Biodiversity: Delivering results in Europe and the CIS

Wetland rangers with a young pelican (Pelecanus crispus), Kazakhstan.PHOTO: UNDP KAZAKHSTAN

cover_BD:Layout 1 9/6/12 2:46 PM Page 1

Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus) in Sünt-Hasardag Reserve, Turkmenistan

PHOTO: MICHAEL APPLETON

Biodiversity:Delivering results in Europeand the CIS

September 2012

Biodiversity_00_UNDPelv 9/6/12 9:35 AM Page 1

Biodiversity: Delivering results in Europe and the CISCopyright © UNDP 2012

The views expressed in this publication do notnecessarily represent those of the United NationsDevelopment Programme, its Executive Board orthe United Nations Member States. This is an in-dependent publication by the UNDP Bureau forDevelopment Policy, Energy and Environment Group.

The boundaries and names shown and the des-ignations used on maps in this document do notimply official endorsement or acceptance by theUnited Nations.

All rights reserved. This publication or parts of itmay not be reproduced, stored by means of anysystem or transmitted, in any form or by anymedium, whether electronic, mechanical, pho-tocopied, recorded or of any other type, withoutthe prior permission of the United NationsDevelopment Programme.

Production coordination: Nik Sekhran.Compilation and editing: Adriana Dinu, MaximVergeichik, Michael R Appleton, Natalia Panchenko,Nadezda Liscakova.Design: Valeur, s. r. o., Slovak Republic.Printing: Valeur, s. r. o., Slovak Republic.

This publication was printed on recycled paper,in the Slovak Republic.

Citation: Appleton, M.R., Dinu, A., Liscakova, N.,Panchenko, N. & Vergeichik, M. (2012). Biodiversity:Delivering results in Europe and the CIS. UNDP,Bratislava.

ISBN: 978-92-95092-48-8

Cover picture. Collecting cranberries at a peat-land protected area in Belarus. Photo: SergeiZyuonak.

2 B I O D I V E R S I T Y : D E L I V E R I N G R E S U L T S I N E U R O P E A N D T H E C I S

About the compilers

Adriana Dinu is Deputy ExecutiveCoordinator for UNDP-GEF at the Energyand Environment Group, Bureau for De -velopment Policy, UNDP, New York.

Maxim Vergeichik is Regional TechnicalAdvisor for biodiversity and ecosystemmanagement, with the Energy andEnvironment Group, Bureau for Deve -lopment Policy, based in the UNDPRegional Support Centre for Europe andthe CIS in Bratislava, Slovakia.

Michael R Appleton is an independentconsultant specialising in protected areasand sustainable development. He is a fre-quent adviser to the UNDP supported, GEFfinanced projects in Europe and the CIS.

Natalya Panchenko is an independentconsultant in ecosystem management.

Nadezda Liscakova is UNDP ProgrammeAssociate for biodiversity and ecosystemmanagement, Energy and EnvironmentGroup, based in the UNDP RegionalSupport Centre for Europe and the CIS inBratislava, Slovakia.


C A S E S T U D I E S F R O M U N D P S U P P O R T E D , G E F F I N A N C E D P R O J E C T S I N T H E E U R O P E A N D C I S R E G I O N 3

We would like to recognize the many partnerswho have contributed to the projects outlinedin this publication, and to thank the GlobalEnvironment Facility (www.thegef.org).

This book is the result of dedicated work by manypeople. We are deeply grateful to Nik Sekhran,Principal Technical Advisor for Ecosystems andBiodiversity at UNDP, for inspiring and coordinat-ing the production of this publication. The bookfeatures 30 case studies, prepared with the assis-tance of project managers and UNDP CountryOffice staff in 20 countries: AbduvakkosAbdurahmanov (Uzbekistan), Azat Alamanov(Kyrgyzstan), Nino Antadze (Georgia), AlexeiArtushevski (Belarus), Assylkhan Assylbekov(Kazakhstan), Victoria Baigazina (Kazakhstan),Alexander Bardarov (Bulgaria), Gojko Berlengi(Croatia), Irina Bredneva (Russian Federation), OlgaChabrovskaya (Belarus), Vladimir Cheranev(Kazakhstan), Miroslava Dikova (Bulgaria), AkmalIsmatov (Uzbekistan), Mirzohaydar Isoev(Tajikistan), Mariam Jorjadze (Georgia), SilvijaKalnins (Latvia), Kuralay Karibayeva (Kazakhstan),Shirin Karryeva (Turkmenistan), Talgat Kerteshev(Kazakhstan), Guzal Khodjaeva (Uzbekistan),Sukhrob Khoshmukhamedov (Tajikistan), StanislavKim (Kazakhstan), Anita Kodzoman (the Former

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) VladimirKoltunov (Belarus), Igor Kostin (Russian Federation),Alexander Kozulin (Belarus), Kumar Kylychev(Kyrgyzstan), Yildiray Lise (Turkey), NataliaLopantseva (Russian Federation), AhadMahmoudov (Tajikistan), Monica Moldovan(Romania), Rovshen Nurmuhamedov(Turkmenistan), Nataly Olofinskaya (Russian Federation), Vasily Ponomarev (Russian Federation),Toni Popovski (the Former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia), Gediminas Rascius (Lithuania), VieraSefferová (Slovakia), Khalilulla Sherimbetov(Uzbekistan), Andrei Starikov (Russian Federation),Igar Tchoulba (Belarus), Vasyl Tolkachev (Ukraine),Klára Tóthová (Slovak Republic), Sandra Vlasic(Croatia), Sergei Volkov (Ukraine), Borko Vulikić(Montenegro), Svetlana Zagirova (RussianFederation), Sergei Zagrebin (Uzbekistan), KatalinZaim (Turkey), and Emiliana Zhivkova (Bulgaria).The compilers express their deep gratitude to allthese people for their contributions to this publi-cation and to all those who have contributed tothe achievements of the UNDP supported, GEF fi-nanced projects in the Europe and CIS region.

AcknowledgementsRussian stone idols of Komi.

PHOTO: ADRIANA DINU


Humans bear the primary responsibility for thepresent unprecedented biodiversity loss atseveral levels – genetic, species, and ecosystems.Of all the problems the world faces in managing‘global goods’, only the loss of biodiversity is irre-versible. It is important to realize that curbingbiodiversity loss is in our own interest. Whenspecies experience significant population de-clines, the result is the underlying loss in thequantity and quality of natural resources and theassociated ecosystem services upon which wedepend. For example, the halving of the popula-tion of the globally threatened aquatic warbler(Acrocephalus paludicola) in Belarus has served asa clear indicator of a similar scale of loss of thepeatland ecosystems on which it depends. Thisin turn has led to a loss of soil fertility and of theagricultural and natural resource-based liveli-hoods of communities over an area of close toone million hectares.

In Europe and the Commonwealth of Inde -pendent States (ECIS), the focus of this publica-tion, there is ample evidence of these continu-ing losses. The erosion of indigenous cropvarieties and landraces in Georgia in the middleof the twentieth century has progressively un-dermined the resistance of agricultural crops to

pests and harsh winters, with correspondingimpact on crop harvests. The loss of wild plantgenes in Kazakhstan could render us incapableof economically harvesting climate change-re-sistant fruit crops in 30 years’ time, a now typicalcase where food security is threatened by arapidly changing climate. Humanity is only nowstarting to scratch the surface of these intricatedependencies between biodiversity and humanlivelihoods: the unknowns are countless andmultifaceted. But we cannot wait until we havea solid understanding of the complex biologicalsystems before we act swiftly to protect theirfunctional health. Biodiversity conservation isthe critical insurance for sustained human de-velopment.

Climate change is both exacerbating and isbeing exacerbated by biodiversity loss andecosystem degradation. Healthy forests and wet-lands contain massive carbon reservoirs and arevital for regulating the global climate. Whileclimate change poses an immense challengetoday, the continued degradation of these eco -systems threatens to increase greenhouse gasemissions exponentially and intensify the nega-tive effects of climate change in the future. Thesustained supply of certain ecosystem services,

for example stream flow regulation in droughtprone areas, will be critical in bufferinghuman populations from the adverse impacts ofclimate change, including coastal flooding,droughts and other hazards. Healthy and diversenatural ecosystems are expected to be more re-silient in the face of climate change than de-graded ones.

More than ever, our efforts are needed to con-serve the natural support systems of the planet.The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is the largestfinancer of projects to conserve threatened andunique biodiversity worldwide. Since 1991, it hasinvested over $3 billion in biodiversity conserva-tion initiatives. GEF resources have benefited ahost of threatened species and their habitats, havecontributed to the establishment of more effec-tive and better-financed protected area systems,and have helped to adapt damaging economicsector production practices in a manner thathelps protect biodiversity. Recognizing the im-portance of restoring populations of threatenedspecies in the GEF-5 cycle (2010-2014), a refine-ment was made to the GEF biodiversity strategy tosupport the expansion of protected area systemsin order to better capture the habitat of threat-ened species. More than 70 percent of all species


Foreword


Gustavo A.B. da Fonseca,Head, Natural Resources,Global Environment Facility

Yannick Glemarec,Executive Coordinator, UNDP-GEF,Bureau for Development Policy,United Nations Development Programme

owe their threatened status to the loss of habitat,and this directive is intended to improve thestatus of particularly threatened species.Kyrgyzstan was among the first countries in theECIS region to benefit from this: a project to con-serve snow leopards (Panthera uncia) within an ex-panding protected area system was approved bythe GEF in April 2012.

The United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) has been a key partner of the GEF sinceits launch in 1991. The sustainable manage-ment of biodiversity and ecosystem services isa key part of UNDP’s mandate. It is critical forachievement of the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) and to combating poverty. Unlikethe rich, the poor are unable to replace ecosys-tem services with infrastructure (for example,by building flood control infrastructure oncenatural flood defences provided by forests andwetlands have been lost). Rural communitiesdepend on ecosystem goods and services, inparticular for health and nutrition, as a safetynet when faced with climate variability andnatural disasters, and for crop and livestock de-velopment. UNDP addresses biodiversity lossnot just because it threatens to increase povertyand undermine development, but also becausethe causes of biodiversity loss stem from under-development. In particular, the two maincauses of biodiversity loss are weak governancesystems (policies, institutions and accountabil-

ity) and market failures, whereby the marketfails to signal a price for many of the diverseservices provided by ecosystems. Support togovernment authorities to address the gover-nance and market failures that drive biodiver-sity loss requires the broad experience, abilityto leverage, and trusted credibility of a neutralUN agency. The objective of UNDP’s biodiver-sity work is maintaining and enhancing thebeneficial services provided by natural ecosys-tems in order to secure livelihoods, food, waterand health security, reduce vulnerability toclimate change, store carbon and avoid carbonemissions from inappropriate land use, land usechange and forestry practices.

This publication presents some of the out-comes of GEF-funded work managed by UNDPin Europe and the CIS that aims to conservebiodiversity. The GEF and UNDP are proud tosupport the efforts of governments acrossEurope and the CIS to better protect their bio-diversity endowments. The results achieved sofar provide a solid basis for future action,whereby biodiversity conservation will need tobe closely integrated with sustainable eco-nomic development and efforts to mitigate andadapt to climate change. We hope this publica-tion can inspire others to participate in theglobal conservation movement, and bettersecure our own future and economic and socialwelfare in so doing.

5C A S E S T U D I E S F R O M U N D P S U P P O R T E D , G E F F I N A N C E D P R O J E C T S I N T H E E U R O P E A N D C I S R E G I O N



Loiseleuria procumbens in the Ural Mountains, Komi Republic, Russia. PHOTO: ADRIANA DINU


CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CIS Commonwealth of IndependentStates

EC European Commission

ECIS Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agricultural Organizationof the United Nations

FSC Forest Stewardship Council

GBSP Green Business Support Programme

GEF Global Environment Facility

GIS Geographical information system

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (German Technical Cooperation)

ha hectare(s)

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IUCN International Union for Conservationof Nature (The World ConservationUnion)

km kilometre(s)

m metre(s)

MDG Millennium Development Goal

METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

MMNP Maramureş National Nature Park

NFA National Forest Administration (Romania)

NGO Non-governmental organization

NVBR North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve

PA Protected area

SGP Small Grants Programme

SMESF Small and Medium Enterprise Support Fund

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific,and Cultural Organization

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre of UNEP

WWF World Wildlife Fund/Worldwide Fundfor Nature

Acronyms and abbreviations used in the text


Wetland vegetation in the Lower Volga, Russia.PHOTO: ADRIANA DINU


B I O D I V E R S I T Y : D E L I V E R I N G R E S U L T S I N E U R O P E A N D T H E C I S8

Contents

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Acronyms and abbreviations used in the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1 Biodiversity in Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States in the context of climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.1 Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161.2 Freshwater ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181.3 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211.4 Peatlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231.5 Marine and coastal ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251.6 Mountains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.7 Steppe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2 The diversity of contexts and challenges in the countries of the region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2.1 New EU Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332.2 EU candidate and potential candidate countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342.3 Non EU countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3 UNDP, biodiversity conservation and sustainable ecosystem management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.1 UNDP’s global strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383.2 The biodiversity portfolio of UNDP in Europe and the CIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40



4 Case studies from UNDP supported, GEF financed projects in the Europe and CIS region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4.1 Broadening the roles and functions of protected areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Romania: establishing a Nature Park in a multiple use landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Russian Federation: using multiple strategies to protect globally significant wetlands in the Volga Delta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Redefining the scope and functions of Turkmenistan’s protected areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.2 Expanding protected area systems and extending conservation into the wider landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Maintaining landscape connectivity in the Russian Arctic: the Taimyr Peninsula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Belarus: building biodiversity conservation standards into land and resource use planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Extending and diversifying protection in the steppes of Kazakhstan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60A comprehensive national plan for protected area expansion in Uzbekistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.3 Integrating biodiversity conservation with climate change mitigation and adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Post-extraction peatland restoration is recreating habitats and reducing carbon emissions in Belarus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Protecting stored carbon in the boreal forests of the Komi Republic in the Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Kazakhstan: protecting and enhancing carbon pools in the Altai-Sayan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Managing vulnerability and developing adaptation strategies for Hungary’s Lake Balaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

4.4 Management of unique and fragile forests: moving from silviculture to ecosystem management and community empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Changing foresters’ perspectives in Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79A new Biosphere Reserve and local communities are two elements of success in conserving Uzbekistan’s tugai forests . . . . . . . . . 81Integrating forestry with conservation and rural development in Bulgaria’s mountain landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84


4.5 Conserving agrobiodiversity, agro-ecosystems and traditional fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Forgotten crop varieties and landraces make a comeback in Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Sound science and access to finance are the keys to sustainability in Slovakia’s calcareous fens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Czech Republic: demonstrating agrienvironmental and marketing models to support sustainable grassland management in the context of the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Developing local capacities for agrienvironmental measures in biodiversity rich grasslands in Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Securing the future of Kazakhstan’s agrobiodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Kyrgyzstan: restoring a native species fishery through sound ecological management and alternative income generation . . . 101

4.6 Raising awareness and building support for biodiversity conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Awareness really works for Kazakhstan’s wetland managers, and they can prove it! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Changing attitudes in Lithuania through more open and inclusive protected area management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108Tajikistan: raising awareness and supporting communities by building effective partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110‘Nature Concerthalls’ bring Latvia’s biodiversity to the stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

4.7 Ensuring project sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Building capacity for funding and management of protected areas in Montenegro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119Russian Federation: focus on sustainability in Kamchatka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121Greening of credit instruments in Croatia helps to embed biodiversity conservation into local development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124Effective policies and trained and united staff contribute to sustainable financing of Ukraine’s protected areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127Changing the law is the key to improved and more sustainable biodiversity conservation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129


Belaya Berel Depression, Altai-Sayan, Kazakhstan. PHOTO: UNDP KAZAKHSTAN





Biodiversity in Europe and the Commonwealth of IndependentStates in the context of climate change

1B I O D I V E R S I T Y : D E L I V E R I N G R E S U L T S I N E U R O P E A N D T H E C I S 13

Altyn Dala steppe in Kazakhstan. PHOTO: ADRIANA DINU


The Europe and Commonwealth of IndependentStates (ECIS) region covers 26 countries andmore than 24 million km2 (around 16 percent ofthe global land surface). The ECIS is located in thePalaearctic ecozone and includes in its area 26temperate forest ecoregions, the majority of thePalaearctic’s boreal forest and tundra ecoregions,Mediterranean forests, wet grasslands andworld’s largest dry steppe ecoregion. The ECISregion also includes the world’s largest enclosedsea (the Caspian), its largest brackish sea (theBaltic) and harbours globally significant freshwa-ter ecoregions that include the rivers of Europeand the Russian far east, the deltas of the Volga,Danube and Lena, Lake Baikal (the oldest anddeepest lake on the planet), and the Anatoliansmall lakes. Within the region, there are morethan 36,750 protected areas (covering almost 8percent of its land surface), 17 natural, and three

mixed UNESCO World Heritage Sites1, 192 Wet -lands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites)and 98 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves.

Four of the 34 global biodiversity hotspots are inthe ECIS region2. The Caucasus Hotspot supportsa rich diversity of coniferous, broadleaf andmixed forests, small areas of temperate rainfor-est, grassland steppe and semi-desert ecosys-tems. The Mountains of Central Asia Hotspot is aglobally important storehouse of genetic diver-sity for wild crops, containing the unique andhighly threatened walnut-fruit tree forest type.Central Asia is one of Vavilov’s eight majorcentres of crop domestication3 for species in-cluding almond, apricot, flax, lentil, mustard,cotton, and grapes. The Irano-Anatolian Hotspotcontains many areas of unique and threatenedbiodiversity, with high proportions of endemic

plant and freshwater fish species4. The botanicaldiversity of the Mediterranean Hotspot is out-standing, with 15,000 to 25,000 species, 60percent of which are unique to the region5.About one third of the Mediterranean fauna isalso endemic.

Although showing signs of decreasing in somecountries, unsustainable use and exploitation(often illegal) remain the most immediate threatsto biodiversity across the region, along with landconversion, habitat fragmentation and rapidlyexpanding recreational use. The world’s chang-ing climate represents another growing threat,with major implications for biodiversity andecosystems6. The following sections brieflydiscuss the state of the region’s major ecosys-tems, highlighting threats from existing or po-tential impacts of the changing climate.


1 Source: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list2 A ‘Biodiversity Hotspot’ is defined as ‘a biogeographic region with a significant reservoir of biodiversity that is under threat from humans.’ See: Mittermeier, R.A., Myers, N. & Mittermeier, C.G. (2000). Hotspots: Earth’s biologically

richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Conservation International, Washington. Web site: www.biodiversityhotspots.org 3 Vavilov, N.I.(1935). The phytogeographical basis for plant breeding (D. Love, transl.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.4 www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/irano_anatolian/Pages/default.aspx5 www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/mediterranean/Pages/default.aspx6 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). www.maweb.org




Forests cover 27.8 percent of Europe and the CIS,though with a rather uneven distribution. Forestcover is lowest in Central Asia (e.g. 1.2 percentin Kazakhstan, 3.0 percent in Tajikistan, 6.8percent in Kyrgyzstan), and highest in the BalticStates (e.g. 47.4 percent in Latvia), Russia (47.9percent), and the Balkan countries. Russia con-

tains around 20 percent of the world’s forest re-sources, including 40 percent of the most valu-able coniferous stands, particularly important fortheir high carbon sequestration potential7. Thispotential is under threat, however, from har-vesting and degradation of pristine forestecosystems.

Forest cover in the European part of the regionhas been increasing in recent years, while inCentral Asia the forest area is expanding slightly8.The positive trend in the European countries isprimarily attributed to government efforts tocurb forest degradation. Cases of illegal loggingare becoming less frequent, and more forests in


1.1 Forests

Taiga forest in the Komi Republic, Russia. PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON


the region are being managed under forest cer-tification standards. Many countries of the regionhave now signed up to the Programme for theEndorsement of Forest Certification to promotesustainable forest management through inde-pendent third-party certification. These countriesinclude Belarus, the Czech Republic, Poland,Lithuania, the Russian Federation, the SlovakRepublic, and Slovenia9.

Despite the progress in mitigating forest degra-dation and embracing sustainable forest man-agement practices, the adverse effects of climatechange on the forests of the ECIS region are be-coming increasingly apparent. Accelerated deg -radation of carbon-rich, over-mature sprucestands is leading to a proliferation of deciduousstands, resulting in carbon losses. The Inter -governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)report of 200710 states that the increased fre-quency of fire and other anthropogenic impactson the forest-tundra boundary are likely to leadto replacement of large areas of forest with low

productivity grasslands or wetlands. The IPCCreport also predicts an upward shift of the treeline of boreal forests by several hundred metresin altitude, restricting the alpine zone to higherelevations and severely threatening high moun-tain plant and animal communities. The FAOexpects that secondary threats related to climatechange (e.g. fires, pest outbreaks and storms) arelikely to become major drivers of forest degrada-tion in the region11. A 2011 assessment of climatechange impacts in Kazakhstan’s part of the Altai-Sayan ecoregion states that ‘a potential increasein the frequency of fire may result from a drierclimate and increased occurrence of forest pestsand disease’12.

Temperature rise will also lead to increased fluxesof soil CO2 to the atmosphere, and while certaineconomically valuable pine and spruce forestsmay benefit from a warmer climate, other forestcommunities are likely to suffer, particularlywhere wetland drainage has lowered ground-water levels beyond the reach of forest root

zones. This effect is causing instability and criticaldeclines in the resilience of high biodiversity-value (and carbon-rich) ecosystems such asmature black alder and ash forests, and forest fenwetlands. Furthermore, increases in ozone con-centrations from pollution have been blamed byRussian and Belarus scientists for restricting forestcarbon accumulation in Central and EasternEurope13.


7 FAO (2010). Global forest resource assessment 2010. FAO forestry paper 163. FAO, Rome.8 Ibid.9 www.pefc.org

10 IPCC (2007). Fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.11 FAO (2010). Global forest resource assessment 2010. FAO forestry paper 163. FAO, Rome.12 Desmet, P. et al. (2011). An assessment of the protected area network’s vulnerability to climate change impacts in the Kazakhstan part of the Altai-Sayan

ecoregion with recommendations for a protected area adaptation strategy. UNDP, Bratislava. 13 Nakicenovic, N. & Swart, R. (eds) (2000). Emission scenarios. Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University

Press, UK. Downloaded from www.ipcc.ch

Primeval beech forest in the Ukrainian Carpathians.PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON


The biodiversity of freshwater systems in theregion has suffered as a result of a range of an-thropogenic impacts. These include major mod-ifications to natural ecological processes(through, for example, dam construction and in-terrupted connectivity of river systems), changesin discharge regimes, water abstraction, over-ex-ploitation of aquatic species, habitat degrada-tion, pollution by agricultural and industrial ef-fluents, and the impacts of alien invasive species.Climate change is acting as an additional stres-sor, adding to these impacts14. There has beensome progress in reducing pollution in the EUMember and candidate States of Eastern Europe,where the introduction of EU regulations andprogrammes has led to improved wastewatertreatment, reductions in volumes of industrial ef-fluents, reduced use of fertilizers, limits to phos-phate content in detergents and lower emissionsof atmospheric pollutants.

Fish are one of the most important sources ofprotein for people in the region. According to anFAO report from 201115 the inland waters ofCentral Asia produced more than 57,000 tonnesof fish in 2009, but this was just over a quarter ofwhat was harvested in 1988. Eastern Europe hasnot seen such a dramatic collapse, and has acurrent annual production of around 50,000tonnes. In the Russian Federation, the produc-tion of inland fish was around 437,000 tonnes in1988; catches declined to about half that figurein 1994, but have now stabilised. Overfishing asa result of inadequate regulation and enforce-ment is the most obvious cause of the collapseof fisheries, but in Central Asia the decliningquality and quantity of water and wasteful watermanagement have also been major contributingfactors. The spread of alien invasive species,through deliberate or accidental introduction,has also had a major impact on fisheries of nativespecies and on entire aquatic ecosystems. All ofthese problems are likely to be exacerbated byclimate change.


1.2 Freshwater ecosystems

14 Verdonschot, Piet F.M. et al. (2010). Climate change and the hydrology and morphology of freshwater ecosystems. In eds Kernan, M., Battarbee R.& Moss, B. Climate change impacts on freshwater ecosystems. Blackwell Publishing Limited.

15 Welcomme, R. (2011). Review of the state of the world fishery resources: inland fisheries. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 942, Rev. 2. Rome, FAO.

Prespa Lake in Macedonia.PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON



Krka National Park, Croatia. PHOTO: ADRIANA DINU



Wetland in Nuratau Nature Reserve, Uzebkistan. PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON


The rate of wetland loss in the region accelerateddramatically in the twentieth century, and thistrend is expected to continue. Large tracts ofeastern European wetlands have been drainedand converted to arable agriculture. For example,less than 10 percent of Poland’s once vast peatbogs remain intact, while in Bulgaria, of 200,000ha of wetlands at the start of the last century,only 11,000 ha have survived16. Increasingly,various forms of pollution (e.g. eutrophication,contamination with heavy metals and radioac-tive material, acidification and salinization) are af-fecting water quality, while over-exploitation ofgroundwater resources threatens the very exis-tence of many important wetlands. Globalclimate change is predicted to accelerate the lossand degradation of wetlands, leading to thedecline and disappearance of many of thespecies they support17.

With growing demand for reliable supplies ofwater and power, increases in dam constructionand refurbishment can be expected18, yet sometypes of wetland can play a valuable role as‘natural infrastructure’, providing significantwater storage capacity. This message has alreadybeen picked up by several countries in theregion (e.g. Lithuania, Belarus, the Russian Fe de -ration and Kazakhstan), which have pioneeredinnovative and practical wetland restorationtechniques, and extended protected areasystems to include wetlands providing the im-portant services of freshwater storage and pu-rification.


16 Jones, T. (1997). The European region: an overview of European wetlands. In Wetlands, biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention: the role of the Con-vention on Wetlands in the conservation and wise use of biodiversity. Ramsar Convention Bureau.

17 Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.18 Acreman, M.C. (2012). Wetlands and water storage: current and future trends and issues. Ramsar Scientific and Technical Briefing Note no. 2. Ramsar

Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.

1.3 Wetlands

Cranes (Grus grus) are a flagship species for the many of the region's wetlands.

PHOTO: ALEXANDER KOZULIN (BELARUS)




Peatlands and areas of active peat formationcover over 370 million ha in the Russian Fede -ration, more than 20 percent of the country19.Belarus, Estonia and Latvia also have high ratesof peat formation and are, respectively, 7.9 per -cent, 7.2 percent and 4.9 percent peat-covered.Lithuania, Georgia, Bulgaria and Armenia havemore than 2 percent peatland coverage. Around20 percent of the peatlands in the RussianFederation are classified as permafrost, a formunique to this region. Vulnerability to climatechange is especially high in these permafrostpeatlands and in the peatlands in the forest-steppe and steppe zones of Ukraine, Moldova,Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.

The Russian Federation, Ukraine, Bulgaria,Romania, Croatia, Serbia, Turkey, Georgia andArmenia all contain areas of mountain peatlandthat are small, yet critical for sustaining naturalecosystem functions and still poorly representedin protected area systems. All of the region’scountries have extensive river floodplains, whichoriginally supported valley fens and swamps. Inthe largest river valleys, natural peatlands nowsurvive only in the least accessible locations,such as river deltas, while in the valleys ofmedium-sized and small rivers, most peatlandshave been almost totally destroyed by long-termhuman use.

Peatlands are the most important terrestrial sinksof atmospheric carbon, with a potential majorrole in mitigating climate change20. Russian peat-

lands store up to 2 x 1011 tonnes of carbon, pro-viding the largest national contribution to theworld’s peatland carbon store21. Most countriesin the region with extensive areas of drainedpeatland (e.g. Russian Federation, Belarus, theBaltic countries, and Ukraine) have been pilotingschemes for peatland restoration and introduc-ing land use practices recommended by theUnited Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC) to mitigate climatechange. In particular, these countries have de-veloped and implemented techniques for raisinggroundwater levels, thereby triggering the re-sumption of the peat formation process and theassociated accumulation of carbon. No country,however, has yet been successful in sellingcarbon emission reductions from such projectsin existing carbon markets.


1.4 Peatlands

19 Minayeva, T., Sirin, A. & Bragg, O. (eds.) (2009). A quick scan of peatlands in Central and Eastern Europe. Wetlands International, Wageningen, the Netherlands.20 Ibid.21 Ibid.

Elnya peatland in Belarus. PHOTO: ALEXANDER KOZULIN



Coastline of the Commandorsky Reserve in the Bering Sea, Russia. PHOTO: ADRIANA DINU


The ECIS region’s marine and coastal ecosystemsrange from the Mediterranean to the Arctic Ocean.Their overall condition could be described as sat-isfactory, attributable to a range of factors, such asthe effectiveness of EU environmental legislation(in the Black Sea and Mediterranean countries),progress in implementing international projectsand conventions (e.g. in the Black Sea), and physi-cal remoteness, which has protected some areas(e.g. arctic ecosystems) from direct human influ-ence. The coastal fisheries of the Mediterraneancountries and the Russian Federation are eco-nomically very important; for example, 60 percentof Russia’s overall fisheries production comes fromKamchatka and its surrounding waters.

The impact of climate change on marine ecosys-tems has become increasingly apparent in recentyears. The ocean and marine ecosystems areamong the largest sinks of carbon on the planet.The net atmosphere-to-ocean flux represents 30.5percent of the world’s carbon storage, while thenet atmosphere-to-land flux accounts for just 12.5

percent22. The marine plants that form extensiveunderwater ‘meadows’ are responsible for about15 percent of total carbon storage in the oceans.Meadows of Posidonia oceanica, a locally wide-spread Mediterranean endemic plant, represent asubstantial store of carbon. Almost 20 per cent ofall known Mediterranean species have their habitatin the Posidonia meadows, including the endan-gered loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) and thelargest bivalve mollusc in the Mediterranean, Pinnanobilis23. Major threats to Mediterranean biodiver-sity identified by WWF include lack of control overtrawling and anchoring sites, inappropriate plansfor tourism development, lack of capacity assess-ment for nautical tourism destinations, untreatedwastewaters (urban and industrial) and inappro-priate mariculture development. At present,however, around 80 percent of Mediterraneanhabitats remain unprotected.

In the arctic seas, the impact of climate instabilityon biodiversity is already being witnessed, andmuch larger impacts are expected (with signifi-

cant regional variation) over this century. Someplaces in the Arctic are warming at five to tentimes the rate of the rest of the planet. By 2100,the Arctic is expected to have warmed by 3°-5°Cover its land and by 7°C over its oceans, con-tributing to dramatic changes in its ecosystems24.Predicted impacts include a more than 50percent decline in the extent of summer sea ice,and the displacement of existing arctic speciesand ecosystems (e.g. polar deserts and tundra) bymore southern species and ecosystems spread-ing northward. Other imminent threats to arcticbiodiversity stem from alien invasive species andfrom the impact of pollution by hydrocarbonsand other hazardous materials.


1.5 Marine and coastal ecosystems

22 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva,Switzerland.

23 Boudouresque, C.F. (2004). Marine biodiversity in the Mediterranean: status of species, populations and communities. Sci. Rep. Port-Cros Natl Park,20: 97-146.

24 ACIA (2005). Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Coastline of the Caspian Sea in Turkmenistan. PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON


The region’s mountain ranges include theBalkans, the Carpathians, the Rhodope, thePontic Mountains along Turkey’s Black Sea coast,the Urals, the mountains of the far east of Russia,the Altai-Sayan, the Tien Shan, the Gissar and theCaucasus. This diverse assemblage encompassesboth mountains with distinct altitudinal vegeta-tion belts, which have high rates of endemism,as well as more uniform non-forested mountains.

In all mountain ecosystems of the region, thefoothills have traditionally been used for grazing,for arable farming (wheat, potatoes, tobacco) andfor orchards. Temperate mountainous semi-naturalgrasslands are some of the most valuable ecosys-tems in the agricultural landscapes of the Balkanand Carpathian countries and in Turkey. Centuriesof stable management through grazing and hay-making have led to the evolution of semi-naturalgrassland ecosystems, rich in species and charac-teristic of their biogeographical region. Declines inthe viability of traditional management practicesare now threatening these unique grasslands.

The collapse of large scale livestock enterprises inmany countries of the former Soviet Union, mostnotably in Central Asia, has resulted in the disper-sal of livestock across numerous smallholdings andfamily farms, which tend to keep their livestockwithin a 3 km to 5 km radius around settlementsand watering places25. Within this radius particu-larly, over-stocking and inappropriate choices oflivestock species are changing vegetation compo-sition, reducing available herbage, and accelerat-ing land degradation. By the early 2000s, thedegradation of most mountain foothills in theregion had led to declines in native wild flora andfauna species. The abandonment of the moredistant rangelands has resulted in overgrowth byunpalatable weeds, decreased productivity offodder and reduced areas of irrigated pastures.Climate change is exacerbating these problems,affecting the composition, extent and distributionof mountainous and sub-mountainous pastures.


1.6 Mountains

25 This is particularly relevant for Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, and the Caucasus 26 Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Republic of Azerbaijan (2010). Second national communication to the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, Baku. Accessed on-line: http://unfccc.int/re-source/docs/natc/azenc2.pdf

Mountain meadow in the Russian Altai-Sayan.PHOTO: ADRIANA DINU

Maçin Mountains National Park in Romania.PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON





Kazakh steppe with distant herd of saiga. PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON


The world’s largest zone of the steppe biome, theEurasian steppe, is found in Ukraine, south-westRussia and its neighbouring countries in CentralAsia. Grasslands of different types dominate thesteppe biome, intermixing with broadleaf forestsin the north, and along river valleys in the south.It is estimated that more than 6,000 species ofplant, about 100 species of mammal and up to180 bird species are found in the steppe zone, aswell as thousands of species of insects and otherinvertebrates.

Eight of the 13 steppe ecoregions that make upthe Eurasian steppe are present or are entirelycontained in the Russian Federation, including theDaurian forest steppe, a WWF ‘Global 200’ ecore-gion. The Pontian steppe province, which extendsin a belt between 300 km and 900 km wide forsome 3,500 km from the lower reaches of theDanube River in the west to the Altai Mountains inthe east, contains over 24 percent of the world’stemperate grasslands27. A significant portion ofthe remaining natural Pontian steppe is inKazakhstan, where, for example, the Saryarka

Steppe and Lakes World Heritage Site provides avaluable refuge for over half the region’s speciesof steppe flora, several threatened bird speciesand the Critically Endangered saiga antelope28.

Land conversion and over-grazing continue tocause the degradation and loss of large areas ofsteppe habitat. Over recent decades, a drasticdecline (as a result of poaching and disease) inthe number of saiga and other large ungulateshas disrupted the stability of steppe communi-ties, in which many plant and animal species relyon grazing by native ungulates to providefavourable habitat conditions. Conservationefforts in countries of the steppe region are stillinadequate, in terms of staff technical compe-tencies and conservation approaches, to addresscomprehensively the continuing fragmentationof steppe ecosystems.

While scientists can estimate general trends, it isvery hard to predict both the specific nature andthe severity of the impacts of climate change onthe steppe zone, as well as the responses of plant

and animal communities to that change.Increasing evidence is emerging, however, tosuggest that climate change represents a criticalthreat to steppe ecosystems. In recent decades,changing climate conditions in Russia havecaused discernible shifts in flowering periods ofplants, in the seasonal migrations of animals andin steppe ecosystem structure. The past ten yearshave already seen marked changes in the distri-butions of many steppe species.


27 World Conservation Monitoring Centre and IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (1993). United Nations list of national parksand protected areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

28 See: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1102

1.7 Steppe

Sandy steppe with salt lake in Kazakhstan.PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON



The diversity of contexts and challenges in the countries of the region


Iztuzu beach, Sulungur Lake and Dalyan channels on Turkey's Mediterranean coast.PHOTO: ADRIANA DINU


A useful way to assess the challenges faced bycountries in the Europe and CIS region when ad-dressing threats to biodiversity is to divide them

into three political/economic groups, as shownin the left-hand columns of the table below.For comparison, the right-hand columns show

how the countries of the region are categorisedby the UNDP Human Development Reportof 201129.


29 United Nations Development Programme (2011). Human development report for 2011. UNDP, New York.

Categorisations of countries in the ECIS region

Political and economic conditions Based on the UNDP Human Development Report (2011)

New EU Member States Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia,Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia,Bulgaria, Romania.

Countries with very high human development

Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia,Hungary, Poland, Slovakia.

Countries that are planningto join the EU

Croatia, Turkey, the Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia, Serbia. (Can-didate countries).

Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia andHerzegovina. (Potential candidatecountries).

Countries with high human development

Lithuania, Latvia, Montenegro, Ro-mania, Croatia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Be-larus, Albania, Russian Federation,Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Bosnia andHerzegovina, Ukraine, Georgia, Ar-menia, Turkey.

Non EU countries (mostly members of the CIS)

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Geor-gia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldo-va, Russian Federation, Tajikistan,Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Countries with medium humandevelopment

Turkmenistan, Moldova, Uzbekistan,Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan.


Members of the European Union are subject tobiodiversity legislation that is probably the mostdemanding in the world; failure to comply withEU standards is liable to financial penalties.Vulnerable species and habitats have to be iden-tified and effectively protected in line with theHabitats and Birds Directives, and Member Statesmust establish and maintain the Natura 2000network of high nature value sites. According toEU norms, conservation planning can only occurthrough a participatory process, involving con-sultations with communities and non-govern-mental organizations.

Within the EU, a range of funding sources atvarious scales is available to support conserva-tion activities, reducing the relevance and appli-cability of sources of support such as the GlobalEnvironment Facility, UNDP and the World Bank.Although substantial funding for biodiversityconservation is potentially available from EUstructural funds and operational programmes,new Member States have so far mobilised onlybetween 10 and 60 percent of what is theoreti-cally available to them. This is mainly due to in-sufficient capacities to identify an issue, translateit into a funding proposal, raise the required co-financing, and lobby for its approval by national

and EU bodies. Absorptive capacities for EUfunding tend to be concentrated in those coun-tries that acceded earlier, such as the CzechRepublic, Poland and Slovakia. Countries thathave acceded more recently (e.g. Bulgaria,Romania) still have much lower absorptive ca-pacities, but should, over time, become more ef-fective in securing EU funding and putting it togood use for biodiversity conservation.

While the EU has favourable laws, policies andfunding for conservation, it also heavily subsi-dizes economic sectors that are often in conflictwith biodiversity conservation, for example in-frastructure expansion and intensive arablefarming. The subsidy package available to con-ventional agriculture is up to 12 times the size ofthat available to support biodiversity-friendlyagricultural programmes. One consequence ofthis disparity is increased competition forfunding between Ministries of Environment andof Agriculture, while the authority and influenceof the agricultural lobby often far exceeds that ofthe conservation lobby. This may explain whynone of the countries in the group of newMember States has effectively launched agrien-vironmental subsidies at the national scale. In allcases, environmental subsidies are far lower than

subsidies for conventional farming, providinglittle incentive for farmers to retain traditional,biodiversity-friendly practices. Even with theselimitations, the conservation lobby still has animportant role to play in advocating sound eco-logical management, facilitating biodiversitypolicy development, and assisting farmers toapply for available funding for conservation andbiodiversity-friendly measures.


2.1 New EU Member States

Primula farinosa, Belianske Luky, Slovakia. PHOTO: TOMAS DRAZIL


The extent to which conservation legislation inindividual countries in this group approximatesthat of the European Union is uneven. Nationallegislation relevant to biodiversity varies frombeing sophisticated and quite well enforced(e.g. Turkey, Croatia), to out-dated and ineffec-tive (e.g. Bosnia and Herzegovina). Some coun-tries have very strong protected areas, while inothers (e.g. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania,Serbia) effective conservation is very limited.Despite the differences, the committed drivetowards maximum approximation with EUnorms is the common denominator for conser-vation planning in all candidate countries.Although the European Union has accessionsupport programmes in all these countries, thelack of specific support for biodiversity within EU

accession funding has, upon accession, led toproblems for Bulgaria and Romania in fully com-plying with EU directives. The governments ofcountries in this group are required to start toestablish Natura 2000 networks and to protectspecies and habitats under EU directives, andmany are already taking the first steps, oftenusing the Council of Europe’s ‘Emerald Network’as a stepping stone. However there is still onlylimited capacity to identify sites and species forprotection, to organize public consultations onbest protection regimes, and to reconcile con-servation planning with economic planning. Forthese reasons, additional technical support andinvestment from UNDP, including administrationof GEF funding, remain high priorities for thesecountries.


2.2 EU candidate and potential candidate countries

Reed cutter in Monospitovo Marsh, Macedonia. PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON


One common element among this group ofcountries, most of which are Members of theCommonwealth of Independent States, is theirSoviet past. Regardless of the cultural and histori-cal differences of its constituent nations, the SovietUnion favoured a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model for thegovernance of all aspects of life, including naturalresource use and protection. Since the break-upof the Soviet Union in 1991, each country hasbeen building its own governance systems. Yetthe generational memory of the Soviet Union stillfar exceeds that of post-Soviet independence,which explains similarities across many of thecountries in conservation policies, practices andinstitutional settings, which have frequently notprogressed greatly from the Soviet model.

The overall protected area coverage in the CIS is8.5 percent, ranging between 4 percent(Turkmenistan) and 22 percent (Tajikistan). Russiaand Kazakhstan have the largest protected areasin the region, some of them covering over fourmillion ha.

Each country in this group has a national RedData Book that normally has legal status (i.e. thelisted species must be protected); but these areusually bulky academic volumes, consulted pri-

marily by scientists and unknown to the public atlarge. Moreover, they only cover species, omit-ting threatened ecosystems. No equivalent ofthe EU Habitats Directive exists in any of thecountries, which may, to some extent, explainwhy industrial, infrastructural and agricultural de-velopment frequently pay little attention toecosystem values.

State financing and international donor fundingremain the predominant sources of support forthe protected area estate in these countries, andthere are common weaknesses in approaches tofinancial planning and management. Whenbudgeting for protected areas, managers gener-ally tend to think in terms of allocated annual op-erational budgets, rather than planned and tar-geted programmes of conservation. Strict naturereserves are often preferred over regimes thatallow some forms of co-management and co-ex-istence between economic activities and con-servation. Few protected area managers havethe capacity or authority to generate income atthe site level (e.g. from tourism or resource usecharges), or to reinvest any income that is gen-erated into management of the site. In somecountries, this type of approach is discouragedand is not allowed under existing legislation.

In recent years, all countries in this group havebeen facing budget difficulties, aggravated bythe continuing economic crisis. In the majority,the state budget for conservation has beenfalling since 2008, while no new large sources ofexternal funding have become available. TheEuropean Union has been supporting some ofthese countries through its good neighbour-hood programmes, but biodiversity conserva-tion has only been included in small to medium-size projects under these programmes. In thiscontext, funding from the multilateral donors,and especially from the Global EnvironmentFacility, is playing a vital and significant role.


2.3 Non EU countries

Overgrazed foothills in southern Uzbekistan.PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON



UNDP, biodiversity conservation and sustainable ecosystem management


Local farmer, Küre Mountains, Turkey. PHOTO: YILDIRAY LISE


The sustainable management of biodiversity andecosystem services are keys to achievement ofthe Millennium Development Goals, and to com-bating poverty. UNDP addresses biodiversity lossprimarily because it threatens to increase povertyand undermine development, but also becausethe causes of biodiversity loss stem from under-development. In particular, the two main causesof biodiversity loss are weak governance systems(policies, institutions and accountability) andmarket failures, whereby the market fails to signala price for many of the diverse services providedby ecosystems. Support to government authori-ties to address the governance and market fail-ures that drive biodiversity loss requires the broadexperience, ability to leverage, and trusted cred-ibility of a neutral UN agency.

The objective of UNDP’s biodiversity work ismaintaining and enhancing the beneficial serv-ices provided by natural ecosystems, in order tosecure livelihoods, food, water and health secu-rity, to reduce vulnerability to climate change, tostore carbon and to avoid carbon emissions fromland use, land use change and forestry.

UNDP is addressing biodiversity loss and ecosys-tem degradation through two signature pro-grammes:

Mainstreaming biodiversity management ob-jectives into economic sector activities toensure that production processes maintain es-sential ecosystem functions that sustainhuman welfare.

Releasing the economic potential of protectedareas (22 percent of the Earth’s surface area, in-cluding indigenous and community con-served areas) so that they are able to fulfil theirmanagement functions, are sustainably fi-nanced and contribute towards sustainabledevelopment.

As of early 2012, UNDP’s global portfolio ofecosystem and biodiversity projects, mainlyfunded by the GEF, consisted of 157 projectsunder implementation, with a value of $584million in GEF funding directly administered byUNDP, and of $1.72 billion when parallel fundingis included30. In addition, UNDP has a GEF pipe -

line of 120 projects worth $350 million in GEFgrants and $250 million in co-financing. Since1992, the GEF Small Grants Programme, imple-mented by UNDP, has supported 7,628 commu-nity-based biodiversity projects globally, with atotal value of $180 million, and has been able toleverage a further $269 million in cash and in-kind co-financing. Several other UNDP environ-ment programmes also contribute towards bio-diversity management in the region, includingthe UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative,the UN REDD Programme, UNDP’s InternationalWaters Programme, and initiatives of the NairobiDry Lands Development Centre.


3.1 UNDP’s global strategy

Peatland in Lithuania.PHOTO: ADRIANA DINU

30 United Nations Development Programme (2011). UNDP-GEF global portfolio review. UNDP, New York.




In the ECIS region, UNDP and GEF have supportedover 60 ecosystem and biodiversity projectsbetween 1992 and 2012. In early 2012, the port-folio of projects was worth $101.5 million in GEFfunding, and $290.5 million in committed co-fi-nancing31. Apart from the GEF, major fundingsources include the Deutsche Gesellschaft fürInternationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)32 and theInternational Climate Protection Initiative of theGerman Federal Ministry for the Environment,Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU)33.UNDP country offices, jointly with national gov-ernments and NGOs in the region, manage andmonitor implementation of these projects. TheRegional Coordination Unit for Europe and the

CIS, located in Bratislava in Slovakia, assists inproject formulation, implementation, monitoringand reporting.

The majority of UNDP supported biodiversity proj-ects in the ECIS region focus on protected areas,concentrating on management effectiveness of in-dividual protected areas, as well as on national poli-cies and financing mechanisms for protected areasystems as a whole (for example in the FormerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Armenia andMoldova). This concentration on protected areasreflects national priorities for investing in site-basedaction and also commitments by some govern-ments to expand entire protected area systems (forexample in Ukraine, Montenegro and Uzbekistan).

UNDP-GEF is also assisting countries to establishthe governance frameworks required to streng -then protected area management more broadly.The economic potential of protected areas is beingharnessed through promoting sustainable tou -

rism, sustainable harvesting of natural resources,and development of markets for ecosystem serv-ices. Compliance of resource users with protectedarea regulations is being strengthened, while in-novative partnerships between communities andprotected area administrations are being estab-lished to provide alternative, biodiversity-friendlysources of income to the communities. UNDP hasalso been instrumental in broadening the applica-tion of management planning and business plan-ning for protected areas, in raising awareness of thepublic on protected area values, and in vocationaltraining for protected area staff.

The biodiversity portfolio of the ECIS region targetsa wide range of ecosystems, including coastal,marine, freshwater (including wetlands), lowlandgrassland, mountains, tundra and forests. So far,projects have benefited 395 protected areas, cov-ering over 87 million ha34. Between 2004 and 2012,the management effectiveness scores of protectedareas targeted by UNDP-GEF investment in the


3.2 The biodiversity portfolio of UNDP in Europe and the CIS

31 Ibid.32 The GIZ and UNDP partnership focuses on the Caucasus and Central Asia.33 The Russian Federation and Kazakhstan received complementary funding worth total of €4,868,411 for 2009-2012 for two on-going GEF biodiversity

projects to protect carbon sinks of the Altai-Sayan ecoregion, and reduce the natural and human-induced vulnerability to climate change.34 United Nations Development Programme (2011). UNDP-GEF global portfolio review. UNDP, New York.

Maculinea arion, Carpathian grasslands, Czech Republic.PHOTO: CARPATHIAN GRASSLANDS PROJECT TEAM


region increased on average by 23 percent com-pared to the scores before investment35. UNDP hasbeen particularly successful in strengthening theprotected area systems of Romania, Kazakhstan,Lithuania, Belarus, the Altai-Sayan region of theRussian Federation, Latvia and the Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia.

Projects for mainstreaming biodiversity conserva-tion have directly benefited over 55 million ha ofland and seascapes and indirectly benefited afurther 49 million ha36. Agriculture, farming, fish-eries, tourism, land use planning and oil-and-gasare the most commonly targeted sectors. Twoprojects focus specifically on agricultural biodiver-sity (Georgia and Tajikistan), one project targetsfisheries (Kyrgyzstan) and four projects (Hungary,Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia) arehelping to jump-start the EU agrienvironmentalsubsidy schemes for grasslands. Two relatively newprojects (Belarus, Moldova) focus on mainstream-ing biodiversity conservation into territorial plan-ning, while new projects in Uzbekistan and theRussian Federation will be mainstreaming biodi-versity conservation in the oil-and-gas sector. Thekey challenge in mainstreaming is to identify ‘win-win’ solutions, whereby production enterprises

benefit and biodiversity is maintained. Overall,such initiatives are usually more complex andproduce fewer tangible results in normal projecttimescales. Mainstreaming projects in the regionare likely to grow in number, but to remain fewerthan those focusing on protected areas.

To monitor the performance of the portfolio,UNDP-GEF assesses the progress of each projectusing a standard system that annually rates bothimplementation and overall progress towards thedefined development objective37. In 2010-2011,89 percent of the projects in the portfolio (40 proj-ects) were rated as Satisfactory or Highly Satis -factory for their progress towards their objectives,while 9 percent (four projects) were rated asMarginally Satisfactory.

The remaining sections of this publication high-light case studies from 30 biodiversity projectsacross the Europe and CIS region, some completedand some still at various stages of implementation.These projects represent the range of approachesbeing adopted to implement UNDP’s global strat-egy, the objectives of the Global EnvironmentFacility and the objectives and obligations of thecountries themselves. The case studies are arran -

ged in seven thematic groups, each with an intro-duction outlining the main challenges faced by rel-evant projects and the lessons that have beenlearned in the course of implementation. Eachcase study highlights selected achievements of aproject within a particular theme, but all the proj-ects are characterised by the use of multiple ap-proaches to achieving their objectives in the spe-cific contexts of the country and location wherethey are implemented.

UNDP is proud of the achievements of its biodi-versity teams and their partners in the region. Yetwe recognize that we have much more workahead, as economic challenges and the effects ofclimate change increasingly influence the conser-vation agenda. Future projects must focus on thevalues of natural land and seascapes in their en-tirety, proposing and facilitating actions that, whileconserving species and their habitats, increase theresilience of ecosystems to withstand humanthreats and strengthen their ability to adapt toclimate change.

For further information on the regional pro-gramme for Europe and the CIS, contact:

United National Development ProgrammeRegional Bureau for Europe and the CISGrosslingova 3581109 BratislavaSlovak Republic.www.undp.org/europeandcis


35 Management effectiveness of protected areas was measured using the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), a standard monitoring instrumentfor UNDP-GEF projects. For further information see: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/conservation/forests/tools/tracking_tool/

36 United Nations Development Programme (2011). UNDP-GEF global portfolio review. UNDP, New York.37 Ibid.



Case studies from UNDP supported, GEF financed projects in the Europe and CIS region


Tourism and traditions in the Vaser Valley, Maramureş, Romania. PHOTO: MICHAEL SCHNEEBERGER


One of the legacies of the nature conservationpolicies formerly adopted across much of theregion has been a network of strict protectedareas (known in many countries as Zapovedniks),established and managed with an exclusivefocus on research and non-intervention.Biodiversity conservation has benefited greatlyfrom this approach, but today the resources areno longer available to maintain the large rangerforces and major scientific departments formerlyemployed by these reserves. Furthermore, pres-sure has increased on natural resources to sup-plement human livelihoods, and both decisionmakers and the wider public have questionedthe benefits of maintaining exclusive ‘natural lab-oratories.’ Consequently, many protected areashave been left neither with the resources to con-tinue the former regime of management, norwith the help required to develop new ap-proaches that reflect the demands of changingtimes. The legal strict protected status of manyof these sites has prevented the development ofactivities, such as ecotourism and communitybased natural resource management, that canbuild public support and generate income. Theresult has been degradation not only of biodi-versity, but also of the natural systems thatsupport rural communities.

UNDP has been helping to transform the rolesand functions of protected areas in almost everycountry in the region, pioneering initiatives thatinclude: establishing multiple use buffer zonesaround protected areas, in which a wider rangeof nature friendly activities can take place; up-dating laws in order to allow a wider range offunctions for protected areas; and establishingnew types of protected area with a stronger em-phasis on stakeholder involvement and benefitsharing.

Through this work, the regional programme haslearnt some important lessons, including the fol-lowing:

Building understanding and support amongprotected area staff is essential. Some staff canbe resistant to adopting new working prac-tices and learning new skills, others are veryopen and enthusiastic to new approaches. Thedifference often relates to the extent to whichstaff understand the need for change and thebenefits it can bring. If change is seen only asthe introduction of inappropriate and riskynew ideas from outside, the process of trans-formation can be difficult.

Introducing and extending collaborationbetween protected area authorities and localcommunities not only often encounters officialresistance, it can also be very difficult, both ad-ministratively and legally. Projects that have suc-ceeded in establishing collaborative manage-ment have done so not by directly introducing‘blueprints’ from elsewhere, but by crafting ef-fective solutions that fit the legal, cultural andpolitical contexts of the country concerned.

Updating legislation affecting protected areascan be slow and difficult, delaying the formaladoption of changes piloted by projects.

When broadening stake holder involvement,projects should always avoid making commit-ments that cannot be kept. For the most part,local people are enthusiastic about becominginvolved in managing and protecting multipleuse areas, recognising the potential benefitsof improved access to natural resources, moreparticipation in governance, jobs and incomefrom ecotourism, and support for sustainableagriculture. However, the socio economictransformation of an area is a complex processthat does not happen quickly and cannot beguaranteed to succeed in the course of a

4.1 Broadening the roles and functions of protected areas

B I O D I V E R S I T Y : D E L I V E R I N G R E S U L T S I N E U R O P E A N D T H E C I S44


three-year project. It is essential for projects tomotivate stakeholders, but not to raise unreal-istic expectations of short-term benefits.

Involving local and regional government can bea major contributor to project success. Estab -lishing buffer zones and Biosphere Reservesusually requires the involvement of local au-thorities, which have often had little previouscontact with centrally administered protectedareas. In most cases these local authorities proveto be very open and cooperative partners, ap-preciating the need for protection of biodiver-sity and very receptive to measures that aidnature friendly rural development.

Protected area administrations should avoidbeing unnecessarily officious and exclusive.Instead, they should work to develop openand inclusive relationships with their localcommunities and administrations. Becominga respected part of the local community is ahighly effective way to secure cooperationand understanding.

This section highlights three projects from theregional portfolio that have succeed in adoptingnew approaches to protected area managementin contrasting ecosystems.

Mountain shepherd in the Romanian Carpathians.PHOTO: MICHAEL R. APPLETON



Romania:establishing a NaturePark in a multiple uselandscape

Strengthening Romania’s protected area systemby demonstrating government-NGO partnershipin Romania’s Maramureş Nature Park (2005-2009)

The project was established with the objective of con-serving the biodiversity of Maramureş by adoptingan effective and appropriate mode for protected areamanagement. In such a large and diverse area, themost appropriate approach was to adopt the am-

bitious target of creating a multifunctional protectedlandscape. Since 2005, MMNP has progressed frombeing newly gazetted and existing only on paper tohaving a fully functioning administrative unit, a com-prehensive management plan agreed with all

stakeholders, and working partnerships with regionaland local government institutions for implement-ing and enforcing the management plan. The totalarea in strict protection zones of the Nature Park hasgrown from nothing to over 18,800 ha.

P R O J E C T :


Maramureş: a unique natural and cultural landscape

With an area of over 130,000 ha, Maramureş Nature Park (MMNP) covers approximately 22percent of Maramureş County, situated in the northern-most parts of the Carpathian Mountainsin Romania. The landscapes and ecosystems of MMNP range from river valleys and floodplains,through forested slopes to high-level meadows and peaks of over 1,900 m. 18 major habitattypes have been identified, including areas of pristine forest, now very rare in Europe. 24 percentof the plant species known from Romania are found in MMNP, including 26 Carpathian endemics.The fauna is rich and diverse, characteristic of the Carpathian region.

MMNP includes mosaics of natural and human modified habitats and contains many settle-ments, with a total population of over 90,000. People in Maramureş have maintained close linksto their land and environment, managing much of the landscape using traditional eco-friendlypractices maintained over centuries. The regio n is renowned in Romania for its traditions, its cul-tural heritage and its unique architectural styles, notably the famous wooden churches. Localpeople cherish and maintain these traditions, and visitors from all over Romania visit to experi-ence the festivals, folklore, costumes, stories and songs of Maramureş.

These unique values are increasingly threatened by habitat fragmentation and degradation, byover exploitation of natural resources and by uncontrolled tourism development. Underlyingthese threats has been a declining local economy and outmigration of young people to seekwork elsewhere. The challenge for Maramureş is to take advantage of its natural and cultural treas-ures to promote development, without spoiling the unique cultures and landscapes of the region.


“We succeeded in developing apartnership; this is the only waywe can function, because you sim-ply cannot do something on yourown anymore, this is the world weare living in.”

T H E M AY O R O F B I S T R A C O M M U N E .

The key to these achievements has been de-veloping effective and inclusive forms of gov-ernance. Although implementation of theproject was led by the National Forest Ad mi -nistration (NFA), the project area extended farbeyond the forest estate. The NFA project teamhad to develop entirely new management ap-proaches, involving a wide range of local stake-holders and building on the foundation estab-lished by the Maramureş BiodiversityConsortium, which was established in 2000with membership from the County Council, themain natural resource agencies and theEcological Society of Maramureş. The NaturePark Director is now a member of local devel-opment committees in the county, and theMMNP management team has become a re-spected and valued partner in regional devel-opment assessments, reviewing investment

and development proposals to ensure thatNature Park regulations are respected, and sug-gesting alternative approaches for eco-friendlydevelopment.

The process of developing the managementplan for MMNP has been central to building par-ticipation and public support. By involving localinterests in the planning process, the projectteam was able to exchange information andideas with stakeholders and build a consensusabout future management. Of particular impor-tance has been the participatory zonation of theNature Park in a way that reflects the environ-mental priorities and economic needs of thearea. In order to involve stakeholders in gover-nance, two oversight bodies have been estab-lished. The Scientific Council comprises 13 re-gional academic specialists, and reviews allproposed actions or decisions that have poten-tial environ mental impacts. The 54 members ofthe Consultative Council represent the full rangeof stakeholders and meets to discuss the plansof the Nature Park, to share ideas for futureactions and to work together to resolve prob-lems and conflicts.

With the project now completed, MaramureşNature Park is considered by the National ForestAdministration to be one of Romania’s leadingprotected areas in terms of the level and qualityof management.


Prislop pass traditional dance festival in Maramureş.PHOTO: RADU POP

Duration: 2005-2009. GEF grant: $1.0 million. Co-financing: $1.37 million. For further information,contact Ms Catalina Bogdan (Director of Mara-mureş Nature Park): [email protected]; Ms Monica Moldovan (UNDP-GEF Focal Point): [email protected]

Project facts


Russian Federation:using multiple strategiesto protect globally significant wetlands in the Volga Delta

Conservation of wetland biodiversity in theLower Volga region (2005-2012)

The project operates in an ecologically complexarea, combining wetlands, meadows, steppesand deserts, with around 240,000 ha in protectedareas and one million ha of productive land-scapes. The project’s main objective is conserva-

tion of biodiversity in four ‘core wetland areas’,through extending the protected area system,strengthening the regulatory and policy envi-ronment, and enabling local participation and al-ternative income generation.

Despite the challenges of balancing improvedbiodiversity conservation with economic devel-opment, the project has succeeded in expand-ing the protected areas in the region. The Volga-Akhtuba Floodplain Regional Nature Park has

P R O J E C T :


An ecologically and economically important wetland

The wetland habitats of the Lower Volga region are some of the best preserved in Europe andare included in WWF’s ‘Global 200’ most important ecoregions. Situated on three major bird mi-gration flyways (the East African, Mediterranean and Central Asian-Indian), the wetlands are usedfor resting and feeding by up to 10 million migrating water birds from Africa, Siberia, the Arcticand India. More than 280 bird species have been recorded, of which at least 15 are globallythreatened, including the red-breasted goose (Branta ruficollis), white-headed duck (Oxyura leu-cocephala) and Siberian white crane (Grus leucogeranus). Part of the delta has been designatedas a Biosphere Reserve, while approximately half is a Ramsar Site. At least 20 endemic subspeciesof fish occur in the Lower Volga region, which is a breeding area for six Caspian sturgeon species.

Much of the region is heavily populated and economically important. It includes three majorcities, Astrakhan, Volgograd and Volzhsky, and numerous towns and villages. The Volga Basin isa major transportation route and provider of water and energy for the Russian Federation. Oil andgas production is also expanding in the region. The Lower Volga and northern Caspian supporta major commercial freshwater fishery; about 90 percent of harvested sturgeons come from thearea. Despite this economic growth, however, a significant proportion of the region’s populationremains quite poor, with a high dependence on subsistence farming and fishing.

The main threats to the biodiversity of the Lower Volga region are related to its economic im-portance; they include the impact of operations of the Volga-Kama system of reservoirs, unsus-tainable and illegal exploitation of natural resources, and unplanned and unregulated develop-ment of housing and transport infrastructure.


been recognised as a UNESCO BiosphereReserve, and the area of the Volga Delta RamsarSite has been increased from 800,000 ha to1,122,500 ha. Several further proposals forreserve establishment and expansion are atvarious stages of preparation and approval, andsubstantial progress has been made in aiding therecovery of these important wetlands throughrestoration of natural hydrological regimes.

The project has recognised that purely protec-tive strategies are not sufficient by themselves.Increasing the territory under effective protec-tion requires public understanding and support,established through awareness programmes tar-geted at different stakeholder groups, and com-municated through publications, public presen-tations, participation in special events, and workwith schools, public media and the internet. Theproject has also engaged stakeholders in meet-ings and consultations on major issues and hasactively participated in the environmentalimpact analysis of the Volgograd Reservoir oper-ations. More than 20 organisations have signed asocial agreement on implementation of the re-gional Strategy on Wetland Biodiversity Con -servation.

A small grant scheme for local entrepreneurs hasdelivered direct support to local communitiesand is now being expanded into a microcreditscheme, based on the model established in the

UNDP supported, GEF financed project inKamchatka. Beneficiaries of the scheme includehandicrafts studios, rural guesthouses and mush-room cultivators.

This project cannot alone address all the environ-mental and economic challenges faced by theVolga Delta, but by securing a core of protectedzones, building awareness and mainstreaming en-vironmental good practice into local developmentand resource management, it is helping to securea sustainable future for this unique region.

“One of the main values of theproject is its work on proposals forimproving the hydrological condi-tion of the wetlands. The projectmanagement group can play aleading role in providing recom-mendations for improving the wa-ter use regime and reconciling theoperations of the Volgograd waterreservoir with wetland biodiversityconservation requirements.”

A N AT O LY B Y K O V , H E A D O F T H E L O W E RV O L G A W AT E R B A S I N B O A R D .


Duration: 2005-2012. GEF grant: $6.8 million. Co-financing: $9.0 million. For further informa-tion, contact Ms Natalya Lopantzeva (Project Co-ordinator): [email protected] web site: www.volgawetlands.ru

Project facts

Conducting a wetland biodiversity inventory in the Volga Delta.PHOTO: NATALIA SUPRUN


Redefining the scope and functions of Turkmenistan’s protected areas

Strengthening the management effectivenessof the protected area system of Turkmenistan(2010-2013)

The project’s overall objective is to create an en-abling environment for the establishment of afunctional, effective and ecologically coherentsystem of protected areas in Turkmenistan. At thenational level, this involves working with public in-stitutions and agencies to develop the capacity to

P R O J E C T :


Protected areas in Turkmenistan

Turkmenistan is situated in the western part of Central Asia, with an area of 491,200 km2, domi-nated by desert and semi-desert and flanked by mountains in the south. Although 80 percentof the country is classified as desert, Turkmenistan has a very high level of species diversity, witharound 3,000 known flowering plants and more than 700 vertebrates, including 105 mammals,417 birds, 5 amphibia, 89 reptiles and 136 fish species. Many are regional endemics and some areglobally threatened, including the Bukhara deer (Cervus elaphus bactrianus), north Persian leopard(Panthera pardus ssp. saxicolor), white-headed duck (Oxyura leucocephala) and small Amu-Darshovelnose sturgeon (Pseudoscaphirhynchus hermanni).

Turkmenistan is situated within one of the eight global centres of plant crop diversity (Asia Minor)identified by N. I. Vavilov in 1935. It harbours significant populations of the wild relatives of im-portant crop plants, including pistachio, grapes, figs, apples, pears, cherries, plums and almonds.The western part of Turkmenistan lies on a major bird migration corridor linking the WesternPalaearctic and Africa. The Caspian Sea coast of Turkmenistan is an internationally importantstaging post and wintering area for waterfowl migrating from the breeding grounds of the VolgaDelta and areas further north.

After independence in 1991, Turkmenistan undertook significant efforts to conserve its uniquebiodiversity by establishing a network of protected areas covering 3.9 percent of the country’sterritory. Most protected areas are situated in mountains, forests and wetlands, while desertecosystems are still inadequately represented. The protected area system comprises mainly strictnature reserves, with no national parks (IUCN Category II) or similar management categories.The concepts of multiple use, integrated management of natural resources and sustainable useof protected areas have not been introduced or adopted, but the strict protection approach isno longer exclusively appropriate in the new political and socio-economic context ofTurkmenistan.



Landscape in the Sünt-Hasardag Reserve, Turkmenistan. PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON


consolidate, expand and effectively manage theprotected area system. At the local level, the goalis to establish the first national park in Turk me -nistan in the Kopetdagh Mountains, south-west ofthe capital Ashgabat.

The project is still in its early stages, developing thestrategies required to meet the considerable chal-lenges of updating the system of protected areasof Turkmenistan, where experience of new ap-proaches to protected area management is stillquite limited. The national park concept has wide-spread support, but establishing such an institu-tion is a complex process. Preliminary studies of theproposed area for the national park have beenconducted with support from an internationalNGO, the Michael Succow Foundation. These

studies have proposed an area of around 150,000ha (centred on an existing strict nature reserve)and a provisional system of zonation. By commis-sioning a set of scoping studies from national con-sultants, the project management team has nowhelped to build a wider understanding among theexpert community of what it is working to achieve,as well as developing its own understanding of thescope of the work required to establish the na-tional park. Based on these studies, the followingtasks have now been prioritised:

Educating decision makers and the widerpublic about the function, purpose and valuesof national parks and adapting the nationalpark concept to the specific context ofTurkmenistan;

Drafting a new Law on Protected Areas of Turk-menistan and developing a specific regulationthat will allow a national park to be established;

Developing entirely new models for collabora-tive governance in the buffer zone and sustain-able use zone of the proposed new nationalpark. This includes resolving complex issues ofoverlapping mandates and responsibilities;

Training protected areas staff and natural re-source managers in new techniques forworking with local stakeholders and for de-veloping ecological tourism.

A significant lesson from this project has beenthat the ecological component of protected areaestablishment can sometimes be the moststraightforward. Developing the legal and insti-tutional enabling environments for new types ofprotected area to function may demand themost time and resources.


Duration: 2010-2013. GEF grant: $0.95 million.Co-financing: $2.598 million. For further infor-mation, contact Mr Rovshen Nurmuhamedov(UNDP, Ashgabat): [email protected]; Ms Shirin Karryeva (Project Na-tional Technical Advisor): [email protected]

Project facts

Churning butter in a village in the Kopetdagh Mountains.

PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON


Around 13 percent of the world’s land surface isnow included in protected areas, and while thisfigure is still increasing, many major ecosystemsand the ranges of many endangered species arestill inadequately represented in the globalnetwork. Improved knowledge and understand-ing about ecosystems and wildlife, and availabil-ity of satellite imagery and GIS technology arenow enabling conservationists to plan the ex-pansion of protected area networks in a muchmore systematic way. We are also recognisingthat effective conservation does not alwaysrequire strict protection. The revised definitionby IUCN of the range of categories and functionsof protected areas38 is now guiding planners todesignate different types of protected area ac-cording to the particular needs and circum-stances of a country or region.

Ultimately, there will be a limit on how much ter-ritory can be included in formal protected areas.Consequently, more attention is being paid todeveloping ecological networks, improvingmanagement of the landscapes between the

‘islands’ that are protected areas. Creation of net-works with linkages and corridors of biodiversity-friendly managed land is now widespread,notably in the countries of Central and EasternEurope. The next challenge is to secure officialrecognition for these ecological networks, andfor them to be formally incorporated into re-gional land use and development planningprocesses.

Several projects in the regional portfolio areworking to expand systems of protected areas,diversify their functions and enlarge the ‘effectiveprotected area’ into the wider landscape. This hasled to some important lessons for national andregional teams:

The chances of acceptance of expanded na-tional protected area systems are greatly en-hanced if there is a real sense of national own-ership. National technical experts should playa leading role in planning system expansion,and the process should involve extensive andregular consultations with stakeholders and

decision makers. It is much more effective towork with these decision makers from thestart, than suddenly to present a report at theend of a project and expect it to be adopted.

Preparing a map of the ideal future system ofprotected areas is the beginning, not the endof the process. Turning the proposal into realitymay require amending legislation, not only di-rectly relating to protected areas, but also re-lating to land use, forestry, urbanisation andplanning. The time and investment required forthese changes should not be underestimated.

As long as conservation is seen as a costwithout benefits, decision makers and stake-holders will be reluctant to extend protection,especially in economically difficult times. Thereis still a widespread perception in the regionthat ‘protected area’ means a zone completelywithdrawn from any other form of use, andthat protected land and water provide nodirect benefit to society. Concerted efforts arerequired to change this perception.


4.2 Expanding protected area systems and extending conservationinto the wider landscape

38 Dudley, N. (Editor) (2008). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.


Land use and development planning legisla-tion and procedures are weak in many coun-tries in the region. Detailed regional spatialplans often do not exist, and where they havebeen prepared, frequently do not take pro-tected areas into account. Building conserva-tion into strategic land use planning cantherefore be very complicated.

This section presents four case studies of pro-tected area expansion and mainstreaming ofbiodiversity conservation into territorial planningfrom the Russian Arctic, the lowlands of Belarus,the steppes of Kazakhstan and the diverseecosystems of Uzbekistan.


Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) census in the Taimyr project area.PHOTO: SERGEY KHARITONOV


Maintaininglandscape connectivity in the Russian Arctic: the Taimyr Peninsula

Conservation and sustainable use of biological di-versity in Russia’s Taimyr Peninsula: maintainingconnectivity across the landscape (2006-2012)

The main objective of the project is the creationof the ‘Central Taimyr Landscape Corridor’, linkingthe protected areas in the reindeer’s southernwintering grounds, their calving grounds in thecen tral part of the peninsula and their summer

P R O J E C T :


An arctic wilderness

The Taimyr Peninsula in the Russian Federation is the northern-most part of mainland Eurasia,Asia’s largest continuous tundra landscape (400,000 km2) and a WWF ‘Global 200’ priority ecore-gion. The vast expanses of tundra fall into four subzones: the largest is the arctic zone, charac-terized by lichens and mosses, while the southern tundra zone is largely vegetated with shrubs.Polar desert zones occur to a much lesser extent, while Taimyr’s small and isolated taiga zonesinclude the world’s northern-most larch (Larix dahurica) forests.

Within the peninsula’s vast mosaic of wetlands, three sites have been recognised as Wetlands ofInternational Importance (Ramsar Sites) and a further eleven have been proposed as RamsarSites. In summer, millions of migratory birds of 140 species, including the endangered red-breasted goose (Branta ruficollis), nest on the wetlands along the northern coast. Taimyr sup-ports important populations of mammals typical of the high Arctic, such as polar bear (Ursusmaritimus) and beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), as well as species characteristic of thetundra and taiga, such as muskox (Ovibos moschatus) and more than 600,000 reindeer (Rangifertarandus), Eurasia’s largest wild population. These reindeer are a ‘keystone’ species, whose con-servation is critical to the preservation of the entire northern arctic ecosystem and its diversearray of life. Along their 1,400 km seasonal migration routes, they support a host of predators andscavengers, including wolf (Canis lupus) and arctic fox (Alopex lagopus).

The indigenous peoples of Taimyr, the Dolgan and Nganasan, historically relied on reindeer fortheir livelihoods, but following collectivization and centralization of natural resource manage-ment in the 1930s, many of their traditions died out. Most of these peoples now survive fromsocial payments and from hunting, gathering, fishing and some reindeer husbandry, which is re-covering after years of neglect.

Poaching is widespread, largely due to the region’s difficult economic conditions. The other main threatsto the Taimyr are landscape fragmentation and habitat degradation caused by mineral explorationand exploitation and by road construction. Lack of capacity is also a major limiting factor to improvingmanagement of the region, where communication is difficult and living conditions are challenging.



Taimyr landscape. PHOTO: ADRIAN DINU


feeding grounds on the northern coast. This willimprove conservation management in morethan 15 million ha of arctic wilderness.

Achieving this ambitious objective in such aremote region is challenging. Working beyondthe boundaries of state protected areas requirescomprehensive engagement with local com-munities, local and regional governments andvarious authorities with mandates and responsi-bilities for natural resource management andeconomic development. Regional administrativereorganisation in the Russian Federation has re-quired the project team to realign working rela-tionships established with authorities during thedesign phase of the project. Administrativechanges have also had significant social and eco-nomic impacts, the consequences of which theproject has had to assimilate.

Despite these challenges, substantial progresshas been made. The project has facilitated theextension of the Putoranski Zapovednik (strictnature reserve) to include the 787,500 ha PurinskiZakaznik (wildlife management area), a globallysignificant concentration point of wetlandspecies and part of the reindeer migration corri-dor. Two further regional zakazniks are nowbeing established, totalling 643,500 ha.

Respecting the traditions of the region and theneeds for subsistence of many of its people, the

project has paid careful attention to ensuring thatsustainable hunting and gathering are permittedin designated areas, subject to scientifically deter-mined limits. Significantly, the local population, in-cluding indigenous people, has expressed unani-mous support for creation of the new zakazniks.

“The establishment of the Agapaand Gorbita Zakazniks was sup-ported by the local population atthe public hearings. Following thissupport, the authorities approvedour proposal. The situation wherea decision on creation of new pro-tected areas is supported and pro-moted by indigenous communi-ties is quite unique in Russia.”

I G O R K O S T I N , P R O J E C T M A N A G E R .

It is essential that the new corridor is recognisedby land use planning authorities and incorpo-rated into official development plans. The LandCommittee of the Taimyr municipal area hasused project materials to ensure that major bio-diversity values are included within proposed

protected areas. The project is now preparing adetailed programme for Taimyr biological andlandscape diversity preservation that defines aspecial protection regime for the entire 15million ha landscape corridor. The intention is toinclude this programme in the official RegionalTerritorial Development Plan.


Duration: 2006-2012. GEF grant: $0.995 million.Co-financing: $2.043 million. For further infor-mation, contact Igor Kostin (Project Manager):[email protected]

Project facts

Taimyr tundra plant species identification.PHOTO: ELENA POSPELOVA


Belarus:building biodiversityconservation standardsinto land and resourceuse planning

Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into ter-ritorial planning policies and practices (2010-2014)

The objective of this project is to help remove sys-temic, regulatory and capacity barriers to main-streaming biodiversity conservation priorities intothe territorial planning policies and practices ofBelarus. Two major programmes of activity are in-

cluded: enabling a regulatory, policy and institu-tional framework for land-use planning that re-flects biodiversity considerations outside protectedareas; and testing models for biodiversity-compat-ible land-use plans at the district level. These pro-grammes should lead to enhanced ecosystemintegrity outside protected areas in ten adminis-

trative districts of Belarus (approximately 2 millionha). In the longer term, replication of these meas-ures could ensure the integrity of fragile ecosys-tems across 36 percent of the country.

The project has been conducting its work fromthree different perspectives.

P R O J E C T :


The biodiversity of Belarus extends far beyond its protected areas

Deciduous forests, wet meadows, fens, bogs, lakes and riverine ecosystems play particularly im-portant roles in the conservation of regionally and globally significant biodiversity in Belarus.This rich mosaic of ecosystems provides habitat for a high proportion of the global or Europeanpopulations of several IUCN red listed species, including 50 percent of the aquatic warblers(Acrocephalus paludicola), 18 percent of greater spotted eagles (Aquila clanga), 14.6 percent ofblack storks (Ciconia nigra) and 10 percent of corncrakes (Crex crex). Substantial populations ofEuropean bison (Bison bonasus), grey wolf (Canis lupus) and brown bear (Ursus arctos) are alsopresent, as well as diverse orchid species and other plants of international significance. The globalimportance of the country’s biodiversity is underscored by the presence of 47 Important BirdAreas, eight Ramsar Sites, and three UNESCO Biosphere Reserves.

This important biodiversity is in part secured by the protected area system of Belarus (covering7.9 percent of the national territory), but it also relies on diverse, human modified, semi-naturalhabitats outside the protected areas. Around 30 percent of species included in the national RedData Book are present in these human-modified landscapes, most notably in open water areas,wetlands, drained floodplains, mature forest plantations, old landscape parks and agriculturalareas under traditional cultivation. Without legal protection, these biodiversity rich areas arethreatened by changes in local land use and by new patterns of agriculture, forestry, fisheries andhunting. Furthermore, as these areas are lost, so the protected areas become more isolated fromeach other, diminishing their effectiveness as protected nodes in the ecological landscape.


Species conservation. Detailed biodiversity in-ventories of pilot areas have provided the dataand justifications required for official modifica-tion of land use plans. Three species action plansfor wild fauna in the national Red Data Book havebeen updated, and five new action plans forfauna and flora have been developed. Theseaction plans will be reflected in the revised landmanagement plans of the relevant districts.Standards have been developed for the protec-tion and maintenance of wild flora and fauna inforest and land management projects, as well asin the wider landscape. Specialists from localhunting enterprises and unions and fromforestry enterprises have been trained to imple-ment the protection measures specified for RedData Book species.

Ecosystem conservation. The project has sup-ported a new analysis and classification ofbiotopes of national and international signifi-cance, to be published as the ‘Directory of rareand threatened biotopes of the Republic ofBelarus.’ Criteria and indicator species have beenspecified for the designation of each threatenedbiotope, and recommendations have been pre-pared on minimum standards to be observed bydifferent economic activities to maintain the in-tegrity of key biotopes and habitats. It is in-tended that these standards will be legallyadopted, helping to harmonise national natureprotection legislation with international norms.

Local land use planning. Within the pilot areain Volozhin and Korelichi Districts, 23 rare andthreatened biotopes of European significancehave been located and described, leading to thedevelopment of integrated territorial plans thataccommodate biodiversity priorities. The forestmanagement plan for Volozhin Forestry Districthas also been updated, reflecting the require-ments for the protection of rare and threatenedspecies and biotopes.

The next steps are to continue to incorporatethese initiatives into national law and to use theresults of the project’s work to support the sci-entific justification for Belarus to become a sig-

natory of the Convention on the Conservation ofEuropean Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the BernConvention).


Duration: 2010-2014. GEF grant: $0.971 million.Co-financing: $7.084 million. For further infor-mation, contact Vladimir Koltunov (ProjectManager): [email protected]

Project facts

A new sign explains the management regime for a site of conservation importance. PHOTO: MIKHAIL MAXIMENKOV


Extending and diversifying protection in the steppes of Kazakhstan

Steppe conservation and management (2009-2014)

This project is working towards a set of long-term solutions for biodiversity and ecosystemconservation in the steppe zone, based arounddevelopment of a landscape-based approach toprotected area expansion and management. Thestarting point has been the identification of con-servation priority areas within the steppe zone,

P R O J E C T :


The steppes of Kazakhstan

Of the vast steppes that once stretched from Ukraine to Mongolia, one of the biggest remain-ing areas is located in Kazakhstan. The steppe zone covers some 160 million ha across the north-ern and central sections of the country, and includes around 123 million ha in a natural state. Itcomprises five largely contiguous ecological zones: forest steppe, meadow steppe, dry steppe,desertified steppe and steppe semi-desert, as well as extensive wetland ecosystems fed by thewaters from the melting winter snow.

These ecosystems support over 2,000 species of flora, including about 30 endemic species andmany unique botanical communities. They also provide habitats for nine of the 24 globally en-dangered mammal species occurring in the country. The flagship species of the steppe lands isthe saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica), a migratory species, which once numbered in millions and isnow reduced to a small fraction of that number, mainly as a result of poaching. In the summermonths, the steppe supports millions of nesting birds, including critically endangered speciessuch as the sociable lapwing (Vanellus gregarius).

Although the Kazakh authorities have now done much to eliminate poaching and stabilise the saigapopulation, sporadic disease outbreaks continue to threaten the herds. A further and growing threatis climate change, which is causing a northward shift of the steppe zones and leading to desertifi-cation in the southern parts. In addition, fragmentation caused by road and pipeline constructionthreatens to interrupt migration routes. Seemingly small changes in such a vast area can reduce theoptions for seasonal migration of saiga, causing them stress and affecting breeding success.

In 2009, only 1.7 percent of remaining natural steppe habitat (outside forest steppe) was pro-tected. The Government of Kazakhstan is committed to improving protection, but static pro-tected areas cannot alone deliver the protection required. The steppe is a naturally dynamicecosystem, even more so with the effects of climate change. Saiga migration routes and breed-ing areas can vary in response to weather conditions, to water and food availability and to dis-turbance and hunting pressures. The protected areas have large ranger forces, but these canonly ever oversee a tiny fraction of the territory; measures are required to extend the responsi-bility for protection to other agencies and stakeholders.



New-born saiga calves. PHOTO: ADRIANA DINU


conducted in partnership with the Associationfor the Conservation of Biodiversity in Kazakh -stan (a national NGO). This has involved field ex-peditions, radio collaring and helicopter trackingof saiga, surveys of breeding birds and analysisof satellite images. The results of this work and ofother studies in west Kazakhstan have been usedto justify a set of detailed proposals for an inter-connected network comprising permanentstaffed protected areas, seasonally protectedareas, sustainably managed hunting groundsand collaboratively managed buffer zones andcorridors.

Establishing this network has involved prepara-tion of detailed ecological justifications, technicalfeasibility studies, land allocation processes, ne-gotiations with land users, public hearings, ap-proval of land use planning acts and budget re-quests, approval of draft government regulations,and lobbying for protected areas establishmentwith Parliamentary Deputies. The results so farhave been highly significant and have included:

Formal declaration of Buiratau National NaturePark (88,968 ha of dry steppe);

Preparatory works for establishment of AltynDala State Nature Reserve, to include 489,766ha of desertified steppe;

Extension of Irgiz-Turgai State Nature Reserveby 410,506 ha; and

Establishment of Bokeyorda-Zhaiyk StateNature Reserve.

Beyond the protected areas, the project hasworked with the Forestry and HuntingCommittee of the Ministry of Agriculture todevelop proposals for creating and managing anetwork of hunting zones and ecological corri-

dors, overseen by the administrations of nearbyprotected areas with the participation of localcommunities. These proposals have been ap-proved by Parliament and are expected to comeinto law in the near future. In order to build ca-pacity for management of this new network, theproject has provided technical support for thenew and expanded protected areas, facilitatedparticipatory development of management andbusiness plans and delivered a comprehensiveprogramme of training courses.

The final outcome of the project should be aneffective and diverse system of protection forthe steppe that is implemented by a range ofstakeholders, that is representative of all the vari-ations in steppe ecosystems and that is adapt-able both to the changing requirements of themigratory saiga and to the impacts of long-termclimate change.


Duration: 2009-2014. GEF grant: $2.245 million.Co-financing: $5.702 million. For further infor-mation, contact Assylkhan Assylbekov (ProjectManager): [email protected]

Project facts

Signing of an agreement on the borders for the proposedAltyn Dala Nature Reserve. PHOTO: A. AGAZHAYEVA


A comprehensivenational plan for protected areaexpansion in Uzbekistan

Strengthening sustainability of the nationalprotected area system by focusing on strictlyprotected areas (2008-2012)

To support the day-to-day needs of local com-munities and to provide new opportunities forimproving their livelihoods, the project is pilot-ing an innovative buffer zone covering 22,750 haaround the strictly protected Surkhan State

Nature Reserve. The buffer zone will not onlyextend the ‘effective protected area’ and preventthe ecological isolation of the Reserve, it will alsohelp local communities to improve manage-ment of water and land, to reduce overgrazingand to secure supplies of fuel wood, providing astrong impetus for people to feel responsible forsafeguarding the Reserve. It is anticipated thatthis approach will be adopted by other strictlyprotected areas in Uzbekistan.

At the national level, the project is supportingpreparation of a master plan for the expansion,categorisation and effective management of theentire national system of protected areas. Theplan has been developed by a team of nationalconsultants through a comprehensive process:

The team mapped the current national rangesof key species, ecosystems and cultural fea-tures, and developed criteria for selection ofareas of conservation priority. In order to avoidduplication of effort, this process paid close at-tention to the results of previous studies andproposals for system expansion.

A gap analysis exercise provided a comparisonbetween the current coverage of the pro-tected area system and the ideal coveragebased on the criteria developed, leading to thepreparation of provisional maps of priorityareas for conservation.

P R O J E C T :


Protected areas in Uzbekistan

The Republic of Uzbekistan covers approxi-mately 447,400 km2; 85 percent of which com-prises deserts or semi-deserts, flanked by the ex-tensive Tien Shan and Gissar-Alai mountainsystems in the east and south-east. The countrysupports significant numbers of globally threat-ened species, including snow leopard (Pantherauncia), saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica), urial (Ovisorientalis bochariensis) and markhor (Capra fal-coneri heptneri). Uzbekistan has a high level ofendemism, with several central Asian speciesoriginating in the area between the Amu Daryaand Syrdarya Rivers, from where they dispersedto the other countries in the region.

Uzbekistan’s system of protected areas covers al-most 6 percent of the country and mainly com-prises strict nature reserves. This system does noteffectively safeguard national biodiversity, as it isnot ecologically representative, leaving largenumbers of species, ecosystems and ecologicalprocesses without adequate protection. Theadministrations of many of the existing protectedareas lack the capacity for effective protection andmanagement of the species and ecosystems theycontain, while the prevailing strict protectionregimes restrict the introduction of incomegenerating activities and of collaborative man-agement with local communities.


GIS was used to analyse the various maps andto apply a rational scheme of site prioritisa-tion to identify the most important locationsfor protected area expansion and creation,and to assign categories to each proposedprotected area.

Standard ‘passports’ were prepared, describ-ing each protected area in the proposed newsystem.

One national and four regional multi-stake-holder workshops were conducted, serving toexplain the rationale for system expansion,present the proposals, and solicit feedbackand new information.

The final master plan envisages a more than three-fold expansion of the territory within protectedareas, and a diversification of the categories of pro-tected area in order for them to fulfil a much widerrange of functions, combining, where appropri-ate, nature protection with local sustainable de-velopment and nature based tourism. Several in-ternational experts have commented on the highquality and thoroughness of this work, and on theway it has combined national expertise with wideconsultation and participation; the next step is forthe plan to be formally adopted by the Govern -ment of Uzbekistan.

“Recommendations for expansionof the protected areas system canbe considered as sustainable in-vestments in the future develop-ment of Uzbekistan. Fully-fledgedpractical implementation of theserecommendations would ensurelong-term conservation of biodi-versity in Uzbekistan, along withsustainable use of nature re-sources for future generations.”

S . E R G A S H E V , N AT I O N A L P R O J E C T C O O R D I N AT O R , D E P U T Y M I N I S T E R O F A G R I C U LT U R E

A N D W AT E R R E S O U R C E S O F T H E R E P U B L I C O F U Z B E K I S TA N , H E A D O F T H E M A I N

F O R E S T R Y D E PA R T M E N T .


Duration: 2008-2012. GEF grant: $0.975 million.Co-financing: $12.4 million. For further infor-mation, contact Akmal Ismatov (Project Man-ager): [email protected]

Project facts

Community consultation in the proposed buffer zone of SurkhanReserve. PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON


Much of today’s international media attention onclimate change focuses on sea level rise and itsimpacts on coastal zones. The impacts on conti-nental Eurasia receive far less attention, but arebecoming increasingly apparent; projects acrossthe region have witnessed some major changes:

Shifting of ecosystems. In Kazakhstan, theboundaries between taiga forest, steppe anddesert are all moving northwards. This affects thedistribution of wildlife communities, migrationpatterns, water supplies and human livelihoods.

Water shortages. In Surkhan Nature Reserve inUzbekistan, local stakeholders report reducedrainfall and snowfall in the mountains, and manyof their springs are running dry earlier each year.

Increased fires. In Russia, unusually dry weatherhas extended the high-risk period for forest firesto include the early summer and spring.

Land degradation. In Turkmenistan, the risk ofdesertification increases as rangelands are nolonger able to tolerate current numbers ofgrazing animals.


4.3 Integrating biodiversity conservation with climate change mitigation and adaptation

Landscape from the proposed Sumbar National Park, Turkmenistan.PHOTO: V. I KUZNETSOV


In response to these growing and increasinglyevident threats, governments across the regionare paying more attention to climate change, in-tensifying research on the specific environmen-tal changes and their impacts, participating in in-ternational programmes for reducing carbonemissions, and seeking local solutions for miti-gation and adaptation. Significantly, there is agrowing appreciation of the importance of thenatural ecosystems of protected areas in climatechange management. Projects across the regionare working to support national efforts toaddress climate change, building knowledgeand experience on the best approaches andlearning some useful lessons:

Although forests at higher latitudes do not se-quester carbon at the same rate as tropicalforests, the slow rates of growth are offset bythe vast areas of the taiga and the northernpeatlands, which have a significant role to playin global carbon mitigation.

Restoration and good management of wet-lands and peatlands can generate significantbenefits, not only for biodiversity, but also forclimate change mitigation.

The large nations of the region, that includeecosystems across a wide spread of latitudes,are well suited to monitoring the regionaleffects of climate change.

Local stakeholders can provide detailed and im-portant information about local changes in climate,the effects on their livelihoods and about possi-ble means of mitigation and adaptation.

Collecting reliable data on climate changeimpacts is not sufficient by itself; it is also vital tomake that data available to decision makers andother stakeholders in ways that can be readilyunderstood.

Protection of biodiversity in the region cannotnecessarily be guaranteed just by ‘static’ pro-tected areas. Measures are required to extendprotection into wider landscapes and to main-tain connectivity between protected areas andbetween ecosystems.

The threat of fire can play an important role infocusing awareness on climate change, stimu-lating action among authorities and local com-munities.

Projects need to work to ensure that measures in-troduced for climate change mitigation andadaptation are incorporated into policy and plan-ning frameworks at the local and national levels.

Four contrasting case studies are highlighted inthis section, from the boreal forests of northernRussia, the mountains of Kazakhstan, the peatlandsof Belarus and Lake Balaton in Hungary.


Black winged stilt (Himantopus himantopus) in the Volga Delta.PHOTO: ALEXANDER POPOV


Post-extraction peatlandrestoration is recreatinghabitats and reducingcarbon emissionsin Belarus

Renaturalization and sustainable manage-ment of peatlands in Belarus to combat landdegradation, ensure conservation of global-ly valuable biodiversity and mitigate climatechange (2005-2010)

Implemented by UNDP and the Ministry ofForestry, the project worked with the peat in-dustry to develop and demonstrate new ap-proaches to post-extraction rehabilitation, and

to transform the practical experience into poli-cies for regulating the extraction sector. By June2010, the project had restored 28,207 ha of de-graded peatlands by raising water levels at 15

P R O J E C T :


Why peatlands are important

The planet’s 400 million ha of peatlands (3 percent of the land area) hold up to one third of itssoil carbon. Peatland ecosystems, which in cooler climates may have taken centuries to develop,provide irreplaceable habitats for threatened species, sources of organic fertilizer, raw materialsfor numerous products, clean water, regulation of micro-climate and hydrological conditions,and effective means for controlling fires, erosion, floods and contamination. Europe alone (ex-cluding Siberia) currently has 3.22 million ha of natural peatlands.

In an undisturbed state, peatlands are a stable store of carbon. Although they naturally emitmethane and nitrogen oxides, they also sequester carbon dioxide as they grow; a pristine peat-land therefore has a generally neutral global warming impact. Once pristine peatlands are dis-rupted by human activities (e.g. drainage for agriculture, peat extraction or forestry), the carbonwhich they store is rapidly released into the atmosphere.

The territory of Belarus included nearly 3 million ha of peatland before exploitation acceleratedin the 1950s. Since then, more than 54 percent of peatlands have been drained for extraction andagriculture. Drainage causes peat mineralisation, accelerating CO2 emission and reducing soil fer-tility. The drained peatlands are also prone to fire and to wind erosion, accelerating land degra-dation and resulting in smoke, dust storms, biodiversity decrease, and dispersal of radioactivecompounds left after the Chernobyl disaster. Peatland degradation in Belarus is responsible forannual emissions of about 9 million tonnes of CO2.

As these impacts have become more apparent to national authorities and local stakeholders inBelarus, the Government has started to take steps to improve management and protection ofthe remaining peatlands.



Grichino peatland after restoration, Belarus. PHOTO: A.KOZULIN


sites, preventing annual emissions of about270,000 tonnes of CO2 and saving the countryup to $1 million in fire-fighting operations. Justone year after rehabilitation, most sites showedre-emergence of typical wetland vegetation andan increase in the density of water birds of up to16 percent. In these restored wetlands scientistshave recorded many species that had previouslydisappeared, including IUCN red-listed speciessuch as the greater spotted eagle (Aquila clanga),black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa) and bittern(Botaurus stellaris). Local people have welcomedthese restored peatlands as places for huntingand fishing, and for collecting medicinal plants,cranberries, bilberries, and mushrooms.

At the policy level, the project finalised two tech-nical regulations for the peat extraction sectorthat came into force on 1 January 2009. Fromnow on, 90 percent of depleted peatlands must,at the end of their useful life in extraction, be re-stored as a peatland ecosystem by the extractionoperators, while only 10 percent may be used forcreation of reservoirs, for forestry or for recre-ational use. Whatever economic use the peat-land is put to, the land-user is mandated to setaside resources for restoring it to a natural con-dition after use, using the know-how developedby the project. Rehabilitation of worked outpeatlands will further reduce annual emissionsof CO2 and extend the habitats of wetland floraand fauna.

“Instead of black desert, there is agreen living land. The peatland hadsuffered from disastrous fires everyyear, but after project implementa-tion not one fire was recorded onthe restored peatland. Local peoplenoticed the recovery of biodiversity:new species of birds and fish ap-peared. And the most obvious evi-dence of positive results is the factthat this place became a centre forfamily outings, for fishing and hunt-ing by local people and for visitorsin the winter and summer.”

CHESLAV BORKO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LIDA FOREST ENTERPRISES

DOKUDOVSKOE PEATLAND,LIDA DISTRICT, GRODNO REGION.

The project has also catalysed partnerships withnational and international NGOs. With supportfrom the German Government’s InternationalClimate Initiative, the partners are investing infurther carbon research and peatland rehabilita-tion and are developing a methodology fortrading in carbon emission reductions from

Belarus peatlands in the voluntary carbonmarket. These achievements have attracted theattention of neighbouring countries; a similar ap-proach is being adopted in Ukraine, and peat-land managers and authorities from the RussianFederation have shown interest in adopting theproject’s expertise.


Duration: 2005-2010. GEF grant: $1.0 million. Co-financing: $2.37 million. For further information,contact Dr Alexander Kozulin: [email protected] web site: www.peatlands.by

Project facts

Community engagement in peatland restoration activities.PHOTO: SERGEI ZUYONAK


Protecting stored carbonin the boreal forestsof the Komi Republic in the Russian Federation

Strengthening the protected areas system of theKomi Republic to conserve virgin forest biodi-versity in the Pechora River headwaters region(2009-13)

The project’s overall objective is to extend theprotected area system of the Komi Republic andto improve capacity for its management. In orderto address the wider threats to the biodiversityand ecosystems of the region, a special compo-nent related to climate change was included in

the project, with funding from the InternationalClimate Initiative of the German Government.This component is improving infrastructure andbuilding the capacity of local stakeholders infifteen protected areas in the Komi Republic, en-abling them to mitigate more effectively risks

arising from human activity and climate change,and to develop, implement and monitor climatechange adaptation measures.

The project has mobilised specialised equipmentand scientific expertise to conduct essential re-

P R O J E C T :


Pristine forests of the Komi Republic

The Russian Federation includes about 22 percent of the world’s forest resources and more thana quarter of the earth’s remaining primeval forests. The forests of the Komi Republic representalmost 35 percent of the total pristine area remaining in European Russia; they include majorareas of Scandinavian and Russian taiga, which, following centuries of clearance and logging, arenow largely confined to areas of north-eastern Russia. The most important forests cover 1.63million ha in the headwaters of the Pechora River, dominated by mature and over-mature sprucestands. Such is their importance, that Komi’s old growth forests are listed as a UNESCO NaturalWorld Heritage Site and are included in WWF’s ‘Global 200’ list of priority ecoregions. As well assupporting typical boreal plant and animal communities in their natural states, these forests areparticularly important for conservation of rare bryophytes (mosses and liverworts). Situated closeto the Ural Mountains, this is also a region where populations of characteristically Siberian speciesoverlap with European species.

The forests within existing or potential protected areas in Komi store more than 70 milliontonnes of carbon and, in an undisturbed state, sequester more than 2.5 million tonnes annu-ally. The mature forests, which store the largest amounts of carbon, are also the most suscep-tible to impacts of climate change, specifically in the form of fires. Most fires are started byhuman activity, and, depending on the weather, consume between 1,200 ha and 207,000 haannually. Up to 94 percent of fires occur in mature spruce stands of high conservation value,and estimates of annual carbon emissions from fires occurring in the Pechora headwatersamount to more than 134,000 tonnes.



Forest in the Komi Republic after fire. PHOTO: SVETLANA ZAGIROVA


search on carbon fluxes and carbon sequestrationpotential in pristine forests and peatlands, and onvolumes of carbon released during and after forestand peatland fires. At the same time, practical ac-tivities have been initiated to reduce the risk of fireand improve capacity for fire prevention andcontrol. These have included training of person-

nel and provision of equipment for fire prevention,detection and control. Most importantly, theresults of research are being incorporated into themanagement plans of protected areas and ofmanaged forests. Priority planned activitiesinclude reforestation of degraded areas, extend-ing the rotation period of commercially importanttree species in order to increase carbon seques-tration and storage, and introduction of multi-species planting into single species coniferousplantations. The overall impact of these actions issubject to an on-going programme of ecologicaland environmental monitoring.

The fourth assessment report of the Inter -governmental Panel on Climate Change39 statesthat ‘fire protection will be important in borealforests and includes replacement of highly flam-mable species, regulation of age-class distribu-tion and widespread management of accumu-lated fuel. Public education, development ofadvanced systems of forest inventories, andforest health monitoring are important prereq-uisites for adaptation and mitigation.’ The workof the project has already successfully imple-mented many of these recommendations.

“Realisation of a ‘carboncomponent’ in Iugyd-Va NationalPark has become one of the mosteffective and useful aspects of theproject, providing essentialequipment for fire-prevention,supporting installation of warningnotices on tourist routes anddistributing leaflets on fire-prevention. Training has beenprovided for 20 inspectors from theNational Park, the Pechoro-IlychskyReserve, and also for local residents.The indicative result of this work isthe complete absence of forest firesin the National Park in 2011.”

TAT YA N A F O M I T C H Y O V A . D I R E C T O R

O F I U G Y D V A N AT I O N A L PA R K .


Duration: 2009-2013. German Government con-tribution: € 2.9 million. For further information,contact Ms Svetlana Zagirova (Component Co-ordinator): [email protected] web site: www.undp-komi.org

Project facts

Erecting a fire prevention sign. PHOTO: N.SHALAGINA

39 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva,Switzerland.


Kazakhstan:protecting and enhancing carbonpools in the Altai-Sayan

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiver-sity in the Kazakhstani sector of the Altai-Sayanmountain ecoregion (2008-2010)

Based on the principle that efficient protectedareas are one of the most appropriate responsesto threats to carbon pools in the boreal zone, theproject has focused on expanding protectedareas in the Altai-Sayan and creating green cor-ridors to connect them. In parallel, the German

Government’s International Climate Initiative hassupported the development and implementa-tion of carbon mitigation and climate changeadaptation activities. The combined effect ofthese measures has been protection of a signifi-cant carbon sink in high conservation valuevirgin forest areas, estimated at more than 100million tonnes of carbon stored in dry above-ground biomass.

The benefit in emission reduction is expected tooccur mainly as a result of a reduction in fires;consequently the project is focusing on twomain aspects of fire-management:

Preventative measures and awareness rai -sing. The project launched a fire-preventioncam paign among the local population, design-ing and delivering fire-safety training courses for

P R O J E C T :


Carbon pools of the Altai-Sayan

At least one third of the Kazakhstani part of the Altai-Sayan ecoregion comprises unique, high con-servation value forests, amounting to 15 percent of all national forests. These forests are locatedmainly in mountainous areas and are classified into two major groups: dark-coniferous, and light(deciduous) larch forests. Climate change is already affecting forest composition; the most notice-able effect has been the accelerated degradation and destruction of the larch forests, which arebeing naturally replaced by cedar and fir trees. This shift from deciduous (light) to evergreen (dark)coniferous trees has an impact on carbon storage, as the evergreen species store less carbon.

Other changes are also becoming evident. Researchers have reported significant changes in thenumber and distribution of Siberian fir along the slopes in mountainous depressions. Globalwarming has also led to upward shifts in altitude of the forest timberline, and an increase offorest cover in the highland areas, leading to losses of high-altitude meadows, steppe and tundraecosystems.

Warming also aggravates the risk of fires; between 1999 and 2003, approximately 700,000 m3 ofwood were burned across 60,000 ha, releasing 3.6 million tonnes of dry above-ground carbon.Fires in the Altai-Sayan tend to burn large areas, due to long delays between the start of a fireand its discovery, and to difficulties in accessing the fires to control them.


different social and age groups. In parallel, forestinspectors and protected area rangers have beentrained to work with local people on fire-safe be-haviour in forests. The project also supports anetwork of NGOs and local initiative groups in-terested in fire prevention activities. As a result,road signs, banners and posters indicating au-thorised recreational campfire locations havebeen installed at entrances to forests across theAltai-Sayan.

“Climate change stands at theforefront when planning forestactivities. Measures to prevent firesand equipping of protected areasand forestry units with fireappliances and equipment havereduced the number of fires andthe risks of their spreading.”

K A I R AT U S T E M I R O V , H E A D O F T H E D E PA R T M E N T O F F O R E S T

A N D P R O T E C T E D A R E A S ,F O R E S T R Y A N D H U N T I N G C O M M I T T E E ,

M I N I S T R Y O F A G R I C U LT U R E O F T H E R E P U B L I C O F K A Z A K H S TA N .

Provision of equipment and infrastructure. Theproject has ensured delivery of fire fighting ma-chinery and equipment to local fire fighters and pro-tected area patrols. The installation of full radio cov-erage for the Katon Karagai National Park has beena key element in the fire detection system, with 21fixed radio stations, 14 radio car stations, and 100portable radio units for forest inspectors. The proj-ect has also identified the best location for a fire-fight-ing chemical station and a residence house for firebrigades, based on the optimal distance betweenall protected areas and the time needed to reachthe most remote areas in case of fire. Water pondsthat can be used for fire-fighting have also been lo-cated and mapped in the protected areas.

As well as substantially improving capacity for fireprevention and control, the project has also sup-ported a range of measures to help the Altai-Sayanforests adapt to climate change. These include re-forestation with native genetic material best suitedto withstand the climatic extremes (storms anddroughts) observed in the region in recent years.


Duration: 2008-2010. German Governmentfunding: € 1.7 million. For further information,contact Mr Vladimir Cheranev (Project Coordi-nator): [email protected] web site: www.altai-sayan.kz

Project facts

Fire is a major threat in the Altai-Sayan.PHOTO: UNDP KAZAKHSTAN ALTAI-SAYAN PROJECT


Managing vulnerabilityand developing adaptation strategies for Hungary’s Lake Balaton

Lake Balaton vulnerability assessment, earlywarning and adaptation strategies (2006-2008)

This project was designed to enable a better un-derstanding of the fragility and vulnerability of LakeBalaton’s ecosystems and to introduce measuresfor mitigation and adaptation. Working through theLake Balaton Development Coordination Agencyfor the relatively short period of 30 months, the proj-ect included three main programmes:

Research and information dissemination.Primary research about the conditions andchanges in the lake is essential, but it is also im-portant to communicate this information and itssignificance to decision makers and stakeholders.Bearing this in mind, the project developed notonly research tools, such as a customised soil andwater assessment tool for the Lake Balaton water-shed, but also dissemination mechanisms such asa web-based information sharing tool, an internetmap server for the Lake Balaton region and arange of climate and land cover change scenariosfor the Lake Balaton watershed. A programme ofawareness for the wider public was also initiated.

Capacity development for mitigation andadaptation. Those directly affected by thechanges in the lake need to be able to take thenecessary measures to respond. The project pro-moted diversification of tourist attractions inorder to extend the very short summer peakseason. It also encouraged better incorporationof tourism into local conservation and develop-ment priorities, with the aim of increasing thequality of life of local residents, while alleviatingpressures on the lake’s vulnerable ecosystems.Small grants were made available to supportpilot initiatives for adaptation.

Strengthening the policy framework. Theproject helped to incorporate local adaptationmeasures into the Long-Term Development

P R O J E C T :


Lake Balaton

Located in western Hungary, Lake Balatonis the largest freshwater lake in Europe, butbeing shallow, it is particularly sensitive tothe influence of climate change, amplifiedby human activity. Both the quantity andthe quality of the water in the lake are af-fected by rising temperatures, fluctuatingwater levels, decreasing annual precipita-tion and declining natural sources ofwater entering the lake. The potential con-sequences include drying out of theshoreline, algal blooms that can affect fishpopulations and human health, and per-manent damage to the natural ecosys-tems and biodiversity of the lake, exacer-bated by the spread of alien invasivespecies.

Regional authorities and stakeholdershave become concerned about the short-and long-term environmental, economicand health-related consequences of thesechanges, especially since the area’seconomy is predominantly based onhighly seasonal tourism.


Concept of the Lake Balaton Region (2008-2020)and into the evaluation system for tourism de-velopment in the three regions covering theLake Balaton area. Concrete adaptation measureswere also introduced into Hungary’s NationalClimate Change Strategy (2008-2025).

It has been generally acknowledged that theproject’s duration of just 30 months was tooshort to address fully the threats to Lake Balaton,but the institutionalisation of many of the resultshas helped to ensure their long-term impact andsustainability. For example, policies developedfor climate change adaptation have been ap-proved at the appropriate level of government(national or regional) and are now guiding theprogrammes of the relevant authorities. At themunicipal and micro-regional levels, sustainabledevelopment indicators have now been inte-grated into local development plans and plan-ning processes.


Duration: 2006-2008. GEF funding: $0.985 mil-lion. Co-financing $3.090 million. For further in-formation, contact Klára Tóthová (Project Back-stopping Officer): [email protected]

Project facts

Overgrowth of algae near Balatonszabadi village. PHOTO: ZITA EGERSZEGI


The UNDP project portfolio embraces theregion’s wide diversity of forest ecosystems, in-cluding the old growth deciduous forests ofCentral Europe, the mixed forests of EasternEurope, the northern taiga, the scrub forests ofthe Mediterranean basin, the tugai forests flank-ing the desert rivers of Central Asia and the fruit-wood forests of the subtropical regions.

Several projects have focused on extending na-tional protected areas systems into the forestestate. This has required introduction of manynew approaches, including adding protectedarea management to the responsibilities of ex-isting forestry authorities, transferring forestprotected areas to the administration of newauthorities and introducing community ma na -ge ment of forests.

Adding to the challenge of balancing productionwith protection has been the growing demandfor access to forest resources by local people.Across the region, there is a high dependence onfuel wood for domestic and even industrial use,and as fossil fuels become more expensive, manyhouseholds switch to using fuel wood (often il-

legally harvested). This leads to habitat degrada-tion and brings people into conflict with forestryand protected area authorities.

These changes and new pressures have led to anumber of specific challenges for projects con-cerned with forest management in the region,most notably reconciling the different ap-proaches adopted by ‘traditional’ foresters andconservation biologists. There is a need to buildthe capacity of the forest sector to accept andadopt new approaches and practices and toamend established forestry plans and proceduresso as to allow and enable different forms of man-agement and use. Likewise, the conservationsector needs to appreciate better the contribu-tions that foresters can and do make to maintain-ing important ecosystems and their biodiversity.

Projects across the region are meeting thesechallenges, from Moldova to Kyrgyzstan, fromeastern Russia to the Balkans. The lessons learnedso far include the following:

Forestry agencies have a crucial role to play inforest ecosystem conservation. It is important

to engage them as partners from the earlieststage of project development, and through-out implementation.

The human, institutional and financial capac-ities of long-established forest agencies areoften much greater than those of youngerconservation agencies. Working to reorientthis capacity towards conservation andecosystem based management goals can bemuch more effective than trying to substi-tute it.

Many foresters see themselves as capable andlong serving protectors of the forest estate;they can be suspicious of, and resistant to, newapproaches. Projects have to be sensitive tothis, to respect the experience of the forestsector, while demonstrating the need forchange in practical ways.

Civil society often regards forest agencies asexploiters of natural heritage, and opposes thecombination of productive and protectivefunctions in the same organisations. Forestersneed to be supported to redefine their image


4.4 Management of unique and fragile forests: moving from silviculture to ecosystem management and community empowerment


with the public and to demonstrate their com-mitment to protection and wise management.The starting point for bringing about many ofthese changes is through the training and pro-fessional development of foresters.

Forest certification is an excellent tool for recon-ciling protection with production in a way thatis readily understandable and economicallybeneficial.

In times of economic hardship, pressure onforest resources increases. Projects have todevelop strategies that go beyond pure pro-tection, enabling sustainable managementand providing realistic and affordable optionsand alternatives for forest dependent com-munities.

Forests need not only be managed by profes-sional forestry agencies. With support and

training, local communities can be excellentforest stewards, especially when they are de-pendent on a flow of resources from theforests.

Non-wood forest products, tourism andecosystem services are becoming increasinglyimportant for forest economies. The mostforward thinking forestry authorities are re-defining their role, moving from being pro-tectors and producers to being managers ofmultifunctional forest landscapes and ecosys-tems, that generate a range of environmental,social and economic benefits.

The three projects highlighted have addressedsome of these challenges in different ways in Turkey, Uzbekistan and Bulgaria.


Forests in Küre Mountains National Park buffer zone, Turkey. PHOTO : MUSTAFA DEMIRBAS


Changing foresters’ perspectives in Turkey

Enhancing coverage and management effec-tiveness of the subsystem of forest protected ar-eas in Turkey’s national system of protected ar-eas (2008-2012)

The project started in 2008 and is implemented joint-ly with the General Directorate of Nature Conser-vation and National Parks and the General Directorateof Forestry within the Ministry of Forestry and Wa-ter Affairs, together with WWF Turkey as an NGO part-ner. Building on the foundation of an earlier GEF fi-nanced project, this project has focused on estab-lishing the basic regulatory and operational mech-anisms required to ensure conservation or sus-

tainable management of 600,000 ha of globally sig-nificant old-growth forests and grasslands across nineforest hotspots. The starting point has been to de-velop models of good practice in the Küre Moun-tains National Park and its buffer zone.

By 2011, all of the targeted 600,000 ha had eitherbeen gazetted as protected areas or brought

under ecosystem-based, multifunctional forestmanagement. Protected area planning andmanagement standards have been developedby the project, along with guidance for sustain-able forest management within protected areas,helping to ensure the integration of conserva-tion principles and protected area approachesinto forest management planning.

P R O J E C T :


Forest protected areas of Turkey

Turkey’s diverse natural ecosystems, its geological history and its geographical position betweenthree continents have given rise to an astonishing plant and animal diversity. More than 9,000plant species are present; more than 1,800 of these are rare and one third are unique to Turkey.Three WWF ‘Global 200’ ecoregions and three global biodiversity hotspots are located in thecountry, and the national network of protected areas comprises more than 4.1 million ha, orabout 5 percent of the total territory of Turkey.

The extent and diversity of Turkey’s natural forest ecosystems have, until recently, received dis-proportionately little attention. Turkey’s forests range from lowland alluvial and coastal wood-lands, through Mediterranean maquis to high mountain forests, covering altogether 21.2 millionha (27.8 percent of the country). However less than 4 percent of the national forest estate is of-ficially protected, and nearly half of Turkey’s forests are degraded as a result of unsustainablepractices, such as encroachment, overgrazing, and illegal logging. The root causes of thesethreats include poverty in forest villages and a lack of clear land tenure, resulting in disputesamong stakeholders. There is a need to ensure not just that the critical forest hotspots are in-cluded in the national protected area system, but also that the management of sensitive and vul-nerable forests can address economic, social and environmental priorities.


The project has piloted several innovative ap-proaches in the buffer zone of Küre MountainsNational Park. All seventeen forest sub-districtshave adopted the new multifunctional forestmanagement planning approach, with astronger focus on biodiversity and ecosystemconservation. A ‘pilot applications programme’ isenabling NGOs to work on ecotourism, aware-ness raising, natural resource management andmarketing of local products. The Ministry ofForestry and Water Affairs has supported forestvillagers to install over 300 solar water heaters,reducing demand for fuel wood, while over15,000 trees have been planted in a programmeof forest rehabilitation.

“Turkey’s forestry sector has startedto integrate biodiversity issues intoecosystem-based multifunctionalforest plans. 17 forest sub-districtsin the Küre Mountains NationalPark buffer zone have played animportant role in this nationalprocess. More than 80 percent ofthe buffer zone is covered by forests,and this area has been planned forconservation of species, ecosystemsand landscapes to supportnational park values. Now, thereare no intensive forestry practices inthis buffer zone.”

M R R A M A Z A N D I K YA R ,F O R E S T E N G I N E E R , M O N I T O R I N G A N D

C O N T R O L C H I E F E N G I N E E R , G E N E R A L D I R E C T O R AT E O F F O R E S T R Y.

Good governance has also been an importantelement of the project. The Küre MountainsNational Park Directorate has been established asone of ten such directorates in Turkey, working inclose collaboration with local stakeholders and na-tional and local NGOs to ensure a high degree of

participation. The official forest management plan-ning process for Turkey has also been revised toinclude a requirement for formal public consulta-tion. As a result of these efforts, the Küre MountainsNational Park became Turkey’s first member of thePAN Parks, which is a network established toprotect Europe’s wilderness, the continent’s mostundisturbed areas of nature. Furthermore, theproject was recognized as one of the 25 best prac-tices in Turkey in the area of sustainable develop-ment and green economy presented at theRio+20 United Nations Sustainable DevelopmentConference in June 2012.

Overall, the project is combining work to streng -then the basic functions of the National Park (na -ture protection, sustainable tourism, awarenessraising) with innovative efforts to harmonise pro-tected area approaches with forestry. The resultshould be a model landscape where all sectorscombine to protect Turkey’s forest heritage. Thenext step is to transfer this experience to Turkey’sother forest hotspots.


Duration: 2008-2012. GEF grant: $1.0 million. Co-financing: $1.65 million. For further information,contact Mr Yildiray Lise (Deputy Project Manager):[email protected] web site: www.kdmp.gov.tr

Project facts

Timber production in the sensitive landscape of Küre Mountains National Park.PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON


A new Biosphere Reserve and local communities are two elements of success in conserving Uzbekistan’s tugai forests

Conservation of tugai forest and strengtheningthe protected areas system in the Amu DaryaDelta of Karakalpakstan (2005-2010)

The overall objective of this project was to con-serve tugai forest and to include it in Uzbekistan’ssystem of protected areas. Specifically, the project

focused on extending protected areas, demon-strating a new multi-zoned approach to protectedarea planning, raising awareness about the valueof tugai, and involving local communities in con-servation of the forest.

When the project started in 2005, protecting thelower Amu Darya Delta was a priority, but it was

clear that simply enlarging existing strict protectedareas would not work. A solution was required thatwould stop ecosystem degradation by addressingthe underlying causes of that degradation. Thus,the idea of a Biosphere Reserve emerged. By early2007, the project team had managed to transformthe prevailing local misunderstanding and evenhostility towards the proposed Biosphere Reserve

P R O J E C T :


Tugai forest

Almost 6 percent of Uzbekistan is included in the national system of protected areas, but certainecosystems are significantly underrepresented, most notably the tugai forests. ‘Tugai’ is the termused across Central Asia for the unique ecosystem that flanks rivers in the region’s arid areas. Thetugai ecosystem includes reeds, river-side gallery forests, drought-resistant shrubs and associatedgrassland and desert landscapes.

Tugai forests were formerly widespread in Central Asia, especially along the Amu Darya River.Today, only 10 percent remains (in highly fragmented form) of the original tugai of the AmuDarya Delta in the southern Aral Sea area. The reasons for this decline include changes in the hy-drological regime, reduced water quantities, increased salinity, and overexploitation and degra-dation of the forests through grazing and wood cutting for fuel and construction. The most ex-tensive area of tugai remaining today is about 300 km2, around 75 percent of the total remainingin Uzbekistan and 20 percent of what is left in the whole of Central Asia.

Tugai is a unique and spectacular ecosystem, supporting a wealth of biodiversity in ‘linear oases’crossing the arid regions of Central Asia that, if well managed, can provide essential resources forthe communities of the region.


to widespread support. The project helped in thecomplex process of research, planning and nego-tiation to define clear, pragmatic boundaries andzones for the proposed reserve area, and toprepare management and business plans. In 2010,the Council of Ministers of Karakalpakstan ap-proved allocation of 68,718 ha of land for theLower Amu Darya Biosphere Reserve, and in 2011,the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan formally ap-proved its establishment.

Establishing the Biosphere Reserve was just thestart, however; practical measures were needed tosupport the day-to-day needs of local people. Inorder to reduce the demand for fuel wood, the

project established six gas dissemination points,which have benefited 86 households, 26 of whichdid not previously have any gas supply. As a result,more than 16 ha of forest is conserved each winter.While supplying gas might temporarily meet thecommunity’s needs, it does not constitute a long-term approach. In four districts, therefore, theproject has facilitated 20 tenant farmers to rent 91ha of degraded land from the forest estate in orderto restore the forests and to generate income. Thefarmers practice agroforestry, using the landbetween the forest trees they have planted togrow food for their families and for the market. Sofar, 71 ha of forest have been restored in this way.The project has also piloted installation of domes-

tic insulation, improvements in management ofgrazing animals, and measures to increase the ef-ficiency of sustainable agriculture.

Through the project, communities and local au-thorities have learned that effective forest conser-vation requires combining protective measureswith a range of innovative approaches to engageand empower local people, whose livelihoods fortoday and tomorrow depend on the forests.

“Now I see the importance ofnational protected areas in natureconservation. The BiosphereReserve is also promotingeconomic well-being.”

M R . D . K H A L M U R AT O V , M I N I S T E R O F J U S T I C E O F T H E R E P U B L I C

O F K A R A K A L PA K S TA N .


Duration: 2005-2010. GEF grant: $1.0 million. Co-financing: $1.06 million. For further information,contact Mr Khalilulla Sherimbetov (Project Co-ordinator): [email protected]

Project facts

Schoolchildren planting trees in the Biosphere Reserve. PHOTO: UNDP UZBEKISTAN



Bukhara deer in the tugai forest.PHOTO: PHILLIP EDWARDS


Integrating forestry with conservation and rural developmentin Bulgaria’s mountainlandscapes

Conservation of globally significant biodiversi-ty in the landscape of Bulgaria’s RhodopeMountains (2004-2009)

The overall objective of the project was the con-servation and sustainable use of biological di-versity in the Rhodope Mountains. Achieving thishas involved establishing innovative partner-ships of foresters, farmers, civil society organisa-

P R O J E C T :


The Rhodope Mountains

The Rhodope Mountains of southern Bulgaria cover more than 12,000 km2. More than 70 percentof the western Rhodope is mainly coniferous forest, together with high mountain meadows and pas-tures. By contrast, the eastern Rhodope is generally lower in altitude, the mainly deciduous forestscover around one third of the area, and around half the forests are plantations. The remaining land-scapes of the eastern Rhodope comprise large and diverse grassland, farmland and steppe areas,many of them under centuries-old traditional management.

As well as being rich in traditional culture, the Rhodope Mountains are also one of Bulgaria’s mostimportant regions for biodiversity. The mountains support more than 25 distinct natural habitats,have a very high level of endemism (especially of plants and invertebrates), and support largenumbers of vertebrate species, most notably birds and bats. Despite this, the coverage of protectedareas in the mountains was (before the project) less than one quarter of the country’s average.

While traditional management practices have helped to maintain the values of Rhodope in the past,growing pressures and new threats have started to endanger the mountains’ unique nature andculture. The most significant of these are:

habitat fragmentation and deterioration of the habitat mosaic of forest, farmland and meadows;

unsustainable use of natural resources (over-harvesting of medicinal plants, inappropriate tourism,seasonal use of fire, illegal logging, modernisation and intensification of agriculture);

loss of genetic diversity and abandonment of local plant varieties and domestic animal breeds; and

inadequate, small, isolated protected areas.

The challenge faced in protecting and sustaining the natural and cultural landscapes of the RhodopeMountains is to introduce new approaches that can be readily accepted and assimilated by the di-verse range of stakeholders in the region, from foresters to farmers, large agencies to small communities.


tions and the private sector, together with de-velopment of effective conservation tools andthe promotion of sustainable livelihoods. Theproject assisted twelve municipalities to develop‘Programmes for the Protection of the Envi -ronment’, through which zoning and biodiver-sity friendly management have been introducedacross more than 800,000 ha of land.

Critical to the success of the project has been theengagement from the start of the forest sector.Foresters were involved in the processes of datagathering, site prioritisation and identification ofhigh conservation value forests. This approach notonly recognised and made use the deep knowl-edge of the area possessed by the foresters, it alsohelped to increase their awareness and knowl-edge, building their capacity for improved futuremanagement of the forest estate.

The project has also pioneered forest certifica-tion as an important tool for encouraging theadoption of nature-friendly, economically viableand socially responsible forestry practices inBulgaria. In the course of the project, over143,000 ha in seven forestry units in the Rhodoperegion have been certified under the ForestryStewardship Council standards, triggering a na-tionwide interest in certification. Interviews withsenior forestry managers during the project’sfinal evaluation revealed that the ForestryAdministration sees certification as ‘the future’,

and that designation and management of highconservation value forests is a key part of the cer-tification process.

The responses of foresters to the work of theproject are testament to its accomplishments.Several have stated that the certification processhad given them greater interest in biodiversityand that they increasingly see themselves as‘stewards of nature.’ Some have now incorpo-rated into their work plans the project’s moni-toring programmes for threatened animals andplants. Foresters have also noticed an increasedrespect for their work, both from their profes-sional colleagues and from the general public.This has led to a greater sense of pride, increasinglevels of personal motivation.

The evidence is that the project has had a signif-icant impact on attitudes and practices withinthe forestry sector in the Rhodope region. Forestcertification and sustainable management offorests, including conservation of forest biodi-versity, have been internalized within forestryprogrammes and practices in a way that shouldbe sustainable over the long term.


Duration: 2004-2009. GEF grant: $3.805 mil-lion. Co-financing: $14.773 million. For further in-formation, contact Alexander Bardarov (RhodopeProject Association): [email protected] site: www.rodope.org

Project facts

Biodiversity field surveys in the western Rhodope. PHOTO: RHODOPE PROJECT


Agrobiodiversity includes all components of bi-ological diversity relevant to food and agricul-ture, including both the diverse species of plantand animal used in agriculture and the genesthat those species contain. Agrobiodiversity isimportant in the Europe and CIS region for manyreasons. The wild relatives of many of the world’smost important crop plants originate fromCentral Asia and the Caucasus, and the localraces used by farmers in those regions areamong the first domesticated species. Suchancient varieties can be important for local liveli-hoods and food security, being better suitedthan commercial varieties to specific local envi-ronmental conditions, and containing genes thatmay convey resistance to pests and diseases.Such properties may be of great importance toofor modern agricultural plant and animal breed-ing, increasing yields, helping global food secu-rity, and possibly generating revenue for thecommunities that have conserved the genes.

In much of Eurasia, human activity over thousandsof years has gently modified natural ecosystems sothat they are agriculturally productive, while at thesame time supporting and even enhancing theirnatural biodiversity. Typical examples of such agro-

ecosystems include meadows managed throughseasonal haymaking and grazing in mountainareas, wet grazing meadows in the lowlands, andorganically farmed cultivated land on agriculturalplains. In these areas, avoidance of monocultures,commercial species and agrochemicals, combinedwith harvesting regimes that respect nesting andflowering seasons, have all served to generate pro-ductive habitats, rich in plants, birds and insects.Agricultural modernisation and intensification arenow threatening many agro-ecosystems and thewildlife and cultures they sustain; urgent action isrequired to preserve these traditional, naturefriendly forms of agriculture.

Because the region is the origin of so many im-portant agricultural crops and contains extensiveagro-ecosystems of such high conservationvalue, UNDP and its partners have developed asuite of GEF projects to protect agricultural her-itage and its associated biodiversity, cultures andlivelihoods. The regional programme is alsopleased to have supported two projects specifi-cally aimed at fisheries conservation.

These projects have learned some valuablelessons from their experience so far:

Traditionally managed farmland is one of themost important ecosystems, particularly in themore populated west of the region, whereareas of natural wilderness are much smallerand scarcer. It provides particular opportuni-ties for protecting biodiversity, maintaininglocal cultures and improving livelihoods.

Farmers and fishers are a valuable repositoryof knowledge about agrobiodiversity, tradi-tional management and wildlife. Many ofthem are true nature lovers, possessing a deepunderstanding of the ecosystems theydepend on and of the importance of sustain-ability. Given the right opportunities and in-centives, local people are willing participantsin maintaining biodiversity-friendly traditionalmanagement regimes. Projects are muchmore effective when these local people arefully involved from the start.

Projects can provide a much-needed linkbetween farmers, fishers and responsible au-thorities, promoting mutual understandingand linking policy to practice on the groundand the realities of day-to-day rural liveli-hoods.


4.5 Conserving agrobiodiversity, agro-ecosystems and traditional fisheries


Using traditional crop and livestock varietiescan not only increase yields and incomes, itcan also build capacity and local pride withinrural communities.

Environmental problems faced by fisheriescannot be solved at the site level alone; theyrequire collaborative, catchment-scale ap-proaches.

The six case studies in this section provide ex-amples of projects that are rescuing the ances-tors of the apple in Central Asia, reinstating theuse of traditional crop varieties in the Caucasus,promoting biodiversity friendly management ofimportant agro-ecosystems in Europe andrestoring an economically important aquaticecosystem in Kyrgyzstan.


Mixed agricultural and forest landscape in the Carpathian Mountains of the Czech Republic.

PHOTO: UNDP-GEF CZECH GRASSLANDS PROJECT


Forgotten crop varietiesand landraces makea comeback in Georgia

Recovery, conservation and sustainable use ofGeorgia’s agrobiodiversity (2004-2010)

With support from the project (executed by‘Elkana’, the local biological farming association),Georgian farmers are reviving their country’sagrobiodiversity by reclaiming forgotten crop va-rieties and landraces, and diversifying their agri-cultural production. The project is improvingaccess to seed stock and planting material, pro-viding extension services to farmers, and facili-tating experience-sharing among farmers, re-search stations, and other stakeholders.

Prior to the project, farmers had virtually aban-doned use of traditional native crops. In order toencourage them to resume cultivation of local va-rieties and landraces, the project established a seedmultiplication system. As a result, 28 landraces andvarieties of legumes, cereals and fruits were beingused for subsistence production by 2009, andseven landraces were in commercial use. Today,189 households are cultivating local landraces andvarieties, and more than 80 percent of these havereported higher legume crop diversity, as well as

improvement of the family diet. These crops havealso demonstrated a much higher resistance todrought, pests and harsh winters.

The revived native legume crops attract a 10percent price premium compared to commonbeans, and 11 farmers and three farmers’ coopera-tives have confirmed higher incomes from tradingthem; the volume of sales has doubled each of thelast three years. Farmers also benefit from having tospend far less on chemical fertilizers.

P R O J E C T :


Georgia’s agrobiodiversity

Georgia’s agriculture can be traced back to seven thousand years ago, when the first Georgiantribes began to domesticate cereals, legumes and fruit species. With a relatively small area of69,700 km2, Georgia is home to more than 350 local species of grain crop, 500 local varieties ofgrape and more than 100 species of fruit trees, nuts and wild berries.

Before the early twentieth century, Georgia’s agricultural production was diversified, but duringthe Soviet times most families and collective farms grew mainly introduced varieties (thereby de-creasing on-farm diversity), while agricultural research centres cultivated local landraces (varietiesthat have developed largely by natural processes). When financial support from the Soviet Unionceased, the loss of agrobiodiversity intensified, as valuable collections and stocks of landracesbegan to deteriorate when the agricultural research centres and extension services that pro-moted them collapsed. At the same time, modernization of agricultural production led to in-creased use of introduced commercial varieties and of agrochemicals. By the mid-1990s, manylocal varieties were no longer available for planting, and the research centres lacked the capac-ity to assist farmers to reintroduce them.



Children dancing at the Bread Festival. PHOTO: © ELKANA NGO, GEORGIA.


“I have been receiving the project’shelp since 2004, when Elkanainvited me to the farmers’association for native crops. Eversince then, my harvests have beengood, I make better profits, andevery year I try to sow more andhave greater yields.”

“Everyone has become interested.All my neighbours are cultivatingcrops promoted by this project.”

“It seems Georgia has a market forit, and it makes sense to sow more.Products from native crops arewholesome, natural, and delicious.We advise everyone to grow thesecrops and to cook different andwholesome dishes with them.”

FA R M E R S F R O M T H E E L K A N AA S S O C I AT I O N R E F L E C T A B O U TT H E P R O J E C T Q U O T E S TA K E N

F R O M T H E F I L M ‘ R E S T O R I N GG E O R G I A ’ S A G R O B I O D I V E R S I T Y ’ .

Replication of the accomplishments of theproject speaks for its success. Seed material nur-tured through the project is now being soughtby farmers from outside the demonstration area.In 2011, five regions (Kakheti, Kvemo Kartli,Imereti, Svaneti and Racha) bought seed materialfrom Elkana. Kakhetian farmers grow the cropsmainly for their own consumption, while farmersfrom Kvemo Kartli sell harvests both locally andin the neighbouring country of Azerbaijan.Restoration of the wheat landrace AkhaltsikhisTsiteli Doli has encouraged local farmers to es-tablish a Bread Festival in the city of Akhaltsikhe,Samtskhe-Javakheti. The festivals held in theautumns of 2010 and 2011 have grown into realcelebrations of local traditions, bread and food.

Agrobiodiversity is often overlooked when eval-uating the importance of biodiversity, butfarmers in Georgia now know otherwise! Thetrust in native landraces and varieties, and theever-evolving capacity of the farmers to innovateand adapt, once seemingly lost, are making acomeback, and farmers are demonstrating a newmaxim for the management of agriculturalspecies diversity: ‘sustainably use it… or lose it.’


Duration: 2004-2010. GEF grant: $0.99 million.Co-financing: $1.72 million. For further infor-mation, contact Ms Mariam Jorjadze (Project Co-ordinator and Head of Elkana): [email protected] web site: www.elkana.org.ge/biodiver-sity/index.htm

Project facts

Traditional products packaged for the market.PHOTO: ELKANA NGO, GEORGIA.


Sound science andaccess to finance arethe keys to sustainabilityin Slovakia’scalcareous fens

Conservation, restoration and wise use of cal-careous fens (2004-2010)

While sustainable grazing is beneficial for themaintenance of Slovakia’s calcareous fens, otheragricultural practices such as arable farming leadto their degradation. The future of these fensdepends on their scientifically-based and sus-tainably financed management. Bringing that

scenario into reality is the objective of thisproject, implemented by the Daphne ResearchInstitute in cooperation with Slovakia’s Ministriesof Environment and of Agriculture. With a totalarea of around 300 ha, the project’s threedemonstration sites represent about 10 percentof the remaining peatlands in Slovakia.

The underlying principle of the project is partic-ipation. Management plans for the demonstra-

tion areas have been prepared jointly with localfarmers, prescribing the conservation actions re-quired to maintain the fen ecosystem. For eachaction, the project has conducted thorough re-search and prepared detailed methodologicalguidance.

The project also helps farmers to identify sourcesof financial support. In theory, funding is avail-able through the EU agrienvironmental scheme

P R O J E C T :


Calcareous fens in Slovakia

Calcareous fens are rare and distinctive wetland communities that form on peat, but whosewater supply comes from cold, oxygen-poor groundwater, rich in calcium carbonate. This envi-ronment supports plant communities dominated by calcium-loving species, utterly differentfrom the acid tolerant communities more usually found on peatlands. Calcareous fens in EasternEurope support an exceptional mixture of communities from four biogeographical zones. TheCarpathian zone is characterised by the presence of the rare species, Swertia perennis and Primulafarinosa; the boreal zone supports a wide variety of relict species; the oceanic zone containsthreatened plant species such as Juncus bulbosus and Rhynchospora alba; and the Pannonianzone is represented by endemic plants such as Cirsium brachycephalum.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, wetlands covered about 20,000 ha in Slovakia; bythe early 1990s, approximately 90 percent had been lost as a result of human activities, mostlydrainage for agriculture. Among the various types of peatland, the rich calcareous fens are underthe most pressure. Except for the Šúr Nature Reserve, with an area of 350 ha, all calcareous fenshave been drained and converted to arable land.



Belianske Luky fen after restoration. PHOTO: TOMÁŠ DRAŽIL


and Natura 2000 programme, but at the start ofthe project calcareous fens were not eligible forsuch support. Following the intervention of theproject, the European Commission has officiallyacknowledged eligibility for support of measuresfor management of semi-natural and naturalgrasslands under Slovakia’s rural developmentplan. To support this, the project has developedrules and schemes of payments to conserve thefenlands.

In order to build capacity for fenland restoration,seven seminars for farmers have been organized,along with demonstration activities on 139.5 haof biodiversity-rich fens. The conservation statusof these areas has now substantially increased;95.4 ha have undergone active restoration, withthe groundwater table stabilized in 80 percentof the restored sites.

So far, agrienvironmental payments have beenapplied to more than 450 ha of fens (14.6 percentof the total). Of the 609 peatland sites now in-cluded in the Natura 2000 network, 126 arebeing managed by local farmers within agrien-vironmental schemes, 134 are managed by theState Nature Conservancy and/or conservationprojects, and 39 can be maintained without anymanagement. In total therefore, nearly half ofSlovakia’s Natura 2000 peatland sites are nowbeing sensitively and sustainably managed andmaintained.

“A complex of more than 90 ha ofunique fen grasslands in theBelianske meadows had beensaved from peat extraction, butsince then had been neglected, andspecies richness had declined.Within the project, the DaphneResearch Institute, in cooperationwith the State Nature Conservancy,managed to find a private farmerwilling to invest time and resourcesin the rehabilitation andmaintenance of the grasslands. Thiscommendable act has restoredBelianske meadow, which just twoyears ago was overgrown withrushes and shrubs, as a pearl ofnature. Now the site is admired bybotanists from Slovakia and acrossEurope.”

M I L A N B A R L O G , B O TA N I S T F R O M T H E A D M I N I S T R AT I O N

O F S L O V E N S K Ý R A J S L O V A K PA R A D I S E N AT I O N A L PA R K .


Duration: 2004-2010. GEF grant: $1.0 million. Co-financing: $1.46 million. For further information,contact Ms Viera Šefferová: [email protected]

Project facts

Special tractors that do not compress peat are needed to mowand mulch the fens. PHOTO: TOMÁŠ DRAŽIL


Czech Republic: demonstrating agrienvironmental and marketing modelsto support sustainablegrassland managementin the context of the European Union

Conservation of biological diversity of Carpathi-an mountain grasslands in the Czech Republicthrough targeted application of new EU fund-ing mechanisms (2004-2010)

This project focused on two priority mountaingrassland locations to pilot landowner-basedgrassland management approaches that wouldultimately become eligible for EU support. Thestarting point was to develop the policies andstandards necessary to ensure that grasslandmanagement could be included in the CzechRepublic’s agrienvironmental scheme. Theproject developed five regulations, all of whichwere successfully adopted by the Government.The team also developed practical guidance forgrassland management and introduced a so-phisticated system to monitor the ecologicalstability of grasslands within the scheme. By theend of the project, an impressive total of 327farmers had applied for the available grasslandsubsidies.

The project has also provided support for 134farms to adopt organic farming methods. Inorder to support the marketing of products fromthe sustainably managed grasslands, three re-gional product brands and logos were launched(‘Tradition of the White Carpathians®’, ‘Producedin the Beskydy Mountains®’, and ‘Sheep from theMoravian Carpathians’). Products marketedunder these brands include sheep and goatmeat and milk products, organic agriculturalproduce and traditional handicrafts. Eight otherregions have followed the project’s example andregistered similar product trademarks.

P R O J E C T :


Temperate semi-natural grasslands in the Carpathian Mountains

Species composition and diversity in themountain grasslands of the Carpathians is adirect result of the traditional agriculturalpractices of grazing and mowing. Aban-doning of traditional management has re-sulted in invasion by dominant species andsuccession of grasslands to shrublands, lead-ing to losses of important plant and animalcommunities. These changes have beendriven by social and economic factors,which have caused reduced summer graz-ing of upland pastures by sheep and goats,and led to intensification of management oflowland meadows through application ofmineral fertilizers and reseeding with mono-specific agricultural grasses.

While the European Union provides fundingfor agrienvironmental measures, selectingeligible biotopes, setting the standards andrules, and building capacities of farmers toapply them are all left to the discretion of in-dividual Member States. In the early 2000snone of the newly acceded countries, in-cluding the Czech Republic, were able tomeet the required criteria for successfulmanagement of grasslands through theseagrienvironmental schemes.


“Most farmers here do not fullyunderstand the purpose of theagrienvironmental schemes, andconsider them only as simplesubsidies for farm management.Farm plans and individualcounselling representindispensable tools for awarenessraising and for improving theeffectiveness and efficiency ofimplementing the landscapeand environmental componentsof the scheme. Agrienvironmentalmeasures, introducedinto agricultural policy, have now led to the maintenance andimprovement of biodiversity in the agricultural landscapeoutside the protected areas.”

B O Ř I V O J Š A R A PAT K A , FA C U LT Y O F E N V I R O N M E N TA L

S C I E N C E S , PA L A C K É H O U N I V E R S I T Y,O L O M O U C , C Z E C H R E P U B L I C .

For over 1,500 ha of grassland that required par-ticularly strict protection, the project has ensuredtheir inclusion in the country’s protected areasystem, while a further 570 ha of degraded landhave been restored to the status of biodiversity-rich grasslands. Cumulatively, the work of theproject has led to increases in the populations ofmost of the grassland indicator species in thecountry.


Duration: 2004-2010. GEF grant: $0.99 million.Co-financing: $9.39 million. For further infor-mation, contact Ms Klára Tóthová (UNDP-GEFFocal Point): [email protected] web site: www.foa.cz

Project facts

Goat’s cheese production course supported by the project.PHOTO: CZECH REPUBLIC GRASSLAND PROJECT


Developing local capacities for agrienvironmentalmeasures in biodiversityrich grasslands in Bulgaria

Conservation of globally important biodiversi-ty in high nature value semi-natural grasslandsthrough support for the traditional local econ-omy (2007-2012)

The project was designed to develop local andnational capacities for developing and manag-ing EU supported agrienvironmental measures

for Bulgaria’s valuable semi-natural grasslands. Insome of the countries implementing EU agrien-vironmental policies, there has been a lack ofmediation between farmers on the ground andnational Ministries of Agriculture (as managers ofthe EU funds). The project set up an innovativemechanism to address this potential weakness. Itestablished three-person, NGO-based mobileteams to advise farmers on the complexities of

the agrienvironmental measures, stimulate theirinterest in applying for the available subsidies,advise local extension services, help farmers toapply for the scheme, and provide support andadvocacy if their applications are rejected.

The experts in the mobile teams have also beeninstrumental in developing both government or-dinances and the content of the grassland meas-

P R O J E C T :


High nature value grasslands in Bulgaria

Semi-natural grasslands are some of the most valuable ecosystems in Bulgaria’s agricultural land-scapes. As a result of long-term co-existence with farmers, such ecosystems are rich in speciesand characteristic of their biogeographical region. Bulgarian grasslands exhibit high floristic di-versity, and provide important habitats for many animal communities, notably butterflies andbreeding birds. Available estimates indicate a decline in the area of semi-natural pastures andmeadows in Bulgaria from 1.8 million ha in the early twentieth century to 1.2 million ha in the1960s and less than 500,000 ha in the late 1990s. Recent estimates suggest that a total of 350,000ha of semi-natural grassland habitats in Bulgaria are important for biodiversity. These ‘high naturevalue’ grasslands are home to a remarkable biodiversity that includes over 50 percent of the floraof Bulgaria and 198 species of plants of international conservation importance.

In the early 2000s, these remaining grasslands were in danger of disappearing as a result of pri-vatization and land reform, following the collapse of communism and the transition towards amarket-based economy. Abandonment of farming, over-grazing, or even simple changes incutting regimes, all reduce grassland biodiversity through shrub encroachment or the increaseddominance of competitive grassland species. Although this was the period of Bulgaria’s acces-sion to the European Union, whose agrienvironmental instruments cover sustainable manage-ment of species rich grasslands, Bulgaria lacked the capacity to benefit from these measures.


ures included within the national agrienviron-mental scheme. By 2011, 20 farmers had appliedto the national scheme for agrienvironmentalsubsidies for sustainable grassland management.The project is now providing support to ensurethat their payments are delivered correctly andpromptly. The project team is also working toensure the implementation in Bulgaria of theEurope-wide Natura 2000 network of conserva-tion areas, and has successfully proposed ameasure whereby grassland managers in Natura2000 sites are compensated for bans on removalof landscape features, mowing, and the use offertilizers.

The project does not just limit its efforts toagrienvironmental measures; in biodiversity-richareas it is establishing local action groups toprepare local sustainable development strate-gies and investment proposals, organizing localbrand food festivals, and arranging study toursfor farmers.

It is still too early to determine the full ecologicalimpact of these measures, but, encouragingly,monitoring of indicators in the pilot areas hasshown no further reductions in grassland biodi-versity.

“The project provided funds andopportunities to continue doingwhat we could do best - breedlivestock - and has, at the sametime, taught us how to take care ofthe grasslands that we depend on.”

S T O YA N S T O YA N O V , FA R M E R I N T H E P O N O R P I L O T A R E A .


Duration: 2007-2012. GEF grant: $1.0 million. Co-financing: $1.22 million. For further information,contact Ms Miroslava Dikova (Project Coordi-nator): [email protected] web site: www.bspb-grasslands.org

Project facts

Sheep are important for maintaining the mountain grasslands. PHOTO: G. POPGEORGIEV



Goats are used for grazing too.PHOTO: G. POPGEORGIEV


Securing the future of Kazakhstan’s agrobiodiversity

In-situ conservation of Kazakhstan's mountainagrobiodiversity (2005-2012)

In 2003, UNDP and the Kazakh Government to un-dertake a set of coordinated activities to reversethe degradation of wild fruit diversity. Working attwo demonstration areas in the Tien-ShanMountains, the project was established to secureprotection of key genetic reserves, to trial wild fruitconservation tools, and to identify means for alter-native income generation by local people in orderto reduce the pressure on wild fruit forests.

A fundamental strategy for conserving agrobio-diversity is to secure formal protection for areasthat are important genetic reserves. Accordingly,the project conducted an inventory of wild fruitforests within the two demonstration areas, andproposed the expansion by 35,000 ha of theZailikiy Alatau Specially Protected Area and es-tablishment of Zhongar-Alatau National Park(356,000 ha). Within these protected areas, theteam has identified and established seven

special zones for the strict protection of geneticreserves of wild apples and apricots. These zoneshave been officially certified by the Research andTechnical Council of the Forestry and HuntingCommittee of the Ministry of Agriculture ofKazakhstan.

New technology has an important role to playin maintaining and increasing wild fruit diver-sity. The project has established and equipped

P R O J E C T :


Wild fruit diversity in Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan is the world’s centre of wild apple diversity. It is believed that the cultivated apple(Malus domestica) arose in the Tien-Shan mountains of Kazakhstan and China from the wild apple(Malus sieversii), which has many of the characteristics (size, colour, sweetness) valued by growersand consumers alike. Environmental conditions in the region are extremely favourable, andwhole valleys are still forested with apple trees, while varied microclimates and ecological nichesallow for wide diversification of wild forms. There is a theory that natural selection and distribu-tion of the largest and sweetest fruits was driven by bears and wild ungulates, creating the basisfor the varieties preferred by humans.

From 1960 to 2005, the area of wild fruit forests in the Zailiyskiy Alatau region declined by 70percent and, in the more remote Zhongar-Alatau forests, by 50 percent. Former wild fruit forestswere overgrazed, burnt by farmers and overexploited (fruit was collected for food, trees for fuelwood). Furthermore, pollination of the wild varieties by introduced varieties led to the accu-mulation of cultivated genes and a loss of natural genetic variation. This dramatically reduced theresistance of native varieties to prevailing natural conditions and to the impact of pests and dis-eases, and diminished the ability of wild varieties to regenerate naturally.


scientific departments at the two protectedareas, which are conducting research into mi-cropropagation of important varieties andmaintaining gene banks of wild and cultivatedfruit diversity.

Diverting people from destructive use of wildfruit forests is also essential for ensuring their

long-term conservation. Working with the localcommunities, the project team has promotedtraditional beekeeping as a possible alternative,providing a honey processing facility, marketstudies and training for bee keepers. Support hasalso been provided for ecological tourism and forimproving the efficiency and sustainability of tra-ditional farming practices.

“The project helped us to realisethe importance of working topreserve the genetic diversity ofwild fruit forests. We are gratefulfor its help in creating Zhongar-Alatau National Park, which givesus the opportunity to improve theprotection of valuable wild fruitforests, our national heritage.”

S AYAT I G E M B A E V , D E P U T Y G E N E R A L D I R E C T O R

O F Z H O N G A R A L ATA U N AT I O N A L PA R K .


Duration: 2005-2012. GEF grant: $3.0 million. Co-financing: $19.59 million. For further information,contact Ms Kuralay Karibayeva (Project Manager):[email protected] web sites: www.undp.kz ; www.minagri.kz;www.fhc.kz

Project facts

Seminar on conservation management in Zhongar-Alatau Park.PHOTO: LINA VALDSHMIT


Kyrgyzstan: restoring a nativespecies fishery throughsound ecological management and alternative income generation

Strengthening the policy and regulatory frame-work for mainstreaming biodiversity into thefishery sector (2008-2013)

The project is addressing the threats to thenative fish fauna of Lake Issyk-Kul through a set ofcoordinated activities. In the first year of opera-tion, the project team helped the authorities toimplement a fishing moratorium on Lake Issyk-Kul, lasting until 2013. During the moratorium, aprogramme of scientific research has gathered

P R O J E C T :


Lake Issyk-Kul

At 1,608 metres above sea level, Lake Issyk-Kul in Kyrgyzstan is the second largesthigh altitude lake in the world. Issyk-Kul isboth a Ramsar Site (Wetland of Inter -national Importance) and a UNESCOBiosphere Reserve. In recent years, catchesof all species of fish from the lake have de-clined markedly, due to a combination ofover-fishing, predation by two introducedspecies, and the cessation of restocking ofthe lake with juvenile fish from hatcheries.At least four commercially targeted en -demic fish species are sufficiently threat-ened to be included in the Red Book ofthe Kyrgyz Republic. Seven other endemicspecies are almost certainly threatened,either as by-catch or as a result of changesto the structure and balance of the fishpopulation within the lake, caused bypoor fishery management.

Sanitary fishing activities to remove invasive species.PHOTO: AZAT ALAMANOV


data on the population trends and habitat re-quirements of the four most threatened ende -mic fish species, as well as on the impact of in-troduced species. This work has helped to definemaximum allowable catches for the commercialfishery in the lake.

The project team is also working through theFisheries Advisory Committee to enable local

communities to participate in the elaboration ofa biodiversity-friendly fishery managementregime. In order to reduce overfishing, theproject has pioneered issuance of long-termfishing rights per user/fisher, and successfullypromoted aquaculture in pond fisheries. A pro-gramme of restocking with larvae of threatenedendemics is now underway, alongside thecontrol of introduced predatory species.

In order to ensure responsible and sustainable fu-ture management of the Issyk-Kul fishery, a pack-age of revisions to legislation has been developedand is currently under consideration by Parliament.Capacity for management and protection of thelake has been enhanced through provision ofequipment for research, monitoring and patrolling.

These interventions should provide a foundationfor the establishment of a managed fishery inLake Issyk-Kul that sustains the unique fish faunaof the lake.

“I believe that the project has anessential role to play in theeffective conservation of theendemic fish fauna of the lake.”

D R H E I M O M I K K O L A ,I N T E R N AT I O N A L C O N S U LTA N T

T O T H E P R O J E C T .


Duration: 2008-2013. GEF grant: $0.98 million.Co-financing: $3.13 million. For further infor-mation, contact Mr Azat Alamanov (ProjectCoordinator): [email protected] web site: www.caresd.net

Project facts

Issyk-Kul marinka brood fish. PHOTO: AZAT ALAMANOV


Awareness raising is a vital element of all projectsin the region, but it can present particular chal-lenges. Awareness programmes in projects tendto take two main forms:

General or ‘soft’ awareness, concentrating onincreasing general understanding and appre-ciation of the values of biodiversity, landscapesand cultures.

Targeted or ‘hard’ awareness, using specificmessages to change the behaviour and atti-tude of defined target groups, in order toresolve particular problems related to the ob-jectives of the project.

Many projects have tended to focus mainly onthe more ‘soft approaches.’ For example, invest-ing in programmes for schools is a popularproject activity, based on the belief that childrenwho grow up more environmentally aware willbehave in a more environmentally responsibleway, and that these children may exert a positiveinfluence on the behaviour of their families.Education and interpretation programmes aimed

at visitors to a protected area are usually designedto provide interesting information, to increase en-joyment of the visit, and to influence the futurebehaviour and attitudes of the visitors. Few woulddoubt the validity of these approaches, but theproblem faced by projects is proving the impactthat such ‘soft’ awareness programmes have inthe relatively short time span of a project. This canlead to suggestions that awareness activities lackfocus and are ineffective.

Increasingly therefore, projects are developingmore targeted awareness programmes and ac-tivities, that attempt to define clear linksbetween awareness raising, changes in behav-iour by particular groups and measurableimpacts on the ground to reduce identifiedthreats. As projects across the region seek theright balance between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ awarenessapproaches, they are learning some importantlessons:

Projects should conduct initial assessments ofawareness among target groups at a very earlystage, in order to provide a baseline for re-

assessment of awareness at the end of theproject, using the same methodology.

It is essential to identify awareness indicatorsthat measure specific impacts and changesin attitudes or behaviours, rather than justmeasuring inputs (investments) into raisingawareness.

Awareness raising is more than providing ed-ucation, information and instruction. Buildingpartnerships, promoting ownership and fos-tering good working relationships with stake-holders are all valuable tools in developingunderstanding and promoting environmen-tal action.

The best awareness raising programmes useimaginative approaches and a diverse rangeof media and techniques that reflect local in-terests and cultures.

Four contrasting case studies are highlighted,showing how these lessons have been appliedacross the region.


4.6 Raising awareness and building support for biodiversity conservation


Awareness really worksfor Kazakhstan’s wetland managers, and they can prove it!

Integrated conservation of priority globallysignificant migratory bird wetland habitat(2003-2011)

The project was established to enable govern-ment agencies, NGOs and local communities tomaintain and improve the integrity and viabilityof Kazakhstan’s priority wetland ecosystems. Thisobjective has been largely achieved through acombination of new legislation, a doubling of

the area of wetlands and associated ecosystemswithin protected areas, and improvement ofmanagement effectiveness in three pilot sites(the Ural River delta, the Tengiz-Korgalzhyn wet-lands and the Alakol-Sassykol lakes complex).The international importance of these wetlandecosystems has been recognised through des-

ignation of areas of the Tengiz-Korgalzhyn wet -land system as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, aRamsar Site and an Important Bird Area.

Targeted and well-designed awareness pro-grammes have been critical to this success. Amodern and imaginatively designed visitor centre

P R O J E C T :


Wetlands of Kazakhstan

Over 50 million migrating birds pass through Kazakhstan each spring and autumn, betweenwintering areas in Africa and India and summer breeding grounds in Europe, Russia andKazakhstan itself. The country’s vast, biodiversity-rich wetlands provide vital sites for these birdsto rest, feed and breed, and play a crucial role in collecting and storing the water necessary forthe development of urban centres, industry and irrigated agriculture.

Today, Kazakhstan’s wetlands are under threat. The current policy and legal frameworks havebeen inadequate to manage the growing demand for water, hampered by the lack of an inte-grated system of water resource management. From decision makers to local people, stake-holders have not sufficiently appreciated the importance of wetland ecosystems in maintainingand safeguarding national water resources. The managers of wetland reserves have found it dif-ficult to curtail unsustainable use of natural resources by local people, who felt they had no al-ternative options for their livelihoods, and who did not appreciate how important healthy wet-lands are for the survival of their communities.

While increasing numbers of visitors are attracted to the wetlands, facilities and regulations forecotourism development and visitor management have been inadequate to cope with thedemand and the impacts that tourism brings.



Greater flamingos (Phoenicopterus roseus) are a flagship species for Kazakhstan’s wetlands.PHOTO: ALEXEY KOSHKIN


was established at Korgalzhyn State NatureReserve, within easy reach of the capital Astana.The centre serves as an ecological and educa-tional centre for local people, official visitors andnational and international tourists. It contains arange of flexible spaces and innovative interpre-tive displays, very different from the museumsnormally associated with such reserves. Thecentre is probably the first of its kind in CentralAsia and has become a model for similar centresin the region.

Wetland topics have been introduced into schoolcurricula and have been adopted by 22 schools,six of which now have special classrooms dedi-cated to wetlands. Educational materials aboutthe wetlands have been prepared for the schools,and a children’s eco club has been established atKorgalzhyn Reserve. At the national level, a pro-gramme of imaginative awareness events hasused a range of media to improve understandingand appreciation of wetlands among the widerpublic and decision makers.

Crucially, the project has identified and moni-tored clear indicators to measure the impact ofthese awareness programmes. Awareness ques-tionnaires were completed by decision makersand local community members in the three pilotsites at the beginning and end of the project. Ineach case, the results showed levels of awarenesshad increased substantially. The success of theschools programme could be verified by theformal adoption of the new wetlands curriculum.A particular example of good practice has beenthe identification and monitoring of an impactindicator (the use of fire as a means of managingpasture land in the wetland zones) to measurethe behavioural changes brought about byawareness activities. As a result of targetedawareness campaigns, burning was reduced toalmost zero in all three pilot sites.


Local school children enjoying a wetland education event.PHOTO: ARAI BELGUBAYEVA


“Before the project started we werelike lone wolves, working in avacuum and rarely visiting otherreserves. New ideas came to usmostly from television ornewspapers. Wetlands were notvalued by local communities,inhabitants did not understandwhy preserving them is importantand it was difficult for us toexplain the value of natureprotection. Through the work ofthe project, we came to realize

that the best way to conserve ourwetlands is to inform the publicabout the value of the naturearound them, and to teach themhow to behave in protected areas.We have learnt how to reach outto people and discuss commonproblems. Nowadays, we areworking together (as a pack) toovercome them!”

M U R AT A I T Z H A N O V , D I R E C T O R O F K O R G A L Z H Y N

S TAT E N AT U R E R E S E R V E .


Duration: 2003-2011. GEF grant: $8.85 million.Co-financing: $25.76 million. For further infor-mation, contact Mr Talgat Kerteshev (ProjectManager): [email protected] web site: www.wetlands.kz

Project facts

Production of felt mats provides alternative livelihoods for localcommunities. PHOTO: AZHAR BAIBAKISHEVA


Changing attitudes in Lithuania throughmore open and inclusiveprotected area management

Conservation of inland wetland biodiversityin Lithuania (2005-2010)

This project has adopted a two-pronged approachto addressing the threats to Lithuania’s wetlands.First, it sought to demonstrate effective wetlandrehabilitation and improved management in situat five globally significant sites; second, it aimed toinstitutionalize best practices by replicating itswork in wetland sites throughout the country.

P R O J E C T :


Blocking ditches to raise water levels in Kamanos bog.PHOTO: LIBRARY OF NATURE HERITAGE FUND


“After the project, a greatproportion of naturemanagement activities is beingimplemented by local farmers.The project gave them theinspiration and tools to managethe wetlands of ŽuvintasBiosphere Reserve and toparticipate in rural developmentprogrammes. Together,we improved about 117 ha ofimportant habitats just in 2009.”

ARŪNAS PRANAITIS, DIRECTOR OF ŽUVINTAS

BIOSPHERE RESERVE.

In the course of the project, management plansfor the five target sites were developed andadopted, and a range of practical wetland restora-tion and management techniques were success-fully implemented, including the reintroductionof the capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), the largestmember of the grouse family of birds. As a result,the condition of the ecosystems and biodiversityand the effectiveness of management at the fivefocal wetlands have improved significantly.

Alongside these very direct achievements, theproject has facilitated a major change in the re-lationship between the protected areas and localstakeholders. Previously, the wetland reserveswere regarded as restricted, closed areas and had

operated in a quite exclusive way. Since the startof the project, the reserves have opened visitorfacilities, enabling the public to visit the wet-lands, to enjoy them and to understand moreabout their importance. The project also helpedfacilitate new working relationships betweenreserve administrations, local communities andlocal government. Education and awareness out-reach programmes were implemented, whilejoint projects, such as cleaning out a lake andbuilding a fish ladder at a dam site, have fosteredbetter mutual understanding between thereserve administrations, local communities andmunicipal authorities.

This new, more open and inclusive approach hasnot just changed the attitudes of local commu-nities and authorities; the awareness and attitudeof the reserve staff have also changed as theyhave developed partnerships with their neigh-bours. The success of this new way of working isdemonstrated by the growing number of localpeople volunteering to help with the manage-ment of the reserves.


Duration 2004-2010. GEF grant: $3.441 million.Co-financing: $10.424 million. For further infor-mation contact: Maxim Vergeichik (RegionalTechnical Advisor): [email protected]

Project facts

Lithuania’s wetlands

Although they occupy only about 5percent of its territory, wetlands areamong Lithuania’s most important ecosys-tems. They support a host of rare, endemicand endangered resident species and areimportant staging posts for over 170 mi-gratory bird species. By the mid-1990s, 70percent of the total wetland area in thecountry had been lost, as a result of agri-cultural drainage, succession of wetlandsto scrub, intensification of forestry, over-harvesting of wetland products and di-minishing water quality.

In order to address these threats, theGovernment of Lithuania has identifiedwetland biodiversity as a top priority forconservation action in its NationalBiodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, andhas developed general action plans forprotection of wetland ecosystems and forprotection of species.


Tajikistan: raising awarenessand supporting communities by building effectivepartnerships

Demonstrating new approaches to protected ar-eas and biodiversity management in the GissarMountains as a model for strengthening the na-tional Tajikistan protected areas system (2006-2010)

The project was designed to address the weak-nesses in protected area governance in Tajikistanand to test practical site management, conser-vation and financing mechanisms in threeprominent protected areas, covering 32,839 hain the Gissar Mountains.

Particularly important lessons can be learned fromthe awareness activities of the project. The originalintention was to link awareness with increasedcommunity participation and piloting of environ-

mentally sustainable income generation activitiesin and around the three protected areas. Initiallythese activities were rather unfocused and inef-fective, but following a review of the project’s per-formance, the situation improved significantly.What made the difference was an intensive effortto build effective partnerships for implementingthe project with local communities. This new part-nership approach was based around the estab-lishment of resource centres in four local Jamoats(local administrative units) and the engagement of

P R O J E C T :


The Gissar Mountains

The Gissar Mountains are located in western Tajikistan and south-eastern Uzbekistan and are in-cluded in one of WWF’s ‘Global 200’ ecoregions. The fauna of the Gissar Mountains includes speciesof both Indo-Himalayan and Mediterranean origin, as well as relict and endemic species that havepersisted in the area since the tertiary period (more than 2 million years ago), having disappearedfrom much of their former range elsewhere. Within the area, it is estimated that there are over 221vertebrate species, over 3,000 invertebrates and more than 2,000 plant species. 14 plants andanimals from the area are listed in the IUCN Red Data Book, including the snow leopard (Pantherauncia), central Asian otter (Lutra lutra seistanica), central Asian cobra (Naja oxiana) and cinereousvulture (Aegypius monachus). In addition to their globally significant biodiversity, the GissarMountains contain other important natural and cultural features, including over 500 fossilised di-nosaur footprints, numerous archaeological sites, and spectacular and beautiful landscapes.

Traditional land use practices and tenure systems, developed over centuries, were disrupted andlargely abandoned in the twentieth century, while rapid population growth between 1970 and2000 meant that the Gissar ecosystem’s carrying capacity could not withstand the growing pressureon its resources. The most direct threats are now overgrazing, unsustainable hunting and logging.



Mobile theatre as a tool for increasing community awareness. PHOTO: MIRZOHAYDAR ISOEV


a national NGO to reach out to communitiesthrough the Jamoats. In this way, awareness activ-ities were not so much delivered from outside, butdeveloped within the local communities, buildinga real sense of ownership and creating obviouslinkages to the benefits arising from the project’sactivities.

This partnership approach was adopted in othercomponents of the project too. Special effortswere made to strengthen working relations withthe key institutional stakeholders, and theproject helped establish inter-ministerial workinggroups to draft new legislation. Partnership-building has served to raise significantly theprofile of protected areas, at national level withinParliament and government agencies, andlocally within the Jamoats and communities.

This new level of awareness, cooperation and un-derstanding has led to some important achieve-ments including:

Adoption of a new protected areas law andforest code. The relatively quick passage of leg-islation was due to the establishment of theinter-ministerial working groups to fast-trackthe process.

Official endorsement of a new, participatoryprocess for protected area management plan-ning, which has been enthusiastically adoptedby national stakeholders and already appliedin two protected areas. The State Agency forProtected Areas is now developing manage-ment plans for all 18 of Tajikistan’s protectedareas using the same methodology.

Provision of vocational training in protectedarea management for forestry and protectedarea agency staff. Training topics have in-cluded participatory planning, use of man-agement effectiveness tracking tools, innova-tive financing approaches, and use ofgeographical information systems.

Increased opportunities for local communi-ties around the target protected areas toimprove their livelihoods in ways that do notadversely affect biodiversity. This has stemmedfrom the establishment of the Jamoat re-

source centres and of a highly successfulmicro-loan foundation.

“The interventions made by theproject have provided a platformfor ensuring a participatoryapproach to achievingenvironmentally sustainablelivelihoods in and aroundprotected areas, throughestablishing a network betweenthe villages and increasing localawareness about sustainableresource management”.

K U V AT M U R O D O V , C H A I R M A N O F T H E R O M I T J A M O AT

R E S O U R C E C E N T R E .


Duration: 2006-2010. GEF grant: $0.98 million.Co-financing: $1.72 million. For further infor-mation, contact Ms Nargizakhon Usmanova(Programme Analyst): [email protected]

Project facts

Forestry nurseries are a means for ensuring financial sustainability.PHOTO: MIRZOHAYDAR ISOEV


‘Nature Concerthalls’bring Latvia’s biodiversity to the stage

Biodiversity protection in North Vidzeme Bios-phere Reserve (2004-2009)

This project’s overall aim was to integrate biodi-versity conservation into all aspects of the plan-ning, management and sustainable use of theNorth Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve’s resources. Theproject has met with considerable success.Between 2004 and 2008, more than 600 ha offloodplain areas were restored, along with 32 ha ofriver rapids serving as spawning areas for Atlantic

salmon (Salmo salar) and other species. These ac-tivities have stimulated local farmers to becomemore involved in networking and exchange of ex-periences, triggering an increase in applications forEU agrienvironmental funding. A detailed land-scape ecological plan was developed for theBiosphere Reserve, determining its key abiotic,biotic, and cultural values and identifying the ap-proaches required to conserve them over the next25 years. The plan covers 42 landscape areas in the

Reserve’s territory, prescribing for each landscapethe management actions necessary to achieveshort- and long-term goals.

The project has attracted particular attention andpraise for its innovative approaches to publicawareness. In order to move beyond more con-ventional methods of communicating messagesto the public about biodiversity and conservation,the project developed the concept of a ‘Nature

P R O J E C T :


North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve

The North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve (NVBR) was established in Latvia to protect the Salaca Riverbasin, which includes the Salaca River and Lake Burtnieki, as well as their tributaries, and the inshorewaters along 60 km of the gulf of Riga’s Vidzeme coast. The Reserve’s total area of 457,000 ha, in-cluding 116,000 ha of marine ecosystems, represents nearly 6 percent of Latvia’s entire territory. Thelandscape is characterized by wetlands, raised bogs, semi-natural grasslands, coastal meadows,forests, agricultural lands and a range of periglacial features. The Biosphere Reserve is more than 45percent forested, with numerous lakes and approximately 20,000 ha of bogs, two thirds of which areundisturbed raised bogs, supporting relict tundra plant associations found nowhere else in NVBR.

In 2004, the Biosphere Reserve was suffering from increasing deforestation, forest fragmenta-tion, habitat degradation and illegal use of natural resources. Following land privatisation and theeconomic changes of the mid-1990s, new absentee forest owners had little interest or incentiveto continue using the semi-natural grasslands for traditional, biodiversity friendly agriculture. Inthe wetland areas, the primary threat came from peat extraction. More widely, major agricul-tural decline and a lack of economic alternatives have left many local inhabitants with littlechoice but to pursue unsustainable natural resource exploitation.


Concerthall’ (Dabas koncertzāle in Latvian). This in-volves cooperation between scientists, musicians,poets and photographers to create a uniquepublic performance in a natural setting, that bothinforms and inspires the audience about natureprotection. These concerts have been conductedannually and free of charge since 2006, attractingaudiences of all ages, backgrounds and interests.

The Nature Concerthall event has continued tothrive after the end of the project, with publicand private sector investment and widespreadsupport from the general public. The event hasreceived extensive publicity and won severalawards. Each year, it adopts a particular em-blematic, and often unexpected species as itstheme and ‘hero’, such as a bug (Osmodermaeremita); a bird, the chiffchaff (Phylloscopus colly-bita); a caddisfly (Hydropsyche instabilis); a lichen(Graphis scripta); and, in 2011, a seaweed, thebladderwrack (Fucus vesiculosus).

The Nature Concerthall events are much morethan entertainment. They are designed to en-courage active involvement of the public innature protection, to build and share cultural andnatural values and to promote public support forsustainable development. The 2011 concerts at-tracted more than 11,000 people in two loca-tions, where hands-on activities, music andpoetry were enjoyed in settings overlooking thespectacular and unique Baltic Sea.

“We have found a new way toinform people about what natureis and to renew the emotional tiesto that which is under our feet,chirps in the trees or is hiddenbehind the bark of a tree. Theemotional, educated connectionscreated during the NatureConcerthall increase ouraudience’s feelings of responsibilityfor conserving and caring fornature in their everyday lives!”

I N G U S U L M A N I S , M U S I C I A N A N D C O C R E AT O R

O F T H E N AT U R E C O N C E R T H A L LC O N C E P T .


Duration: 2004-2009. GEF grant: $2.91 million.Co-financing: $10.84 million. For further infor-mation, contact: Silvija Kalnins: [email protected]

Project facts

Participants at the lichen themed event.PHOTO: ANDRIS SOMS


An essential requirement for the success of aproject is that its achievements are sustainedafter the end of the grant period. Where insuffi-cient attention is paid to ensuring the legacy ofprojects, their achievements can start to erodeaway quite rapidly. Poorly designed and com-municated projects can also encourage the falseassumption that sustainability is the responsibil-ity of donors, through follow-up projects andgrant extensions.

Although UNDP works to build sustainability intoall its projects, ensuring their long-term legacy isoften easier said than done. Sustainable solutionscannot just be blueprinted, they have to be de-signed to fit the contexts, needs and capacities ofthe country and of the national implementationpartners. The first step is usually to understandwhat are the specific challenges to sustainability.

Government funding. Almost always, the firstbarrier to sustainability identified by partners andstakeholders is a lack of money. An analysis con-

ducted in 2008 in 13 countries of the regionshowed that the average national level of pro-tected area financial effectiveness was just 24.8percent, ranging from 11 percent in Moldova to59 percent in Turkey40. Financial effectiveness didnot seem to depend on whether the country be-longed to the EU membership/pre-accessiongroup, or to the CIS. Thus, the Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia (13 percent) andRomania (17 percent) had low scores, whileTurkmenistan and Kazakhstan had higher scoresof 30 percent and 40 percent respectively. Thehigher scores from many former Soviet countriesmay be attributed to the inherited requirementto build into annual government budgets atleast a basic level of funding for strict protectedareas (the most widespread protected area cate-gory). In the EU and EU candidate countries,however, protected area funding is not secured,and often becomes one of the first victims ofcost cutting. Adequate alternative mechanismsfor funding have not yet been developed to fillthe resulting shortfalls.

The most common scenario across the region isthat available budgets at best only cover basicrecurrent costs, such as staff salaries and admin-istrative costs, while funding for equipment, in-frastructure and active management is often in-adequate or non-existent. Given these con straints,it is remarkable just how much protected areaadministrations in the region are achieving withso few resources.

Diversifying sources of income. Establishmentof efficient revenue generation mechanisms asalternatives to state funding remains the majorchallenge in the region, scoring just 15 percentin the 2008 effectiveness assessment. Intro -duction of the legal and institutional measuresrequired to mobilise new sources of fundingscores more highly (29 percent). This suggeststhat the need for increased and diversifiedfunding is, to some extent, being recognised, butthat substantial efforts are still required to ensuresustainable funding for the region’s protectedarea estate.


4.7 Ensuring project sustainability

40 Bovarnick, A. (2007) Financial sustainability scorecard for national systems of protected areas. UNDP, New York.Countries assessed were: Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, the Komi Republic of the Russian Federation, Serbia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine andUzbekistan. The assessment used the UNDP-GEF protected area system financial scorecard. 20 different elements were analysed, pertaining to the legislative, business planning, site management and revenue generation as-pects of a country’s protected area system. The results are presented as percentages of maximum possible scores.


Many protected area managers are keen toexplore new ways to generate additional fundslocally, most frequently through tourism and re-source use charges. They are often frustrated,however, by legal restrictions on economic activ-ities permitted in strict nature reserves, and by lim-itations on the ability of protected area adminis-trations to earn and retain income. Manymanagers also lack the commercial skills requiredto run a protected area as an enterprise as well asa service.

Financial planning. Addressing the financialchallenges faced by protected areas is not just amatter of providing more money. The limited re-sources that are available are often not put to thebest possible use. Frequently, budget allocationsand expenditure are not based on defined strate-gies, logically identified needs or on a prioritisedmanagement plan. Protected area projectsacross the region are now preparing financialsustainability plans (often called business plans)alongside management plans, but businessplanning is a very new concept, often requiringa whole new approach to financial planning andmanagement that may not conform with officialbudgeting practices.

Strengthening local economies. Providing al-ternative livelihood opportunities for local peopleis a major component of many projects, based onthe assumption that this will help reduce unsus-

tainable resource use, and curtail illegal activitiesthat bring local people into conflict with pro-tected area authorities. It is a major challenge forprojects with limited budgets to transform ruraleconomies within relatively short projecttimescales. Two of the most effective tools usedby projects for achieving this have been microfi-nance and building local capacities to gain accessto continuing sources of support.

Capacity development. Capacity developmentis a common element of all projects, but there is atendency to equate it just with short term train-ing. While many projects have delivered goodquality training programmes for protected areastaff and stakeholders, fewer have been successfulin sustaining the impact of training by leaving alegacy of permanent programmes. Introducingmeasures to build ‘learning organisations’ thatpractice adaptive management and that contin-ually strive to monitor and improve performanceand effectiveness can prove particularly challeng-ing, as this approach often runs contrary to longestablished institutional norms and cultures.

In order to be able to adopt and adapt to newmodels of protected area management, institu-tional capacities also usually require attention.The need for new approaches requires new skills,while the introduction of more open and partic-ipatory forms of governance and managementrequires fundamental changes to the ways in

which institutions function. Many projects en-counter considerable resistance to such changes,especially if they are seen as coming purely fromthe outside.

Changing the law. Many project teams havefound that securing the sustainability of new ap-proaches to funding, institutional managementand protected area governance requires chang-ing the law, normally a complex and lengthyprocess. Changing the ways in which state biodi-versity conservation institutions operate and arefunded does not generally just involve changingnature protection laws; it requires modification ofother legislation, often to an extent far beyond thescope of individual projects. None-the-less, therehave been some notable successes in updatinglegislation. A particularly effective solution hasbeen to focus on preparing secondary legislationand official guidance that helps institutions un-derstand and implement the existing laws.

The overall lesson from projects in the region isthat although securing adequate funding is es-sential, achieving sustainability is about muchmore than money; it requires supporting new fi-nancing instruments with changes in legislationand in the fundamental ways in which institutionsfunction. All of these changes require the devel-opment of new skills. The following specific lessonscan be drawn from the experience of projects inthe region working to achieve sustainability:




Traditional transportation in Küre Mountains National Park, Turkey.PHOTO: YILDIRAY LISE


Projects should start planning for sustainabilityfrom the very start. If it is treated as a ‘bolt on’ is-sue to be addressed in the final year, it probablywill not happen.

Protected area budgeting and funding shouldbe managed strategically, based on identifiedneeds and priorities. The basis for achieving thisis a modern management plan prepared in con-junction with a business plan. Together, theseplans should provide logical, costed and priori-tised schedules of activities that can be used tojustify budget requests and funding proposals.Such an approach may not always guarantee thatthe full budget will be allocated, but it should en-sure that the money that is available is spent inthe most effective and efficient way.

For funding of protected areas to be prioritisedand increased, decision makers and the widerpublic must understand their values, not only interms of the biodiversity that they protect, butalso in terms of the services they provide for lo-cal and national economies and society in gen-eral. Innovative approaches such as ecosystemvaluation studies and payments for ecosystemservices are now being introduced by projects;the next step is to demonstrate how these in-novations can help to deliver tangible benefits.

Protected area administrations need to becomemore entrepreneurial and imaginative in se-curing the funds they require. For this to hap-pen, the administrations need more flexibilityto raise and manage funds, managers need tolearn very different ways of working, and safe-guards are required to ensure that thesechanges do not compromise the fundamentalconservation functions of protected areas.

Capacity building is not just training. Projectsshould examine very carefully the factors thatlimit the ability of individuals and institutions todo a good job, and should focus on addressingthose limiting factors. Training has its place inbuilding capacity, but it is seldom the only so-lution required.

It is unrealistic for projects to present unilater-ally prepared proposals for new policies and lawsand to expect them to be rapidly approved. Theprojects that have had success in this area haveworked closely with the responsible authoritiesand decision-making bodies throughout theprocess.

The five case studies that follow illustrate many ofthese lessons.


Sultansazlıği Ramsar site in Turkey. PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON


Building capacityfor funding and management of protected areas in Montenegro

Catalysing financial sustainability of the pro-tected area system in Montenegro (2009-2012);Strengthening the sustainability of the protectedarea system in Montenegro (2009-2012)

The project ‘Catalysing financial sustainability ofthe protected area system in Montenegro’ focuseson three main objectives: strengthening the ca-pacity to effectively secure and administer fundsfor the entire protected area system; working withstakeholder groups to diversify and increase theavailable funding for two focal protected areas;and developing more cost-efficient systems for fi-nancial management and administration.

This project is working to introduce new ap-proaches to funding of biodiversity conservation.In order to provide quantified justifications for in-creased and sustained public investment in pro-tected areas, an economic valuation of the pro-tected area system is being prepared, while aconsultative process for establishment of ascheme for payment for ecosystem services in theSkadar Lake area has already been completed.

The project also recognises the need to increasenational capacity for effective and efficient pro-tected area planning, management and financ-ing. The project team is supporting national uni-versities to develop and deliver vocationaleducational programmes that address both pro-tected area management and regional develop-ment. Two universities are now offering differentprogrammes in this field, targeting both 4th yearcollege seniors wishing to pursue a career innatural resource management, and public sectoremployees seeking to strengthen their profes-

P R O J E C T :


From the mountainsto the Mediterranean

The Republic of Montenegro is a smallcountry located in south-eastern Europe.The terrain of Montenegro ranges fromhigh mountains, through a segment ofthe karst of the western Balkan peninsula,to a narrow (2-10 km wide) coastal plainand the biodiversity rich waters of theAdriatic Sea. Over a short distance, thereis a sharp change from a Mediterraneanclimate at the coast to a sub-alpineclimate in the highest mountains.Montenegro is floristically one of the mostdiverse areas of the Balkan peninsula, withmore than 1,000 species and 223 endemictaxa. Detailed information on the fauna ofthe country, in particular on threat status,remains quite limited.

Pressure on Montenegro’s natural environ-ment is growing, as a result of urbanization,rapid tourism development and unsustain-able use of natural resources. Protectedareas cover just over 9 percent of thecountry, but the total funding currentlyavailable for the planning and administra-tion of the protected area system is esti-mated to be at least 50 percent below whatis required for its effective management.


sional capacities for protected area manage-ment, fund raising and financial management.The university programmes also include mo -dules on institutional management, business ad-ministration, entrepreneurship and manage-ment of EU funds.

In parallel, the activities of a second project(‘Strengthening the sustainability of the protectedarea system in Montenegro’) are focusing on pro-tected area establishment and expansion, and onbuilding institutional and individual capacities forsite planning and management, targeting envi-

ronmental professionals seeking to upgrade theirqualifications. Competence standards and a pro-gramme of vocational training for protected arearangers have also been introduced.


‘Catalysing financial sustainability of the pro-tected area system in Montenegro’. Duration:2009-2012. GEF grant: $0.95 million. Co-fi-nancing: $7.26 million.‘Strengthening the sustainability of the pro-tected area system in Montenegro’. Duration:2009-2012. GEF grant: $0.95 million. Co-fi-nancing: $5.44 million.For further information, contact Mr Borko Vulikić:[email protected]

Project facts

Hiking in the Bjelasica mountains, Montenegro. PHOTO: CARLY CALHOUN


Russian Federation: focus on sustainabilityin Kamchatka

Demonstrating sustainable conservation ofbiodiversity in four protected areas of Russia’sKamchatka Oblast(2005-2012)

The project was established to demonstrate ap-proaches for sustainable and replicable conser-vation of biodiversity in four protected areas, asa model for a sustainable system of protectedareas throughout Kamchatka. Each one of thetarget areas conserves different ecosystems and

species assemblages of the Kamchatka penin-sula: tundra (arctic and alpine), boreal coniferousforests, temperate deciduous forests, freshwaterlake ecosystems, freshwater wetlands, andmarine inshore waters.

Measures to ensure sustainability have been in-troduced by the project in many different andimaginative ways:

The project addressed the problem of lack ofpolice powers for protected area rangers bycreating inter-agency anti-poaching brigades,bringing together rangers, police and repre-sentatives of various natural resource man-agement agencies. This new cooperation hascontinued after the end of the project, and hasled to a significant reduction of poaching inparticularly sensitive areas.

P R O J E C T :


The biodiversity of Kamchatka

The 1,500 km long Kamchatka peninsula in the far east of Russia is recognised as one of the world’sgreat natural wildernesses. Kamchatka’s unique values are not determined by species richnessalone, but by a combination of ecological, geological, and geographic attributes. Kamchatka’sbiodiversity includes a complete assemblage of typical species of northern latitudes. Furthermore,the diversity of altitudes and the climatic variations in Kamchatka support continuous sequencesof ecosystems and species assemblages, from 3000 m high mountains to the continental shelf.Kamchatka is also home to several indigenous groups with diverse cultures and lifestyles, rangingfrom nomadic reindeer herding to sedentary fishing. These unique attributes have been recog-nised by the designation of Kamchatka as a WWF ‘Global 200’ ecoregion and by the inscription ofsix of Kamchatka’s protected areas on the UNESCO World Heritage List.

In the past twenty years, economic hardship and social changes have encouraged an increasedreliance on natural resources to support both individual livelihoods and the economy ofKamchatka in general. Poaching, especially of salmon, has become a major component of theregion’s economy. National and international tourism have increased, bringing benefits, but alsodamaging popular sites. At the same time, fewer financial resources have been available for pro-tected areas and biodiversity conservation, reducing capacity for protection and managementat a time when pressures have been increasing.


With support from the project, compilation ofprotected area management plans has in-cluded a new approach to budgeting, based

on identified needs rather than expenditure ofpredetermined budget allocations. This hasprovided clear, fact based justifications, whichwhen combined with concerted campaignsto increase awareness of the values ofKamchatka’s protected areas, has led to suc-cessful requests for increased budget support.

The successful and effective CommunityCouncils established in two Nature Parks havevoted to continue their work after the end ofthe project.

The staff of the training centre establishedunder the project have adopted a professionaland realistic approach, keeping overheads low,focusing on training capacity (rather than un-sustainable investments in buildings andequipment), and seeking commercial trainingopportunities in the tourism sector in order tosubsidise training of protected area staff.

In order to promote alternative livelihoods forlocal people, the highly successful Small andMedium Enterprises Support Fund (SMESF) wasestablished, providing initially grants and subse-quently microcredit to local enterprises aroundthe focal protected areas. By the end of theproject, 1,023 loans had been provided, totallingmore than $11 million and with a default rate ofjust 1.5 percent. In Bystrinski District, one of themain focal areas of the SMESF, the localeconomy has more than doubled in size since2003, overall employment has also doubled, andunemployment has halved. The SMESF nowfunctions as a successful self-sufficient and in-dependent entity. In return for capitalisation bythe GEF project, it also provides at least $200,000annually to support protected areas, adminis-tered through the Kamchatka Krai ProtectedAreas Association, a regional non-profit organi-sation established by the project. These remark-able achievements have received widespreadpraise, and a similar approach has been adoptedby other projects in the region.


Duration: 2005-2012. GEF grant: $5.5 million. Co-financing: $9.9 million. For further information,contact Nataly Olofinskaya: [email protected]

Project facts

Winter landscape in Nalychevo Nature Park. PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON



Ranger station in Uzon caldera, Kronotsky Biosphere Reserve. PHOTO: ADRIANA DINU


Greening of credit instruments in Croatiahelps to embed biodiversity conservationinto local development

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiver-sity in the Dalmatian coast through greeningcoastal development (2007-2014)

The project is helping to integrate biodiversityinto the fabric of economic and developmentaldecision making, before the coastal area is unac-

ceptably altered. The project’s main entry point isthe Green Business Support Programme (GBSP),established at the end of 2008 in partnershipwith development agencies of the fourDalmatian counties, and providing grants, partialcredit guarantees and subsidized loans to biodi-versity-friendly businesses. Initially, the GBSPfocused on grants, but it now also offers a partialloan and guarantee fund for small businesses, inpartnership with local banks. So far, 79 GBSP proj-ects have been supported, the majority dealingwith organic agriculture and cultivation of nativeplant varieties, rural tourism and shellfishfarming. The partial loan and guarantee fund hasso far provided 13 loans, with many more in thepipeline.

The GBSP has proved to be a highly effective toolfor leveraging co-financing for the project. Grantstotalling $800,000 have enabled implementationof projects with a total value of $13.2 million,while projects worth an additional $7.3 millionare supported by combinations of GBSP grantsand loans ($820,000) with guarantees of up to50 percent.

The economic crisis of 2009-2010 led to a reduc-tion in interest from micro- and small businessesin investing in green products and services. Inorder to maintain the interest, the project em-bedded a network of biodiversity business con-sultants within the country’s regional develop-

P R O J E C T :


Croatia’s Dalmatian coast

The Dalmatian coast of Croatia is a uniquemosaic of marine and terrestrial ecosys-tems. The Croatian archipelago is thesecond largest in the Mediterranean, whilethe waters of the Adriatic support largenumbers of endemic fauna and flora, in-cluding Posidonia sea grass meadows thatprovide a habitat for numerous marinespecies, most notably juvenile populationsof the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta).Posidonia beds are threatened across theMediterranean, although in Croatia theystill cover large areas of coastal waters upto 50 metres deep. The Dalmatian coast isone of the priority areas for conservationin the Mediterranean, and over 38 percentof its habitats are listed in the EU HabitatsDirective.

The economic development of the areasis based mainly on the growth of local andinternational tourism, fisheries and agri-culture. Out of almost 6,000 km of coast-line, almost 900 km have already been de-veloped, and a further 1,500 km arescheduled for development according tothe statutory spatial plans.


ment agencies, tasked with enrolling new greenbusiness operators in Dalmatia, and advising ex-isting green businesses on coping with thecrisis. In parallel, the project provides training forcommercial banks in Croatia on improved envi-ronmental and social risk management whenissuing credit.

The long-term plan is to equip the regional de-velopment agencies and commercial banks tothe extent that they can take over the GBSP in itsentirety, having acquired the institutional capac-ity required for green business project formula-tion, financing, monitoring and evaluation.

“In the last two years, the areaunder organic cultivation inŠibenik in Knin County hasincreased more than threefold,from 160 ha in 2009 to 520 ha in2011. The Green Business SupportProgramme, implemented by theCounty Development Agency andthe COAST project, hascontributed significantly to thisgrowth. In order to sustain thistrend, we have included thisprogramme into the CountyDevelopment Strategy, which wasadopted this year.”

G O R A N PA U K ,

P R E F E C T O F Š I B E N I K , K N I N C O U N T Y.


Duration: 2007-2014. GEF grant: $7.01 million.Co-financing: $24.34 million. For further infor-mation, contact Mr Gojko Berlengi (Project Co-ordinator): [email protected] web site: www.undp.hr/coast

Project facts

Commercial farming of the shellfish Venus verrucosa supported by the Green Business Support Programme.PHOTO: GOJKO BERLENGI



Tourism in protected areas; one way to generate income in Pripyat-Stokhid National Nature Park, Ukraine. PHOTO: VITALIY KARANDA


Effective policiesand trained and unitedstaff contribute to sustainable financingof Ukraine’s protected areas

Strengthening governance and financial sus-tainability of the national protected area system(2008-2012)

The project aims to demonstrate mechanismsfor improved management of the Ukrainian pro-tected area system, focusing primarily on finan-cial and institutional aspects. This is beingachieved through programmes at the nationaland local levels.

The project has prepared a strategy for theoverall financial sustainability of the protectedarea system, which is being submitted to the

Cabinet of Ministers for approval, along withother legal amendments and a new regulationon assessment of management effectiveness ofprotected areas. Once approved, this strategyand updated legislation will allow for diversifica-tion of revenue sources and governance systemsfor all Ukraine’s protected areas.

Effectiveness and efficiency in financial manage-ment are also being promoted at both the insti-

P R O J E C T :


Ukraine’s protected area system

Ukraine’s total area of 603,550 km2 falls within three broad ecological zones: mixed forests(Ukrainian polissya: 25 percent), forest-steppe (35 percent), and steppe (40 percent). Overall,nearly 20 percent of the land area is considered to be in a ‘natural’ state, with about 13 percenthaving ‘high ecological integrity’, particularly in the Carpathian region, the mountainous part ofCrimea, and the polissya.

The biodiversity of Ukraine is globally significant; although the country covers less than 6 percentof the area of Europe, it supports approximately 35 percent of Europe’s species diversity.Accordingly, 141 Important Bird Areas and 33 Ramsar Sites have been recognized. Ukraine’s pro-tected area system comprises over 7,000 sites of different categories, covering 3.4 million ha. At5.6 percent, however, the proportion of land within the protected area system remains far belowthe European average of more than 15 percent. In 2008, the Government of Ukraine decided toextend its protected area estate to more than 6 million ha, but the resources available are far fromadequate to facilitate this expansion in the short to medium term. Expansion, though vital forproviding security to biodiversity, would not be realistic or effective without addressing majorlimitations related to the legal and administrative framework, financing and capacity for man-aging the protected area system.


tutional and site levels. Legal and normativedocuments to implement the strategy on fi-nancial sustainability have been drafted and sub-mitted to the State Service on Protected Areas ofUkraine. The first protected area business plansin Ukraine have been developed for the project’spilot sites, Shatsk National Nature Park andPripyat-Stokhid National Nature Park.

In order to ensure successful adoption of thenew measures that are being introduced, sub-stantial investments have been made in buildingindividual capacities, through establishment of apermanent vocational training system for pro-tected area management and financing. TheUkrainian Association of Protected Areas hasbeen established, uniting 24 out of 45 nationalparks to strengthen coordinated action andenable exchange of experience among theirstaff, thereby increasing their capacity to raisefunds to support their protected areas.

The project has been introducing these innova-tions through a period of political change andeconomic hardship in Ukraine, which has causedconsiderable challenges for the implementationteam and its partners. Despite this, the combinedeffects of the work of the project are now beingreflected in major improvements in the manage-ment effectiveness scores of Ukraine’s nationalparks, compared to the baseline year of 2008.

“The Government of Ukraine isactively working to improve theprotected area managementsystem. In the framework of theproject, the Association of ProtectedAreas of Ukraine is uniting manyparks and reserves and isconducting training on protectedarea management, publicawareness raising, green tourismand recreation. We are payingspecial attention to financialsustainability of protected areas,and we have been active insupporting the development of thenational strategy. These and otherresults of the project will promotethe further development of thenational protected area system andstrengthen its financialsustainability.”

M R M Y K O L A S T E T S E N K O , P R E S I D E N T O F T H E A S S O C I AT I O N

O F P R O T E C T E D A R E A S O F U K R A I N E .


Duration: 2008-2012. GEF grant: $1.8 million. Co-financing: $4.066 million. For further information,contact Mr Vasyl Tolkachov (Project Coordina-tor): [email protected] web site: www.pzf.org.ua

Project facts

Training on protected areas management in Kaniv Nature Reserve.PHOTO: A. PODOBAILO


Changing the law is the key to improvedand more sustainablebiodiversity conservation in the Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia

Strengthening the ecological, institutional andfinancial sustainability of Macedonia’s protect-ed area system (2007-2012)

The project was formulated to assist theMacedonian Government to protect its rich bio-diversity by removing a number of critical threats,such as capacity and resource gaps, insecure legaland institutional tenure, and inappropriate landuse and management. The country is currently inthe process of establishing a more representative

network of protected areas, re-evaluating and re-proclaiming all the individual sites within thenetwork and appointing properly capacitated in-stitutions to manage them. A planning frame-work is being instituted for managing theupdated protected area system, based on na-tional strategies and sectoral development plans.

P R O J E C T :


A wealth of biodiversity in a small landlocked country

Macedonian natural heritage is characterized by a high level of species diversity and a concen-tration of relict and endemic species that is remarkable for a small, landlocked country. Althoughthe entire national territory encompasses only 0.26 percent of the European continent and 5percent of the Balkan peninsula, a disproportionately large portion of European biodiversity isconcentrated there: around 34 percent of vascular plants, 14 percent of freshwater fish species,20 percent of amphibians, 25 percent of reptiles, 64 percent of birds and 29 percent of mammalspecies. More than 250 plant species are locally endemic.

The threats to the country’s protected areas and biodiversity have a number of root causes.These include insecure legal and institutional tenure, limited skills and capacity of the responsi-ble agencies, illegal development and resource use in protected areas, a general lack of politi-cal and civil support for protected areas as an economically viable form of land use, and the in-appropriate management and unsustainable use of protected areas to meet individual protectedarea agencies’ economic imperatives.

European Union accession is now the key development driver, and the country is currentlyseeking to align both its legislation and the design, planning and management of its protectedarea network with global and European best practices.


The key to achieving the objectives of the projecthas been updating national legislation to allowpolicy and management practices to be revisedand to enable approximation of European Unionenvironmental legislation. Following a long pro -cess of research, consultation, negotiation and

drafting, facilitated by the project, the Parliamentpassed the two major packages to amend theLaw on Nature Protection in 2010 and 2011. Theseamendments include clarification of the proce-dures for scheduling rare and endangered species,and a complete revision of the classification ofprotected areas in line with that of IUCN. Critically,the changes have created many more opportuni-ties for sustainable funding of protected areas, in-cluding a legal basis for introducing payments forenvironmental services. To support implementa-tion of the revised law, a major package of sec-ondary legislation and guidance material hasbeen prepared with technical assistance from theproject. Three new by-laws have been endorsedand published so far, and a further fourteen are inthe process of endorsement by Parliament.

As well as supporting a comprehensive re-evalu-ation of the national system of protected areasand a proposal for system expansion, the projecthas also facilitated the development of modernmanagement plans and business plans for fourprotected areas, and has provided training for all85 local self-government units responsible for themajority of the protected areas in the country.

As the country moves towards EU membership,these changes have provided a strong foundationfor the full approximation of EU environmentallegislation and improved protection and man-agement of its unique natural heritage.

“The results of this project are trulyimpressive. The protected areas ofthe country are now benefitingfrom the findings of comprehensivestudies on protected arearevalorization, from newmanagement plans and from thevaluable data gathered on speciesand habitats. The total of 100amendments to the Law on NatureProtection and the 17 new by-laws,enacted thanks to this project, havehelped put in place a strong andefficient legal environment,bringing the country closer to theEU. Thanks to the many trainingevents and public awarenessactivities, leaders and citizens areworking together to protect ourglobally significant biodiversity andnatural wealth.”

M R S A S K O J O R D A N O V , S E N I O RA D V I S O R , M I N I S T R Y O F E N V I R O N M E N T

A N D P H Y S I C A L P L A N N I N G .


Duration: 2007-2012. GEF grant: $1.0 million. Co-financing: $4.16 million. For further information,contact Sandra Ismanovski (Communicationsand Partnership Officer): [email protected]

Project facts

National workshop to review changes to the Law on Nature Pro-tection. PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON



Management of Matka Canyon Natural Monument requires balancing tourism and nature protection. PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON


About GEF

The GEF unites 182 countries in partnership with international institutions,non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector to addressglobal environmental issues while supporting national sustainable develop-ment initiatives. Today the GEF is the largest public funder of projects toimprove the global environment. An independently operating financial or-ganization, the GEF provides grants for projects related to biodiversity, climatechange, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persist-ent organic pollutants. Since 1991, GEF has achieved a strong track recordwith developing countries and countries with economies in transition, pro-viding $9.2 billion in grants and leveraging $40 billion in co-financing for over2,700 projects in over 168 countries.www.thegef.org

About UNDP

UNDP partners with people at all levels of society to help build nations thatcan withstand crisis, and drive and sustain the kind of growth that improvesthe quality of life for everyone. On the ground in 177 countries and territo-ries, we offer global perspective and local insight to help empower lives andbuild resilient nations.www.undp.org

Horsfield’s tortoise (Testudo horsfieldii) in Sünt-Hasardag Reserve, Turkmenistan. PHOTO: MICHAEL R APPLETON

Empowered lives.Resilient nations.


Wetland rangers with a young pelican (Pelecanus crispus), Kazakhstan.PHOTO: UNDP KAZAKHSTAN

cover_BD:Layout 1 9/6/12 2:46 PM Page 1

Date post:	14-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	united-nations-development-programme
View:	228 times
Download:	1 times

Biodiversity: Delivering results in Europe and the CIS

Documents