen policies, institutions and capacities for sustainable wildlife management so as to be able to contribute better to food security and poverty alleviation in rural communities.

4

The purpose of the workshop/seminar was to promote an exchange of information and experience in the field of wildlife management and conservation. The workshop was organized to provide a forum for discussion on current wildlife policies, institutions, legislation, governance and trade, available wildlife resources and the potential for their valorization, and poaching and the trade in illegally-sourced wildlife products in the participating countries. In particular, the participants were supposed to:

• review the main features in wildlife management and conservation in participating countries as well as the threats and the potential for the future (based on national reports and discussions during the seminar);

• identify the most urgent needs for sustainable wildlife management and propose actions to address them; and

• initiate the identification of project ideas to address the most urgent needs on a country by country basis.

Expected outputs

• Increased understanding of current and emerging policy issues which affect the development of the wildlife sector,

• Practical policy options identified for the most important issues related to sustainable use and conservation of wildlife resources,

• Project ideas identified to address the needs and priorities of each participating country,

• Information / knowledge sharing network developed to facilitate the implementation of identified policy options

Participants

Participation of identified experts in wildlife issues was requested from selected FAO member countries to prepare and present national reports at the workshop and to participate in its working sessions. Participants were sought from CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) countries from Caucasus and Central Asia (Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) and from Mongolia. It was composed of representatives of the state administration responsible for wildlife management and representatives of hunting federations, hunting associations or projects dealing with wildlife management.

Observers from European institutions and relevant international organizations were also invited (e.g. IUCN, WWF-TRAFFIC, IUCN European Sustainable Use Specialist Group (IUCN-ESUSG), IGF, etc.).

Resource persons were coming from the FAO as well as the CIC. You can find the complete list of participants at the end of this document (see Annex 1).

5

Workflow

The structure of the workshop could be formally divided in two parts. Whereas the first two days aimed to share experiences from each participating country with the others, the second part concentrated on development of a better understanding of problems and solutions in the wildlife management and conservation through a facilitated workshop and intensive work in working groups. Please see Annex 2 for the complete scheduled agenda.

- First Part - The first day of the workshop started with opening words and introduction of the participants. Besides the opening ceremony it was entirely dedicated to presentations. The aim was to give an overview of a current situation of wildlife resources, policy, institutions and legislation in each participating country. Each country report comprised the main features in wildlife management and conservation in these countries as well as threats and the opportunities for the future. Representatives from international organizations informed about ongoing projects in this sector to give some examples of international practices. The keynote presentation by Philippe Chardonnet (IGF) was dealing with “Sustainable Tourism Hunting – Lessons learned from Sub-Saharian Africa”. René Czudek (FAO) informed about FAO’s activities in the wildlife sector as well as about cooperation programmes with FAO. Kai Wollscheid (CIC) gave an overview on international and regional environmental conventions affecting wildlife management and hunting, emphasizing the importance of the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. He addressed recent initiatives with respect to standardization in hunting and introduced the CIC programme Sustainable Hunting Tourism. Youssef Alaoui (FAO National consultant) made a presentation on “Sustainable hunting policy management for better conservation and the valorization of wildlife in Morocco”. Tuesday was an all day trip to the hunting museum Hluboka and hunting reserve Stará obora. This ice-breaking initiative that helped participants to get to know each other was organized by the Forestry and Game Management Research Institute of the Czech Republic to provide an example of a traditional hunting facility in the Czech Republic.

- Second Part- The second part of the event starting on Wednesday was a facilitated workshop. Different kinds of brainstorming tools were used to initiate effective discussions. The work in smaller groups was followed by presentations and debates in the plenary. We choose this methodology to encourage the active involvement of all participants and to promote intensive exchange.

6

The workshop was structured along the following workflow:

Step 1: Identifying main problems areas and priority issues

Step 2: Stakeholders analysis

Step 3: Searching for solutions

Step 4: Activities and follow-up actions

Step 5: Formulation of short project outline

This report will describe these steps, the exact procedure and present the outcome of the work.

Step1 Identifying main problems areas and priority issues Objective: To identify main problems areas existing in the wildlife sector in participating countries. State and reach some consensus on important and priority issues. Method: Affinity diagram This tool is aimed to produce and organize a large amount of ideas and issues and visualize them on a big board. The sequence of this method was the following: 1 - Individual reflection Listing as many ideas as possible Writing down one idea per coloured sheet of paper 2 - Discussion in small groups of 3 people and summarizing all ideas Presenting them on the board 3 - Categorizing Joint discussion of findings, reorganization in categories and grouping under generic terms 4 - Priority building Viewing the results and deciding about priority issues. Each participant had thee votes to prioritize one or several issues.

7

Summary of Results Sectoral management (21 votes)

- Monitoring - Gaps of management - Quotas establishment mechanism - Trophy hunting is not developed - Absence of scientific centers - Institutional Deficiencies - Weak legislation (on sustainable hunting) - Unsustainable hunting - Development of institutional structure / Reforms - Lack of data, knowledge - Inventory of fauna in SPA (Special Protected Areas)

Wildlife Policy and Legislation (14 votes)

- Weak legislation - Lack of strategy / action plan - Lack of wildlife management policy - Corruption - Inappropriate allocation of revenues from hunting - Weak development of SPA (Special Protected Areas) - Weak control of international trade in trophies and other hunting products - Property problem

Socio-economic problems (10 votes)

- Lack of local community awareness (regarding their rights, legislation, regulations, etc.)

- Local communities have no legal benefits from wildlife - Private sector: no incentive to invest in wildlife / No investments - Wildlife operators can not compete with other land use - Lack of local people involvement in the wildlife management - Undeveloped benefit sharing (Central government reluctant to

decentralization) - Corruption at the local level, privileges, violation of rights - Limited experience in the creation of private hunting reserves - Restricted access to hunting (economical and administrative reasons) - Poverty (low purchasing power)

Intersectoral management (9 votes)

- Weak technical and human capacities - Lack of specialists - Conflicts of interests (between hunting, forestry and agricultural sector) - Competition between domestic animals and game

8

- Habitat degradation / Overexploitation / Damage of fields (because of hunting and agriculture)

- Absence of game reserves Poaching (6 votes) International cooperation issues (3 votes)

- Lack of international cooperation and support - Lack of a programme for migratory species

Comments: The issue “Resistance to innovations” wasn’t categorized since it was considered as a cross-cutting problem applying to all categories.

The voting served to identify the most important issues for further discussion during the workshop, focusing on those that received most votes. We decided merging the issues of sectoral and intersectoral management as these areas are strongly correlated. On the basis of the achieved results the participants were divided into three sub-groups of eight to nine members each. We tried to split the representatives of the same country in different groups. As many participants didn’t have sufficient knowledge of English, we decided to divide them on language principle to assure free communication. There was one completely Russian speaking group, one English speaking group and a mixed one with interpretation services:

Group 1: Wildlife Policy and Legislation (English) Group 2: Socio-economic problems (English/Russian) Group 3 : Management (Russian)

Please see Annex 3 for exact composition of groups. Before starting working in the sub-groups it was decided to conduct a stakeholder analysis (step 2).

Step 2 Stakeholders analysis Objective: To identify the whole spectrum of stakeholders and sensitize participants on the differences stakeholders have in regard to their influence (power) and degree of involvement in wildlife-related issues. Situate them in the below shown table according to these factors. Method: Stakeholders analysis / Brainstorming and presentation of results

9

High Power/High Involvement

• President (Kazakhstan, Armenia, Turkmenistan)

• Government

• Academy of science

• Education institutions

• Hunters and fishers association

• Parliament

• Relevant authorities

High Power/Low Involvement

• Government • Parliament • Relevant national authorities • Regional authorities

Low Power/High Involvement

• Donors • International bodies (UNEP, FAO,

TACIS, etc.) • Resource holders • Local communities • Local authorities (decentralized) • Media • Hunting industries • Local hunters • NGOs • Scientific institutions • Hunting associations

Low Power/Low Involvement

• Local government • Local authorities • Local community • NGOs • Association of indigenous peoples • Local associations of trappers and

local hunters • Hunting enterprises • Outfitters (private tour operators) • Regional administration (Armenia) • Ministry of Health • Universities

Comment: This seemed to be probably the most complicated and controversial part of the workshop. The group was unable to find consensus on this issue due to different conditions in various countries and a very diverse understanding of power and involvement of different stakeholders. Due to these reasons the results are ambiguous - the same stakeholders appeared in different sections.

Step 3 Searching for solutions Objective: Searching for solutions for prioritized problems. Method: The ideal scenario This method serves to rapidly generate ideas for solutions, then translate them into realistic situations and action plans (step 4) and encourage individual reflection. At this stage work in sub-groups started. The participants were tasked to state clearly their priority issues within their working subject and work on concrete

10

solutions for these issues. Finally the results were presented and discussed in the plenary.

Group 1: Wildlife Policy and Legislation

Main Problems Solutions

Weak Legislation

� Development of wildlife legislation

- Law for hunting

- Adapt related laws on nature and forestry - Remove obstacles from other legislation � Improve legal consistency

Lack of strategy Action plans � National wildlife strategy and action plan, related to other sectors,

in place

Inappropriate Allocation of revenues from hunting

� Transparent system of benefit sharing that is fixed in legal framework and in accordance with the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity

� Decentralization � Privatization of the rights to use wildlife � Diversity of ownership

Group 2: Management

Main Problems Solutions

Institutional deficiencies

� Separation of executive and control functions � Establishment of a single wildlife management institution

Monitoring (of game species,

species under protection)

� Regular monitoring � Creation and maintenance of a cadastre

Lack of specialists

� Training and capacity building

11

Conflict of interests between:

- forestry - agriculture - hunting management

� Economical compensation

Group 3: Socio-economic problems

Main Problems Solutions

Lack of local community awareness (regarding their rights, the legislation and regulations, etc.)

� To make known the success stories � Increase the access to information � Education programmes for hunters � Wide information about legislative issues � Organization of trainings for teachers of local schools and local

communities � Development of special programmes for increasing the level of

information among the local communities � Educational publications

Local communities have no legal benefits from wildlife (e.g.% of wildlife income,

employment, etc.)

� Involvement of local communities in wildlife management � Change the benefits sharing for profit of hunters and local

communities � Adapt the fees for resource use to the income of local people � Community based wildlife management projects

Private sector: no incentive to invest in wildlife

� Long term land rent + government guaranties for investors � Long term lease and contracts with clear description of rights

and duties

Wildlife operations can not compete with other land use (e.g. cotton 100% more profitable than wildlife)

� Changes in forestry legislation and introduction of fair sharing of income gone in case of limiting the hunting activities by forest activities

12

Step 4 Activities and follow-up actions The same working method as in the previous step was used in step 4. The work groups continued deepening their work on solutions and were asked to define concrete actions which are needed to realize those solutions. A matrix was proposed to complete the results taking into account the following items:

- Activities - Responsibility - Stakeholders - Level (on which to accomplish this task)

It was agreed that these matrices as well as the final project outlines should serve as a basis for follow-up actions. The results achieved during the workshop could be a useful tool and a good reference to undertake first steps to address the identified problems in participating countries. Besides that, the perspective of international cooperation should be considered. The final projects outlines should be followed up by improving them and seeking international support for their realization, e.g. in the framework of FAO technical cooperation projects. In the following you will find the completed matrices.

13

Group 1: Wildlife Policy and Legislation

Main Problems Solutions Activities Responsibility Stakeholder Level

Weak Legislation

� Development of wildlife

legislation - Law for hunting - Adapt related laws on

nature, forestry, - Remove obstacles from

other legislation

� Improve legal consistency

on both, national as well as regional level in accordance with international legal provisions

1. legal analysis of national situation 2. compilation of “best practice laws”,

suitable for the region, as well as legal recommendations derived from international legal frameworks

3. budget consultancy 4. arrangement for financial assistance 5. arrangement for technical assistance 6. identification of stakeholders (upon

suggestion of national agency and international partner organization).

7. invitation of stakeholders into the

process (depending on funding and final decision by lead agency)

8. inclusion of provisions for benefit

sharing in hunting and related laws 9. ensure obligatory consistency

National responsible agency National responsible lead agency National responsible lead agency National responsible lead agency National responsible lead agency National responsible lead agency National responsible lead agency National responsible lead agency Lead agency for legal consistency

FAO IUCN CIC, etc. FAO IUCN CIC, etc. FAO FAO UN Donors Aid agencies FAO IUCN CIC, etc. FAO IUCN CIC, etc. national organizations, local communities, regional and other level of governments FAO IUCN CIC, etc.

National Regional National National National National National National National

14

Lack of strategy and action plans

� National wildlife strategy and action plan, related to other sectors, in place

1. Government decision / resolution to

develop strategy and action plan 2. Use of existing action plans (e.g. basic

considerations from biodiversity action plans) in consultation with international organizations and develop national wildlife strategy and action plan

National responsible lead agency National responsible lead agency

FAO / UN Donors WWF CIC FAO IUCN CIC, etc.

National National

Inappropriate allocation of revenues

from hunting

� Transparent system of

benefit sharing that is fixed in legal framework and in accordance with the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity

� Decentralization � Privatization of the rights

to use wildlife � Diversity of ownership

1. Include provision for benefit sharing in

national action plan as well as other related action plans

2. Make available best practices from

same eco-region 3. Ensure provisions for creation of private

and community based game areas and enterprises in relevant law

4. create pilot projects for private and

community based game areas and enterprises

5. Ensure legal right to appeal for private

and community based game area owners and enterprises

Government National lead agency Government Government NGO Private sector Legal lead agency

FAO IUCN CIC, etc. FAO IUCN CIC, etc. FAO CIC, etc. NGO Private sector

15

Group 2: Management

Main Problems Solutions Activities Responsibility Stakeholders Level

Institutional deficiencies

� Separation of executive and control functions

� Establishment of a

single wildlife management institution

Administrative reform (requires legislative reform as well)

President Government Parliament

Relevant authorities NGOs Users Local authorities Internationals organizations

National

Monitoring (of game species,

species under protection)

� Regular monitoring � Creation and

maintenance of a cadastre

Hunting management Assessment of hunting grounds Elaboration of a common methodology

Relevant authorities Scientific institutions and organizations Regional center

Relevant authorities Local authorities Local communities NGOs Users Donors / International Organizations

National, regional

16

Lack of specialists � Training and capacity building

Establishment of a training educational center Development of special training courses and programmes

Government

Relevant authorities (educational, wildlife sector) Local authorities Users (juristic person) NGOs / Donors

National Regional (CIS) International

Conflict of interests between: - forestry - agriculture - hunting management

� Economical compensation

Development of appropriate legislation

Government Parliament Local Authorities

Users (of forestry, hunting, agriculture) Insurance companies Ministry of Finance and Economy Local communities NGOs

National Regional

17

Group 3: Socio-economic problems

Main Problems

Solutions Activities Responsibility Stakeholder

Lack of local community awareness (regarding their rights, the legislation and regulations, etc.)

� To make known the success

stories � Increasing the access to

information � Education programmes for

hunters � Wide information about

legislative issues � Organization of trainings of

teachers of local schools and local communities

� Development of special

programmes for increasing the level of information among the local communities

� Educational publications

Capacity building (at technical level as well as at community level) Information collection and sharing (meetings, interviews, participants meetings, questionnaires)

National game management agency with technical assistance of FAO,WWF,CIC and other related NGO’S Related agencies, FAO,WWF,CIC and other related (national) NGO’s and scientific organizations

NGOs, Local authorities Hunting associations Media Educational and scientific institutions Local communities Natural resources users National and local agencies

18

Private sector: no incentive to invest in wildlife

� Long term land rent + government guaranties for investors

� Long term lease and

contracts with clear description of rights and duties

Distribute knowledge (good practices) to decision makers To set up the technical framework-leasing contracts (cahier des charges) including the biology, economy,...)

FAO and NGOs in countries (WWF, CIC, etc.) + media ( incl. hunting magazines and newspapers) Hunting business Associations of businessmen

Government Parliament

Local communities have no legal benefits from wildlife

(e.g.% of wildlife income,

employment, etc.)

� Involvement of local communities in natural resources management

� Change the benefits sharing

for profit of hunters and local communities

� Adapt the fees for resource

use to the income of local people

� Community based wildlife

management projects

Review legislation for communities Pilot projects involving communities in sustainable use of wildlife

Government Parliament Relevant Authorities NGOs

Local communities NGOs Local administrations Local hunting associations and hunting communities Hunting business

Wildlife operations can

not compete with other land use (e.g. cotton 100% more rentable than

wildlife)

� Changes in forestry legislation and introduction of fair sharing of income gone in case of limiting the hunting activities by forest activities

Economic survey of hunting industry in CIS countries Project for legislation gap – analysis and elaboration of recommendations about innovations aimed to avoid conflicts and to push land-users to complex using of the resources. Project for promotion of multi-using of lands (hunting, forestry, agricultural and recreational sectors) Diversification of prices for trophy hunting (better trophy – higher price)

WWF, IUCN, Game-managing authorities Government (Game-managing authorities), WWF, Lowers associations, Hunt-scientific institutes Government (Game-managing and forestry authorities), WWF, Hunt-scientific institutes

Local Authorities Hunting business NGOs (Experienced in this field) Local communities Local hunting associations Trophy hunting business (outfitters) Game-managing authorities on both national and regional levels

19

Step 5 Formulation of short project outline These three matrices represented the final result of the work in working groups, which analyzed problems, solutions and activities in the wildlife sector in general. The participants were tasked to apply this preparatory work to the specific situation in their country and identify the most important issue in their specific case. The purpose was to formulate project outlines for a possible cooperation with the FAO. This work was done on a country by country basis. All countries besides Georgia and Kazakhstan presented their projects at the end of the workshop. Mongolia and Uzbekistan prepared a common project outline since they agreed on the same priority issue. We welcomed the initiative from the participants from Russia: Although during the workshop they were representing international organizations and not their country, they decided to prepare a project outline for Russia addressing a specific issue. As already mentioned before, these project outlines should serve as a basis for follow- up actions and requests for international cooperation projects.

Armenia

Main Problems Solutions Activities Responsibility Stakeholders Level

Weak legislation

Improve national legislation in accordance with international standards

Development and adoption of wildlife legislation

Ministry of Environment Government Parliament

Ministries Local authorities NGOs Hunting associations CIC, WWF, FAO, etc.

National Regional International

Lack of hunting grounds/game areas

Establishment of hunting grounds/ game areas

Allocations of grounds Definition of the property art Choosing an investor

Ministry of Environment Local authorities Investors

Local communities Wildlife users Donors International organizations Hunting business

National Regional International

21

Kyrgyzstan

Main Problems Solutions Activities Responsibility Stakeholders

1. Weak legislation 2. Weak monitoring

of hunting resources

3. Lack of

awareness and knowledge sharing

1. Work out a national strategy and action plan

2. Prepare a project on development of hunting facilities

1. Analyze the current situation 2. Create working groups 3. Elaborate a national strategy and action

plan 4. Approve it 5. Realization of inventory /stock-taking 6. Planning 7. Adoption of the project to develop

hunting facilities 8. Educational programmes 9. Trainings, information material etc.

Government Authorities Local authorities Wildlife users

NGOs Scientific institutions Educational bodies Donors (FAO, WWF, etc.)

Follow-up project tackling the same problems as indicated above

Develop an integrated plan for wildlife management (further development of the project above)

Besides the activities described above to organize Studies on - social aspects - economical aspects - environmental aspects Consolidate all results

22

Mongolia and Uzbekistan

Main Problems Solutions Activities Responsibility Comprehensive monitoring (stock-taking, inventory) of all wildlife species and their habitats

Implementation (preferably on the regional level within the international cooperation)

1. Development of a modern

methodology for monitoring 2. Learning about international

best practices for monitoring

3. Capacity building 4. Technical support from

international experts

5. Organization of hunting

management 6. Concrete measures on all

levels

Government Relevant Authorities

23

Russia

Main Problems Solutions Activities Responsibility Stakeholder Unclear and unsustainable exploitation of fur-bearing animals (i.e. sable Mustella zibelina) populations in Siberia and The Russian Far East and under-use of socio-economical potential of fur trapping and fur trading business for local communities

1. Estimation of

population status of sable and few other significant species

2. To promote the better

understanding by Government of socio-economical role of trapping as • source of livelihood • a tool for social

adaptation of structure of local communities

• an efficient tool to stop the process of marginalization of members of local communities

3. Promotion of practical

recommendations

1. To estimate the status of

population via the collection of scientific data and spot censuses on the key areas

2. The overview and fur market of

Russia and neighboring CIS countries, their existing fur-harvest and fur-trade systems

3. Analysis and description of real

socio-economical role of the trapping on local community level

4. Compilation of highlighting

materials and distribution them among decision makers and stakeholders

5. Elaboration of practical

recommendations for increasing of incomes for local people

NGO (WWF/IUCN) All-Russian Institute for Hunt Management, Trapping and Fur-bearing Animals Farming

• Local communities

• Trapping business

• Fur-trading business

• Hunting communities

• Hunt Managing Authorities

• FAO, WWF, IUCN, etc.

24

Tajikistan

Main Problems Solutions Activities Responsibility Stakeholder

Lack of National Strategy and action plan

Development of national action plan

- Analyze the best international practices regarding the action plan

- Approve a strategy for wildlife

management

Authorities National coordinator

Ministerial committees Authorities NGOs International organizations

Working groups

Weak legislation Improvement of legislation and regulation

- Setting up working groups

- Analyze legislation in force

- Formulating a draft legislation

- Submit to parliament

Authorities National coordinator

Ministerial committees Authorities NGOs International organizations Working groups

Unsustainable wildlife management and conservation

Establishment of a breeding farm for tugai deer and its spreading in the nature

- Preparation of the documents

- Choosing a ground

- Capturing of tugai deer and its breeding

Forestry committee Tajik National Park Agency for Forestry and Hunting

The same as above as well as Scientific institutions (e.g. zoological institute, forestry institute)

25

Turkmenistan

Main Problems Solutions Activities Implementer

1. Out-of-date legislation 2. Too many contradictions

in the legislation (e.g. between environmental and nature management)

3. Lack of the strategy for

sustainable wildlife management

Elaboration of a modern hunting and game management legislation Elaboration of a strategy and action plan

1. Information / reference material about best practices in the world

2. Establishment of an expert working group

on legislation and development of a strategy 3. First draft for strategy game management 4. General analysis of the legislation in force

and the National Strategy 5. Legislation draft (proposals on

harmonization of legislation) 6. Agreement on the legislation with

stakeholders 7. Submit it to the Parliament 8. Development of the final National Strategy

and Action Plan 9. Agreement and approval of the final draft

International consultants National coordinator Experts working group (technical cooperation) Law experts working group Ministry of nature protection

26

Participants’ feedback to the workshop

For the participants’ feedback we used the H-Form. The participants were asked to rank the quality and usefulness of the workshop on a scale between 1(the lowest) and 10 (the highest). The evaluation form included a section on strengths and weaknesses of the workshop. The general ranking was very high – on average 9,5 with most participants marking a 10. Selected comments are listed below (in decreasing order): Weaknesses:

• Accommodation • Not every delegation was strong enough • Coffee too weak • Too much food

Strengths:

• Very good organization • Lots of new and useful information • Exchange of experience and information with other countries • Excellent field trip on Tuesday / Excellent presentation of examples of good

practices and hunting management in the Czech Republic • Interesting perspectives (of cooperation with FAO and others) • Interesting work within working groups • Great contribution from Czech side / Special thanks to Czech hunting-managing

colleagues / Great to meet and talk to them • Very good facilitation • Very good translation • Met new friends • Good choice of the workshop’s topic • Good combination of theoretical and practical work • Happy that so much attention to the hunting management was given • WS showed common and specific problems of participating countries and

solutions • Bringing together colleagues from the whole region • The Workshop met all my expectations • Great feeling of being surrounded by colleagues who thought the same way

and understood me perfectly by half-word Wishes / Proposals:

• Workshop’s Web-Site maintenance and development as a reference to solving wildlife problems

• Sharing of documentation and information about further actions and practices in these countries and regions with similar problems

• Organization of a workshop about establishment and management of nature reserves and game parks

• Organization of similar workshops in other countries

27

Philippe Chardonnet’s feedback The representative participation of all stakeholders was a problem. Maybe too many Government officers, state agencies and civil servants and too few members of civil society, such as NGOs, local communities and local authorities, associations, wildlife users etc. The workshop was a difficult challenge due to

- language differences - tricky issues

But the challenge was well taken up. Very good organization, facilitation and translation. Good participation. Useful results with projects identified as output. Worth coming and participating. Congratulations and acknowledgements. Many thanks.

Personal comments of the facilitator The participants seemed to be very interested in the workshop and eager to contribute enthusiastically to its outcome. I was very pleased by the extraordinary active participation which led to interesting discussions. The workshop was obviously appealing and very topical to most participants. The participants signaled their gratitude for organizing this workshop, providing a forum for exchange and assisting them in enhancing the wildlife policy and management in their countries.

28

Annex 1

List of participants ARMENIA 1 Mr. Karen JENDEREDJIAN Head, Division of Animal Resources management,

Agency of Bioresources Management, Ministry of Nature Protection

2 Mr. Mikhayil VOSKANOV Deputy Head, Division of Animal Resources management,

Agency of Bioresources Management, Ministry of Nature Protection

3 Ms. Naira ALAVERDYAN Head of Secretariat

Ministry of Nature Protection GEORGIA 4 Ms. Sophiko AKHOBADZE Vice-Minister, Ministry of Environment Protection and

Natural Resources 5 Mr. Shalva JAVAKHADZE Head of Forestry Department, Ministry of Environment

Protection and Natural Resources 6 Ms. Anne RUKHADZE Head of Biodiversity Protection Service, Ministry of

Environment Protection and Natural Resources KAZAKHSTAN 7 Mr. Sergey SOKOLOV Chief Hunting Officer of Kazakhstan

Society of Hunters and Fishermen KYRGYZSTAN 8 Mr. Aitkul BURHANOV Deputy Director, State Agency for Environmental

Protection and Forestry 9 Mr. Almaz MUSAEV Deputy Director, Central Administrative Board of

Protection and Regulation of Hunting Resources Utilization (Glavohota)

MONGOLIA 10 Mr. Nyamdavaa GENDENJAV Governor of Khovd aimag (province) 11 Mr. Baldan DORJGOTOV Senior Officer, Sustainable Development and Strategic

Planning Department Ministry of Nature and Environment

12 Mr. Natsag NYAMDORI Head of Special Protected area

Administration of Khovd Province Ministry of Nature and Environment

29

TAJIKISTAN 13 Prof. Hukmatullo Makhmudovich

AHMADOV Director, Tajik Forestry Research Institute 14 Mrs. Dilyafruz ISHANKULOVA Deputy Direstor of Natural Protected Areas Support

Centre, Tajik National Park 15 Ms. Maria KURGANOVA Member of CMS Working Group for Tajikistan TURKMENISTAN 16 Mr. Akmurad ATAMURADOV The Head of Forest Seed Growing and Natural Parks

Protection Service, Ministry of Nature Protection

17 Mr Timur BERKELIEV Coordinator of UNEP/WWF Econet project

CHM focal point on BD Convention UZBEKISTAN 18 Mr. Akmal ISMATOV Deputy Head, Department for managing reserves,

national parks and hunting facilities, Main Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources

19 Mr. Alisher SHUKUROV Leading Specialist of the Department of Forestry and

State Control for Condition of the Forests, Main Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources

REPRESENTATIVES FROM INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, REGIONAL INITIATIVES AND HOST COUNTRY INSTITUTIONS 20 IGF Mr. Philippe CHARDONNET Director, International Foundation for the Conservation

of Wildlife 21 CIC Mr. Kai WOLSCHEID Director General, International Council for Game and

Wildlife Conservation 22 CIC

Mr Kolja ZIMMERMANN Consultant, CIC Programme Sustainable Hunting Tourism

23 CMMJ Mr. Jaroslav PALAS Czechomoravian hunting federation 24 VÚLHM Mr. Frantisek HAVRANEK Head of the Wildlife Section,

Forestry and Game Management Research Institute 25 Mze Mr. Jiri PONDELICEK Head of Division for fishing, hunting and beekeeping

Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic

30

26 LCR Mr. Michal HRIB Assistant Director,

Forests of the Czech Republic Forest Enterprise Židlochovice

27 IUCN Mrs. Galina PRONKINA Project Coordinator

IUCN Programme Office for Russia and CIS 28 FAO Mr. René CZUDEK Wildlife and Protected Area Officer,

Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, FORC 29 Mr. My Moulay Yousef ALAOUI National Consultant GCP/MOR/031/CEH 30 IUCN ESUSG Mr. Sándor CSÁNYI IUCN European Sustainable Use Specialist

Group representative Department of Wildlife Biology and management, Szent István University

31 WWF -TRAFFIC Mr. Alexey VAISMAN Senior Programme Officer of TRAFFIC Europe-Russia

WWF-Russia

31

Annex 2

Agenda

SUNDAY 10 SEPTEMBER Arrival of participants in Prague and registration in the Czech University of Agriculture MONDAY 11 SEPTEMBER 08h00 - 9h00 Registration of participants

9h00 - 10h00

Opening Ceremony - Opening words (Czech Ministry of Agriculture, FAO, Forestry and Game Management Institute)Introduction of participants – roundtable Introduction of workshop objectives, process and clarifications

10h00 - 10h30 Group picture & coffee break 10h30 – 11h00 Keynote Presentation Philippe Chardonnet, IGF, Paris

11h00 - 12h00 Presentations-Kai Wollscheid, CIC, Budapest -IUCN (IUCN-ESUSG)-René Czudek, FAO, - My Youssef Alaoui, project GCP/MOR/031/CEH, Rabat, Morocco

12h00 – 13h30 Lunch 13h30 – 15h00 Country reports presentations 15h00 – 15h30 Coffee break 15h30 – 16h30 Country reports presentations 16h30 - 17h30 Wrap-up discussion 19h00 – 21h30 Ice-breaking Cocktail TUESDAY 12 SEPTEMBER All day field trip organized by the Forestry and Game Management Research Institute Southern Bohemia (hunting museum Hluboka, hunting reserve – Stará obora) WEDNESDAY 13 SEPTEMBER Working Group & Forum of Participants

08h00 – 08h30 Plenary – Introduction of the methodology and timing for the work in working groups, Working group formation

08h30 – 10h00 Working groups Identifying main problems areas Reaching consensus on priority issues Preparation of the WG results presentation in the plenary

10h00 – 10h30 Coffee break 10h30 – 12h00 Plenary Presentation of WG results followed by discussion 12h00 – 13h30 Lunch

13h30 – 15h00

Working groups Searching for solutions (identification of actions needed to address the main problems at regional and country levels) Preparation of the WG results presentation in the plenary

15h00 – 15h30 Coffee break 15h30 – 17h00 Presentation of WG results and discussion 17h00 – 18h30 Secretariat - Drafting of report

32

17h00 – 18h30 Facultative accompanying programme – Films (Hunting in Tian-Shan, Reintroduction of Tetrao urogallus in the Czech Republic, Hunting in the Czech Republic, etc.)

THURSDAY 14 SEPTEMBER Working Group & Forum of Participants

08h00 – 08h30 Plenary – Introduction of the methodology and timing for the work in working groups

08h30 – 10h00 Working groups Identification of priority and follow-up actions at country, sub-regional and regional levels

10h00 – 10h30 Coffee break 10h30 – 12h00 Plenary Presentation of WG results followed by discussion 12h00 – 13h30 Lunch

13h30 – 15h00 Working groups Formulation of short project outline to address most important need in each country

15h00 – 15h30 Coffee break 15h30 – 17h00 Plenary Presentation and discussion of results 17h00 – 18h30 Drafting of report

19h30 – 22h00 Reception/Dinner(National dresses are welcome!) Hunting restaurant “Obora”, Prague

FRIDAY 15 SEPTEMBER Conclusion/Closing 08h00 – 10h00 Presentation and discussion of overall results 10h00 – 10h30 Coffee break 10h30 – 12h00 Conclusion and commitment on future steps 12h00 – 13h30 Lunch 14h00 – Departure of participants

14h00 – 16h00 Wrap-up meeting of Secretariat, Follow-up arrangements and Preparation of the workshop proceedings

33

Annex 3

Composition of the groups

Group 1: Wildlife Policy and Legislation

Karen JENDEREDJIAN Sophiko AKHOBADZE

Nyamdavaa GENDENJAV Dilyafruz ISHANKULOVA

Timur BERKELIEV Alisher SHUKUROV Kai WOLSCHEID

Kolja ZIMMERMANN My Moulay Yousef ALAOUI

Group 2: Socio-economic problems

Mikhayil VOSKANOV Anne RUKHADZE Aitkul BURHANOV Maria KURGANOVA Akmal ISMATOV

Philippe CHARDONNET René CZUDEK

Alexey VAISMAN

Group 3 : Management

Naira ALAVERDYAN Shalva JAVAKHADZE Sergey SOKOLOV Almaz MUSAEV

Baldan DORJGOTOV Natsag NYAMDORI

Hukmatullo Makhmudovich AHMADOV Akmurad ATAMURADOV

Galina PRONKINA