1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (GIZ) - Germany

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

11/05/2012

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Joint Wildlife Management based on economic empowerment and assigning hunting (wildlife) grounds to the Association of local hunters and providing her with user rights for game resources leads to a sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity and wildlife conservation (in the frame of CACILM).

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Wildlife in Kyrgyzstan, especially mountain ungulates, is threatened because these resources can be easily accessed due to an inadequate state supervision and regulation as well as due to lack of knowledge among the local population and mechanism for integrated land use (considering different coordinated types of resource use) and resource conservation. Decrease in the natural habitat (caused by the expansion of pasture and arable land) and illegal hunting lead to a decrease in wildlife populations. In Kyrgyzstan, the fauna is exclusively owned by the state. User rights for wildlife are separated from land use ones. The approach aims at the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife based on providing representatives of the local community, organized in an Association of local hunters (ALH), with legal user rights for wildlife resources.

Methods: (1) supporting local hunters in organizing an Association of local hunters (ALH) with the help of facilitators; (2) transferring wildlife management functions from the Wildlife Department to the ALH based on assigning hunting grounds to them and providing them with user rights according to jointly developed management plans; (3) building trust in partnership relations between the ALH and the Wildlife Department of State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry (SAEPF) based on joint registration and monitoring and determination of the resource status (see Annex 3); (4) capacity building of the ALH with the help of independent experts and advising activities provided by the Wildlife Department; (5) developing an atmosphere of trust by establishing links between the Wildlife Department, local hunters (ALH), the local community (Aiylokmotu) and rural organizations (Pasture User Association, PUA) based on joint planning and information sharing.

Stages of implementation: (1) setting up groups of well-trained (sensitive) facilitators and training them on the principles of facilitation, conflict management and sustainable management of natural resources; (2) identifying reliable active hunters with the help of facilitators and managers by interviewing neutral people; (3) organizing a meeting at the field level to analyze the situation and identify interests in establishing of the ALH; (4) raising awareness of local hunters on wildlife resources, existing problems and possible solutions offered by sustainable management; (5) establishing an ALH in the pilot area as a legal entity; (6) assigning areas to the ALH and advising activities on methods for wildlife management provided by the Wildlife Department and the specialized NGO 'Ak-Terek'; (7) organizing expeditions with specialists from the Wildlife Department to register and monitor the resource status; (8) developing a management plan with the support of experts from the Wildlife Department and independent experts, plan approval and implementation.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (Transferring responsibilities of wildlife management to the local population, assigning hunting grounds to the Association of local Hunters and providing her with legal user rights for game resources, sustainable management of wildlife and joint planning)

The approach aims at conservation and sustainable use of wildlife based on economic empowerment and transfer of legal use rights for wildlife resources to representatives of the local community, organized in the Association of local hunters according to jointly developed management plans.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Decrease in wildlife populations due to an unregulated unsustainable use of resources by the local population and due to lack of participatory mechanisms for the population to manage these resources, inadequate state regulation and supervision, aggravated by a conflict of interest among users over other natural resources with different intentions (pasture, forest, mineral resources, tourism).

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	interactive	Consulting with the Wildlife Department
planning	interactive	Participation at discussing the approach design and determining the form and specifics of self-organization
implementation	interactive	Local hunters implement the approach through their representatives in the ALH
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Monitoring and evaluation are conducted on base of questionnaires and interviews with key actors supported by the Wildlife Department and GIZ Project and on base of annual progress assessment in reports prepared for the Wildlife Department (increase in wildlife population, reducing conflicts among resource users).
Research	none

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Were decisions on the selection of the Technology(ies) made:

• Experts from the Wildlife Department

Explain:

In a seminar involving the local population and project experts and experts from the NGO 'Ak-Terek' as facilitators in order to explain the principles of wildlife management.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Decisions were made by the village population supported by WLD experts.
In the meeting of key hunters, shepherds and other interested residents of the village with the project staff and the Foundation 'Ak-Terek', there was determined a form of local self-organization of wildlife users.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• Wildlife Department

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Mainly males at age 40-50

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• public meetings

Form of training:

• 2 day seminars on the spot

Subjects covered:

1. Raising awareness of actual problems and possible solutions; joint mapping of resources and discussion of scenarios for development of hunting grounds;
2. Principles of sustainable wildlife use;
3. Methods for monitoring and registering the number of wild animals;
4. Planning economic activities of game management for an assigned area;
5. Professional ethics of game users;
6. Programs for employees of environmental, law enforcement and customs authorities.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: situation analysis; Key elements: on-site visit, group consultation during workshop, preparation of resource map

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Department with its local staff and the NGO 'Ak-Terek' are capable to continue providing advisory services after the project finishes.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

Bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: expeditions, field researches, surveys
Bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: number of wild animals
Economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: benefit from selling hunting tours and ecotourism
No. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Number of hunters and associations
Management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through observations; indicators: annual planning, monitoring of achievement and difficulties, adaptation of the approach if necessary
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Nee

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (GIZ, via “Sustainable use of the mountain ungulate species in Kyrgyzstan” ): 95.0%; government (Wildlife Department of SAEPF): 5.0%; national non-government (PF “Ak-Terek” ); local community / land user(s) (local resource users )

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Nee

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

Comments:

Voluntary participation in monitoring and registering as well as analyzing wildlife areas for the further assignment of hunting grounds to hunters

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

5 years later, after the number of wild animals in the assigned area is increased. During this period, members of the Association would realize the obvious long-term benefits resulting from the new approach (increasing wildlife population would lead to an increase in hunting licenses issued) and would become experienced in sustainable game management.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Opportunity to lobby for own interests through Hunters’ Association in the local community (Aiylokmotu).
Opportunity to extract revenue from hunting tours.
Opportunity to legalize hunting.
Opportunity to manage resources in the assigned area and to plan how to use them. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Trainings and expert advice from the Wildlife Department and the Academy of Sciences of KR.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Users of various natural resources (pasture, beekeepers, hunters) jointly plan their activities and use resources. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Increasing awareness of the local population on degradation of natural resources and the need for their careful use.)
Resource use and management are transferred in the hands of resource users. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Adoption of necessary legislation to establish wildlife user associations.)
Positive impact on the local ecosystem: stabilization of the wildlife population resulting from of protection of the assigned area and limited shooting. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Trainings for hunters on a new method of registration and monitoring of wild animals in order to determine the status of wildlife populations.)
Active and regular participation and support of the Wildlife Department in planning and implementing approach and creating an atmosphere of trust.

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Deferred minor revenue over the first years of implementation related to an increase in wildlife populations.	Development of ecotourism as a primary source of income. In the future, ecotourism can be practiced along with hunting tourism, providing additional income.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Resource users have poor capacities for self-organization and are incapable of coherent collective actions.	Consultancy, meetings, involvement of conflict managers and facilitators.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Final Report for GIZ 'Analysis and Preliminary Results of the Joint Wildlife Management Component of the Project

Available from where? Costs?

Pesch Markus