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
 |
 |
 |
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.
- 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:
GEORGIA
(doc)
KAZAKHSTAN
(doc) - (Russian) - (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
|
High Power/Low Involvement
|
Low Power/High Involvement
|
Low Power/Low Involvement
|
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
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
|
FAO IUCN CIC, etc. FAO IUCN CIC, etc. FAO
FAO IUCN CIC, etc. FAO IUCN CIC, etc. national organizations, local communities, regional and other level of governments FAO IUCN CIC, etc. |
National Regional
|
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 |
FAO IUCN CIC, etc.
FAO CIC, etc. NGO Private sector |
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
|
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