Joint FAO/Czech Republic Workshop on

Wildlife Policy and Institutions for Sustainable Use and Conservation of Wildlife Resources
11-15 September 2006
Prague, Czech Republic

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Purpose

Participants

Process of the workshop

Opening ceremony

Panel presentations

Country reports and presentations

Group work sessions and plenary discussions

Results

Phase 1: Identifying main problems areas and priority issues

Phase 2: Stakeholders analysis

Phase 3: Searching for solutions

Phase 4: Activities and follow-up actions

Phase 5: Formulation of short project outline


Purpose

FAO Forestry Department organized, in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, the Czech National FAO Committee, the Czech Forestry and Game Management Research Institute and the CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation a workshop with the theme "Wildlife Policy and Institutions for Sustainable Use and Conservation of Wildlife Resources". The workshop was held from 11 to 15 September 2006 and took place at Czech University of Agriculture (CUA) in Prague (Czech Republic), Faculty of Forestry and Environment.

The purpose of the wildlife policy workshop was to review current and emerging issues facing the development of the wildlife sector in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and Mongolia, discuss policy implications and identify practical policy options for action.

To enable the exchange of information and experiences among CIS countries and Mongolia, the participants were requested to prepare Country Issue Reports and make them available before the meeting.

Participants

Participation of identified experts in wildlife issues was requested from selected FAO member countries to prepare and present national reports at the workshop and to participate in its working sessions. Participants were sought from CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) countries from Caucasus and Central Asia (Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) and from Mongolia. It was composed of representatives of the state administration responsible for wildlife management and representatives of hunting federations, hunting associations or projects dealing with wildlife management. Observers from European institutions and relevant international organizations were also invited (e.g. IUCN, WWF-TRAFFIC, IUCN European Sustainable Use Specialist Group (IUCN-ESUSG), IGF, etc.). Resource persons were coming from the FAO as well as the CIC. In total 32 participants from 15 countries (see List of participants) came together to share their experiences, exchange ideas, review current and emerging issues in wildlife policy and identify strategic actions toward sustainable use and conservation of wildlife resources.

Process of the workshop

Opening ceremony

The opening ceremony started at 9h00 and was chaired by Mr. Tomas Krejzar, Director, Forestry Section of the Czech Ministry of Agriculture.

Opening words were made by
  • Mr .Tomas Krejzar, Chair of the meeting
  • Mr. José Antonio Prado, Director of the Forest Resources Division, FAO Rome
  • Mr. Jaroslav Ruzicka, Head of the Hunting Service, Czech Ministry of Agriculture
  • Mr. Zahradnik, Director, Czech Forestry and Game Management Research Institute
  • Mr. Vilém Podrázský, Dean, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, Czech University of Agriculture
  • Mr. Ludek Kralicek, Czech-Moravian Hunting Federation

Pict 2 - Welcoming address by Mr. José Antonio Prado, Director of Forest Resources Division, FAO Rome

Panel presentations

After the introduction of participants and the introduction of workshop objectives, process and clarifications, the panel session started. The following four presentations were made:

The Keynote presentation was done by Philippe Chardonnet (Director, IGF) and was dealing with "Sustainable Tourism Hunting - Lessons learned from Sub-Saharian Africa" (see presentation 1).

Pict 3 - Mr. Philippe Chardonnet presenting the Key Note Address

Kai Wollscheid (Director General, CIC) gave an overview on international and regional environmental conventions affecting wildlife management and hunting, emphasizing the importance of the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. He addressed recent initiatives with respect to standardization in hunting and introduced the CIC programme Sustainable Hunting Tourism (see presentation 2).

Pict 4 - Mr. Kai Wollscheid presenting importance of international agreements

René Czudek (Wildlife and Protected Area Officer, FAO) informed about FAO's activities in the wildlife sector as well as about cooperation programmes with FAO (see presentation 3).

Pict 5 - Mr. René Czudek presenting FAO activities in wildlife management and possibilities of FAO technical assistance to its member countries

Youssef Alaoui (National consultant, FAO project in Morocco) made a presentation on "Sustainable hunting policy management for better conservation and the valorization of wildlife in Morocco" (see presentation 4).

Pict 6. Mr. M. Youssef Alaoui presenting the Barbary sheep conservation project in Morocco

Country reports and presentations

In the afternoon the workshop continued with presentations of country reports:

ARMENIA
(doc) - (ppt)

GEORGIA
(doc)

KAZAKHSTAN
(doc) - (Russian) - (ppt)

KYRGYZSTAN
(doc) - (ppt)

MONGOLIA
(doc) - (ppt)

TAJIKISTAN
(doc 1 - 2) - (Russian 1 - 2) - (ppt)

TURKMENISTAN
(doc) - (Russian) - (ppt)

UZBEKISTAN
(doc) - (Russian) - (ppt)

In the evening a welcome cocktail was offered by the organizers

Pict 7

Field trip

Tuesday was all day trip to Southern Bohemia to the hunting museum Hluboka and hunting reserves Stará obora and Ponesicka. This ice-breaking initiative that helped participants to get to know each other was organized by the Forestry and Game Management Research Institute of the Czech Republic to provide an example of a traditional hunting facility in the Czech Republic. The participants had the opportunity to asses the quality of game trophies, discuss the wildlife management techniques and assist at the demonstration of falconry and game calling.

Group work sessions and plenary discussions

From Wednesday on group work sessions followed by plenary presentations and debates in the plenary started. The facilitator, Anna Mischler, introduced the overall group work approach and methodology, and explained brainstorming principles. Participants then parted into three separate rooms to start their work which entailed the following four phases:

Phase 1: Identifying main problems areas and priority issues

Phase 2: Stakeholders analysis

Phase 3: Searching for solutions and actions

Phase 4: Formulation of short project outline

Results

The following outputs were produced:

  • shared respective information and knowledge through the production and sharing of country reports, panel presentations and working groups discussion,
  • improved understanding of current and emerging policy issues facing the development of national or sub-regional wildlife sector (see phase 1) as well as the stakeholder situation (phase 2),
  • identified practical policy options for tackling priority issues (see phase 3),
  • project outlines were formulated by participating countries to facilitate the implementation of identified policy options and the integration of the wildlife sector within national development strategies, considering a possible cooperation with the FAO (see phase 4).

Phase 1: Identifying main problems areas and priority issues

The focus question for this working session was: "What are the main problem areas (priority issues) that the wildlife sector has to face?" The participants were asked to first think individually, secondly agree in each sub-group on priority issues and thirdly to prepare and present a summary of all their ideas in plenary session. These were further voted to identify the most important issues and categorized. Six categories were singled out as being critically important for sustainable wildlife management.

Pict 8 - Facilitated visualisation and categorisation of main problem areas and priority issues on a wall board

Summary of Results

Sectoral management (21 votes)

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

Wildlife Policy and Legislation (14 votes)

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

Socio-economic problems (10 votes)

  • Lack of local community awareness (regarding their rights, legislation, regulations, etc.)
  • Local communities have no legal benefits from wildlife
  • Private sector: no incentive to invest in wildlife / No investments
  • Wildlife operators can not compete with other land use
  • Lack of local people involvement in the wildlife management
  • Undeveloped benefit sharing (Central government reluctant to decentralization)
  • Corruption at the local level, privileges, violation of rights
  • Limited experience in the creation of private hunting reserves
  • Restricted access to hunting (economical and administrative reasons)
  • Poverty (low purchasing power)

Intersectoral management (9 votes)

  • Weak technical and human capacities
  • Lack of specialists
  • Conflicts of interests (between hunting, forestry and agricultural sector)
  • Competition between domestic animals and game
  • Habitat degradation / Overexploitation / Damage of fields (because of hunting and agriculture)
  • Absence of game reserves

Poaching (6 votes)

International cooperation issues (3 votes)

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

The issue "Resistance to innovations" wasn't categorized since it was considered as a cross-cutting problem applying to all categories.

Phase 2: Stakeholders analysis

High Power/High Involvement

  • President (Kazakhstan, Armenia, Turkmenistan)
  • Government
  • Academy of science
  • Education institutions
  • Hunters and fishers association
  • Parliament
  • Relevant authorities

High Power/Low Involvement

  • Government
  • Parliament
  • Relevant national authorities
  • Regional authorities

Low Power/High Involvement

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

Low Power/Low Involvement

  • Local government
  • Local authorities
  • Local community
  • NGOs
  • Association of indigenous peoples
  • Local associations of trappers and local hunters
  • Hunting enterprises
  • Outfitters (private tour operators)
  • Regional administration (Armenia)
  • Ministry of Health
  • Universities

Phase 3: Searching for solutions and actions

The participants were divided into three working groups. There was one completely Russian speaking group, one English speaking group and a mixed one with interpretation services. Each group worked on one of the prioritized issues. The groups were identifying corresponding solutions and proposing actions to implement them.

Group 1 dealt with the issue of Wildlife Policy and Legislation (English)

Group 2 searched for solutions and actions for Socio-economic problems (English/Russian)

Group 3 addressed the issue of Sectoral and Intersectoral Management (Russian)

Pict 9 - Working group 2

Each group's findings were shared and discussed afterwards in the plenary.

Group 1: Wildlife Policy and Legislation

0

Pict 10 - Presentation of results (working group 1)

Main Problems

Solutions

Activities

Responsibility

Stakeholder

Level

Weak Legislation

_ Development of wildlife legislation

- Law for hunting

- Adapt related laws on nature, forestry,

- Remove obstacles from other legislation

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

1. legal analysis of national situation

2. compilation of "best practice laws", suitable for the region, as well as legal recommendations derived from international legal frameworks

3. budget consultancy

4. arrangement for financial assistance

5. arrangement for technical assistance

6. identification of stakeholders (upon suggestion of national agency and international partner organization).

7. invitation of stakeholders into the process (depending on funding and final decision by lead agency)

8. inclusion of provisions for benefit sharing in hunting and related laws

9. ensure obligatory consistency

National responsible agency

National responsible lead agency

National responsible lead agency

National responsible lead agency


National responsible lead agency

National responsible lead agency

National responsible lead agency

National responsible lead agency


Lead agency for legal consistency

FAO IUCN CIC, etc.

FAO IUCN CIC, etc.

FAO


FAO
UN Donors
Aid agencies

FAO IUCN CIC, etc.

FAO IUCN CIC, etc.

national organizations, local communities, regional and other level of governments

FAO IUCN CIC, etc.

National

Regional


National


National


National


National


National


National


National

Lack of strategy and action plans

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

1. Government decision / resolution to develop strategy and action plan

2. Use of existing action plans (e.g. basic considerations from biodiversity action plans) in consultation with international organizations and develop national wildlife strategy and action plan

National responsible lead agency

National responsible lead agency

FAO / UN Donors WWF CIC

FAO IUCN CIC, etc.

National

National

Inappropriate allocation of revenues from hunting

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

_ Decentralization

_ Privatization of the rights to use wildlife

_ Diversity of ownership

1. Include provision for benefit sharing in national action plan as well as other related action plans

2. Make available best practices from same eco-region

3. Ensure provisions for creation of private and community based game areas and enterprises in relevant law

4. create pilot projects for private and community based game areas and enterprises

5. Ensure legal right to appeal for private and community based game area owners and enterprises

Government

National lead agency


Government

Government
NGO
Private sector
Legal lead agency

FAO IUCN CIC, etc.


FAO IUCN CIC, etc.

FAO CIC, etc.

NGO

Private sector

Group 2: Management

Pict 11 - Presentation of results (working group 2)

Main Problems

Solutions

Activities

Responsibility

Stakeholders

Level

Institutional deficiencies

_ Separation of executive and control functions

_ Establishment of a single wildlife management institution

Administrative reform (requires legislative reform as well)

President

Government

Parliament

Relevant authorities

NGOs

Users

Local authorities

Internationals organizations

National

Monitoring

(of game species,

species under protection)

_ Regular monitoring

_ Creation and maintenance of a cadastre

Hunting management

Assessment of hunting grounds

Elaboration of a common methodology

Relevant authorities

Scientific institutions and organizations

Regional center

Relevant authorities

Local authorities

Local communities

NGOs

Users

Donors / International Organizations

National,

regional

Lack of specialists

_ Training and capacity building

Establishment of a training educational center

Development of special training courses and programmes

Government

Relevant authorities

(educational, wildlife sector)

Local authorities

Users (juristic person)

NGOs / Donors

National

Regional (CIS)

International

Conflict of interests between:

- forestry

- agriculture

- hunting

management

_ Economical compensation

Development of appropriate legislation

Government

Parliament

Local Authorities

Users (of forestry, hunting, agriculture)

Insurance companies

Ministry of Finance and Economy

Local communities

NGOs

National

Regional

Group 3: Socio-economic problems

Pict 12 - Presentation of results (working group 3)

Main Problems

Solutions

Activities

Responsibility

Stakeholder

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

_ To make known the success stories

_ Increasing the access to information

_ Education programmes for hunters

_ Wide information about legislative issues

_ Organization of trainings of teachers of local schools and local communities

_ Development of special programmes for increasing the level of information among the local communities

_ Educational publications

Capacity building (at technical level as well as at community level)

Information collection and sharing

(meetings, interviews, participants meetings, questionnaires)

National game management agency with technical assistance of FAO,WWF,CIC and other related NGO'S

Related agencies, FAO,WWF,CIC and other related (national) NGO's and scientific organizations

NGOs,

Local authorities

Hunting associations

Media

Educational and scientific

institutions

Local communities

Natural resources users

National and local agencies

Private sector:

no incentive to invest in wildlife

_ Long term land rent + government guaranties for investors

_ Long term lease and contracts with clear description of rights and duties

Distribute knowledge (good practices) to decision makers

To set up the technical framework-leasing contracts (cahier des charges) including the biology, economy,...)

FAO and NGOs in countries (WWF, CIC, etc.) + media ( incl. hunting magazines and newspapers)

Hunting business

Associations of businessmen

Government

Parliament

Local communities have no legal benefits from wildlife

(e.g.% of wildlife income, employment, etc.)

_ Involvement of local communities in natural resources management

_ Change the benefits sharing for profit of hunters and local communities

_ Adapt the fees for resource use to the income of local people

_ Community based wildlife management projects

Review legislation for communities

Pilot projects involving communities in sustainable use of wildlife

Government

Parliament

Relevant Authorities

NGOs

Local communities

NGOs

Local administrations

Local hunting associations and hunting communities

Hunting business

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

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

Economic survey of hunting industry in CIS countries

Project for legislation gap - analysis and elaboration of recommendations about innovations aimed to avoid conflicts and to push land-users to complex using of the resources.

Project for promotion of multi-using of lands (hunting, forestry, agricultural and recreational sectors)

Diversification of prices for trophy hunting (better trophy - higher price)

WWF, IUCN, Game-managing authorities

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

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

Local Authorities

Hunting business

NGOs (Experienced in this field)

Local communities

Local hunting associations

Trophy hunting business (outfitters)

Game-managing authorities on both national and regional levels

Phase 5: Formulation of short project outline

The participants were tasked to apply these results to the specific situation in their countries and to formulate project outlines for a possible cooperation with the FAO. This work was done on a country by country basis. All countries besides Georgia and Kazakhstan presented their projects at the end of the workshop. Mongolia and Uzbekistan prepared a common project outline since they agreed on the same priority issue. We welcomed the initiative from the participants from Russia: Although during the workshop they were representing international organizations and not their country, they decided to prepare a project outline for Russia addressing a specific issue.

ARMENIA

Pict 13 - Ms. Naira Aleverdyan from the Ministry of Nature Protection, Armenia, presenting the project outline for Armenia

Main Problems

Solutions

Activities

Responsibility

Stakeholders

Level

Weak legislation

Improve national legislation in accordance with international standards

Development and adoption of wildlife legislation

Ministry of Environment

Government

Parliament

Ministries

Local authorities

NGOs

Hunting associations

CIC, WWF, FAO, etc.

National

Regional

International

Lack of hunting grounds/game areas

Establishment of hunting grounds/ game areas

Allocations of grounds

Definition of the property art

Choosing an investor

Ministry of Environment

Local authorities

Investors

Local communities

Wildlife users

Donors

International organizations

Hunting business

National

Regional

International

KYRGYZSTAN

Pict 14: Mr. Aitkul Burhanov, Deputy Director of State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry, Kyrgyzstan,
presenting working group results

Main Problems

Solutions

Activities

Responsibility

Stakeholders

1. Weak legislation

2. Weak monitoring of hunting resources

3. Lack of awareness and knowledge sharing

1. Work out a national strategy and action plan

2. Prepare a project on development of hunting facilities

1. Analyze the current situation

2. Create working groups

3. Elaborate a national strategy and action plan

4. Approve it

5. Realization of inventory /stock-taking

6. Planning

7. Adoption of the project to develop hunting facilities

8. Educational programmes

9. Trainings, information material etc.

Government

Authorities

Local authorities

Wildlife users

NGOs

Scientific institutions

Educational bodies

Donors (FAO, WWF, etc.)

Follow-up project tackling the same problems as indicated above

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

Besides the activities described above to organize

Studies on

- social aspects

- economical aspects

- environmental aspects

Consolidate all results

MONGOLIA and UZBEKISTAN

Pict 15: Prof. Dr. Gendenjav Nyamdavaa, Governor of Khovd province in Mongolia, presenting the working group results

Main Problems

Solutions

Activities

Responsibility

Comprehensive monitoring

(stock-taking, inventory) of all wildlife species and their habitats

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

1. Development of a modern methodology for monitoring

2. Learning about international best practices for monitoring

3. Capacity building

4. Technical support from international experts

5. Organization of hunting management

6. Concrete measures on all levels

Government

Relevant Authorities

RUSSIA

Pict 16 : Mr. Alexey Vaisman, WWF-TRAFFIC office for Russia and CIS presenting the project proposal for Russia

Main Problems

Solutions

Activities

Responsibility

Stakeholder

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

1. Estimation of population status of sable and few other significant species

2. To promote the better understanding by Government of socio-economical role of trapping as

  • source of livelihood
  • a tool for social adaptation of structure of local communities
  • an efficient tool to stop the process of marginalization of members of local communities
  • Promotion of practical recommendations

1. To estimate the status of population via the collection of scientific data and spot censuses on the key areas

2. The overview and fur market of Russia and neighboring CIS countries, their existing fur-harvest and fur-trade systems

3. Analysis and description of real socio-economical role of the trapping on local community level

4. Compilation of highlighting materials and distribution them among decision makers and stakeholders

5. Elaboration of practical recommendations for increasing of incomes for local people

NGO (WWF/IUCN)

All-Russian Institute for Hunt Management, Trapping and

Fur-bearing Animals Farming

· Local communities

· Trapping business

· Fur-trading business

· Hunting communities

· Hunt Managing Authorities

· FAO, WWF, IUCN, etc.

TAJIKISTAN

Pict 17: Prof. Hukmatullo Ahmadov, Director, Tajik Forestry Research Institute, presenting the project outline to tackle the main problems in the wildlife sector of Tajikistan

Main Problems

Solutions

Activities

Responsibility

Stakeholder

Lack of National Strategy and action plan

Development of national action plan

- Analyze the best international practices regarding the action plan

- Approve a strategy for wildlife management

Authorities

National coordinator

Ministerial committees

Authorities

NGOs

International organizations

Working groups

Weak legislation

Improvement of legislation and regulation

- Setting up working groups

- Analyze legislation in force

- Formulating a draft legislation

- Submit to parliament

Authorities

National coordinator

Ministerial committees

Authorities

NGOs

International organizations

Working groups

Unsustainable wildlife management and conservation

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

- Preparation of the documents

- Choosing a ground

- Capturing of tugai deer and its breeding

Forestry committee

Tajik National Park

Agency for Forestry and Hunting

The same as above as well as

Scientific institutions (e.g. zoological institute, forestry institute)

TURKMENISTAN

Pict 18: Mr. Timur Berkeliev from Turkmenistan presenting the project outline for his country

Main Problems

Solutions

Activities

Implementer

1. Out-of-date legislation

2. Too many contradictions in the legislation (e.g. between environmental and nature management)

3. Lack of the strategy for sustainable wildlife management

Elaboration of a modern hunting and game management legislation

Elaboration of a strategy and action plan

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

2. Establishment of an expert working group on legislation and development of a strategy

3. First draft for strategy game management

4. General analysis of the legislation in force and the National Strategy

5. Legislation draft (proposals on harmonization of legislation)

6. Agreement on the legislation with stakeholders

7. Submit it to the Parliament

8. Development of the final National Strategy and Action Plan

9. Agreement and approval of the final draft

International consultants

National coordinator

Experts working group (technical cooperation)

Law experts working group

Ministry of nature protection

At the end of the workshop, the participants committed themselves to communicate the workshop results upon their return home to the decision makers in their countries and to support all follow-up activities that would lead to the development of the wildlife sector in their home countries and in the region.

Pict 19 : Group picture at the end of the workshop

last updated:  Monday, June 29, 2009