1

ACHIEVING CONSERVATION GOALS THROUGH COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND EMPOWERMENT

Credit: Maksim Levitin

IUCN CEESP/SSC

Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULi)

2018 Central Asia Regional Meeting

Supara Chunkurchak, September 4-6, 2018

2

Citation: Cooney R, Michel S, Karimov K, Kecse-Nagy K, Melisch R and Timoshyna A (2018) Achieving Conservation Goals through Community Benefits and Empowerment. Report of the Central Asia regional meeting of the IUCN Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group, Supara Chunkurchak, Kyrgyzstan, September 2018. IUCN SULi. The views of the authors expressed in this publication are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN, GIZ, Panthera, Hunting and Conservation Alliance of Tajikistan, or TRAFFIC.

Acronyms

AEWA African European Waterbird Agreement AF Afghanistan CAMI Central Asian Mammals Initiative CBWM Community-Based Wildlife Management CEESP Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy CBC Community-Based Conservation CIC International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora CMS Convention on Migratory Species CoP Conference of the Parties CPW Collaborative Partnership on Wildlife FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GEF Global Environment Facility IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KG Kyrgyzstan KZ Kazakhstan MOU Memorandum of Understanding NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NGO Non-Governmental Organization SCIF Safari Club International Foundation SSC Species Survival Commission SULi Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group SWM Sustainable Wildlife Management TCM Traditional Chinese Medicine TJ Tajikistan TM Turkmenistan UNDP United Nations Development Program UZ Uzbekistan WSF Wild Sheep Foundation

3

Background

The IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULi) is a global expert volunteer network focused on enhancing the role of sustainable use of wild resources in supporting biodiversity conservation and community livelihoods. It was formed in 2012 as a joint initiative of IUCN's Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy and the Species Survival Commission, and brings together a unique array of thinkers, researchers and practitioners from government, intergovernmental, NGO, academic and community backgrounds.

Sustainable and integrated use of wild species and habitats plays an important role in conservation strategies and livelihood and resource management options for many Central Asian countries. However, illegal and/or unsustainable use continues, as does extensive land degradation, with challenges in terms of inadequate governance frameworks and institutions.

Strengthening the role of local communities in wildlife, forest and rangeland management is a key element for countering poaching and unsustainable use, building strong and effective institutions, and ensuring healthy wildlife populations. There is an increasingly important and recognized role for legal and sustainable hunting, for example, in supporting community-based conservation and wildlife management approaches, particularly in Pakistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Proceeds from sustainable and legal hunting not only benefit the wildlife but also the livelihoods of the people coexisting with wildlife.

Rangelands, forests, wild plants and other natural resources are to various extents likewise managed and used by local communities. Historically, under centralized state ownership, management of these different resources has been segregated. However, the devolution of rights and responsibilities to local communities calls for integration of the management of different resources. Integrated management with strong local community involvement can improve sustainability of resource use and support biodiversity conservation.

The community-based integrated natural resources management model also has its challenges, especially with regard to creating an inclusive framework and ensuring that local communities associate benefits to their livelihoods with the conservation of the resources used, in particular where different resource use options are not fully compatible, e.g. wildlife or forest vs. livestock grazing.

There is a critical need to bring together coherent and incisive thinking about the challenges faced in terms of wild resource governance; community rights, livelihoods and voice; and poaching (for local use/trade as well as international wildlife trade).

This workshop aimed to fill this gap, bringing together a range of expertise from across the region, with a strong focus on community-based wild resource management, to articulate and discuss key challenges and opportunities, set out

4

priorities for action, coordinate efforts, and enable the launch of a regional SULi subgroup for Central Asia.

This meeting was organised by IUCN (SULi and the Eastern Europe and Central Asia Office), Panthera, the Hunting & Conservation Alliance of Tajikistan, TRAFFIC and GIZ, with financial support generously provided by GIZ, the Wild Sheep Foundation, the Safari Club International Foundation, the Russian Mountain Hunters Club, and the CIC USA delegation.

 

5

The  Chunkurchak1  Recommendations  on  Community-­‐based  Wildlife  Management  in  the  broader  Central  Asian  region  

Community-­‐based  wildlife  management  

Community based wildlife2 management (CBWM) is the management of wild plants and animals in a way that empowers key stakeholders of local communities to play a role in management, and enables them to gain benefits (cultural, social and economic) from conserving wildlife.

Benefits may be derived from a range of activities including tourism, hunting (national or foreign), and wild plant or animal collection and trade. Different approaches may be appropriate and successful across different countries, species and ecosystems, and according on local circumstances.

Local communities are those who live in or near wildlife areas and are historically dependent on their use. Key stakeholders include local hunters and fishermen, livestock owners and herders, farmers, village foresters, reserve rangers, and all those who appreciate wildlife or are involved in its use.

A.  Why  is  community-­‐based  wildlife  management  important?  

This form of wild life management can deliver a range of important benefits both for conservation and for local communities.

Because CBWM engages communities to value wild species and landscapes, it can lead to:

1. increased community awareness of wildlife conservation and ecosystem health, and reduced motivation for illegal or unsustainable uses.

2. healthier land, pastures and forests through reduced reliance on intensive agriculture, lower livestock densities and adoption of more sustainable grazing practices, and active engagement of communities in addressing land degradation.

3. a pro-active community involvement in anti-poaching, monitoring and other conservation activities, leading to more effective law enforcement

1 Agreed by the participants of the IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihood Specialist Group regional meeting for Central Asia, held at Supara Chunkurchak, Kyrgyzstan, 4-6 September 2018

2 Throughout we use the term “wildlife” to refer to wild plants, animals and fungi.

6

4. enhanced ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change and climate change resilience through healthier ecosystems and associated local livelihoods.

5. species recovery and reduced threat of extinction, including increased carnivore numbers through increasing the prey base.

Because CBWM engages the community in wildlife management activities, it can:

6. build on and strengthen traditional ecological knowledge and cultural practices involving wildlife, and support their long term persistence.

7. generate sources of employment and income within remote, poor and often neglected rural communities.

8. support the self-esteem and social standing of traditional hunters, who are often criminalized under hunting bans, and support their valuable social role as wildlife stewards.

Because CBWM generates income streams and other benefits from wild species and healthy landscapes, it can:

9. diversify local income streams and thereby improve local livelihood resilience, food security, and access to education and health services, and improve people’s wellbeing.

10. help create a range of constituencies at national level that actively advocate for and support nature conservation, such as hunting organisations, tourism bodies, and private sector organisations involved in sustainable trade of wild plants.

B.  What  are  the  key  challenges?  

CBWM is a new approach in the wider Central Asian region – in several countries there are promising initiatives, while it remains almost absent in others. The establishment and growth of community-based wildlife management faces many challenges:

1. In some countries in the region, relevant legal and regulatory frameworks are absent, obsolete, inadequate or are not supportive of including communities in wildlife management.

2. Many government agencies, conservation NGOs, as well as the general public are unaware, misinformed or unsupportive of CBWM and sustainable use of wild resources.

3. In some countries, local community wildlife management initiatives face unfair competition and conflict with more powerful private commercial

7

interests and lobbies, which may monopolize resources and deter communities from engaging in wildlife management.

4. Typically communities face significant capacity or regulatory barriers to acquiring the rights (concessions, land-leasing, permits etc.) to use wildlife resources.

5. In some countries there is corruption in the distribution of benefits from use of wild species and the allocation of rights to use resources, and government agency personnel themselves may be involved in illegal use.

6. Communities typically lack capacity and knowledge to carry out science-based wildlife management, to establish well-functioning local management institutions, and to promote and market their wildlife products.

7. Communities have little or no voice in wildlife management decisions at national and international levels.

8. Reliable, in-depth information on the conservation and community dimensions of community-based wildlife use is often not visible or accessible to donors, NGOs, regulatory agencies, wildlife end-users (such as international hunters), and the general public.

9. Wildlife monitoring is sometimes absent or insufficient, and may have inadequate quality control and/or independence.

10. Anticipated national and regional plans (particularly China’s Belt and Road Initiative) for large-scale infrastructure development and expanded transport and trade links connecting Central Asia to major wildlife markets could dramatically intensify harvesting and other pressures on wildlife populations and destabilize conservation initiatives.

C.  Recommendations:  what  needs  to  happen?  

This meeting calls on governments, donors, conservation organisations, local communities and other key stakeholders (as relevant) to:

1. Recognize and strengthen the role of community-based wildlife management as a key element in initiatives aimed at reducing the key threats of land degradation (from overgrazing, fuelwood extraction and other causes) and of illegal wildlife use; and promoting ecosystem based adaptation to climate change; in ways that are adapted and sensitive to varying local cultural, political and social contexts and support and integrate local knowledge and cultural practices.

2. Support and promote the development of diverse local livelihood options based on sustainable use of wild resources – plants, animals, and landscapes – in ways that incentivize conservation. In particular, well-managed hunting (local and international) has proved to be successful, while responsibly

8

managed tourism and regulated trade in wild products (plant and animal) offers considerable potential.

3. Revising or establish legislative and regulatory frameworks that enable and support community management of wildlife.

4. Support the establishment of physical or virtual platforms for meaningful dialogue, information exchange and practical coordination in the wider Central Asia region on community wildlife management, bringing together all relevant stakeholders – particularly national government agencies, community organisations, conservation and development organisations, private sector entities and hunting organisations.

5. Establish robust conservation finance mechanisms through which a proportion of wildlife management revenues are held in conservation funds and invested in community-based conservation activities.

6. Assist community wildlife management organisations to document their wildlife management practices and communicate nationally and internationally on the community, conservation and ecosystem management benefits, and to exercise voice and influence at national and international level.

7. Establish and support targeted training and capacity building for government agencies, local community organisations and other relevant stakeholders in necessary skills including wildlife monitoring.

8. Strengthen the understanding of conservation and community dimensions among wildlife user groups including international hunters, hunting operators and hunting brokers, and private sector entities involved in wildlife trade, and promote best practice in their decision-making and operations.

9. Consider the development of broadly agreed Central Asian principles and criteria to provide a framework for the development of sustainable wildlife uses and their management

10. Support the development and strengthening of community-based wildlife management through translation/dissemination of best practices, case studies of successful initiatives, and relevant IUCN policies and technical documents

 

9

Summary  of  workshop  proceedings  

DAY  ONE  

SESSION  1:  SETTING  THE  SCENE    

The meeting was opened by Arsen Ryspekov (Deputy Director of the State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry, Kyrgyzstan (KG)). He highlighted the importance of use of wildlife for the cultures and livelihoods of people who depend on flora and fauna, as well as local economic development, and expressed his support of this meeting and initiative. He pointed out that wild plants and animals are renewable resources – that their use can continue eternally if done sustainably and smartly. Sustainable use and conservation are not contradictory, but mutually beneficial.

Rosie Cooney (Chair of IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULi)) briefly outlined the nature of SULi as a global expert network, and set out the objectives of the meeting, being to:

• examine and clarify what is the role and potential of sustainable use and community-based wildlife management in the region

• explore what are the key challenges and priorities for action

• discuss how IUCN SULi best contribute?

• set the basis for developing a regional SULi group for Central Asia.

She then highlighted that the meeting would seek to develop an agreed output statement, for circulation and use by participants among different audiences.

Shane Mahoney (SULi Deputy Chair and North American Regional Chair; Conservation Visions, Canada) reflected on the role of sustainable use globally. He emphasised that wildlife use has an important cultural dimension – and approaches to wildlife management need to support cultural as well as conservation benefits. He pointed out that attitudes to wildlife use were changing around the world and this needs to be recognized from the outset – this may mean diverse benefits streams need to be developed, rather than relying only on hunting. Shane discussed the deep connection and understanding of local people for wildlife they rely on, embodied in different forms of use. He stressed that all wildlife management programs must to respect and build on the specific practices and perspectives of local situations, and engage local community members as equal partners based on clear benefits for them, not be based on imposition of external priorities. Shane went on to highlight the enormously positive role sustainable use has played in some conservation programs – that of North America among others – as well as highlighting where it can go wrong, including money not reaching local people, and overexploitation (particularly where market forces involved). Use is not a panacea or

10

a safe bet, and in supporting development of wildlife management approaches we must learn the lessons of the past.

Key points from discussion included:

• A moratorium on hunting is proposed by parliament deputies and advocacy groups in KG. Currently the discussion considers a moratorium till 2030. This could have devastating consequences for wildlife, stimulating intensified overgrazing and illegal hunting, as local people will lose benefits from wildlife and have little reason to conserve them.

• Media coverage of hunting often does not recognise that local people often have very different concerns to the writers or readers. Humans will not tolerate wildlife that devastates crops/families without gaining any benefits. This is important, as government decisions are clearly now affected by media coverage.

Stefan Michel (IUCN CEESP/SSC SULi and SSC Caprinae Specialist Group) then provided a broad overview of the ecological, political and economic history of the region to give broad context to discussions, highlighting that those coming to the region often make recommendations that do not work, or are misconstrued by people who are supposed to implement.

He highlighted the diversity of landscapes and cultures across the region. Modern nation-states have been imposed only relatively recently, and most have large ethnic minorities. There are still large rural populations living very simple traditional lives. Hunting cultures are deep rooted and diverse, as illustrated by petroglyphs, archaeological structures (i.e. stone channels used to funnel animals over cliffs), and legends and oral traditions. There are many traditional means to limit/manage harvest, although these often do not survive in practice today or are not appropriate anymore.

In the pre-Soviet period, commercial markets probably led to overexploitation including near-extermination of saiga. Under Soviet control, formal wildlife management measures were instituted, although this included practices such as local overexploitation of wildlife, antler farms and introduction of alien species for hunting. Traditional hunting was widely suppressed, with (legal) hunting through hunters’ associations, which were often dominated by Russian elites. Local hunting continued nonetheless. With independence, state control lessened and commercial use increased. Conflicts in e.g. Tajikistan (TJ) increased access to firearms and massive poaching. Establishment of international (trophy) hunting (Kazakhstan (KZ), KG, TJ) led to saving of wildlife in some areas, but also problems including monopolization by elites and little local access/benefits. In areas not formally assigned to hunting companies the situation became effectively open access, with no management and massive poaching.

Community based approaches have been trialled only since the 1990s, starting with forestry. Some challenges include that allocation of responsibilities between different institutions and legal frameworks are complex and sometimes unclear. The

11

state owns all land and wild resources. Wildlife use rights are typically separate from other land use rights, making integrated management challenging.

Key points from discussion included:

• In post-independence, the civil war (in TJ) and following years the military shot many wild sheep/goats for food in totally uncontrolled manner. It was very easy for ordinary people to get guns also.

• In some countries government officials (e.g. law enforcement officers themselves) are very involved in illegal hunting. As they have guns and connections, local people may be afraid to challenge them when they find them poaching.

SESSION  2:  STATUS  AND  TRENDS  OF  WILDLIFE  POPULATIONS  IN  THE  REGION  

Stefan Michel initiated this session with a broad overview, and a panel of participants then provided more detail from their country.

Key points from Stefan’s talk included the following:

On plants, these are widely harvested for uses including food, medicine, livestock forage, and heating material. Some are close to local extinction e.g. Ferula spp in Tajikistan (driven by fairly new demand and international trade). Others are no longer used, like Fritillaria spp. Some fuel plants are locally almost lost as a resource (though extinction unlikely from this cause) e.g. teresken Krascheninnikovia ceratoides and saxaul Haloxylon spp. On fish, there are many introduced as well as native species present, and some introduced species (e.g. snakehead Channidae spp.) threatening indigenous species. Migratory species are also threatened due to dam development.

Reptiles are rarely used locally, but some are exported as pets, food, fodder, and for snake venom. Chinese workers on infrastructure projects have had major local impacts in some places. However, habitat loss is generally a greater issue than use in most cases. Wild birds are subject to a range of uses including sport hunting, traditional capture (e.g. chukar partridge Alectoris chukar), and falconry. There are some obvious declines e.g. Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus, saker falcon Falco cherrug. Some of these are clearly due to overexploitation (especially migratory species) or disturbance by hunting (e.g. spring hunting of waterfowl). Other key issues include hybridization with non-native varieties released for hunting purposes, habitat destruction, and powerlines.

For mammals, uses include local hunting (sport/food hard to distinguish); small-scale commercial fur use; medicinal (e.g. marmots Marmota spp.); tourist hunting; pet trade (e.g. Long-eared Hedgehogs Hemiechinus auritus). Among carnivores, the Tien Shan Brown Bear Ursus arctos isabellinus is poached for traditional medicine

12

and due to conflict, but density remains mainly reliant on forage availability. The wolf has declined dramatically in some areas of KZ due to intensive persecution, but otherwise relatively stable. The Golden Jackal Canis aureus is possibly increasing/expanding range, but population size unknown. Foxes (Vulpes spp.) are common, and often seen as pests. Snow Leopard Panthera uncia shows very variable abundance and trends – it has benefited from community-based management, but in some (non-community) hunting concessions are very few, and may be subject to illegal trapping. The Persian Leopard Panthera pardus saxicolor is mainly extinct in Central Asia. Eurasian Lynx Lynx lynx is locally common but poorly known, and caracal and small cats likewise poorly known. Most are formally protected but widely killed due to conflict, ignorance, illegal trophy hunting, and trade in fur or other body parts. Among wild sheep and goats there is intensive poaching on Urial Ovis vignei - illegal hunting is the main threat. Saiga Saiga tatarica’s dramatic declines due to poaching for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and disease are well-known. For the Goitered Gazelle Gazella subgutturosa, illegal hunting and border fences are main threats. For deer Cervidae spp., the strictly protected populations in region have undergone steep declines - this contrasts with their relatives under intensive use elsewhere in world which are doing well.

The panel discussion included Korsh Ararat (Iraq (IQ)), Khalil Karimov (TJ), Orken Shaymukhambetov (KZ), Malikyar Ghulam M. (Afghanistan (AF)), and Eldar Rustamov (Turkmenistan (TM)).

Key points included:

• In Iraq, birds are declining, with some exceptions, such as Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus, which is stable because no poison is used. Lesser White-fronted Goose is impacted by jet skis, dams by neighbouring countries, and decrease of 50-60% of marshland.

• In states with a predominant Muslim population Wild Boar Sus scrofa is not eaten, but are still killed and used medicinally. Likewise Gray Wolf Canis lupus and marmot. Chinese demand for certain bird species is increasing.

• In KG and some other countries, native Central Asian subspecies of Common Pheasant Phasianus colchicus are impacted by introduction of foreign pheasants.

• Camera trapping appears to indicate Persian Leopards are escaping poaching in Iran by escaping to TM.

• In AF, has been no management of wildlife at all for last 40 years. Currently no institutional framework. Hunting for livelihoods and for skin markets major threats. Have reduced threats to Snow Leopards in some areas through employing hunters as rangers. However, it is very hard to reduce illegal hunting where areas are not secure. Urial is preserved in some areas without law or formal enforcement due to local traditions – there is good chance for urial. Markhor Capra falconeri is ok in some areas despite/due to local hunting.

13

• In Iran, there is inadequate data to say much on gazelle populations. There are (officially) 70-100 Asiatic Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus venaticus in the country, and plenty of Urial, Mouflon Ovis gmelini, and about 8 hybrid populations (between both). Hunting is a major tradition – both trophy hunting as well as livelihoods hunting.

• In KZ, the saiga situation is complex. Infrastructure including fences are a problem, as well as poaching and disease.

Yuan Liu (Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)) provided an overview of the origins and functioning of CITES, and reviewed CITES’ recent advances on the subject of livelihoods. He highlighted that CITES is not about banning trade, but about regulating it, drawing attention to the CITES resolutions recognizing the benefits of trade in wildlife and the benefits of well-managed trophy hunting. He further noted that land use change and loss of habitat is the greatest threat overall to wildlife. Among other points, he emphasized that there is an enormous communications challenge concerning wildlife use/trade and its importance for local livelihoods.

Katalin Kecse-Nagy (with data analysis by Hiromi Shiraishi; TRAFFIC) provided an overview of wildlife trade in and from the region and main dynamics of trade, in a detailed and extensive talk. She pointed out that all countries in the region are Parties to CITES with the exception of TM, and there are no internal border controls within the Eurasian Economic Union (Russia, Belarus, Armenia, KZ and KG). She highlighted that China’s Belt and Road Initiative could dramatically affect patterns of wildlife trade in the region. She covered patterns of live exports (reptiles and birds in particular); hunting trophy trade; sturgeon Acipenseridae spp.; re-exports of Saiga horn and its products from non-range States, illegal trade in Snow Leopard; and trade in medicinal plants. Some notable points made included that Uzbekistan (UZ) is one of the world’s biggest exporters of live reptiles (Horsfield’s Tortoise Testudo horsfieldii, mainly sourced from the wild); trophy trade had increased in recent years from KG; trade in captive-bred and often hybrid falcons had emerged in recent years (with exports of specimens taken from the wild declining markedly); re-exports of medicinal products containing Saiga had increased; Snow Leopard seizures had decreased; and there has been a massive shift from wild sturgeon to aquaculture sources of caviar, after sturgeon stocks crashed due to dams, poor governance and overfishing.

Some points emerging in discussion included:

• In dealing with illegal wildlife trade, one participant highlighted that a community-based approach was incredibly important because community members acted as ears and boots on the ground. They know better than anyone what is going on. Some seizures have happened due to this information from communities. After seizures, though, it is hard to bring people to justice as there is often corruption, and individuals involved often have powerful connections.

14

• Information exchange platforms for wildlife law enforcement agencies active in some regions were highlighted as important.

Dana Yermolyonok (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)) highlighted lessons from relevant recent GIZ-supported work. GIZ does not focus specifically on community-based wildlife management anymore – their ongoing projects concern mostly ecosystem-based approaches to natural resource management. Current projects include a project on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes in TJ, and a project on community-based management of walnut forest (including biodiversity conservation) in KG.

She presented experiences and lessons learned from their work in TJ. A project started in 2008 to establish community-based conservancies. Currently 4 have been established, 3 of which are run by NGOs. Surveys for the Asiatic Ibex Capra sibirica, Marco Polo sheep Ovis ammon polii and Markhor have been conducted. Hunting is conducted by traditional hunters organised in local NGOs or family-run businesses. The Agency of Forestry assigns hunting areas for 10 years and determines game management, plans and quota once ungulate population numbers are up.

GIZ provided technical support in the form of capacity development, equipment, marketing for tourism and hunting, and predator proofing of agricultural activities. Salary for rangers was not included. Key challenges faced included poaching by external people, land-use issues, and resistance to the idea of community-based wildlife management from commercial hunting firms fearing competition with successful alternatives.

Lessons learned included that clarifying long term use rights is very important; local hunters need support in forming legal entities (NGO, business); initial investment may be required if population numbers or legal status of the managing group are not adequate; and internal community issues can hamper successful implementation. Further steps could include integrative land use management approaches (ILUMA), taking into account climate change, with wildlife use being an integral part of ILUMA; and a regional expert network enabling better use of knowledge pool in Central Asia – this would also be useful for implementation of projects by development agencies.

Dana highlighted that this SULi workshop would be useful to gather ideas for proposal development, support strategic communication (prepare decision-makers to mainstream sustainable use of ecosystems in policies), and provide an accessible network.

“Illegal and/or unsustainable hunting is a key threat to migratory birds and mammals in Central Asia”

Christiane Roettger, Convention on Migratory Species

15

Christiane Roettger (Secretariat of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS)) discussed the role of sustainable use and livelihoods in CMS. She provided background on the functioning of CMS, indicating that use of Appendix I-listed species was prohibited apart from in certain specific circumstances. She highlighted that illegal and/or unsustainable hunting/harvesting is a major threat for migratory species of mammals and birds in Central Asia. More than half of the populations of bird species listed in the African European Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) are declining.

At the CMS Conference of the Parties (CoP), Decisions are made for three years (until the next CoP), whereas Resolutions are long term mandates. Two decisions have been made that touch upon community-based wildlife management:

• A decision calling for an analysis of the direct and indirect impacts of wild meat take, trade and consumption on CMS-listed species;

• A second decision calling for a study of best-practice cases of community involvement in the conservation and management of CMS-listed species, including factors such as land rights, management responsibilities, authority over distribution of benefits by communities and spiritual values.

One tool for implementation is the Central Asian Mammal Initiative (CAMI). The CAMI Programme of Work includes activities such as a feasibility assessment of hunting to support conservation and local development, and establishing insurance schemes. In Central Asia, at the national level, hunting and trade laws are well developed, as are biodiversity monitoring and sustainable livelihood schemes. But sustainable wildlife use is not done in many countries yet.

Another tool is the Argali Action Plan, developed pursuant to the CAMI for implementation by Argali Ovis ammon range states. This contains sustainable use and livelihood-related activities aiming at including local communities in wildlife management through granting management rights, revenue investment in conservation, equitable benefit sharing, and creating alternative livelihoods. Further activities aim at ensuring a sustainable offtake across range states and developing legal and institutional capacity for hunting area management, quota setting, licensing and so forth.

The European Goose Management Platform (developed under AEWA) developed a plan for sustainable use of goose populations and is good example of implementation of sustainable use-based approaches. This covers four species, each with a species management plan developed. A Working Group of experts from the region holds an annual meeting to discuss the status of populations, set quota, and provide guidelines on sustainable use and adaptive harvest mgmt.

Participants raised the following points in discussion:

16

• One participant suggested the term “illegal hunting” puts a bad light on legitimate hunting, and argued that the term poaching should be used as it indicates a different behaviour than hunting i.e. carried out by different people using different practices. However, Christiane clarified that for some protected species, the actual threat is indeed illegal activities by otherwise legal hunters. She gave an example of a survey indicating that more than 1000 Kazakh hunters did not have any idea about the protection status of the lesser white-fronted goose and sometimes shot them in the course of otherwise legitimate hunting. While this constitutes illegal hunting, it would not constitute poaching.

• The Bukhara Deer Cervus elaphus bactrianus management plan was raised, as a plan that appears to be dormant, even though the species lends itself very well for hunter contribution in the management plan.

• Questions were raised regarding the signing of an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the CMS and the Born Free Foundation, given the opposition of the latter to sustainable use. Christiane answered that CMS has partnerships with different organisations (including IUCN), that Born Free also conducts conservation projects, and that sustainable hunting is just one tool out of many to do conservation.

SESSION  3:  COMMUNITY-­‐BASED  WILDLIFE  MANAGEMENT  IN  THE  WIDER  CENTRAL  ASIA  REGION  

Khalil Karimov (Hunting & Conservation Alliance of Tajikistan, IUCN SULi) introduced and explained the concept of community-based wildlife management (CBWM) in the region and discussed why it is important. He highlighted that historically, traditional hunting management constituted community-based management. Today it takes a different form. The administratively-defined community usually does not have formal authority regarding land use and wildlife management, and usually only a small number of key people from the local community will be involved in wildlife management, constituted in a structure of an NGO or a limited liability company as legal entity.

In TJ, CBWM has achieved good results – based on a combination of traditional ecological knowledge and academic knowledge, populations have recovered. Challenges for the approach include low education level in communities – only local knowledge available, no academic; low awareness about global problems; a lack of understanding of current rural livelihood issues by urban populations; low understanding of national and international regulations; and low living standards causing hardship.

“Protection of wild species without the support of local people is expensive and only rarely effective”

Khalil Karimov (Hunting and Conservation Alliance of Tajikistan)

17

CBWM is important for a number of reasons. Conservation ideally needs small communities, lower numbers of livestock, and a small number of communities using the wild resources in a given area. Bringing money into communities can result in excessive growth and eventually increase pressures on the environment. Careful long term planning is required. CBWM has advantages over other forms of wildlife management. Another option would be to use private concessions, not run by locals. These may be successful in the short term, but will result in local people feeling excluded, in the long-term leading to opposition. Khalil highlighted the key point that protection of wild species without support by local people is expensive and only rarely effective. Finally, CBWM is an important tool to start changing local people’s mindset in favour of conservation.

Khalil’s presentation was followed by country presentations reviewing current approaches – CBWM where this was being used, or other approaches where countries were not currently using CBWM.

Korsh Ararat (NatureIraq) opened this session by reviewing key elements of biodiversity conservation in Iraq, where there is currently little formal management by communities or co-management, but some projects are working with communities for conservation. Key points included:

• project on key biodiversity areas of Iraq: > 42 sites identified according to the Key Biodiversity Areas (http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/home) criteria with help from experts from abroad;

• Persian Leopard project: this is a camera-trapping project, resulting in many species found: Wild Boar, Wild Goat Capra aegagrus (which was thought to be extinct), Gray Wolf (populations increased), Striped Hyena Hyaena hyaena, and species unknown for Iraq, e.g. the Scrub Warbler Scotocerca inquieta. The Persian Leopard range has declined due to poaching and climate change: 12 Persian leopards killed in 1000km2 study area, over 10 years. Threats include illegal hunting and land mines;

• idea for first protected area established in systematic way, project idea developed and applied in collaboration with IUCN;

• local ecological knowledge can be very important for conservationists with formal education: locals e.g. may know where to harvest water, where to find leopards etc;

• some community-based management has been attempted in the marshlands, with uncertain success due to the dramatically declined water discharge of Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, but there are active efforts ongoing to involve local communities as much as possible;

• when involving and informing local people, need to keep it simple.

18

Ghulam Malikyar (National Environmental Management Agency, AF) highlighted that wildlife conservation started 15 years ago in AF - no assessment on biodiversity existed before that time. They have produced an overview of species numbers in different taxonomic groups, an ecoregion map of AF produced with involvement of local communities, and identified international bird sites including resting and feeding areas.

Further progress includes: national legislation drafted on environment, hunting, wildlife and endangered species (wildlife crime included in criminal law); development of a national biodiversity strategy and action plan (NBSAP), a national protected area system plan, and a national priority plan for snow leopard. Four national parks have been declared since 2014 (Band Amir, Wakhan, Shah Fooladi, Kol-e-Hashmat) with management plans developed with community support. Further, a list of protected species has been developed, a working group for biodiversity established, communications campaigns conducted, as well as capacity building - a ‘good number’ of experts are available now. With respect to illegal trade, a good number of wild animals have been seized and released back into the wild (exception: 4 confiscated lions went to the zoo because no option for reintroduction).

In addition to political instability, threats to wildlife include smuggling, poverty, illegal markets and trade, deforestation, illegal hunting, land use change, climate change. Recommends capacity building for CBWM as a priority for the country.

Abdollah Salari (Wildlife Research and Conservation Society, Iran) reviewed the situation in Iran. Abdollah began by providing basics on Iranian biodiversity, and reviewing the various types of protected areas recognized in the country and the number of Red Listed species (ca. 100 species). He explained that hunting is traditionally deeply rooted in Iranian culture. It is primarily recreational i.e. farmers during wintertime have nothing to do and go hunting, often with little knowledge of the conservation status of species. Pheasant hunting is banned in Iran.

The Wildlife Research and Conservation Society has made efforts to bring hunters and environmentalists together. They have several on-going projects, including making database of the Natural History Museum of Iran, and developing an action plan for key and endangered waterfowl in Urmia Lake using a participatory approach including local rural communities. One of the suggestions in the action plan is to establish a clay-dove shooting range to initiate hunter education and awareness raising, and give them something else to do in winter other than going hunting. They are keen to do CBWM in the country.

Arsen Ryspekov (State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry, KG) began the KG presentation by outlining the activities of the Department for Natural Resources. He highlighted that 14.7 million hectares hunting areas are state-owned, required to report hunting to the authorities, and are managed by 50 entities – 3 are state-owned, while some are local. A new hunting law has been developed to

19

provide a framework on hunting entities and hunting regulations: the species, seasons, terms, limit etc. An identification card for hunters was established. 25% of hunting fees is paid out to local administrative communities where the animal was hunted; 35% to state authorities for conducting conservation and monitoring activities; and another part of the fee can go back to the entity managing the hunting ground if use for game management purposes is proven.

In the case of poaching: the detecting officer will get a share of the fine issued by the authorities. The poacher faces 3-5 years in prison, and a large fine. Poachers harvesting non-protected animals only pay a fine. General fines for damage to environment also exist.

Zairbek Kubanychbekov (Panthera Foundation, KG) continued the KG presentation with more detail on community management. CBWM pilots were initiated in 2011, funded by GIZ, and are carried out in two regions: Issyk Kul and Chuy; with 5 more CBWM areas established more recently in Alay, Naryn and Talas regions. 600 000 ha are now protected by communities. The projects included wildlife training and education events in order to conduct wildlife surveys.

After 4 years of implementation, an increase in Eastern Roe Deer Capreolus pygargus, Elk Cervus canadensis and Asiatic Ibex populations has been noted, as well as an increase in number of tourists coming to watch the animals.

A hunting moratorium was announced in one of the regions for 2 years, and is a key threat to this progress. Political groups now face calls for a national moratorium for five years. Community members in the CBWM entities are volunteering their time, and people cannot be expected to work for seven years for wildlife conservation without an income, so this long waiting time may undermine the motivation of the CBWM members. Further, the CBWM entities have no surety of tenure over hunting areas, as these are only provisionally assigned and they have to reapply for these in competition with regular hunting businesses. The availability of financial resources is low.

Orken Shaymukhambetov (Kazakh Tourism National Company) provided an overview of wildlife management in KZ. Species listed in the Red Book of KZ cannot be hunted without special permit from the government, and such a permit is not easy to obtain. The country has also created a network of special protected areas

“A key threat to the community-based conservancies in Kyrgyzstan is that they have had a hunting moratorium for two years, and face calls for a five year moratorium. People can’t be expected to work for wildlife conservation for seven years without some income, and they may lose motivation.”

Zairbek Kubanychbekov (Panthera Foundation, Kyrgyzstan)

20

where hunting is prohibited completely (e.g. for Saiga). KZ is a large country and requires a lot of funds to effectively cover wildlife management across the country. In 2005, KZ adopted a European model for wildlife management where the territory is divided in hunting districts, run by different entities (state and NGO). Management entities are entitled to manage the area for a number of years, after which the managing entity can be changed by the state. In addition, a state owned company conducts environmental inspections in other parts of the country where hunting grounds are not assigned to a management entity.

Munosib Madimarov (Hunting & Conservation Alliance of Tajikistan) provided a perspective from the community based conservancy Parcham, in the Pamir Mountains in TJ. Activities in this community-based conservancy (CBC) have been ongoing for 10 years between 2008-2018 with GIZ & Panthera support. The main building blocks of the CBC were those hunters who wanted to find a different livelihood. Later, conservationists joined, while the broader society slowly gained an interest in the CBC. Over these 10 years, the ibex population has increased 10-fold (from ca 40-60 up to 700-800); wildlife appreciation has grown; more rational use of pastures was introduced; and microloans were introduced where the people see ibexes as the capital.

We can understand the situation by looking at the village of Roshorv in 1914 compared to 2010. In 1914 there were 37 households, a sustainable rotational grazing system and rational use of water, forest and ibex. In 2010, there are 160 households. Corrals and grazing areas have expanded, there are overlapping grazing areas, conflicts and overgrazing; the water irrigation system is dry; there is expanding desertification; the distance villagers are traveling for wood collection distance has increased up to >20km travel; and ibex populations are scattered. Challenges include “murky” wildlife management at the government level, with responsibilities for quota setting in particular “ping-ponging” between agencies, and private business interests raising the risk of monopoly over wildlife resources.

In discussion, the following points emerged:

• It was clarified that governments own the land, and lease it to the community as a whole for ten years at a time. However the hunting concession is separate and contracted to the CBC entity for only five years, and for only part of the leased land. While this is potentially problematic for the communities in that it is rather short term and means long-term management planning is difficult, at least it means the hunting areas leased to private entities will be periodically reviewed.

• The question was raised as to why all funding comes from funding bodies and there is no involvement of philanthropists. One participant pointed out that there are various forms of philanthropy involved: trophy hunters are in some way philanthropists, as some of their payment goes to local community, and they sometimes make additional donations; and local people protect the wildlife without getting paid directly. The idea of CBWM is that the resource pays for

21

itself, and philanthropy should be looked at to bridge hardship and gaps. Another highlighted that philanthropy could have huge potential in the region, as it does in Africa.

Eldar Rustamov (Society of Hunters and Fishermen of Turkmenistan) highlighted that in TM they are drafting a new hunting law. They have established a list of key hunted species - birds and mammals. Threats to wildlife in TM include poaching and habitat destruction - even generalist species now have problems finding habitat.

Conservation measures being used include monitoring using camera traps (including hunted species). But there is no connection between government agencies, and no communication and collaboration across sectors (customs, border control, police, rangers) to prevent poaching. Leopards come to TM from Iran, due to human pressure in Iran, and because more habitat and food are available in TM.

Hunting areas have been registered, but have probably developed in suboptimal manner. However, the new law containing provisions on hunting territories is being drafted that will designate hunting areas in a different way. Past traditional hunting practices can help to identify solutions for the future.

Discussion session

The chair summarised that so far only two countries have established CBWM (TJ and KG), although efforts to involve or benefit communities in some ways are going on in other countries. She called on the group to articulate successes and challenges of community involvement in the region.

Key points raised were as follows:

• In KG, opposition to wildlife use by certain groups influences policy, and there is little understanding of CBWM. There is a need for a document that explains the need for CBWM.

• The KG state agency noted that in order to support community management, strengthened legislation is a priority: penalties for illegal hunting are different in all states even for the same species. It would be good to get a memorandum that would make the fines the same for all countries, with increased fines for foreign citizens.

• In TJ, monitoring of wildlife in the conservancies is done through scientific surveys by the Academy of Sciences, with support from Panthera and the

“Illegal hunting in Afghanistan cannot be stopped without the help of the local communities”

Ghulam Malikyar, National Environment Protection Agency, Afghanistan

22

community. In KG, monitoring is done by the government jointly with the Academy of Sciences, NGOs, and others.

• Regarding the potential to develop CBWM in KZ, one participant raised the issue of “who is the ‘community’’ in this situation, given that ca 100 000 people live in hunting areas. Hunting is a secondary land use of lands used also for livestock grazing and cultivation, and different concessions for farming and hunting can be issued for a certain territory, which can be managed by the same or different entities or villages/village subsets.

• However, another participant highlighted that CBWM is indeed taking place in KZ, highlighting the Ustyurt Saiga CBC project in western KZ.

• One participant raised the question of what habitat enhancement/conservation activities are being carried out in CBC areas? In response, it was explained that in a Tajikistan CBC area, Marco Polo Sheep have now been protected for 7 years with material support from GIZ. Monitoring showed that over the first three years, the herd increased from 112 to 317 head. With revenue from tourists and foreign hunters, pasture land was leased and grazing by local farmers was stopped. Part of the revenue was used to support alternative livelihoods. The Marco Polo Sheep population continued to increase to > 800 head, despite use of the area for grazing thereby in turn increasing the revenue from tourism and hunting. Part of this revenue has been used for establishing set-asides of key habitat without livestock grazing. Further, the migration habits of the sheep have changed: before the intervention the population migrated, but now it is resident, suggesting that increased protection and habitat quality have improved.

• It was questioned why wildlife is disappearing in TM, despite the hunting ban? In response, Eldar highlighted that TM is behind in experience as compared to KZ and TJ, and that assigning wildlife management entities is not done properly. In addition, borders of hunting territories are not indicated and hunters just go about wherever they like.

• It was queried whether the recommendations of the workshop would be widely available, including online? In TM, it would only be possible to take forward the CBWM issue when the new hunting law is developed. The workshop recommendations and a letter to the ministry of foreign affairs would be necessary to try to include CBWM in the development of the law.

• In Iraq, it was highlighted that mountain villages were abandoned during wartime and people are now returning, and the question was raised as to whether these communities have a community spirit that could be used to build CBWM initiatives? Korsh replied that people are not knowledgeable about the ecosystem and lack capacity - a vision needs to be developed by the community and conservationists. Due to climate change and decreased water discharge, in the South the returning people are dependent on conversion of marshland to agricultural lands, but lack of clean water is big problem.

23

• Malikyar noted that in AF, the cooperation of communities is essential to address illegal hunting. Local communities were consulted to inform the development of the first hunting law in the country, and through these consultations, interaction with the local communities increased. Good hunting regulations were developed, but security in the country is a major hindrance to move forward. Poverty is a major hindrance. People accept the hunting law, but alternative livelihoods need to be provided. Hunting and the use of trophy hunting is embedded in the new law. The first hunting associations have started to form, as well as a protected area committee, supporting the development of management plans and so forth.

• Abdollah highlighted some key challenges in Iran for CBWM. The first is land tenure: leasing of the land for community-based hunting concessions is just for 5 years, which is too short. Further, benefit sharing between community and the government is not clear. There is conflict between poachers and game wardens with casualties on both sides (game wardens cannot carry arms). Managers of CBWM prefer international trophy hunters over Iranian hunters, because they can ask a higher price, which effectively excludes the local hunters from CBWM. Finally, greater public awareness is necessary: people do not know the protected areas, protected species, or hunting regulations.

• KG participants were requested to give more details about the procedure of assigning hunting concessions. In response, Zairbek indicated that NGOs participate in a competition for managing the hunting concession. The NGOs are mostly formed by former poachers who realise that their activities are not sustainable, and therefore organize themselves into NGOs. The competition will ensure that the NGOs have the capacity to manage the concession. Orken pointed out the risk of rich hunting businesses coming in with a proposal and being given preference over the NGOs, despite the project not incorporating a conservation component. However, this was countered: the state agency can check whether the agreement terms have been fulfilled. Zairbek stressed that the local people living in the area are the best candidates for managing the local wildlife, rather than outsiders. The damage payments collected from intercepted illegal activities in conservancies have benefitted local people, which has incentivized the people to become active in protecting and managing their local wildlife.

To close the day, Rosie Cooney summed up key points from discussions. She noted that there is a long history of diverse hunting cultures in this region. This was managed through traditional management structures, but these have been destroyed or overwhelmed by the Soviet era, the opening up of commercial markets, and widespread conflict. Today, it is clear that unsustainable/illegal harvest and hunting is a major threat to wild species in the wider Central Asia region, alongside land use changes (particularly overgrazing) and infrastructure development. The poaching in some cases includes involvement of law enforcement

24

bodies themselves. We have international frameworks to address overexploitation and conservation, but incorporation of livelihoods in these and in their implementation are at a very early stage. Further, the basic structure of these frameworks (CITES, CMS) rest on the assumption that for more threatened species, there should be less or no hunting/use – this poses a challenge to the approaches that use hunting as a means to conserve threatened populations. Nevertheless, it is clear both that prohibitions on hunting in some countries are not associated with wildlife recoveries, and that protection of wild species populations without support by local people is expensive and only rarely effective.

It is clear both from some examples in the region, as well as Shane’s examples from around the world, that one way of addressing widespread illegal hunting and unsustainable use is supporting communities to benefit from legal and sustainable use. While we have mainly looked at hunting today this likewise applies to other forms of use/not hunted wild resources. CBWM is currently very patchy in the region. In some countries there is no formal framework for it at all. In others it is being implemented, but there are serious barriers, including state ownership of land and the difficulty of devolving management to the local level, the lack of secure long term tenure for communities over hunting areas, unclear wildlife management responsibilities between agencies, government malpractice, monopolization of hunting by private concessions, lack of objective criteria for quota-setting, and changing social attitudes moving against the acceptability of hunting. A major new threat on the horizon is the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, which has the potential to transform land use and wildlife trafficking patterns in very concerning ways.

With respect to the output and recommendations of the meeting, Rosie highlighted that these would be agreed by the participants of the meeting to reflect their discussions and conclusions, and would be tools that any participants could use in a range of contexts.

DAY  2  

SESSION  FOUR:  THE  POTENTIAL  OF  WILD  PLANT  TRADE  IN  CENTRAL  ASIA  

Anastasiya Timoshyna (TRAFFIC) opened the day in a special session focused on the role and potential of wild plant trade in the wider Central Asia region. She highlighted that in terms of status and trends, there are major information gaps for a huge proportion of medicinal plants. On the demand side, trade is increasing. It is clearly a major livelihoods issue – many of the poorest people in the world are wild-harvesting plants, and a great deal of traditional knowledge is involved.

Key challenges include that the situation regarding rights to harvest, tenure and access is often very unclear – it is often not clear who has the rights to harvest, and there is a great deal of informal harvest.

25

However, there is also an opportunity for landscape level conservation through sustainable plant trade. Anastasiya introduced FairWild (www.fairwild.org) as a standard to promote sustainable, fair harvesting and trade. She highlighted that plants are a very cheap resource compared to animals, and that the “fair” piece of the equation is often harder to implement than the ecological piece.

Anastasiya discussed liquorice in particular, as offering huge opportunity for expansion of the application of FairWild certification in the region, with great interest from China, as well as the European and North American markets. There is a project already up and running in KZ, which involves business-to-business relationships of private sector working with harvester communities/enterprise. The fourteen harvesters are all men. The harvest looks rather like agriculture and uses a tractor, but it is indeed a wild harvest – the liquorice grows without any cultivation, with the sustainability of harvest dependent on the depth to which the tractor goes. The overseas buyer of the liquorice (in this case Traditional Medicinals) pays into a premium fund and this money is used for community social projects. Over ten years they have paid 44 000 euro to the collection enterprise as the FairWild Premium Fund, on top of the fair price paid. The collectors decide how these funds are spent – one year they decided to use them for a vacation, another to build a structure in the fields, another for medical care.

Anastasiya went on to explore the possibility that plant trade could be utilized as a way to help conserve animal species, building on the fact that plants are growing where animals live. She described a situation in India where sustainable harvesting practices for the Bibhitaki tree Terminalia bellirica was saving the nesting sites of the Great Pied Hornbill Buceros bicornis (which nests in it), as well as boosting local income. Likewise, use of the Giant Panda-Friendly Standard for harvest of wild medicinal plants such as Schisandra in the Upper Yangtze ecoregion in China was reducing disturbance to the Giant Panda Ailuropoda melanoleuca.

She highlighted that there is a lot of opportunity to work with industry in the region. One major need is documentation of key resources in trade. There is a complex regulatory environment for use and trade of plants, with ministries of environment, agriculture, forests, health, and commerce all often playing a role. She raised the question of whether wild plant trade could provide an option for smart management of land, and more resilient land uses for climate adaptation.

Discussion followed the presentation, with some points emerging including the following:

• The hunting season is limited to a few months of the year, and local communities typically collect wild plants for much of the rest. Much of the current international demand is driven by China, and there is evidence of some illegal harvesting, e.g. for Cordyceps. There is no healthy demand from other markets, and that needs to be built.

26

• One participant highlighted that some of the most popular plants are weedy and grow well in disturbed areas rather than being linked to high conservation value habitats, pointing out these would offer little potential for conserving species or high quality habitat. For instance, Aconitum in KG grows well on overused pastures, and capers Capparis spp. like desertified areas. A comprehensive review of such potential benefits of sustainable wild use needs to be conducted/considered.

• Participants highlighted the legal complexities of seeking to conserve species/areas through wild plant harvest, due to the fact that harvest rights for plants are granted separately from other use rights (such as wildlife management or grazing). This means that integrated management of habitat is not straightforward, and raises the potential for conflicts between users.

• For example, a Tajik participant highlighted that in an area in TJ where communities are managing Urial, recently 100 Afghans hired by a Tajik company turned up to collect Ferula (including Ferula assafoetida), with authorisation to produce 200 t of Ferula juice.

• There were also confirmations from participants that such work could be of benefit and interest to the countries in the region. For example, in TM the president has a particular interest in medicinal plants, and compendiums of national medicinal plants have been published.

• The participants found the FairWild Standard interesting as a framework to look into how it (or some of its elements) could be applied to other taxa and contexts e.g. sustainable hunting practices.

• There was a discussion about the relevance of the landscape-wide approach to conservation (including of other species) that sustainable management of trade in wild plant resources may offer. A Kazakh participant gave an example of Artemisia spp that overlap the hunting concessions’ areas in KZ, which could provide useful incentive for conservation if a market existed.

• The CITES Secretariat linked the discussion to the upcoming CITES & Livelihoods workshop planned for the following month in China. It was also noted that the use of certification approaches, like FairWild, to support CITES implementation is a useful complementary mechanism.

• There may be challenges involved in communicating what was happening to local communities if plant collection rights were granted to individuals who then turned up to harvest them in areas communities were using for other purposes, particularly where high value plants are being locally harvested informally and semi-illegally.

• In final comments, it was highlighted that multiple approaches to solve complex issues are needed, and this wild plants trade opportunity presents a component of such approaches, to contribute to the wider landscape-level conservation of

27

sensitive ecosystems. China can be a positive drive for change, and working in collaboration with e.g. TCM companies in China sourcing from Central Asia could be an interesting opportunity. It seems that there is a lack of the international market awareness of the availability of medicinal and aromatic plant resources and potential links to the conservation stories from the region – this is good to take on. More positive examples are needed.

SESSION  FIVE:  WHAT  PRACTICES  ARE  THREATENING  CBWM  IN  THE  REGION?    

This discussion was led by Khalil Karimov, calling in particular on the expertise of Maksim Levitim (Tourism guide, KZ), Yuan Liu (CITES), Stefan Michel (IUCN Caprinae Specialist Group), KG delegates, and Jack Atcheson (Wild Sheep Foundation).

After considerable discussion in this and subsequent sessions, the following emerged as key points:

Inadequate/absent/unsupportive regulatory framework

• Some countries are still establishing environmental legislation and agencies. In other, the responsibilities for wildlife management decisions are unclear. Typically, there is no clear legal provision or support for community-based wildlife management.

• The regulatory/management situation is often complex and there are conflicts of interest between governments, private sector and communities. For example, in KZ there is ca 200 million ha of hunting territory: some is managed by hunter associations, which are NGOs with municipal district organisations, while some is managed by commercial entities. Communities are in or close to these hunting territories, but do not own them - they may just have the right to manage these territories at certain periods. There are three entities involved in management: the government, communities, and third parties (i.e. private sector hunting businesses). This brings competition and conflicts of interest, which makes good sustainable management challenging. There is competition between farmers and the hunting areas – farmers want to use these areas for grazing. They sometimes work together, with farmers reducing grazing due to hunting income. One challenge then is: how are the benefits shared?

Governments and NGOs not supportive

• In KG, for example, there is considerable parliamentary support for a hunting moratorium, despite the damage this would do to CBWM and wildlife in general.

• NGOs often campaign against hunting with little experience or on-the-ground knowledge of field conservation or engagement with local communities

Corruption/poor practices, including among enforcement agencies

28

• Enforcement agencies themselves have been involved in poaching in some areas

• Larger scale private, commercial hunting operators may have a lot of power and political connections, and exercise influence on government agencies to secure quota and hunting areas. This concern was raised in relation to a number of countries

• The allocation of trophy fees to local level administrations is sometimes non-transparent and funds go missing

Private hunting businesses see CBWM as a threat – they can monopolise quota and prevent expansion of community management into new areas

• These businesses generally have much more power and influence than communities, so the competition is very unfair, even where communities are doing a better job of conservation

• For instance, in TJ private operators monopolise hunting quotas, block new areas for CBWM, and make it hard to extend this model

• In KG, for example, international hunting brokers try to bring down the price locally, which reduces benefits for local private entities as well as communities. A small number of people want to monopolise hunting, and lobby to get all the licences from the state and distribute to the areas they want.

Barriers to communities acquiring hunting areas and gaining quota

• Communities in applying for game management areas often lack the skills to present their case, carry out the administrative requirements, and lack the resources to show they are capable of wildlife management (which sometimes requires showing they own their own vehicles etc.) and therefore struggle to compete successfully for wildlife management concessions

Businesses trying to use “community-based” label with no real benefits to communities

• In the hunting field in particular hunts can be sold as community-based that are not legitimately community managed at all – there is no control or validation over this label, and hunters have no access to information about the governance context of the wildlife management area

Community capacity low: for science, functioning institutions, and to get involved in politics, marketing, promotion

• Getting involved in managing wildlife involves communities having to step into whole new fields and skill sets, and there is little support for them to do this

Communities have no voice at national and international levels

• Their views and perspectives do not influence policy development and decision-making, such as national decisions on hunting frameworks or moratoria,

29

decisions on allocation of quota or benefits, CITES decisions, or decisions of import states on hunting trophies

International hunting market often shows poor understanding of or support for sustainable use, ecology, and local community livelihoods

• Hunters are often not choosing hunts that support conservation and local communities, because they don’t have enough understanding of the conservation issues involved. They book with private larger scale hunting operators who push the price at local level very low, while keeping prices for hunters very high. This means all these hunting revenues are privately captured and don’t help conservation or communities, rather than (as in the CBWM examples) making a real and often extraordinary difference for conservation on the ground.

• International hunting agents often come to countries, go to governments, buy permits, and government agencies gain official and unofficial kickbacks – this makes sustainable use and fair competition impossible.

Key strategies to address these challenges were identified as:

• More attention and support to CBWM programs that are recognized by IUCN and other independent NGOs – this is needed to address efforts to shut down hunting completely, which would have major negative conservation impacts

• Promotion of hunts that have clear conservation and community benefits

• Establishing some form of network, platform, coalition or association of community-based conservation/wildlife management organisations and other key stakeholders across the region for mutual support, communication and/or cooperation

• Helping to build an international marketing system for community-based hunting programs that are doing real conservation work

• Supporting communities to make inputs, be part of discussions, and become visible at hunting conventions in North America

• Greater clarity from CBWM organisations on the conservation they are doing. The hunting market is responsive to this – certainly a proportion of them are very concerned about and active in the conservation of wild species, and this could be tapped into.

• Consideration of tax reforms that could establish a long term funding stream for wildlife conservation and management, including (as in the USA) taxing products used outdoors and ensuring this revenue is used for conservation.

30

SESSION  6:  Enhancing  collaboration  among  stakeholders  to  strengthen  conservation  and  sustainable  use  

This session focused on the role of international hunting organisations that are active in conservation efforts in the region, to promote discussion on how their efforts could be better coordinated and linked with work of other stakeholders to promote conservation and CBWM.

Gerhard Damm (International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), IUCN SSC Caprinae Specialist Group) began with a presentation looking at opportunities and challenges for enhancing the contribution of hunting to conservation and livelihoods.

Gerhard highlighted several critical issues:

i. the pricing of hunting and how the revenues are distributed;

ii. transparency in marketing of hunting:

-­‐ how hunting is marketed in overseas markets e.g. at US conventions, and how the message is given to hunters, how many of them understand. Is there at least a basic framework of fair and ethical practices?

iii. The image of hunting in the media.

Gerhard pointed out that the conflicts between the aspirations of different stakeholders in the region have come to the ‘boiling point’, and resolution would involve compromise. He highlighted that international conservation organisations with links to the hunting world could use economic pressure to establish a transparent market that benefits all of the partners.

He noted that principles, criteria and indicators of sustainable hunting are being developed. He called for hunters to become citizen scientists to assist in monitoring. Finally, Gerhard drew attention to the African ‘Charter for hunting, wildlife conservation and habitat protection’, which could be adapted in Central Asia to provide a useful framework for the future activities in the area.

In discussion, the following key points were made:

• One participant highlighted that while transparency was a virtue, if conservancies made revenues public the government agents would ask for additional fees and taxes and particularly informal payments.

• Another suggested an answer to this could be establishing a small (tax-free) conservation fund, transparently run and allocated, into which community revenues intended for conservation would be paid. To simplify matters, hunters could pay a proportion of hunting fees for ‘conservation hunts’ directly into such a conservation fund, so that was safe.

31

Gray Thornton (Wild Sheep Foundation (WSF)) then addressed the question of how conservation organisations made up of hunters could help support good practice in range states. He began by making the point that WSF should not be referred to as a hunting organization, as its mission is conservation, and all its activities and spending are directed at conservation. He provided the example of the Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis, which has populations in US and Mexico. The population has tripled in size since 1960, due in large part to efforts of hunters in re-establishing populations, providing funding and advocacy in favour of bighorn conservation. In Mexico, WSF used market practices to promote conservation practices: they supported and publicised hunts in areas where ranchers had released their sheep into the wild (thereby rebuilding wild populations), while not publicizing hunts in enclosed areas. The latter sold for 35 000 USD, the former for 115 000, providing a powerful incentive for good practice. In KZ, a hunting donor contributed $300 000 to develop an Argali conservation initiative, and in TJ they were supporting community-based management focusing on Markhor, Asiatic Ibex and Argali.

Gray highlighted WSF’s use of ‘conservation permits’ as an important way to raise money for conservation, that could be relevant and helpful in Central Asia. Montana issues 150 Bighorn Sheep permits per year, generally allocated to a specific jurisdiction, and these are allocated by raffle. If an individual applies for one of these they might wait 30 years to be successful. But one special permit is issued each year as a conservation permit, and this can be used anywhere in the state. WSF raffle this to the highest bidder. This can raise as much $480 000. WSF pays $1,750 for the permit to the government for the permit, and invests the rest directly into conservation. WSF is a charity so for the winning bidder this is tax-deductible.

This could be a promising model in Central Asia for international hunts. While a proportion would need to go to a hunting operator, the rest would go to conservation. This would raise the price considerably and be a good way to raise conservation funding.

He highlighted other ways that NGOs could provide support to good practices, including sharing experiences and expertise on horn plugging and impacts of domestic livestock grazing on wildlife, sharing their specialist staff expertise, and providing a marketplace for community-based sustainable hunts.

In discussion:

• There was much interest focused on the idea of auctioning conservation permits for a hunt in a community conservancy in order to leverage greater conservation funding in the region.

• The idea was raised that additional funding raised this way could be channeled into a conservation fund in the region – detailed arrangements would need to be worked out.

• Orken highlighted that this approach is the basis for Argali conservation in KZ. There they clearly defined in advance how much money would be allocated to

32

various different interventions: scientific, addressing diseases, further protection/conservation etc. There is a good MoU in place with the Safari Club International Foundation and WSF, and the government has been positive about it.

In further discussion on the role of conservation organisations of hunters and building better collaboration, which turned to broader issues of supporting CWM, some key points raised included:

• Communications on this complex and sensitive subject need to be very well thought through – a joint communications strategy would be helpful.

• Aibat highlighted that in KZ they are establishing an environmental experts’ network sponsored by GIZ. This will include a wildlife network – this could include a sustainable use network potentially?

• The idea of a platform or coalition bringing different interest groups together was emphasized. To address tensions between the private and community sectors, bringing them to table to discuss is important.

• WSF can also use its role in providing a marketplace for hunters in order to address bad actors in the hunting industry, whose actions were undermining CBWM.

• Capacity building and building technical knowledge was highlighted as a key need in the region – and it was noted that local people often had excellent knowledge on wildlife and could play a major role in management, although they needed additional training in aspects such as administration and bookkeeping.

• The problem of data/surveys being unreliable was highlighted.

• The danger of losing hunting was emphasized by one participant: “with Argali hunting, Argali lives; with no hunting, no Argali. Getting rid of good hunters brings tens of bad hunters”.

Kristina Rodina (UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), representing the Collaborative Partnership on Wildlife (CPW)) introduced the CPW, as a platform of 14 international organisations, established in 2013, focused on sustainable wildlife management (SWM). She highlighted that CPW can help with facilitating communication and information sharing, developing strategies and policies, increasing understanding on SWM, and supporting joint proposals/initiatives and collaborative efforts. She informed participants of a Wildlife Forum to be held in November on the margins of CoP14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Given that FAO works with governments, she indicated it would be good for meeting output to be delivered to government agencies, to help trigger support from FAO for a programme or the project.

In discussion, some key points included:

33

• CPW produces documents giving overviews on issues. They are doing one on wildlife use and management in North America - something similar could be done for the Central Asia level.

• New membership needed to be approved by partners, but others can provide input through IUCN or CIC where they have links.

Rosie Cooney (IUCN SULi) provided an introduction to IUCN and the role of SULi within it. She highlighted that SULi brought together very different forms of expertise, across CEESP (‘people’ people) and SSC (‘species’ people). She explained what Specialist Groups are, their role as voluntary expert networks, and their strengths and limitations. In the Central Asian region a regional specialist group had existed under the previous Sustainable Use Specialist Group. SULi took forward IUCN’s policy statement on sustainable use of wild resources, that highlighted that sustainable use of wild species can play an important role in conservation. She highlighted that SULi was working to develop an SSC situation analysis on ‘recreational hunting’ to inform the debates going on. This will be a first of its kind exercise from which all sort of entities can draw from.

In discussion, some key points made included:

• In many countries sustainable use and CBWM were new concepts, and they needed technical information and training on what it meant and how it works

• Collaboration really urgently needed across the region, and SULi could help this

• There is a need for development of well-worked out case studies of best practices (documents or videos) to help others understand across the region

• IUCN often seen in the region only as a “Red Book” organization, against all hunting and use. Need to showcase and disseminate IUCN views, policies, experiences (including to IUCN members in region)

• Wildlife is an integral part of sustainable land use – we need to take a landscape approach (including plants and wildlife management) in terms of adapting to a changing climate. This is very important, particularly in high mountain regions

• Need to move away from Soviet-style top down agriculture, to a variety of sustainable land use options (wildlife management, plant trade, live animal trade, souvenirs, tourism)

• Could be potential to develop CMS resolution at next CoP, giving CMS a mandate to work further on this? Very relevant to CAMI.

34

Day  3  

SESSION  SIX:  FUNDING  AND  THE  FUTURE  

Stefan Michel presented on future funding streams for community wildlife management – both funding of conservation projects and funding that creates incentives for conservation. He discussed the Global Environment Facility (GEF), but highlighted that while it involves large amounts of money, it tends to follow very traditional approaches – mainly protected areas (which disincentivise conservation while not effectively regulating the activities that lead to habitat degradation), and alternative incomes unrelated to conservation (in hope that people will “knit socks” and not poach). It is challenging to find financial support for CBWM, given the sensitivities around hunting.

Discussion highlighted:

• little understanding of CBWM among governments or traditional donors – need communications outreach

• the importance of a citizen hunting sector in advocating nationally for (and funding) wildlife conservation. Prices should be higher for urban citizen hunters than local hunter associations.

• the need for objective, credible documentation showing healthy and robust wildlife populations – this whole conservation model underpinned by enabling pathway for imports for international hunters.

• positive experiences with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and GEF in KG.

SESSION  SEVEN:  FINALISING  AN  OUTPUT  STATEMENT  

In a final session, Rosie Cooney presented a summary of key points from presentations and discussion on three aspects: how CBWM could contribute to environmental and social objectives; the challenges it faced; and recommendations for action to support it. Over two hours participants discussed and amended the statement until it was accepted as representing a broad consensus statement from the meeting. After the meeting the statement was lightly edited and distributed to all participants for final review over several weeks (in Russian and English), before its finalization as the Chunkurchak Recommendations on Community-based Wildlife Management in the broader Central Asian region that appear at the front of this document.

35

Annex  1:  Agenda  

IUCN  CEESP/SSC  Sustainable  Use  and  Livelihoods  Specialist  Group  

2018 Central Asia Regional Meeting

Achieving  conservation  goals  through  community  benefits  and  empowerment  

Agenda  

Meeting venue: Supara Chunkurchak, near Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

Meeting dates: September 4-6th

Followed by Field Trip, September 6-8th to Community-Based Wildlife Conservation Area Chon Kemin. Departures from Bishkek on the morning of September 8th.

September 3rd (Arrivals)

9:00 – 17:00 Arrival and Registration

14:00 – 18:00

Organizing committee meeting

18:00 – 20:00

Welcome reception and dinner

36

September 4th (Day 1)

8:30 – 10:00

Opening and Welcome Abdykalyk Rustamov, Head of State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry, Kyrgyzstan (10’)

Introduction to the meeting and to IUCN CEESP/SSC SULi

Rosie Cooney (Chair, IUCN SULi) (10’ + 2’)

Humans, habitat and hunting: the power, potential and pitfalls of sustainable use – a global view

Shane Mahoney (IUCN SULi, Conservation Visions) (20’ + 9’ questions)

Wild species management in Central Asia: a brief history

Stefan Michel (IUCN SULi/Caprinae Specialist Group) (20’ + 9’ questions)

10:00 Coffee break

10:20 Populations of wild species in the region: status and threats

Panelists: Khalil Karimov (TJ), Korsh Ararat (IRQ), Malikyar Ghulam M. (AF), Eldar Rustamov (TM)

Stefan Michel (present <20’) and panelists (20’); Q&A (20’)

11:20 CITES in Central Asia: How does regulation of international wildlife trade (including trophies) support conservation and local livelihoods?

Yuan Liu, CITES Secretariat (10’+5’ questions)

11:35 Overview of wildlife trade in the region Katalin Kecse-Nagy (TRAFFIC), TRAFFIC (15’ + 5’ questions)

11:55 GIZ in Central Asia: what have we learned from the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Program? What do we see as the future role of GIZ in community wildlife management in the region?

Dana Yermolyonok (GIZ) (10’+5’ questions)

12:10 CMS in Central Asia: how do CAMI (the Christiane Roettger

37

Central Asian Mammal Initiative) and the Argali Action plan incorporate sustainable use, incentives, communities, and livelihoods?

(CMS Secretariat) (10’)

12:30 Lunch

13:30 Community-based wildlife management: what does it mean, and why is it important?

Khalil Karimov (IUCN SULi, Hunting and Conservation Alliance of Tajikistan) (10’)

Country presentations: Community-based wildlife management in the region / other approaches, where CBWM does not (yet) exist.

How is sustainable use being used? How are communities involved? What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats?

Each panelist: 7 min summary, 3 min questions

Panelists: Zairbek Kubanychbekov (KG), Aleksandr Berber (KZ), Munosib Madimarov (TJ), Malikyar Ghulam (AF), Orken Shaymukhambetov (KZ), Korsh Ararat (IQ), Abollah Salari (IR), Malikyar Ghulam (AF), Eldar Rustamov (TM)

15:40 Coffee break

16:00 Community based wildlife management in Central Asia

What are the key successes of community-based wildlife management and conservation across the region?

What are the critical challenges?

How important is sustainable use?

How important is community empowerment?

Panel discussion with audience participation.

Moderator Tanya Rosen (IUCN SULi, Panthera).

Conclusions of the first day Rosie Cooney (10’)

18:00 Dinner

38

September 5th (Day 2)

8:30 – 8:40 Overview of the first day and plan of the second day

Rosie Cooney (10’)

8:40 – 10:00 Wild plant trade in Central Asia: Opportunities of sustainable and legal trade

Special session- Presentation followed by group discussion

Anastasiya Timoshyna (TRAFFIC) (overview 20’)

Group discussion (45’)

Report back and follow-up (15’)

10:00 – 10:20 Coffee break

10:20 – 12:30 What practices are threatening sustainable use and community wildlife management?

Panel Discussion

Panelists: Maksim Levitim (KZ), Almaz Musaev (KG), Yuan Liu (CITES), Stefan Michel (IUCN Caprinae Specialist Group), Jack Atcheson (Wild Sheep Foundation)

Khalil Karimov (15’)

Discussion (30’)

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch

13:30 Hunting and hunters: key opportunities and challenges for enhancing contribution of hunting to conservation and livelihoods

Gerhard Damm (15’ + 5’ questions)

13:50 The role of hunting organisations: how can they help support good practice in range states?

Wild Sheep Foundation (15 + 5’ questions)

14:10 Panel Discussion: Improving collaboration among key wildlife management stakeholders to reconnect and strengthen conservation and sustainable use in the region

Panelists: Wild Sheep Foundation, Joe Goergen (Safari Club Foundation International), Katalin Kecse-Nagy

Moderator Gerhard Damm

Panel discussion: 40’

General discussion 40’

39

(TRAFFIC), Maarten Hofman (IUCN), Christiane Roettger (CMS-CAMI)

15:30- 16:00 Coffee break

16:00 – 16:10 What is IUCN SULi and how does it work? Rosie Cooney (8’ + questions)

16:10 – 17:05 The role of SULi in the region: issues, approaches, membership.

Khalil Karimov, Tanya Rosen, Stefan Michel (45‘ +)

17:05-17:20 The Collaborative Partnership on Wildlife: What is it and how can it help?

Kristina Rodina (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation)

17:20-17:30 Conclusions of the first day Rosie Cooney (10’)

18:00 – 20:00 Dinner

September 6th (Day 3)

9:00 Summary of Day 2 Rosie Cooney (10’)

9:10 How can future funding streams support community-based wildlife management / sustainable use of wild resources?

General discussion

Moderator Stefan Michel

9:45 Presentation and discussion of outcome statement of 2018 SULi CARM

Rosie Cooney

10:30 – 11:00 Coffee break

11:00 – 11:40 Key priorities and actions for SULi in the region - general discussion

Khalil Karimov,

11:40 – 12:00 Closing Rosie Cooney, Shane Mahoney, Almaz Musaev

12:00 Bus to Field Trip With lunch packages

Community-Based Wildlife Conservation Area, Chon Kemin

40

Annex  2:  List  of  participants  

First Name Name Country Organisation Email

Ghulam Malikyar Afghanistan National Environmental Protection Agency

malikyargh@gmail.com

Rosie Cooney Australia IUCN SULi rosie.cooney@gmail.com

Shane Mahoney Canada Conservation Visions insights@conservationvisions.com

Stefan Michel Germany

IUCN SULi, Caprinae Specialist Group, Bear SG, Cat SG

stefan.michel.de@gmail.com

Christiane Roettger Germany Convention on Migratory Species

christiane.roettger@cms.int

Katalin Kecse-Nagy Hungary TRAFFIC katalin.kecse-nagy@traffic.org

Abdollah Salari Iran Wildlife Research and Conservation Society abdsalari@gmail.com

Korsh Ararat Iraq NatureIraq korsh.ararat@gmail.com

Adylbek Kozybakov Kazakhstan

Freelance expert, NABU Saiga CBWM project

oomt.04@mail.ru

Maxim Levitin Kazakhstan Private tourism guide zloihunterm@gmail.com

Aibat Muzbay Kazakhstan

Karaganda Eco-Museum, NABU Saiga CBWM project

aibatmuzbay@gmail.com

Orken Shaymukhambetov Kazakhstan

Kazakh Tourism National Company acbkarlan@mail.ru

Askar Davletbakov Kyrgyzstan National Academy of askar_davl@rambler.r

41

Sciences u

Abai Djanybekov Kyrgyzstan

Department of Natural Resources, Protection and Use, State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry

Mark Foggin Kyrgyzstan University of Central Asia

marc.foggin@ucentralasia.org

Maxim Koshkin Kyrgyzstan

NABU Kyrgyzstan and Consultant, Conservation Ecology

makoshkin@gmail.com

Zairbek Kubanychbekov Kyrgyzstan Panthera Foundation

Zairbek@panthera.org

Usha Rajak Kyrgyzstan UNDP Biofin usharajak100@gmail.com

Arsen Ryspekov Kyrgyzstan

Deputy Director, State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry

Dana Yermolyonok Kyrgyzstan GIZ dana.yermolyonok@giz.de

Anna Belousova Russia

All-Russian Research Institute for Environmental Protection

anbelous@mail.ru

Dimitry Medvedev Russia Mountain Hunters Club dmimedvedev@yandex.ru

Kristina Rodina Italy

UN Food and Agriculture Organisation

Kristina.Rodina@fao.org

Maarten Hofman Serbia

IUCN Eastern Europe and Central Asia Regional Office

Maarten.Hofman@iucn.org

42

Gerhard Damm South Africa African Indaba

gerhard@muskwa.co.za

Yuan Liu Switzerland CITES Yuan.LIU@cites.org

Mahan Atabaev Tajikistan NGO Burgut

Khalil Karimov Tajikistan

IUCN SULi, Caprinae Specialist Group, Bear SG, Cat SG

khalil.karimov@gmail.com

Munosib Madimarov Tajikistan

Hunting & Conservation Alliance of Tajikistan

munosib.madimarov@tajwildlife.com

Akmurad Gardashov Turkmenistan Freelance expert

gogardash@gmail.com

Eldar Rustamov Turkmenistan

Society of Hunters and Fishermen of Turkmenistan

elldaru@mail.ru

Anastasiya Timoshyna Ukraine TRAFFIC

anastasiya.timoshyna@traffic.org

Jack Atcheson USA Wild Sheep Foundation jack.jr@atcheson.com

Kurt Alt USA Wild Sheep Foundation

KAlt@wildsheepfoundation.org

Joe Goergen USA

Safari Club International Foundation

jgoergen@safariclub.org

Brett Jefferson USA Wild Sheep Foundation

BKJefferson@tristateltd.com

Tatjana Rosen USA Panthera Foundation tanya@iisd.org

Gray Thornton USA Wild Sheep Foundation

GThornton@wildsheepfoundation.org