2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 3. Turkmenistan 3.1 The Natural Setting and Conservation Approach 3.2 Hunting 3.3 The Union of Hunters and Fishers 3.4 Legal Background 3.5 Project Proposal 4. Kazakhstan 4.1 The Natural Setting and Conservation Approach 4.2 Hunting 4.3 Private Hunting Operators 4.4 Legal Background 4.5 Project Proposal Annexes: A 1. Minutes of Meetings A 1.1 Turkmenistan A 1.2 Kazakhstan A 2. Terms of Reference of Consultant A 3. Annotated Bibliography A 3.1 General A 3.2 Turkmenistan A 3.3 Kazakhstan A 4. Keywords for Improving the Management of Hunting in Kazakhstan A 5. Travel Schedule A 5.1 Turkmenistan A 5.2 Kazakhstan A 6. Project Proposal by Union of Hunters and Fishers of Turkmenistan A 6.1 Text (English Translation) A 6.2 Consultant’s Letter on Turkmenistan Project to GIZ of August 16th, 2014. A 7. Abbreviations

3

1. Executive Summary Both in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan hunting plays an important role in managing bio-diversity in certain areas. In Turkmenistan it is only resident hunting on 6 % of the territory via the Union of Fishers and Hunters of Turkmenistan. The Union plans an inventory of its 43 hunting areas, which should lead to a more sustainable and conservation oriented management. - GIZ is advised to support this project with 10,000 Euro. Due to a deficit in hunting management techniques, a lack of a rational wildlife conservation and management and the need to reform hunting laws after a new policy has been devised, a know-how transfer is needed. The nature protection authorities should therefore be supported in developing an up-to-date and state-of-the-art wildlife and conservation management strategy. - The first step could be a national symposium with international expertise. A reader in Russian language, which presents a number of relevant publications and articles on modern wildlife utilization strategies along the lines of the Convention of Biological Diversity, would be a good preparation for such a symposium. Actually the whole of Central Asia would benefit from such a source of relevant information. In recent years Kazakhstan’s Government has leased around half of the territory as hunting concessions to the private sector. As compared to the protected areas, which cover only 8 % of the land, these concessions are of high ecological importance because of their size and environment. Insofar the country has opted for a progressive hunting system and given value to wildlife, a precondition for effective conservation. Under the present conditions and due to costly obligations and duties most concessions are, however, not economically viable. In addition many shortcomings result from unsuitable Governmental regulations. The present deficiencies are not primarily at the legal level, but at the economic level of the individual concession and at the policy level. Without a major reform of Governmental hunting policies the innovative system runs the danger to stall. Therefore, there is presently a need for data collection and analysis of the actual economics of the hunting enterprises and an assessment of the shortcomings of Government policies. This will be done by an ongoing project of the United Nations Development Programme. This should lead to a dialogue between the private and the Government sector on reforms. To facilitate such a process, it would be most helpful to present and discuss practical solutions and best practices from other countries and regions in a kind of know-how transfer. Both these tasks match fittingly the particular experience and know-how of GIZ. Steering such a process in a partner-oriented way without dominating it lies in the core competence of GIZ. The following activities offer a starting point for such a process:

• Conduct of a national workshop on the economics, management imperatives and best practices of hunting tourism.

• Writing up a manual on the management of hunting including hunting tourism in Russian language.

4

• An excursion of practitioners and administrators to neighbouring countries, in particular Kyrgyzstan, to study the trophy hunting system, including the results of recent law revisions, hunting management, the organization of hunting tourism and similar features.

Such a dialogue on economic reform in the hunting sector between Government authorities, the private sector and professionals/experts from international partners will facilitate the necessary political decisions. No change will be possible without the governmental sector being prepared for it. This will undoubtedly be difficult to achieve. Some organization must take the lead and make the dialogue on best practices possible.

5

2. Introduction

The consultancy has been prepared under the FLERMONICA project, which has the

global objective to promote stability and security in Central Asia and to assist the

countries of the region in their pursuit of sustainable economic development and

poverty reduction. The respective sub-component is the Ecological Restoration and

Biodiversity Conservation in Central Asia. Its objective is promoting an active

dialogue between the EU and central Asia in order to disseminate ecosystem-based

management approaches that support conservation and restoration of biological

diversity in the region.

The concrete goal of the Turkmenistan part of the consultancy was to analyze based

on international experiences and in cooperation with the Union of Hunters and

Fishers of Turkmenistan (UHF) the current situation (potentials, challenges, existing

regulations and involved stakeholders). It was also expected to recommend next

steps in order to launch a process for raising awareness and setting a normative

framework for a sustainable system for the use of wildlife as well as to backstop

relevant stakeholders with international experiences during the starting phase of the

process. The major operational question in Turkmenistan was whether GIZ should

support the study-project of the UHF.

The objective in Kazakhstan was to analyse the current situation in the hunting sector

and give recommendations on reforms and changes needed under the current

framework conditions and suggest entry points for such a process in order to support

sustainable use of wildlife as a part of a holistic wildlife habitat conservation approach

in the country.

More detailed tasks were given for both countries, as well some backstopping as follow-up. The complete Terms of Reference are found in Annex A 2. In Kazakhstan several important resource persons could not be met, as they were out of the country. In addition no government representative was available, as the President had dissolved the Ministry of Environment a few days before the consultant arrived. Although Dana Yermolyonok tried her best to facilitate meetings, she failed, as the civil servants regarded themselves as not being entitled to execute any duties and meet foreign visitors for the time being. I should like to thank the FLEG-ERCA National Coordinators Gulbahar Abdurasulova and Dana Yermolyonok, who both prepared and implemented my programme so efficiently. The professional exchange with both of them gave me many insights and was extremely important for my understanding of issues. I also would like to thank GIZ-staff in the region for logistical support and to recognize Tavus Rozymuradova for assisting with translations

6

3. Turkmenistan

4. Kazakhstan

4.1 The Natural Setting and Conservation Approach

Kazakhstan, the largest country in Central Asia and nearly of the size of Western Europe, contains a wide variety of ecological systems: deserts and steppe (60%), mountains (10 %), forests (4 %). Agricultural lands, settlements etc. make up for the rest. Bio-diversity is made up, amongst others, from over 6,000 higher vascular plant-types, 178 mammal -, 490 bird –, 104 fish - and 12 amphibian species. The red book contains 125 vertebrate species. The more spectacular and charismatic hoofed animals are mostly on decline, in particular the totally protected ones, despite all official protection measures. Reasons are widespread poaching by poor locals or wealthy townspeople and competition with livestock, which is grazing in forests, along mountain slopes and even in protected areas. Protected areas of different status cover about 8 % of the land. The country endorsed a National Biodiversity and Action Plan in 1998. Its main objective is to conserve and restore bio-diversity and to achieve economic gains through the balanced use of its components. No information was available to assess how this plan is being implemented. In addition the country’s President has announced his plan to achieve a “Green Economy” by 2050. Main priorities would be to increase the efficiency of resource use, change to renewable energies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and establish respective infrastructure. Sustainable hunting as a form of eco-tourism would fit into such a ”green” plan, if it would cover such relatively unimportant sectors, which is presently not the case. It was not possible in the given time and due to the non-availability of officials to obtain population figures for the major mammals or details from the red book. The general impression is that the performance of conservation is rather uneven in different parts of the country. As a consequence population development is equally diverse. In wide parts of the country, where game roamed around 30 years ago it has completely disappeared as a consequence of persecution pressure and grazing. In some hunting areas, where hunting has been under one management for a long time, with an arrangement that consequently developed and practiced long-term interest, such game exists in high numbers. The good quality of trophies proves healthy populations. The short visit and the available information do not allow general conclusions. It is doubtful anyhow, whether the existing monitoring data are reliable. As the consult has only seen two hunting areas for a few hours, he is not able to give any assessments on wildlife populations of his own.

4.2 Hunting

Hunting has a long history in the country and has always been practiced. At the end of the Soviet Union (1991) there were 220,000 registered hunters (ca. 1,4 % of the population as compared to 0,4 % in Germany). The number fell to 25,000 in 2003

7

and had gone up to about 90,000 five years later, many of them from the towns. There is a considerable growth in the number of registered hunters. It can be assumed that the number of hunters has not changed so much and that only the ratio between registered and unregistered hunters has changed over the years, to a great extent as a result of economic conditions. A source in the Institute of Zoology claimed that 300,000 hunting weapons were imported in recent years. This would indicate a high demand for hunting opportunities and possibly a high hunting pressure. In Soviet times there existed also systems of commercial harvesting of game, in particular of game that lived in large herds in the steppe like gazelles or saiga. A resource person said: “They were first hunted from horses, then from motorcycles and cars and at the end from helicopters.” No wonder that such industrial take-off methods annihilated the herds. This commercial hunting was not only non-sustainable, but also often non-economic. Sometimes the big numbers of animals killed were even not used, as the transport vehicles were not available in time or because of deficits in processing. These destructive methods are not practiced any more. Hunting is possible for nationals as well as for tourists on the basis of quotas and licences. Hunting quotas and actual take-off figures could not be obtained while in the country. It would take lengthy analysis to see how reliable they are. An example, however outdated, is presented here, which is rather typical for the present system, except for absolute numbers. The take-off percentages would be conservative, provided there is any knowledge on real numbers. For a good number of animals mentioned this is not the case, as they can just not be counted. Until today the Government enforces unsuitable monitoring and counting system, which produce meaningless population figures, at least for some species such as roe deer, red deer, wild boar, birds or small predators.

Hunting Quota 1998

(Source: National Biodiversity and Action Plan 1999)

Species number of animals on quota take-off in % of population

Maral 131 5.5

Red deer 367 5.9

Roe deer 2021 7.5

Saiga 40000 6.7

Wild hog 1162 10.8

Siberian mountain goat 900 6.2

Musk deer 15 5.0

Bear 65 5.0

Marmot badger 89800 5.9

Musk rat 54170 25.8

Russian sable 500 20.0

Woodcock 300 8.8

Pheasant 16500 14.4 Hunting for several Red Book species, in particular caprinae, continues to be forbidden. Only research on the ground would reveal how beneficial the total

8

protection is in reality. If one considers the practical experiences in the region one must assume that such total protection coupled with an ineffective law enforcement system leads to unsatisfactory results. Hunting takes place on public lands. Private leaseholders of large tracts of lands have also in the past been able to obtain hunting licences, manage the wildlife on this land, develop an infrastructure for hunting and sell hunting opportunities. Hunting tourism has been ongoing on such land for about twenty years. The Government’s forest and conservation agencies equally sell hunting opportunities on different categories of land including protected areas. In addition there are still cooperatives existing from Soviet times. They consist of hunters who have formed an association on land that they have leased from the Government. They also offer opportunities for the foreign hunter. As such cooperatives depend on the low contributions of members they normally have only a very modest hospitality infrastructure. Even the military sells hunting on land that is under their command including otherwise closed border areas. Certain border areas exist which are closed for visitors for security reasons, and this includes hunters. In order to enforce the principle of sustainable off-take, the authorities lay great weight on attaining exact population data. Monitoring is a major issue and, for example, all concessionaires and hunting operators must count regularly all kinds of wildlife up to birds. These data are collected countrywide, and are aggregated and reported bottom up. Finally the Ministry for Environment (now dissolved) in Astana puts the figures together for a national statistic. This then is used to create national quotas for huntable game. Rather conservative take-off percentages are used for these calculations. The national quota thereafter is distributed downward on the different territorial entities until finally every concession receives its individual quota. It has been reported that the quota setting suffers from subjectivism and formalism and that it does not differentiate between such concessions with good wildlife populations as a result of proper management and badly managed concessions with consecutively low populations. Thus negative incentives are given, and an improper quota is often the beginning of an illegal off-take. Nevertheless this system plays an important role in the country and great effort and finances are spent on it. However, it is to a great extent based on improper methodologies of counting wildlife and consequently leads to wrong results. Simple looking for them and counting those, which are seen, e.g. roe deer or birds, does not provide realistic results. Scientists have concluded on this after decades of fruitless efforts. Biological science has developed therefore different, mostly complicated methods, which allow estimates. Such methods are not applied in Kazakhstan. Counting roe deer is a very good example. Hunters and biologists in Germany counted them for many decades. Hunting quotas were based on such figures. Experiments later showed that such counting led to completely erroneous results i.e. underestimates. As a consequence all counting was given up. As certain knowledge of the population, in particular its relation to the carrying capacity is very important other methods were introduced. Nowadays experts analyse the impact of such plant-eaters on the vegetation and conclude retrospectively whether the population is acceptable, too low or too high. The exact number remains unknown. Other methods are counting at winter-feeds, calculation on the basis of dung or aerial counts (counting by observers, filming, heat-cameras; sample counts, full counts).

9

The statistical analysis of trophy trends is also an important tool to draw conclusions whether take-offs are sustainable or not. This makes systematic and objective measurement of trophies necessary. The concessionaires and hunters are well aware that the present methods are unsatisfactory. They also report about negative sanctions, if a reduction in numbers is reported. Obviously authorities expect a steady growth, whereas in natural ecosystems despite general trends strong fluctuations are possible. It seems that the concessionaires see monitoring as an unpleasant and useless burden, which is not taken seriously. This is understandable. The figures reported are often simply made up or calculated according to the quota desired. The monitoring system, a basis of wildlife management in present Kazakhstan is in need of urgent reform. It would be helpful to disseminate modern monitoring methodologies. The only way to earn substantial revenues from wildlife is by hunting tourism. Ten or 15 years ago more than thousand foreign hunters came every year. The authorities report that 120 to 150 licences for Siberian roebuck are sold to foreigners for the north of the country. Well informed insiders estimate that presently about 250 to 300 foreigners come for Siberian roe-buck and about 150 to 200 for Siberian ibex and maral. It would be helpful to obtain these data. Other game will be shot opportunistically during one of these hunts, but hunters would not come specifically to hunt it, perhaps with the exception of a few hunters who come for wolves. The whole turnover of the hunting industry can therefore be estimated at two to three million €. As compared with, for example, the oil and gas sector, this is an insignificant amount. However, it leads to conservation management of a significant percentage of the land, maintains wildlife populations and gives employment to several thousand people from a poor background. This industry, deficient as it may be, holds probably the key for the long-term survival of the country’s wildlife. The reasons for this are manifold. Kazakhstan is comparatively expensive and this relates to hunting itself as well as travelling, hotels etc. in general. In many areas trophy quality has deteriorated as a result of overhunting. Many local hunting operators are unprofessional and they either do not find the access to the market or are unable to perform according to the expectations of their clients. And finally the country does not present itself well on the international hunting market. There are, of course excellent outfits. They have been under the same management for many years, run their operations efficiently, maintain excellent, growing wildlife populations and produce consequently good trophies consistently.

4.3 Private Hunting Operators

About ten years ago the Government initiated a privatization process in the hunting sector. Over 50 % of the land was opened for the private sector as hunting concessions. About 700 of such concessions were created. Due to the large land coverage the concessions are now extremely relevant for the maintenance of bio-diversity in the country. In a kind of tendering process private individuals were selected. The lease of the concessions is free, however, the leaseholders take over a number of responsibilities in management and development that are costly. Some rich people took such concessions in order to hunt on them themselves or with friends. Most others bid, in order to use their hunting rights with commercial objectives in mind. Nearly all had no previous experience with hunting management

10

or hunting tourism. Know-how was lacking, but hunting tourism is a demanding service and hospitality industry requiring specific knowledge, in which only prime performers can succeed in the long run. Many bidders just grabbed the chance, as it was seemingly free, others misunderstood the concept and thought they would or might someday acquire property rights for the land. The leaseholders must start their operation with an environmental assessment of their concession and a kind of management plan. This has to be done by professionals. Private companies exist, which offer these services. Costs are said to be around 20,000 USD. Some operators maintain that these studies are rather useless for management due to the prescribed structure and that they have meanwhile deteriorated to a useless but costly formality. Other duties of the leaseholders are the employment of rangers for wildlife management and anti-poaching, who are called “Jaeger”. A certain infrastructure has to be developed and annual monitoring of wildlife populations must be conducted. There are operators, who have a marginal block without much game, who leased the concession for non-hunting related reasons or due to ignorance. Others do not have the necessary financial means and hunting management know-how to develop hunting tourism. We can call this model an “unmanaged concession”. It has no bio-diversity value, as nothing happens to maintain or improve bio-diversity. In such a case the authorities are obliged to take the concession away from the leaseholder or to investigate whether the area is suitable for hunting at all. The second model could be called the “private hobby concession” model. There is a wealthy person, who has himself a personal interest in hunting, or who wants to invite friends and business partners. This is actually comparable with the concession (“Revier”) system in Germany, where individuals pay for their personal hunting passion and lease a hunting area from the owner(s). These people pay for the lease as well as for the management of the area including compensation for agricultural damage by game. The costs range between 15 and 200 USD/hectare in Germany. There are additional management costs and a very good area with game such as red deer can easily entail further costs in the range of 70,000 to 140,000 USD, sometimes even more. This is much money for a hobby, but there are people who can afford that. In Kazakhstan this model is totally in line with the hunting policy of the Government. Such persons develop normally a long-term interest in their area and are also prepared to cover the necessary costs. Some might even do this with a kind of philanthropic motivation. The third model is the “commercial model”, and this is probably the most common one. People have acquired a concession with the intention to run it as a commercial enterprise. The possibilities to sell hunting to nationals are limited and revenues are very low. The market is outside the country. The second and the third model can be overlapping. Hobby hunters may try to sell a few licences or the owners of a commercial outfit will hunt themselves, in particular, if they cannot sell all licences. For policy purposes it might be useful to grade the concessions according to the three categories. As a matter of fact over 80 % of all concessions are most probably in the red. They run on a loss. This creates the danger that sooner or later the promising privatization of wildlife use will stall. The Government’s effort to outsource many otherwise public

11

responsibilities in conservation and maintaining bio-diversity is doomed for failure. What are the reasons for this? They are mainly economic. The cost of implementing all requirements as enumerated before, add up quickly to a minimum of 40,000 USD per year, and will be considerably more, if the concessionaire is serious and offers hunting-tourism, as this entails buildings, staff, vehicles etc. The income on the other side is determined by the quota. It would be too specific to expand here on the economics of such a hunting enterprise. What can be said is that the income from an average quota, say 4 to 5 maral and 5 to 6 ibex is just not enough to allow break even.

Costs of typical hunts

(including commissions for agents) Maral: 10 hunting days - 5,000 to 10,000 € Ibex: 7 hunting days - 4,500 to 6,000 € Roebuck: 7 hunting days - 3,500 to 5,000 € Apart from cost structure and quota there are a number of additional specific problems that are presently hotly debated in the industry, namely:

• The costs of licences;

• The use of fines for poaching; and

• The extremely burdensome administrative procedures for foreign hunters, in particular for trophy exports.

It can be agreed, first, that the Government is in principle entitled to an annual lease-fee and/or licence fees for animals provided as per quota, as the land and the wildlife belong to the state. The leases are not charged for. They are free. The Government charges, however, a fee for every licence. These fees are rather low for nationals, but have been increased recently ten-fold for foreigners without advance notice and in one single step. In most African and Asian countries with hunting tourism there is such a clear distinction between licence fees for residents and foreign tourists too, sometimes there is even a difference between national and non-national residents. Insofar the higher fee for foreigners is quite in line with the international practice, and the ratio of 1:10 is comparable or even low as compared to other countries (e.g. Tanzania: 1:15; before: 1:200). The licence fees for tourists presently are around 1,000 € for maral and 300 € for ibex (approx.). These fees seem in principle to be moderate. They are even low, if one considers that maral trophies are charged by weight to clients and this can amount to 10,000 €, if the stag reaches the rare antlers’ weight of 16 kg. Ibex horns are charged by length, and an average horn length of 120 cm will lead to a charge of around 2,000 € for the trophy. (A major part of this will, however, be retained by the foreign agent.) The main problem seems to be that the price rise was sudden and not in small steps over a certain period of time. Hunts are mostly sold at least one year in advance. Immediate and sharp price increases by a Government are therefore always negative for business. In any case, even adequate and acceptable licence fees must be related to the overall costs, in particular to those that result out of the obligations of the licence holders. The Government has charged them with costly tasks, which otherwise would have to be financed out of the state budget. The

12

consultant is therefore of the opinion that given the present loss-making status of most concessions, the Government would be well advised to temporarily introduce a moratorium on licence fees in tourist hunting. Licence fees for tourist hunters should be reduced to the same level as licence fees for nationals. This is nothing more than a return to the previous system, and it would recognize that the concessions fulfil public functions like anti-poaching and that they need more time in order to break even and generate the means to finance their obligations. The state budget would waive a revenue of a few hundred thousand Euro, insignificant for the state, but significant for individual operators. Many of the present hunting areas will never qualify for a viable hunting operation due to a lack of wildlife and suitable environment. These are mainly the concessions that are graded three to five in the present system, which has grades one to five. In addition many leaseholders are unqualified to manage a hunting operation or lack the necessary financial means. When the hunting leases went for tender, some interested parties misunderstood the lease as a kind of land property right or hoped that it would be possible to attain land ownership in the course of the process. The unsuited areas should be deregistered provided it is not possible to improve bio-diversity by active conservation management, and the contracts of unsuitable lease-holders should be terminated as soon as it can be proven that they do not fulfil their obligations. Any promotional activities and services of the Government or of a suitable private-sector servicing organization, e.g. run by Kansonar, should concentrate on viable outfits. There is nothing wrong with concessionaires, who prefer to use their areas for their own private recreational hunting, provided they fulfil their obligations. Secondly, in its agreements with the leaseholders the Government has transferred the right and obligation to control the areas for poaching and to persecute and apprehend poachers upon the lessees. This is a practical but nevertheless an extraordinary decision, as it concerns a law enforcement respectively police function and in principle it entails many juridical problems, which are, however, not further dealt with. Such policing of large hunting areas is in the interest of the leaseholders, as they thus protect their resource, but it is at the time laborious and costly. After catching a poacher, he has to be taken to police custody and later the “Jaeger” must act as witness, participate in court cases etc. Fines and damages, which the culprit in case of a conviction has to pay can be significant, e.g. in the case of saiga. In the Soviet system the successful hunter who had apprehended a poacher was entitled to a percentage of the fine. In the present system the “Jaeger” receives nothing. This leads to a great dissatisfaction and also to a system in which the leaseholders or their representatives fine the poachers privately and let them go. It is reported that as a result only very few poachers face legal action. This system needs to be revised urgently. The leaseholders need some financial reimbursement for their anti-poaching effort and at the same time an incentive to catch poachers and to bring them to court. At least the compensation for damages should certainly accrue to the leaseholder, as he bears the financial losses through poaching. Finally, it is reported that the administrative procedures for tourist hunting, in particular for trophy exports, are extremely bureaucratic and overburden the operators, in particular the smaller ones.

13

These three shortcomings together have resulted in a shadow economy in the hunting sector. It happens that operators fabricate monitoring data in a way to attain the quota they wish. As quota setting in many cases does not take into consideration the quality of a concession but distributes it evenly over good and bad concessions, this tendency is even strengthened. Overshooting of quotas happens, and the problem that poachers caught do not face legal action has been mentioned already.

4.4 Legal Background

The Law on the Protection, Reproduction and Management of Wildlife (2004) contains the rules for the use of wildlife in the country, its protection and also sets the institutional framework. Further environmental laws, like the Law on specially Protected Natural Areas (2006), Ministerial Decrees on specific issues and orders of the Forest and Hunting Committee are also relevant. Wildlife is a state property and can only become private property under certain conditions, e.g. as a result of breeding. Limits on wildlife taking are established. A number of principles guide wildlife management. They include biodiversity conservation, sustainability, the preservation of habitats and migration routes, protection of rare and endangered species and the promotion of wildlife protection. The Ecological Code, another relevant legal instrument, formulates requirements for the use of natural resources including wildlife and aims to prevent negative effects on ecosystems and wildlife. Rules for research, annual assessments of fauna and environmental monitoring are of particular importance in the legal framework. In the field of protection rare or endangered species and the red book figure highly. Trade with listed species is regulated. Kazakhstan is a member of CITES and the relevant legislation is in place. Different categories of protected areas are in place, equally an institutional framework for their management. Habitat protection outside protected areas exists, receives, however, much less attention. The same applies to the sustainable use of wildlife as compared to protection. Hunting procedures, areas, permits, related investments and law enforcement are in principle regulated. Involvement of communities in wildlife management is only mentioned in the law as a general principle, but not further specified. Kazakhstan’s legal framework for wildlife is extensive, rather comprehensive and contains many positive elements including an attention to international conventions. However, there is a certain amount of overlapping, in particular in institutional responsibilities and mandates, even the occasional contradiction exists, and the coordination between different instruments is lacking. Details are mostly missing, which can be beneficial for practical management, but in Kazakhstan the bureaucracy seems to use this feature for defining their own procedures, which are excessively bureaucratic and hinder the practical conduct of hunting. A very clear and simple statutory regulation that is worked out together with the hunting sector could smoothen procedures in practice significantly. Major revisions of the law per se do not seem to be necessary.

4.5 Project Proposal

Kazakhstan has opted for a progressive hunting system, which is mainly based on private sector management. It has in principle given value to wildlife, a precondition for effective conservation, and therefore has the potential to influence bio-diversity

14

positively. Hunting as a form of sustainable resource use in line with the CBD or with the IUCN Guidelines on sustainable hunting developed as a positive conservation instrument. Sustainable hunting tourism has the potential to turn the overall negative trend of dwindling wildlife populations. Under the present conditions most concessions are, however, not economically viable. In addition many shortcomings result from unsuitable Governmental regulations. The present deficiencies are not primarily at the legal level, but at the economic level of the individual concession and at the policy level. Therefore, there is presently a need for:

1) Data collection and analysis of the actual economics of the hunting enterprises,

2) An assessment of the shortcomings of Government policies; 3) A dialogue between the private and the Government sector on reforms; 4) A presentation and discussion of practical solutions and best practices

from other countries and regions (know-how transfer) and finally; 5) Respective decisions and implementing them.

This is all urgent, as the present system is about to stall. The private sector is aware of the need to reform and change. How far the Governmental sector shares this awareness is doubtful, and there will be resistance to change. However, there are a number of signs that an effort would not necessarily be futile. The private sector should be best represented by its own organizations. Kansonar is for example such an appropriate representative, possibly the most viable and suitable one. There might be others. The provision of know-how from independent parties is important, as there is a pronounced know-how deficit in the country. UNDP is already a stakeholder. Private sector representatives as well as UNDP have expressed the need for a GIZ involvement and would welcome it. Unfortunately it was not possible to discuss the issue with the Government during the consultant’s visit. UNDP will approach task 1, the economics of concessions, according to their project document and what was said during the discussions. Tasks 3 and 4 match fittingly the particular experience and know-how of GIZ. Steering such a process in a partner-oriented way without dominating it lies in the core competence of GIZ. The following activities offer a starting point for such a process while it cannot be said a priori, which comes first. This should be left to the coordination with the private sector and Governmental partners. The following activities are therefore not arranged in an order of priorities.

• One activity would be the conduct of a national workshop on the economics, management imperatives and best practices of hunting tourism. The objective would be to assist operators to manage their concessions more efficiently, to be confronted with “state of the art” management tools and to learn more about the highly competitive hunting market. There are a few international consultants who could serve as resource persons. A new practical handbook on this topic is presently being prepared by a team of international experts. The focus of this manual is Africa, but the general norms are in no way different in central Asia. A list of topics for such a workshop is included as Annex A 4.

• Writing up a manual on the management of hunting including hunting tourism in Russian language could be an important input into the reform

15

process and the efforts to improve the performance of the hunting industry. There is nearly no up-to date material accessible in Russian language and the know-how as well as the resource materials existing still stem from the Soviet period and are outdated. On the other hand there is much material existing in English and other languages, and it would mainly be putting this together and translating it into Russian and making it available not only in Kazakhstan, but in the whole region. (See also the proposed electronic Reader with links to relevant articles under 3.5)

• An excursion of practitioners and administrators to neighbouring countries, in particular Kyrgyzstan, to study the trophy hunting system, including the results of recent law revisions, hunting management, the organization of hunting tourism and similar features. This would allow the presentation and discussion of practical solutions and best practices from other countries in the region and would facilitate a know-how transfer. UNDP and the private sector mentioned several times that such a visit, which also could take the form of an exchange, would be useful. Due to its various activities in the region and in this field, GIZ is actually best suited to organize such a study tour or exchange.

Such a dialogue on economic reform in the hunting sector between Government authorities, the private sector and professionals/experts from NGOs, UNDP and GIZ will facilitate the necessary political decisions. No change will be possible without the governmental sector being prepared for it. This will undoubtedly be difficult to achieve. Some organization must take the lead and make the dialogue on best practices possible.

16

ANNEXES:

A 1: Minutes of meetings

A 1.2 Kazakhstan

Kansonar (Hunting Association) and Union of Hunters and Fishermen of Kazakhstan (two meetings)

Kansonar and the Union are independent organizations, but regulated by a ministry. The Ministry of Environment so far administered hunting. The President has dissolved this ministry in August, a few days before the consultant arrived. In the future hunting will be under the Ministry of Agriculture. Such reorganizations have happened four times during the past 16 years. Presently there is a total standstill, and it will take time until things are normal again. Kansonar faces the problem that they have worked out in the past certain law revisions and were negotiating them with the Ministry of Natural Resources. Now this process will start all over again. The constant institutional change promotes a situation in which officials are dealing with the hunting issues, who often lack specialized wildlife management knowledge and experience. The Union was created in 1958 and is insofar the oldest association of hunters. It has existed ever since, despite efforts by the communist Government to abolish the Union. At that time it was the only hunting organisation in the Republic. Since independence, additional organisations were created. The Union together with three other hunting organisations have created Kansonar in 2012 in order to unite the different organisations and create a single representation of hunters in the country and as a lobby organisation. It has organizations as members, not individuals. This makes it comparable to the “Deutsche Jagdverband”, which has also only the hunting associations of the federal states (Bundesländer) as members, 16 in total. Kansonar was established to offer services to hunters, to engage professionally in modern conservation and wildlife management issues, to conduct publicity and to represent the hunting sector internationally. Kansonar, a non-profit NGO, employs nine staff including a lawyer. One field of activity is modernizing and revising legislation. Several amendments in the legislation, which partly hinders the development of concessions, have been worked out and presented to the respective Government institutions. Inputs to improve hunting tourism are overdue, but work has not yet started. The Association runs hunting shops. There is also a fisheries’ branch. The Government is interested to outsource functions, which are not necessarily governmental. In 2013 the Government licensed Kansonar for a period of four years. Kansonar is entitled to offer hunters’ training, conduct examinations and to give out hunting permits. A lack of expertise is the major bottleneck of the organisation. There is the need of know-how transfer and advisory services from outside, in particular from Europe. Cooperation with GIZ would be welcome. As Kansonar is totally dependent on financial contributions from its members and the small payments for services provided, the financial basis is weak. The Kansonar representative asserts that Kansonar is the only hunters’ organisation of this type in the region including Russia. Presently they endeavour to create an

17

association of hunters in the Eurasian Customs Union (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia) in order to facilitate the transfer of hunting weapons over borders and simplify hunting procedures including those for hunting tourists.

Institute of Zoology

The institute (founded in 1930) is the only establishment in the country working scientifically, amongst others, on wildlife and hunting issues. During the time of the Soviet Union the institute was obviously well supplied with funds and scientists and worked on a multitude of research and monitoring issues and advised on all aspects of hunting. Nowadays the institute, which is based in a decrepit building, is only a shadow of former grandeur. Funds are minimal and not sufficient to cover the fulfilment of its duties. Nevertheless the obviously frustrated representative of the institute maintained that the scientists perform their duties and are responsible for monitoring wildlife numbers, setting quotas, control wildlife use and prepare the Red Books (next one in 2018). Other remarks indicated, however, that due to lacking resources such tasks could not be performed properly. It is difficult to imagine how the present financial endowment of the institute allows it census work that deserves the name. The monitoring work of the private sector is criticized as being unprofessional.

In general there have been successes in raising wildlife numbers: saiga up from 25,000 to 250,000; argali 40% more; Buchara deer 200%, now about 500 animals; kulan now 3,000 as compared to 300 in 1993; argalis have doubled since 2,005 up to 3,000; maral: 12,000 to 16,000; ibex 22,000. In principle hunting is seen as positive, in particular hunting tourism. The concession system is in principle a positive innovation. Some concessionaires invest and this is positive. However, most don’t. There are also cases of poor management and misuse. Without foreign hunters the concession system will not function. The potential of tourist hunting is not explored. Main reasons are the lack of political will and a lack of knowledge about the management of a hunting industry. The present controversy about licence fees is an example. The institute is not involved in trophy fee issues. It is presently not done with a rational basis behind. The know-how for calculating appropriate trophy fees is just missing. The responsible civil servants have no experience in the administration of hunting. Once argali reach 10,000 heads again, argali hunting can start too. The rate of old rams is about 1,8 %. A hunting take-off of 1% would be advisable. Illegal hunting for argali takes place presently, probably around 10 % of the population annually. The poachers are mainly rich Kazakhs, who ignore the rules. As far as concessions are concerned, the institute advocates improved management, higher investments, more careful off-take, sparing of young animals, stricter regulation of protection and improved security.

ACBK – Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan

ACBK is an NGO supportive of biodiversity conservation. It cooperates with Frankfurt Zoological Society. Jointly they had leased several concessions in order to manage them without hunting, mainly for saiga conservation. They experienced the operational problems in running such enterprises, even if it was only for conservation and with donor funds. The Pros and Cons of the concession system were discussed.

18

As a successful example the Manu concession was cited. It is a club with circa 500 members and allows members to hunt in the concession, in particular for wild boars. As a consequence, the wild boar population is rising. Some concessions with good water bird hunting are also successful. The concession system is an experiment in sustainable use of wildlife. It is a positive approach, but so far it is – as a whole - not successful. The reasons are mainly economical and management related. As concessions cover more than half of the land surface, wildlife in the country can only be conserved, if the concessions are integrated into all efforts. The question remains, how this can be done. Different possible solutions were discussed, but no solutions have been agreed yet. A number of useful measures have been proposed, in particular by the hunters themselves, and these should be discussed and possibly tried out. A thorough and systematic analysis of all proposals for reform is still outstanding. The monitoring system also has to be reformed, as the present one uses partly unsuitable methodologies and is as a whole not effective. The “Red Book” system worked when there was strong central control and an effective workforce of inspectors. Presently the system is outdated and ineffective.

UNDP – United Nations Development Programme

Kazakhstan has a protected area system in place. This covers, however, only 8 % of the territory. Concessions have been created as a market approach, but are facing major unsolved issues such as profitability, lack of payments by users, bad accounting and monitoring as well as incorrect quotas. The whole framework for sustainable hunting is deficient. It is necessary to simplify it. Poaching is the major threat for wildlife, whereas competition with livestock is no major issue. In May 2014 UNDP has started a relevant project in the hunting sector. Operations have not started yet. Partner is the Government Committee for Wildlife and Hunting. The objectives are to (1) develop a suitable legal framework for the management of wildlife including hunting, and (2) establish sustainable wildlife use. In addition, the project plans to select, with the assistance of specialists, two concessions and manage them as pilots. The goal is to introduce sustainable hunting successfully and also to practice private-public partnership. Bottlenecks of the present system will be identified and solutions worked out. The concessions should be “rich in wildlife” and “financially sustainable”. Local specialists will be employed and an international expert will be selected by tender. Alternative finance models, like a Trust Fund (one million USD), will also be tried out, if funds are available. According to the present time-horizon this project will come to an end in 2015 (2016 according to other sources). Total budget is 640,000 USD out of which the Government contributes ca. 75 %. This shows that the Government is interested and will be inclined to follow advice that may result from this project, UNDP argues. According to UNDP staff some cooperation with GIZ could be possible in fields like know-how transfer, in particular from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. In addition exchange visits with these countries, monitoring or the establishment of corridors between protected areas were mentioned as fields for cooperation.

Round table discussion

As in several of the aforementioned meetings, participants questioned the consultant on specific professional topics in addition to the group discussion. They were in particular very interested to hear about procedures and techniques of hunting management and the organization of hunting tourism in other parts of the world.

19

The discussion centred on the main problems of the concessions and how to improve the functioning. In particular the following issues were debated:

• Economic shortcomings of the concession system;

• Monitoring and game counting;

• Land-use as a central issue;

• Wildlife use as a form of land-use (However in competition with livestock; one advantage of national parks for wildlife and hunting as compared to concessions is the fact that livestock is not allowed in national parks);

• The ban of hunting in potentially problematic border areas (controversial discussion);

• Shortcomings of laws that are based on foreign models of legislation;

• Need to reform legislation according to indigenous paradigms and national experience;

• Fencing of hunting areas (issue was only touched);

• Distribution of fines, which arrested poachers have to pay (hot debate);

• International marketing of the hunting opportunities internationally, in particular on fairs and in the respective media.

Participants agreed that there was a potential for GIZ to get involved with the reform process, if this was possible. Advisory services, know-how transfer, the organization of workshops or a national conference and study visits to neighbouring countries were given as examples.

20

A. 2 Terms of Reference of Consultant

0 Project Background

FLERMONECA

The global objective of the Action is to promote the stability and security of the countries of Central

Asia, to assist them in their pursuit of sustainable economic development and poverty reduction and to

facilitate closer regional cooperation both within Central Asia and between Central Asia and the EU.

The specific objective is to enhance regional cooperation and partnership with Europe in the fields of

forest and biodiversity governance, including environmental monitoring, through supporting the

sustainable use and management of natural resources in Central Asia, by tackling issues such as

climate change, forest governance (the FLEG process), ecological restoration and environmental data

collection, exchange, monitoring and assessment.

Specific objectives of thematic sub-components:

Forest Law Enforcement and Governance in Central Asia (FLEG Central Asia): The promotion of

legal and sustainable forest management and utilisation practices strengthens the rule of law, tackles

the growing problem of illegal forest activities and enhances local livelihoods.

Ecological Restoration and Biodiversity Conservation in Central Asia (ERCA): Promoting an

active dialogue between the EU and Central Asia; demonstration and dissemination of ecosystem-

based management approaches on regional, sub-regional and sub-national levels support

conservation and restoration of biological diversity in the region

Environmental monitoring in Central Asia (MONECA): Environmental monitoring, reporting and

data sharing is improved in the Central Asian countries and in the region as a whole, and links and

partnerships are strengthened between the respective Central Asian and EU institutions.

Implementing partners:

1. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH 2. Landesbetrieb Hessen Forst, Germany 3. Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Austria 4. Regional Environmental Centre for Central Asia (CAREC)

The current assignment is planned within the ERCA component. The following key outcomes are

sought as a part of this component:

ERCA

The implementation of the proposed activities will:

• significantly improve the national and regional dialogue and knowledge exchange on biodiversity conservation and cooperation on eco-systems restoration, its principles, benefits and approach among the Governments of Central Asia, inter-state organisations (i.e. inter-state bodies subordinated to IFAS) and the civil society;

• develop capacities of Central Asian governmental organisations in managing and analysing information on biodiversity and land use;

• develop capacities of the civil society in land and resource use and sustainable biodiversity and ecosystem management practices.

21

Result 1: Networks for information sharing and knowledge exchange on biodiversity conservation and

eco-system restoration between and within the Central Asian countries are functioning and are

strengthened and in particular:

• establishment and maintenance of information sharing mechanisms on biodiversity and eco-system conditions under the CACILM network;

• Comprehensive and systematic documentation of several good ecosystem-based management approaches to capitalize existing but scattered practices in the field

• Make above mentioned practices available for knowledge management mechanisms like the web based platform but will also be provided as hard-copies to a broader range of users

• Synergies with existing web platforms like the one WECOOP is running

Result 2: Regional collaboration and political dialogue on biodiversity conservation and governance is

strengthened based on existing good practices on biodiversity governance and ecosystem restoration

and in particular:

• an active regional collaboration and political dialogue on biodiversity governance and ecosystem restoration and

• an improved capacity of users, agencies and countries to implement good biodiversity governance and ecosystem conservation.

II Kazakhstan The main objective set in the ERCA Kazakhstan component of the EU FLERMONECA project is to support a national dialogue on sustainable use of wildlife. This includes the issues of:

• wildlife monitoring and hunting quota setting; • sustainability of the hunting concessions’ work (economic viability and wildlife protection

functions);

Objective of the ERCA short-term consultant:

The ERCA consultant shall analyse the current situation in the hunting sector of Kazakhstan and give his/her recommendations on reforms and changes needed under the current framework conditions and suggest entry points for such a process in order to support sustainable use of wildlife as a part of an holistic wildlife habitat conservation approach in the country.

In order to achieve the objective, the following task are to be fulfilled:

Task 1:

Analyse the challenges in the existing legal and institutional system in the hunting sector and the entry points for the changes in the hunting regulatory framework in Kazakhstan:

• Desk analysis of the legal framework and relevant reports and studies – before coming to CA • Conduct interviews with the key state and non-state stakeholders including meetings in

person in Almaty: o Okhotzooprom, Okhotproekt, representative of the Almaty Regional Inspection on

Forestry and Hunting, “Tabigat”hunting and fishery enterprise, Institute of Zoology; • in Astana:

o Committee of Forestry and Hunting, Kansonar hunting association, Association for Conservation of Biodiversity in Kazakhstan, UNDP Hunting Project Coordinator;

22

Task 2:

Analyse the entry points for improved income generation possibilities, which are built on sustainable use of wildlife:

• Conduct interviews with the hunting concessions’ owners. Field trip in Almaty region ; • Participate to the round table discussion organized by the EU FLERMONECA project with the

hunting sector stakeholders, Astana or Almaty;

Task 3:

Assess the capacity building needs of the key stakeholders – during the interviews and reflected in the final report;

Task 4:

Remote backstopping and support of networking through presenting the KAZ case in relevant international networks

Deliverables:

1. Final report on the mission, including an extended reviewed list of relevant literature for the KAZ case

2. Minutes of meetings with the stakeholders

23

A 3. Annotated Bibliography

A 3.1 General Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines: http://www.cbd.int/sustainable/addis.shtml Baldus, Rolf D.: A Practical Summary of Experiences after Three Decades of Community-based Wildlife Conservation in Africa. “What are the Lessons Learnt”. Joint publication of CIC and FAO. Budapest and Rome 2009. Download: http://www.cic-wildlife.org/publications/technical-series-in-english/ Baldus, R.D., Damm, G.R. and Wollscheid, K. (Eds.): Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting – A Guide to best Practices from Around the World. Joint Publication of CIC and FAO. Budapest and Rome 2009. IN RUSSIAN LANGUAGE. Download: http://www.cic-wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Technical_series_1_RU.pdf Booth, Vernon R.: A Comparison of the Prices of Hunting Tourism in Southern and Eastern Africa. Joint publication of FAO and CIC. Budapest 2009. http://www.cic-wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Technical_series_7.pdf http://www.wildlife-baldus.com/download/pricing.pdf Brainerd, S. (2007): European Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity. - Bern Convention document TPVS (revised, of 29 November 2007). Strasbourg 2007 Download: http://www.cic-wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Technical_series_2.pdf Chardonnet, Philippe et al.: Practical Guidelines for Improving the Administration of Hunting in Sub-Saharan Africa. Paris 2014/2015 (in preparation) CITES: Methods of counting from the air. http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/mike/intro/a3.shtml Damm, Gerhard R. and Franco, Nicolás: CIC Caprinae Atlas of the World. Vol. I and II. Johannesburg 2014. IUCN Caprinae Specialist Group, Position Statement on Trophy Hunting. In: Baldus Rolf et al. 2009. IUCN SSC (2012). IUCN SSC Guiding principles on trophy hunting as a tool for creating conservation incentives. Ver. 1.0. IUCN, Gland. Download: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_ssc_guiding_principles_on_trophy_hunting_ver1_09aug2012.pdf Russian version: https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_ssc_guiding_principles_on_trophy_hunting_russian.pdf Morgera, E. ,Wingard, J. and Fodella, A.: Developing Sustainable Wildlife

24

Management Laws in Western and Central Asia. Joint publication of FAO and CIC. Budapest and Rome 2009. Download: http://www.cic-wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Technical_series_4.pdf RUSSIAN LANGUAGE version: http://www.cic-wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Technical_series_4_RU.pdf MIKE: Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants. Aerial Survey Standards for the MIKE Programme. Nairobi no year. http://www.cites.org/common/prog/mike/survey/aerial_standards.pdf Morgera, E. and Wingard, J.: Principles for Developing Sustainable Wildlife Management Laws. Joint publication of FAO and CIC. Budapest and Rome 2009. Download: http://www.cic-wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Technical_series_3.pdf Norton-Griffiths, M.: Counting Animals. Handbook No. 1. Nairobi 1978. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/man_ctgani_en.pdf Wijnstekers, Willem: The Evolution of CITES. 9th Edition. Budapest 2011. WWF: Counting Wildlife Manual. Harare 2000. http://www.policy-powertools.org/related/docs/counting_wildlife.pdf WWF: Quota Setting Manual. Harare 1986. http://www.policy-powertools.org/related/docs/quota_setting.pdf Zoi Environment Network (Ed.): Biodiversity in Central Asia. Geneva 2011.

A 3.2 Turkmenistan

A 3.3 Kazakhstan Association of Hunting and Fishing Societies of Kazakhstan (Ed.). Hunters’ Guide. Almaty 2000.

A 4. Keywords for Improving the Management of Hunting in Kazakhstan - Management differences between resident, consumptive, recreational and tourist hunting - Leasing hunting areas, ownership - Allocation of leases, tendering, contracts - Duration of leases and lease payments - Conservation and management requirements for lease-holders - Licences, permits

25

- Quota setting in different forms of hunting; trophy hunting quotas; carrying capacity, population-growth- and take off-rates; control systems - Management guidelines; methods, tools, evaluation; adaptive management - Monitoring; needs, objectives, methods; limitations; costs of different methods; alternatives to counting, indirect assessment of population figures; data processing and reporting; trophy measurement as monitoring tool - Governmental administration of hunting concessions and tourist hunting; statistics and national databases; setting fees; administration of trophy registration and export - International legislation; CITES procedures; hunting of endangered species; trophy import regulations, in particular EU and USA - International markets; differences in demand structures; hunting shows; publications; catalogues, web-based advertisement

26

A 5. Travel Schedule

A 5.1 Turkmenistan

A 5.2 Kazakhstan

Time August 17, Sunday, Almaty Rolf and Dana, arrival in Almaty August 18, Monday, Almaty

Morning Nikolai Proskurin, the president of the Union on hunters and fishermen of Kazakhstan and member of Kansonar

Morning (joint meeting with Proskurin)

Sergey Sokolov, director of Okhotproekt LTD and member of Kansonar

Afternoon Ryspek Baidavletov, the Institute of Zoology August 19, Tuesday, Almaty and field trip

Morning Sergey Sklyarenko, deputy director on science of ACBK NGO

Afternoon Departure to the hunting ground with Maxim Levitin – 150 km from Almaty

August 20, Wednesday, field trip

A day in a hunting ground August 21, Thursday, field trip and back to Almaty

Morning Departure to Almaty 19:40 Departure to Astana, fast train August 22, Friday, Astana

08:25 Arrival in Astana 15:00 Aiman Omarbekova, UNDP,

National expert on ecological corridors and sustainable wildlife management

17:00 Nasyrov Ganiyat, lawyer of the “Kansonar” Republican association of public unions of hunters

August 23-24, Saturday and Sunday

All day National park August 25, Monday, Astana, round table discussion on the hunting sector

10:00 GIZ conference room

27

A 7. Abbreviations

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature NGO Non Governmental Organization UHF Union of Hunters and Fishers of Turkmenistan UNDP United Nations Development Programme