Northeast and East Central Asia

National Biodiversity
Strategies & Action Plans

Issue 3-4, 29 March, 2001

Funded by: United Nation Development Programme (UNDP) United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP) Global Environment Facility (GEF)	Edited by: Bureau of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Biodiversity Working Group / China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (BWG/CCICED)
Editors: XIE Yan, WANG Sung; Institute of Zoology, CAS, Beijing, China, 100080 Tel/Fax: (8610) 6264 7675; E-mail: wangs@panda.ioz.ac.cn; http://www.bpsp-neca.brim.ac.cn http://www.chinabiodiversity.com

The website is developed by Biodiversity Working Group of China Council of International Cooperation on Environment and Development (BWG/CCICED), with funds from Noweign Government (NORDA), British Government Environment Project Fund, and cooperated with WWF-China and China Byte. Except for all annual reports and technical reports produced by BWG since 1992, the main information is from the "China Species Information System - CSIS", which include taxonomy, endangered category, distribution, habitat, threat, protection measure and recommendation of protection for all terrestrial vertebrates occur in China, i.e. mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. In addition to species information, CSIS also provides information for nearly 1,000 nature reserves, several hundred experts who are doing research or management of species or nature reserves. There are following methods to look up information: search by species, by taxonomy, by province, by nature reserve, by expert, by endangered category, and by bibliography. The Chinese version is now in operation and English version will be finished in April. The data in the website will be updated shortly by the new data checked by taxonomists.

To subscribe:
Send an e-mail to: majordomo@brim.ac.cn. The subject heading should be left blank and the e-mail message body should only contain the following message:
subscribe bpsp-neca

To Unsubscribe :
Send an e-mail to majordomo@brim.ac.cn with the following message in the body:
unsubscribe bpsp-neca

If you subscribe in the list, you will receive information on biodiversity planning and conservation. Most of information are in English and provided by UNDP and UNEP.

BPSP-NECA - an Electronic Mailing List for Biodiversity Planners
in the Region of Northeast Asia and Central Asia

The BPSP-NECA open-subscription mailing list has been established and is maintained by Northeast and East-Central Asian Project under the Biodiversity Planning Support Programme, a multi-donor initiative implemented jointly by UNDP and UNEP.

The purpose of this list is to facilitate communication and exchange of ideas in the region, methods and technologies among technical specialists, professionals and policy makers engaged in biodiversity planning in general, and the development and implementation of national biodiversity strategies and action plans, in particular.

The list is currently minimally moderated in that any member can post messages directly, and it is open to all interested subscribers. Internet etiquette and list policy prohibits the posting of commercial announcements or material that, in the opinion of the list moderator, is in bad taste or potentially offensive to any members. Violators of these rules will be removed from the list.

With regard to topical discussions, list members are requested to use judgement and discretion, and to show consideration for the membership at large in pursuing topics of limited general interest. Extended detailed technical discussions may be best carried on directly among interested correspondents, with the conclusions or a summary of key points provided to the list membership at appropriate intervals.

[Hongkong Asian Wallstreet Daily, August 27th]: A Refuge of Wildlife——the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) between Korea D.P.R and Korea R.O. (Journalist Michael Suman)

On a hilltop in the southern DMZ over the border between Korea D.P.R and Korea R.O., Pae Seong-hwan crouched behind a cluster of shrubs. As he overlooked the sternly guarded area to the north of the border by a binocular telescope, he spoke lowly to a recorder.

Suddenly, twenty soldiers surrounded him all round. With gun pointing at him, some soldiers compelled him to explain what he was doing. Mr. Pae protested when he knew that he was thought as a spy. But after they listened to a few pieces of words and phrases recorded by the recorder such as ‘twelve o’clock, thirty-two move northward’, the soldiers were convinced that he was spying on the activities of the Korea R.O. army.

However, this ‘thirty-two’ was referring to flying animals with feathers. Mr. Pae was making tracking records of birds’ behaviors. "I am doing research on cranes", said Mr. Pae to the soldiers. But they still brought him to the army headquarters. During the three hours’ custody, he was interrogated continually. Finally, the army concluded that he was an ornithologist indeed as what he said.’

As an environment guard, Pae Seong-hwan is a researcher of the Institute of Ornithology, Kyung Hee University, Koran R.O. He commits himself to save and protect the wild animals in this wildlife refuge hanging in the balance. Since the end of the Korean War and the establishment of the Korean DMZ in 1953, natural environment in this zone and surrounding areas has been kept from outside disturbances due to various safety precautions. Just when most regions of Korea D.P.R and Korea R.O. are engaged in the economic development, this border area becomes the most important wildlife refuge in the Korean Peninsula.

Including the conjoint forbidden zones on its north and south sides, this DMZ is 250km long and 4km wide. Some rare birds and wild animals such as endangered cranes, aigrettes, bears, even leopards and tigers inhabit here. They live peacefully with soldiers and mine fields on this land, where there are bumpy and thickly forested hills as well as swamps and rice fields.

Because this area is of great importance, environmentalists from all over the world are endeavoring to protect it. After the successful meet between the leaders of Korea D.P.R and Korea R.O. held in June of this year, the task of preserving environment in the DMZ becomes more urgent. Environmentalists are afraid that the relaxation of the relationship between these two countries would result in the damage of such a wildlife refuge. Promoted by the leader contact, Korea D.P.R and Korea R.O. decided to reconstruct a north-south railway. Meanwhile, the LG Group suggested establishing an international trade center in the DMZ.

Lee Sung-ho, a high-level manager of the Institute of Public Administration, New York University and one of the initiators of the DMZ Forum, said that ‘peace comes suddenly, while environment is threatened’. The DMZ Forum is an American non-profit organization that dedicates to rescue wildlife in the DMZ and is supported by the Institute of Public Administration, New York University and the Wildlife Protection Association. The Wildlife Protection Association holds five wildlife institutions in New York, and undertakes environment conservation work worldwide.

At the same time, people such as Pae Seong-hwan are doing their utmost to protect plants and animals in the DMZ. Besides large corporations, villagers living nearby the border also constitute menaces to local wildlife. As the tense situation of the Korean Peninsula tends to be relaxed, they are anxious to exploit the forbidden areas nearing the DMZ.

In January of this year, Pae Seong-hwan had a dispute with the government officials of Cholwon, which is near the DMZ and is an important winter habitat for rare cranes. As components of a tourism program, a parking lot and a crane statue were to be built nearby a fountain in this region rich in birds.

Pae Seong-hwan led some officials of Cholwon through the military frontier station to the fountain, and showed them the flecky footprints left by cranes and other animals on the snowland. "All the cranes will leave here if the parking lot and crane statue are built", he said. Then the officials determined to cancel this plan.

The sternly guarded border itself also causes obstacles to Pae Seong-hwan’s efforts. The cranes that he is studying winter in the DMZ in the border of north and south. But as a citizen of Korea R.O., he is prohibited from carrying out surveys and studies in Korea D.P.R.

Another wildlife conservationist of the DMZ, LIM Chunnan believes that the DMZ is a home of tigers, while it used to be believed that tigers had already been extinct in the Korean Peninsula. This documentary producer once received special training of tiger hunting from Russian specialists. He said that he discovered footprints of tigers around the southern DMZ in the past two years.

LIM Chunnan thinks that the untraversable border is destroying the future of the Korean tigers. He proposed to the Government of Korea R.O that Korea D.P.R. and Korea R.O. should set up a 100 yard wide border passage and clear away the landmines and fences there. In his opinion, as long as they cannot traverse the border freely, these tigers cannot mate with the north individuals. He thinks that at most ten tigers survive in Korea R.O.

SUMMARY: The meeting was hosted at the headquarters of the Association for Biodiversity Information, the lead partner in the consortia for the Latin America and Caribbean regions. Nine of the ten sub-regional partners were represented with the UNEP/ROE consortium for the EE/NIS region absent.

Purpose: To identify significant program achievements with respect to meeting client needs and demands for biodiversity planning related information and explore the rationale for maintaining or enhancing regional capabilities for information gathering and dissemination.

Inputs: Partners to prepare summaries of their program activities and self assessment of what has worked, what hasn't, and what they would do differently in the future. Each partner to identify and prepare a short description of project outputs they would like to “showcase” during SBSTTA.

Outputs: Identify and prepare a list of project accomplishments for each regional component and a short list of those to be highlighted during SBSTTA. Agree on responsibilities for preparing materials.

SUMMARY – SESSION 1: The opening session provided an opportunity for each sub-region to provide an overview of their activities under the BPSP and a “self analysis” of challenges in making the programme effective in their regions. In general, all of the partners found that establishing their websites, newsletters and list servers targeted at biodiversity planners were an effective advance for regional information flow. There is, however, a wide variance among regions in “participation” in these electronic information networks. Generally, the African subregions had the most limited participation, to a large extent due to technical and financial limits on email and internet access. In Northeast and Central Asia, electronic media access is also limited as is accessibility of English language documents. Translation of key documents into Chinese, Korean and Russian was seen as needed to enhance accessibility. The Pacific Islands, South and Southeast Asia, Arab States and Latin America and Caribbean regions had the highest participation rates and client reliance on internet based mechanisms for information dissemination.

Several partners noted that the initial regional workshops for information exchange supported by BPSP were instrumental in “jump starting” subscription to and use of the electronic networks. The Pacific Islands consortium between an international NGO and an IGO was recognized as having been effective in encouraging initial government participation, a model that might be explored in other regions. A table summarizing the initiation and growing use of the global and regional networks will be prepared prior to SBSTTA6. A calendar-table of overall programme-sponsored activities will be prepared.

Session 2: The relationship between BPSP and other regional and global initiatives

Purpose: To identify other related initiatives going on in the regions, implemented by partners or others, and identify how BPSP activities can complement these activities. Identify related global initiatives to which BPSP could/should be linked.

Inputs: Partners to prepare short presentation on their own and other initiatives within the region and thoughts on the rationale and mechanisms for cross linkage with BPSP activities. UNDP to provide a brief overview of related global initiatives.

Outputs: Determine what “target” initiatives BPSP should get involved with, what is the appropriate modus operandi for cooperation and what needs to be done by whom to make this happen.

SUMMARY SESSION 2: Each of the partners provided an overview of other initiatives within their regions related to CBD implementation and identified regional institutions with whom they currently had or intended to establish collaborative relationships. The consensus view was that working with appropriate regional collaborators would be an effective means to: (i) reach specific, high priority “communities of practice” engaged in CBD implementation or closely related pursuits, and; (ii) draw on regional expertise in developing regionally tailored guidance for specific technical issues related to CBD implementation. In some regions (cf. SSEA) potential collaborating partner institutions for specific themes were clearly identified and “obvious”. In other regions (cf. Anglophone West Africa), institutional partners were less obvious for some technical areas, and intra-regional collaboration was seen more as involving key individuals from within specific communities of practice. In both situations the value of an ongoing regional information exchange mechanism to act as a catalyst for continuing engagement of relevant specialist communities of practice with CBD implementation (and fostering ongoing dialog among these communities) was seen as a high priority.

Session 3: The relationship of BPSP to the CHM (regional and national levels)

Purpose: To determine a program strategy for interacting with and supporting the development of national CHMs and, eventually regional CHMs. That is as specific as possible about what regional BPSP partners would do.

Inputs: Presentation by CHM staff of an overview of the status of implementation of CHM at country and regional level. Partners to prepare a brief overview of their perspectives on the status of national and regional CHMs in their region. Partners to contribute ideas on how BPSP could provide technical support for development of national and (eventually) regional CHMs.

Outputs. Consensus on what BPSP should seek to do in supporting CHM development. How do the rosters, databases, communities of practice compiled to date and the experience gained thereby under BPSP give BPSP partners a “comparative advantage” in supporting CHM development?

SUMMARY SESSION 3: We found that to different degrees the regional partner’s programs have come to serve the function of a regional clearinghouse for information related to biodiversity planning and implementation of the CBD. In the Pacific Islands subregion, the BPSP consortium of WWF and SPREP operates as a de facto regional information clearinghouse for both the CBD and related conventions and is recognized as such by its constituents. The SSEA, Arab States and NECA regional programs also serve this regional clearinghouse function and are perceived as meeting this need to some degree by their national constituents. In Africa (and the Pacific), it was noted that the national CHM focal points and the NBSAP and CBD focal points are frequently the same or closely affiliated (e.g. within the same governmental institution and department) and that information and activities generated by the subregional partners serves all of these constituencies to some degree. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the existence of related regional initiatives (e.g. IABIN) and national institutions such as conservation data centers with at least partially overlapping mandates would seem to indicate that “partnering” with these institutions on specific issues and promoting effective information flow among these entities might be the most effective means of enhancing and promoting the clearinghouse functions in these subregions. In all regions it was acknowledged that the experience of the subregional BPSP “nodes” could be of value in supporting the development of national clearinghouse mechanisms.

Session 4: Identification and relationship with regional communities of practice and centers of excellence

Purpose: To clarify the concepts and identify specific communities of practice and centers of excellence within the regions. Identify specific services that BPSP would deliver to strengthen regional CoPs and what other intra-regional partnerships or agreements are necessary or desirable to do this.

Inputs: Partners to identify specific specialties or thematic areas (cf. protected area management, conservation finance, environmental economics, biodiversity in forestry, fisheries, agriculture) that relate to NBSAP and CBD implementation where communities of practice are identifiable in your region. Bring a list of preliminary ideas about what BPSP could do to strengthen the development of these CoPs in your region (e.g. communications, focused training).

Outputs: Identify what CoPs to target and what are the kinds of “services” that BPSP has a comparative advantage to provide to them. Define as precisely as possible the primary “clienteles” that each region should seek to serve. If there are specific “centers of excellence” within the region that should be brought in, identify these.

SUMMARY SESSION 4: There was considerable overlap between discussions on this topic and those in Session 2 and to a lesser extent Session 3. One point that did emerge clearly is that the degree of formalization of “communities of practice” that currently exist around themes related to CBD implementation varies considerably among the subregions as do the priorities given to these themes. There was strong consensus, however, that future BPSP activities should target specific communities of practice within the regions for capacity building, training and information exchange on well-defined and regionally-recognized priority themes related to CBD implementation, and working in partnership with institutions from within the region to do this. It was also acknowledged that the regional BPSP nodes developed by the partners are in a strong position to foster interdisciplinary dialog among the various specialist communities. This was seen as a natural follow-up to the thematic work currently underway under the BPSP and also as meeting the continuing needs of country clients to respond effectively to CBD article 6(b) concerning the effective integration of biodiversity into sectoral and cross sectoral plans and policies and into national economic planning.

Purpose: Clarify for each region what are the priority areas for technical support to NBSAP implementation that BPSP partners are in a position to provide.

Inputs: Partners to provide the perspective from clients on what their priority areas are and what the partners are capable of providing in terms of technical support to these areas. Think about how you would document this if challenged. List priority areas.

Outputs: List priority areas (themes) by region and identify those where your organization is in a position to meet the needs. Identify what is required in terms of program content to meet these needs, and where institutional strengthening of partners may be necessary. Suggest how this program can meet these needs.

SUMMARY SESSION 5: The regional partners confirmed the relevance of the eight thematic areas being developed under the BPSP and provided information on additional client priorities. Three thematic issues were of essentially universal interest among sub-regions: (i) financing mechanisms and analytical “tools” for economic integration; (ii) communications, particularly to high level policy makers; (iii) mechanisms for prioritizing and monitoring NBSAP and CBD implementation. The latter two of these are not among the thematic issues currently being addressed by BPSP. With regard to the type of support that clients have sought or requested from BPSP regional partners, examples include:

There was also consensus among the sub-regional partners that the programme sponsored activities over the past 12-18 months in developing information distribution capacity, developing mailing lists of key constituents, identifying communities of practice and regional centers of excellence, and developing “trust” and credibility with clients represents a considerable investment that would facilitate continuing effective delivery of technical support in the future if maintained.

Purpose: To define a process to obtain and document accurate feedback from the national clients about what they most value from BPSP and what they would like to receive from BPSP in the future.

Outputs: An agreed program on how to proceed with and document an effective consultation process and take the feedback into account in defining the future program of activities.

SUMMARY SESSION 6: The discussion concerning the “consultation process” was carried out in the context of the preceding session’s focus on “user defined” priorities. In virtually all of the sub-regions (NECA being the one exception) user feedback from informal mechanisms was felt to be more reliable than formal feedback from instruments such as questionnaires. Feedback from the partners was, by and large, phrased in general terms. Regional information exchange workshops, translations of key documents and information exchange via the electronic networks established under the programme were reported as the most valued services. Since most partners are engaged in providing other “services” to their constituencies, clients don’t generally distinguish BPSP supported activities from other support received from the partners. With regard to getting reliable feedback on possible future needs from national clients, the consensus among partners was that direct dialog with their clients was the most useful means to identify specific needs and desires for programme support and that this could be achieved in the next three months.

Purpose: To inform donors about the range of BPSP (and other) partner activities and ideas for future work and to get their reactions to the proposed program content and structure.

Inputs: This will require some coordination. A couple of short presentations by partners could highlight what we’ve done to date under BPSP. Someone should then explain where “we” (actually the world and more specifically our clients) are today vis a vis the implementation of NBSAPs, CHMs and the CBD. Someone should then provide an overview of where the programme is headed to meet client needs and demands.

Outputs: Observation from donors about what they think about the BPSP and how it meshes with their donor agenda. Hopefully requests to develop specific proposals or indications of the lines of donor interest.

SESSION 7: Two private foundation that are active in international programs for biodiversity conservation as well as the GEF Secretariat and the USAID Global Bureau, Center for the Environment were invited to participate in an informal dialog on donor priorities. Only USAID sent a representative, who provided a succinct summary of the how USAID financing decisions are made and the magnitude of the current USAID portfolio in biodiversity projects.

Purpose: Agree on what kind of special events and presentations we want, their contents and individual responsibilities for preparing them. Discuss what the end of project external evaluation should focus on with regard to defining future options.

Inputs: Much of this overlaps with Session 1. We also need to be prepared to articulate the future in a consistent voice. Please share your ideas about the kind of activities we want to organize at SBSTTA as Manolo and Bala already have, and bring some specific ideas to the meeting. Think about what the evaluation should focus on and bring ideas to discuss.

Outputs: Agree on what we will do at SBSTTA for side events, posters, information distribution, donor meetings and who is responsible for what. Agree on general issues to be addressed in the external evaluation (to be done in July, 2001) and provide input for TORs.

SUMMARY SESSION 8: Representatives from three of the regional consortia indicated their intention to attend the SBSTTA6 meeting (SSEA, Arab States and Pacific Islands) and their interest in participating in a stakeholder dialog session organized as a panel with regional partners and leaders of several thematic groups participating together. Partners also agreed to send examples of some of their (regional) published outputs and contribute to a “poster” presentation describing the development of the BPSP information dissemination network and the major outputs and activities undertaken by regional partners under the programme.

With regard to the post project evaluation that is scheduled to take place at the end of the current activity cycle in July, 2001, partners expressed interest in having input into the TORs for the evaluation and agreed to send examples of effective evaluation methods and formats. The notion of regional partners undertaking a “self assessment” as input for an evaluation was put forward and partners agreed to exchange information on their experiences with different methods of doing this. TORs for the external evaluation will be reviewed by the partners and approved by the BPSP-POC.

NEXT STEPS: The UNDP programme coordinator outlined activities that are planned over the next three months. Briefly these are:

FUTURE DIRECTIONS: The principal issue of concern to all of the workshop participants is continuity of the information or “knowledge” network that has been established in terms of maintaining the ability to continue to provide technical advice on CBD implementation in a timely and useable form to the client base that has been established. The main thrust of the activities outlined above will be identification of a viable cost-effective means to accomplish this that builds on the strategic partnerships for regional implementation developed under the programme and complements rather than duplicates related initiatives.

Based on the experience that has accumulated during the course of BPSP implementation, the specific thematic work that is presently being carried out under the UNEP led project component, and feedback from country clients concerning their priorities, the technical thrust of future support should include the following:

Such a programme would incorporate three elements that have been a cornerstone of the BPSP "distributive network" approach to knowledge development and dissemination:

A structure to achieve this would likely include both global and regional elements and require stable funding of core elements for a minimum of three years.

With South American Climbers vast increase and fast spread, 20% trees in 5 km2 are dying on a small island of Shenzhen City.

According to CCTV report, plants entwined tightly by South American Climber are dead on a small island of Shenzhen City. Experts explained that South American Climber is a species of liana, which creeps on ground, shrubs or woods. Once it wraps the trunk of trees, trees are dead due to short of photosynthesis.

With South American Climber’s vast increase and fast spread, the habitat of this island are being destroyed and 20% subtropical trees in 5 m2 are dead.

South American Climber which is original in South America was imported to coastland on Southeast China in 80th and burst out in the suitable climate. As for its high speed in produce and long distance in spread, there is no efficient way to prevent.

Currently, similar situation is found in the other areas as the Zhujiang River Delta. Officers in Forestry Bureau of Guangdong Province and experts of the Chinese Academy of Science have been there to implement emergency measures to prevent South American Climber from invading inner land of South China.

It is reported from the National Bureau of Environmental Protection that on August 8th, China's UN permanent delegate WANG Yingfan formally signed the Biosafty Protocal of Biodiversity Convention on behalf of the Chinese Government. China hence becomes the 70th signing country of this protocol.

Modern biotechnology brings great benefits to the human being. However, it may also engender latent adverse effects on the biodiversity, environment and human health. Results will turn out to be catastrophic especially when men cannot ensure the reasonable use of this technology. Biosafty is just an effective measure taken to prevent and control the potential negative influences of exploitation and application of modern biotechnology.

The Biosaftey Protocol provides international stipulations for the potential effects of modern biotechnology on biodiversity, environment and human health. The co-subscription of 70 countries indicates that it has already been a world statute concerned with the transnational transference of live transgenic organisms.

The biotechnology of China develops quickly in recent 10 years. Up to now, field experiments have been conducted in 22 kinds of insect-resisting, antiviral and upgraded transgenic crops and forest trees, 4 of which including insect-resisting cotton and antiviral tomato have already been put into commercial production.

Moreover, transgenic animal and microbe research of China has achieved great development. China's total area of field experiment and commercial production of transgenic crops ranks 4th in the world. China imports live transgenic organisms such as soybean from foreign countries, while some foreign companies conduct transgenic researches and experiments with mixed forms in China. Therefore, the release to environment of live transgenic organisms (field experiment and commercial production) will cause potential risks and threats to the biodiversity, environment and human health of China unless effective supervisory measures are taken.

It is reported that the Chinese Government has already drawn up the National Biosafty Outline of China and brought forward the national scheme of related policy system, law system and capability construction. Meanwhile, the supervisory and technical sustaining systems will be established as soon as possible.

Overview of Undertaken Measures on
Migratory Waterfowls Conservation in Kazakhstan

The Republic of Kazakhstan is the ninth largest country in the world. Being located in the centre of Eurasia, Kazakhstan harbours a distinctive and varied landscape. Nearly every bio-geographic zone can be found here, from the forest-steppe of the Siberian lowland, to the Caspian Sea coastline and from the southern desert steppe, to the alpine systems of the Tien Shan Mountains in the east. The richest biological diversity including rare and endemic species makes Kazakhstan a globally significant territory where over 6,000 plants species grow and the animal assemblage is equally as diverse including 500 bird species most of which migrate regularly.

Two of the world’s major flyways and their respective branches, the Central Asian-Indian Flyway and the East African Flyway, converge on Kazakhstan’s wetlands. This circumstance emphasises these wetlands global significance for migratory waterfowls as they stopover on their way from Africa, India and south Europe to their breeding places in Western and Eastern Siberia. In essence, Kazakhstan is an international migratory bird “hub.” Waterfowls from as far away as Italy and Finland on the west to Yakutia on the East and from the Arctic in the north and Australia to the south rely on wetlands resources in Kazakhstan for nesting, moulting and feeding habitat during migration period. In fact, Kazakhstan supports the largest population (over 130 species) of waterfowl in Asia including 30 species of specially protected ones. It is estimated that over 50 million birds migrate semi-annually through Kazakhstan from winter feeding grounds to summer nesting grounds and back again. Evaluated annual population of birds passing this territory is around 50 million, approximately 20% of these are estimated to stopover here for nesting. As such, Kazakhstan is one of the priority areas for waterfowls habitat conservation in this part of the world.

Recognising the global significance of Kazakhstan's biodiversity and the responsibility for its protection, Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan is trying to conduct active international policy directed to waterfowl and their habitat conservation. The Convention on biodiversity was ratified in 1994 and thus our country can legally count on Global Environment Facility support. Other most important international documents - Ramsar Convention and Convention on Migratory Wildlife Conservation are now in the stage of approval by different governmental structures and this procedure is to be finalised during the current and the next year. An agreement on migratory bird protection between Kazakhstan and India was concluded in 1991 and this document is still valid.

Legal and institutional structure of migratory waterfowls and their habitat conservation as a part of biodiversity

The Ministry of Natural resources and Environment protection of the Republic of Kazakhstan (MNREP RK) is a central executing body in the area of environmental protection, it is empowered to execute governmental management and control functions, cross-sectoral co-ordination in the environmental protection and bioresources effective use area, including Specially Protected Areas (SPA).

The MNREP, through its departments - Geology and Earth Depths Protection Committee; Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting Committee (FFHC); Environmental Protection Committee; Department of Environmental Protection State Inspection; Water resources Committee and their territorial bodies (district, regional, basin structures) executes the state control, protection, reproduction and use of bioresources on all state territory. The work on the spots is ensured by the regional departments of environmental protection; basin administrations on fish stocks protection and fishing regulation; territorial fishery, forestry and hunting departments; regional departments of state control over animal and plant life. Special Protected Area management is carried out by the Forestry, Fishery and Hunting Committee (FFHC) through its department of Special Protected Areas. State management bodies activities and control over natural resources protection and use sphere is carried out under regional and district Akimats management and in full coordination with them. Akimats ensure state policy leading and legislation maintenance on the spot.

The main law on biodiversity protection is “Law on Environment Protection” passed in July of 1997. This law provides first of all the overall framework for environment protection in Kazakhstan. it is directed to prevent pollution and to encourage the effective use of all environmental components. It is Kazakhstan’s most important legal effort to prevent pollution of migratory bird wetlands habitat as a result of different activities implementation. The law envisages the involvement of local communities' different strata in the activities on country’s natural resources protection and management basing on the free market principles such as the “polluter pays”.

The “Law on Protection, Reproduction, and Use of Fauna” and "Law on Special Protected Areas" the main legal mechanisms regulating waterfowls conservation and use. The Law on Fauna envisages bioresources sustainable use and basing on this law additional regulations and statutes can be promulgated as needed. However, in Kazakhstan there are no specific laws and statutes on the migratory waterfowl and their habitat conservation.

Passed in 1997, the Law on Specially Protected Territories specifies the various categories (SPA of local, national and international significance) and types (Zapovedniks, national parks, globally significant wetlands) of protected areas in Kazakhstan. The law also determines the order of SPA organization and functioning. Currently Kazakhstan's nature reserve fund includes nine Zapovedniks, five national parks, 58 game reserves and 24 natural monuments. Apart from that over 150 water reservoir are included into the category of state significance.

National Program on Wetland and their resources protection was partially worked out in 1993 and then developed in the National Strategy on biodiversity conservation (1998). The National Coordination Council was proposed for establishment to coordinate cross-sectoral activities related to wetland conservation. The Council was not established due to numerous reorganizations within Kazakhstan's managing structures.

Within the range of the most important State programs focused on natural resources (including waterfowl) management and protection there is inventorying and monitoring of the animal life programs. The official institution responsible for these programs implementation is MNREP RK. Inter-institutional program "Waterfowl" was adopted in 1993, it is directed to first of all the annual evaluation of waterfowls populations especially hunted types and these resources sustainable management. However, subsequent multiple reorganizations of the most institutions responsible for this program implementation as well as state authority delegation from MNREP to MoA and backwards and, the most important, a lack of required Governmental support make this program implementation practically impossible now. Nevertheless, separate regional Forestry, Fishery and Hunting Departments annually conduct researches of their secured wetlands and make objective evaluation of waterfowl numbers at their own expenses.

Equally with them, the Institute of Zoology (the Academy of Science RK structural department) specialists also conduct monitoring researches of the waterfowls in the most important Kazakhstan wetlands. Within the last decade Kazakhstan' ornithologists took monitoring observations and quantity calculations in the largest wetlands in most of Kazakhstan regions with support of such international organizations as RSPB, NABU, AEWRDA. As a result now quite solid data on waterfowls many species' numbers and locations are accumulated in the Institute of Zoology. A database on ringed birds, a database on ring returns and a database on hunted waterfowls have been created.

To the number of the most large-scaled projects directed to waterfowls conservation and management in Kazakhstan we may recently refer:

The government of RK officially recognized the significance of biodiversity conservation through Convention on Biological Diversity ratification in September 1994. National strategy and Action plan on biodiversity conservation and balanced use (NS&APBD-1998) as well as National Action Plan on Environmental protection for sustainable development (NAPEP-1999) set wetland ecosystems conservation and sustainable management as main priority. Two out of seven priority ecosystems determined by NS&APBD are 1) wetland ecosystems and 2) river ecosystems. MNREP worked out a long-term National Plan on Sustainable Development where 19 project blocks were set and submitted to GEF's review. One of them is the development of Special Protected natural territories system. Although Kazakhstan is not a participant of Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention), it tries to follow this convention spirit through realization of international collaboration on migratory species conservation and research. Signed Memorandums on migratory species conservation such as Siberian Crane, Slender-billed Curlew, Sociable Plover, etc. and agreement with India on migratory birds protection provide for target researches conduction, information exchange and practical measures on protection work out. Kazakhstan also collaborates with Ramsar Convention Secretariat supplying annual information on taken actions. Currently preliminary procedures on this convention joining are accomplished.

Local communities increased awareness, their involvement into migratory birds' habitat conservation and management.

The responsibility to work with the local communities to increase their awareness of Kazakhstan biodiversity global significance is laid on the MINREP of RK. Nature Protection Society exists in Kazakhstan as an institutional structure for many years, nowadays being practically deprived of governmental support its work is low effective. Certain work is being done by the Territorial Societies of the largest NGO in Kazakhstan - KazOkhotRybolovSoyuz. There is a row of other smaller but also very active NGOs involved into knowledge spread on environmental protection issues, they are financed by funds and privately. Another activity sphere is organization of events among the local communities following examples of ecological dates and events celebration such as Earth day, Biodiversity Day, Birds Day, Park March, etc. Mass media, SPA administrations, regional administrations, FFHC departments, schoolteachers and university students take part in these events.

Preparation of Report on Project Startup and Training Planning have been Accomplished
　
It has been recently known from GEF Wetlands Project Office of the State Forestry Administration (SFA) that since GEF Wetlands Project formally started in July 2000, it has got well along and is now in full swing. The tasks of examining the Wetlands nature reserves, preparing Report on Project Startup, and personnel-training planning have been accomplished.

The project of “the Biodiversity Protection and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in China” (GEF Wetland Project for short), which is subsidized by the Global Environmental Fund, the United Nation Development Programme and Australia Development Aid Bureau together, is the biggest of the projects that UNDP and GEF are conducting in the wetland biodiversity field. It will lay stress on solving the threats faced by the wetland biodiversity in the project region especially the demonstration region, so as to promote the sustainable development of the wetlands and periphery areas, and strengthen the wetland protection at different levels from the Center to the localities and the competence construction of the management institutions. The term of this project is 5 years, and the total investment reaches 34.571 million U.S. dollars. The project region includes 4 wetlands -- the Sanjiang Plain wetland in Heilongjiang Province, the coastal wetland in Yancheng of Jiangsu Province, the Dongting Lake wetland in Hunan Province and the Ruoergai wetland in Sichuan and Gansu Provinces and involves 11 wetland nature reserves such as East Dongting Lake, Sanjiang, Yancheng, Shouqu, etc. These wetlands represent the important types of the Chinese wetlands and have abundant wetland biodiversity.

As the executive representative of the Chinese Government, the SFA specially founded the leading group and the executive office of the project, which are under the charge of MA Fu, Deputy Director General.

It’s introduced that since the startup of the project all work gets well along. Chinese and Foreign Specialist Group has accomplished examining the 11 involved wetland nature reserves. Report on Project Startup has been prepared. 17 Chinese and foreign specialists have been employed. After various training demand analyses, training program has been framed and carried into operation for Beijing project managers and personnel of provincial wetlands management institutions and wetland nature reserves. Through training and furnishing with office equipment, management capacity of wetlands management institutions and wetland nature reserves at all levels has been conspicuously strengthened, so as to lay the firm foundation of implementation of the project, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

Nowadays 4 sub-contracts of the project are inviting internationally pubic bidding, and 2 of these are hopeful to be subscribed to contracts in March 2001. In addition, all nature reserves will start to prepare their own Nature Reserve Management Program.
LEI Kun, China Green Times, 12/1/2001
Translated by WU Lihui

Siberian crane (Grus leucogeranus) is one of the most rare birds of the world. Especially small in population numbers are West and Central populations of this species, centers of which are located in lower part of Ob river (Russia): there are not more than several dozens of pairs of those beautiful birds here. A little better does Eastern population: in Yakutiya there are still up to 2 thousands of Siberian cranes, who spend winter of Poyang lake in China.

So what connection does Kazakhstan have to this bird that nests in the North, and winters in the South - in China, India and Iran? The most straight, as it turns out. Through the big Kazakhstan territory lay main migrating routes of representatives of Western and Central populations of Siberian cranes - most endangered ones. Main center, from which ways of autumn migration of Western and Siberian populations go, is Naurzum nature reserve area in Northern Kazakhstan (Kustanai region). From here specimen of Western population go to the West, where next - and most important place of their rest and renewing of energy on the migration route - is Volga delta, then birds follow along Western coast of Caspian Sea to wintering places in Iran - in Feredunkenar on the Southern coast of Caspian Sea. Central population's specimen from Naurzum region fly almost straight to the South and, crossing arid territories of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, come to wintering places in Northern India (KeoladeoNational Park in Bkharatpur province). In the last years on the both winterings - Iran and Indian - only not more than 10-12 cranes were observed.

Saving Siberian crane works were began 25 years ago by International Crane Foundation (ICF, Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA) in collaboration with All-Union Institute of Nature Protection of USSR. During those years in 2 special nurseries (in Russia and USA) was grown more than 150 cranes that may be returned to the nature. At the same time monitoring of natural populations on nesting and wintering places is conducted. Bonn convention secretariat (CMS/UNEP) with ICF had 3 international conferences about Siberian Crane (Moscow, Russia, May 1995; Keoladeo, India, October 1996; Ramsar, Iran, December 1998). The result of those conferences is Plan of actions for saving this species.

The result of the last conference was project idea about collaboration of Russia, Kazakhstan, China, Azerbaijan, Iran, India, directed to saving Siberian crane and marshlands necessary for its living. This idea was approved by GEF, which gave funds for 2000 for making this project, that was named: GEF PDF-B Project on "Conservation of the Globally Significant Wetland and Migration Corridors required by Siberian Cranes and other Globally Significant Migratory Waterfowls in Asia".
National Executing Agency - Ministry of Natural resources and Environment Protection of Republic of Kazakhstan. Government Representative - Talgat Kerteshev (Head of Special Protected Areas Department Forestry, Fishery and Hunting Commitee of Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Protection of RK). National-Technical Coordinator in Kazakhstan isS.N. Yerokhov, National Non-Government Expert - A.F. Kovshar.

From 15 to 17 of March of 2000 in Moscow the first sitting of Steering Committee was held, and the first draft plan that explains main steps of further work was developed. Project's purpose is to establish active protection of Siberian crane and its habitats (which are also important habitats of other rare species of water birds) by recruiting local people in this work, including government, non-government and private structures.

It is planned to hold a seminar in autumn of 2000 in Kustanai with participance of all people and organizations concerned for giving full information to local people about goals of the project and for developing of joint approaches to this problem.

Prof. Anatoly KOVSHAR
Head of Kazakhstan - Middle-Asian zoological society, Almaty, Kazakhstan

Today it is learnt from the SFA that the result of the quantified assessment of Chinese forest biodiversity shows the value of more than 7,000 billion RBM in Chinese forest biodiversity (255-410 Billion USD per year was estimated for biodiversity value of China in the report of BWG/CCICED in 1995).

For the first time the result quantifies Chinese forest biodiversity from value’s angle, so as to fill a blank in this field and make it possible to protect forest biodiversity by economy means.

The result divides Chinese forest biodiversity into 8 districts of Northeast, Northwest, Huangtu Plateau, North China, South China, Southwest Alpine, Tropic Zone and Tibet Plateau according to factors influencing forest biodiversity. After calculation and comparison study, the value of Chinese forest biodiversity was calculated respectively by 2 ways, i.e. direct income capitalization method and indirect cost-benefit analytical method.

ZHEN Beiying, Guangming Daily, Beijing, 4/1/2001
Translated by WU Lihui

Chinese Government will Invest 96.2 Billion RMB on Natural Forest Protection Project

ZHOU Shengxian, Head of SFA announced on the 6 Dec. 2000, that the National Natural Forest Protection Project has been activated after two years of trial. Chinese government will fund the project 96.2 billion Yuan during the next 10 years.

ZHOU Shengxian said, in the Natural Forest and Resource Protection Project Meeting held on the 6th, that the central government will invest 78.4 billion Yuan, matched by l7.8 billion Yuan from the local government on the project to protect natural forest in the Upper Yangtze River, Middle and Upper Yellow River, and the state-own forest in Northeast China and Inner Mongolia. The project covers seventeen provinces, autonomy regions and municipals directly under the jurisdiction of central government which include Yunnan, Sichuan, Shaanxi, Gansu, Jilin, and Inner Mongolia.

Chinese government will prohibit logging in natural forest area in the Upper Yangtze River, Middle and Upper Yellow River, according to the plan of protection project. At the same time, logging in state-own forest areas will be largely reduced in Northeast China and Inner Mongolia. As the result, the timber production will reduce 7.5 million m3.

Chinese government hopes that through ten years of effort, 61.18 million ha. of existing natural forest in Upper Yangtze River and Yellow River would be protected, said ZHOU Shengxian, and this will result in reduction in consumption of forest resources by 61.5 million m3. It was estimated that till the year 2010, the area of forest and prairie will increase about 14.60 million ha.，the prairie coverage rate will reach 32.2 percent from 25.8 percent at present; more than 8.60 million ha. of forest will be added, the forest coverage rate will be 21.2 percent, up from 17.5 percent.

He said, reducing timber production and prohibiting logging will probably lead to unemployment for some forestry workers and reduce the income for local people. The government will provide them with subsidy to maintain their daily basic needs, and help them find other jobs.

China has been taking actions on trial project of natural forest and resource since 1998. Recently the government has invested 10.1 billion Yuan on the project. The timber production are reduced to 2.3 million m3 last year from 8.6 million m3 in 1997; The production from the main state-owned forest reduced to 15.40 million m3 last year from 18.50 million m3 in 1997.
Huashen Newspaper (2000-12-07)
Translated by CHEN Ying

The light-yellow summer sun focused its energy in the southern part of the burning hot horizon. It was midday. The scorching heat slowly dried out any remaining feelings of consciousness. The thermometer read 53oC and my colleagues and I strolled back to our field camp after an entomological excursion. Slowly receding behind us was the steep shores of the Aral Sea. Our path lay across its driedout seabed.

Just yesterday evening our expedition group got to the northern part of the Aral Sea and admired the shore's massive ledges carved out by erosion that proudly towered against the backdrop of the purple-blue sky. To us first timers in that part of the world the site use chose for our camp that night could not have been better. Oh, what a memorable sight! A cool evening breeze, impressive sand bar along the shore, hot drink of tea, discussion about philosophy around a fire at midnight, crystal stars piercing the velvet black night. It was only in the morning as use prepared to set out that we realised that our night camp was in fact an abandoned landing-stage, temporarily constructed on the drying Aral sea-bed in trail after the receded water. The barges and launches that were strewed around seemed to sink deeper into the sand with time. Not far from the shore stood a well of mollusc shells almost two metres high.

We were only about two hundred metres away from the camp and the horizon looked hazy because of the strong evaporation. The massive ledges did not look that majestic as it had seemed the night before, and could we call the pale from the burning hot air, flickering and turbid landscape beautiful? We reached the camp and I proposed to my companion that we cooled ourselves in the luring cool water of the Aral Sea. What a soothing experience! I got out of the water and the burning sand made me ran to find solace for my poor feet but unfortunately stumbled against a protruding piece of iron. What came up to mind was that life, although wonderful, sometimes carried surprise. For some reason I felt my skin tighten and my body began to itch. Good gracious! I was covered in salt and l bad to wash down with the precious fresh water we had carried up with us. The protruding piece of metal turned out to be a part of launcher buried in the sand. The stern and simple thought dawned on me – not long ago this was part of the sea.

Aral started drying up almost 40 years ago and was first mentioned in 1961. The reason why the level of this unique internal lake, called a sea owing to its shear size, was falling became clear. The fast development of extensive irrigated farmlands along the two rivers, Syrdariya and Amudariya that emptied its waters into the Aral deprived the sea of its main source of replenishment. Any attempts to look into the perspective of such policies were stifled by a number of factors namely, the bureaucratic and indisputable government, whose decisions could not be challenged, compounded by the aspirations of local leaders determined to make a career at any cost and the primitive ideology that we don't have to wait for alms from Nature, but it was our duty to take them. But the Laws of Nature are implacable and do not adhere to the dictates of any party. The water balance of the Aral Sea comprised of rivers emptying into it, atmospheric precipitation and underground water as against losses due to evaporation. Evaporation always significantly inf1uenced the water-filling capacity of the sea that lay in the arid zone, surrounded by parched deserts. Since the beginning of the XX century till the start of the draught in 1961, loss from evaporation on the average accounted for 66.1 km3 annually, while rivers brought in 56 km3, atmospheric precipitation – 9.1 km3 and underground water – 5.4 km3 annually. On the whole until 1961 there was a relative balance between water gain and loss, which ensured a rather stable sea level.

The irrigation channels constructed for agricultural purposes along the two main rivers that fed the Aral Sea had a disastrous effect on the sea's delicate water balance. From 1961 to 1970 an average of 43.3 km3 flowed into the sea while from 1970 to 1980 this figure dropped to only 16.7 km'. In the early 80s, the river flow into the Aral almost ceased with only an average of 2 km3 annually, moreover since the early 1985 Amudariya has not flowed into the sea, and in the olden days the deep Syrdariya flowed into it as a small river. From 1986 to 1995 river drainage annually used to make about 7 km3 of water. For the last three to four years a small increase of river water from the Syrdariya flowing into the sea has been observed due to heavy rains at the source and the economic hardships facing the agricultural sector reducing the demand for irrigation. During the last 40 years that this delicate mater balance was disturbed, the level of Aral Sea sharply fell from its typical level of 53 m a.s.l. during the stable period when variations did not exceed +1m. From 1961 to 1974 the water level fell at an annual average rate of 27 crn and this falling rate further decreased to 71cm from 1975-1985 and reached peak levels of 88cm per annum in the 90s. By that time the sea level had dropped by 16 metres. As a result the shallow (less than 2 meters deep), dried-out Auzykokaral Strait in 1968 caused the Kokaral, a little island stretching from the west to the east, to joined up with the western borders of the Aral. In 1990 after the deeper Berg Strait (about I3 m) had also dried out, this land mass finally got linked to the eastern coast of the Aral Sea, thus cutting the once large water body into two – the Small Aral Sea to the north and bigger Big Aral Sea to the south. The total volume of water then had fallen to 370 km3 and covered a total area of 40 394 sq. km Small Aral Sea accounted for a volume of under 30 km3 and an area of 3500 sq. km. Small Aral Sea was 11 times smaller in volume and 10 times smaller in area than the Big Aral Sea. The isolation of these two water bodies ushered in a new phase in the history of the Aral Sea.

Differences in the level of the Aral Sea have led to changes of the concentration of dissolved salts. Until 1961 the average annual salt concentration was about 10.2-10.3 o/oo . By 1970 this figure rose to 11.5 o/oo and by 1980 it went up to 17.0 o/oo. Figures for 1989 stand at 30 o/oo. In 1992 this index for the Big Aral Sea was 42.1 o/oo, and for Small Aral Sea – 24.9 o/oo. By December 1998 the salt concentration of Small Aral Sea has reduced to 16.0-17.0 o/oo. while figures for Big Aral Sea have risen to 46-48 o/oo.

If until 1989, the water fell evenly because the Berg Strait connected the northern and southern water bodies, then later, after their isolation the water levels in the Big and the Small Aral Seas changed at different rates and even directions. The Berg Strait dried out in 1989, but in its place existed a 4 km long man-made canal built in the early 1980s to facilitate navigation. After the disappearance of the Berg Strait, this canal became reactivated. Big Aral started to shrink while the Small Aral Sea swelled as water poured in from the Syrdariya, underground water end atmospheric precipitation. The hydrological gradient between the northern and the southern water bodies increased and this caused water to find a course through the man-made canal, which had been filled with silt before the mater broke bounds. The gushing water easily washed away the silt from the upper layers of its new course and the strong currents continued to deepen and widen the canal. By the spring of 1992 the canal was 5 km long, 200 metres wide and 2 metres deep. Estimates have shown that every second about 100 m3 of water flowed from the Small into the Big Aral Sea. It is thought that in the future this constantly deepening canal could reach the mouth of the Syrdariya and cause the currents to re-course and flow towards the Big Aral Sea, leading to the disappearance of the Small Aral Sea. This was to be avoided because the majority of the population in the Aral Sea region is concentrated in the northern part with over 150 000 people living in Kazalinsk and Aral districts of the Kyzylorda Province. The disappearance of a large water body as the Small Aral Sea, would have serious ecological and economic consequences for the population inhabiting the area. In an effort to avoid this outcome, a decision was taken to seal the canal by building an artificial dam to stop the water flow into the Big Aral Sea. The canal was first dammed in the early part of 1992, but the water broke end washed away the dam. The second attempt saw a darn 1m high that was successfully completed in August that same year. But since then there have been several breaks in the dam.

In 1996 the local authorities began to strengthen the dam and in 1998 the International Foundation for Saving the Aral Sea started financing the construction of the Kokaral Dam. This project envisages overflow outlets.

For the Aral Sea region the construction of this dam is of great economic and ecological significance and does not aim to isolate the Small Aral from the Big Aral Sea. The aim is to raise the water level of the Small Aral Sea to about 50- 52 metres above sea level. Should there be any surplus water it will be allowed to flow into the Big Aral Sea through the overflow outlet or possibly through Auzykokaral Strait. The water flowing into the Small Aral Sea is gradually making it expand covering the salt bed and as a result the region has experienced lesser salt storms over the last years. Raising the water level of the Small Aral will also have a great psychological influence on the local people – to them it is a good sign meaning a change for the better.
In April 22, 1999 the big strong storm raced through all territory of Kazakhstan. In that time 7 people were killed by this wind. Unfortunately, this weather damaged the Kokaral dam in Aral Sea. The wind brought a lot of tons of Small Aral Sea water, which pushed the ground dam. It happened when 40 builders worked in the dam. As a result two people died, 27 people stayed during 1-1.5 days on the roofs of trucks, tractors and cranes waiting a help from outside. These people were rescued by boats and helicopters. Later the collaborative team of Tethys Society and Japanese Research Association in Kazakhstan twice reached the damaged dam, first time by boat in May 20 and by helicopter in September 25, 1999. In Spring all mechanisms were on the water, but in September most of them were on dried bottom, the sea level decreased on 2.5 m opened a great territory. Thus, people should start again to build this very important dam.

In spite of the alarming rate at which the Big Aral Sea is shrinking, an amount of optimism supports the thought that similar and even more drastic reductions in the water surface of the Aral occurred in history.

The Aral Sea was formed about 3 million years ago. It is quite possible that this internal water body started as a small basin that collected all the salty water from the surrounding territory. The salt crust that formed after all the water had evaporated loosened the soil and assisted wind erosion. Regular sandstorms blew away this loose soil deepening and widening the cavity. The old Amudariya and its tributaries in prehistoric times flowed towards the Caspian and with time gradually changed course, flowing to the north through Karakum Desert into the Aral-Sarykamyshskaya Basin. As the Tien Shan Mountains grew, the upper flow of the Syrdariya moved from one depression to the other. Later it took course through the Fergan Valley and Golodnaya Steppe and reached the Aral Basin. About 9 000 years ago, the very wet climatic period caused both rivers to fill the Aral Sea Basin. Later the water overflowed and took course along Uzboi to the Caspian Sea. The climate became drier starting from about 3500 years ago and approximately 500 years later the flow into the Caspian along the Uzboi ceased altogether. Some researchers hold the view that the drying up of the Uzboi was the result of human activities just as with the turn of the Amudariya into the Sarykamysh Basin. It has been proved that Amudariya changed course from Sarykamysh to Aral Sea in 1573. Most probably some event made Man discontinue his control of the flow of the river. Written records by the first English traveller to Central Asia in 1588, Anthony Jenkinson, testify to the fact that man controlled the flow of the river. 'The water used to irrigate the whole land of Khorezm is obtained by canals draining the Oksah (Amudariya) to the detriment of the aforementioned river because it no longer flows into the Caspian Sea as it used to do.' When the Amudariya River started flowing into the Aral it quickly filled it up and even flooded the saxaul thickets on the surrounding banks.

A significant drop in the water level of the Aral took place in the 4th century AD with water levels reaching 30-32 m a.s.l. This was also the result of Man's activities. In times of old, the people of Khorezm could control the course of River Amudariya by directing it into the Sarykamysh Lake, the Aral Sea, or simultaneously into both basins. If the Aral Sea basin did not have such a developed irrigation system during its whole history, this sea would have been much bigger. It may have joined with the Sarykamysh Lake and flowed into the Caspian. The first ever man-made irrigation canals appeared here 5-6 thousand years ago and an area of 4.5-5 million hectares was put under irrigation farming. In the 4th – 5th centuries BC these canals provided water for 3.7-3.8 million hectares of farmland and by the 15th century irrigated farmlands reduced to 2.4 million hectares. This significant decrease in irrigation account for the 1.5 times increase in the volume of water that flowed into the Aral. To better understand the scale of irrigation carried out during the olden days it will suffice to compare to modern day irrigated farms. In the 19th century irrigated farmlands accounted for 1.9 million hectares in the Aral Sea zone. By 1949 this figure increased to 2.14 million and just before the Soviet Union disintegrated, irrigation farmlands hit its peak total area of 6.5 million hectares.

For the last 10 years the mentality of the people in the Aral Sea region has changed. They are now confident of themselves and rely on their own strength. They accept assistance in dignity and do not ask for it from the government or foreign missionaries. To them the shock has passed and it is now high time for only hard work.
Roman V. Jashenko, Tethys Society, Almaty, Kazakhstan

Saiga (Saiga tatarica L.) is a herd migrating animal of arid zones of Eurasia. Most of its population area nowadays is located on Kazakhstan territory. Out of its borders Saiga is met in not big amounts in Russia (Kalmykia) and Mongolia (is registered in the Red Data book). From Kazakhstan some part of population migrate to Bordering regions of Uzbekistan (Karakalpakiya) and Turkmenistan for wintering, and in spring animals return in the opposite direction. Besides, in some seasons it stays between Ural and Volga rivers on the territory of Astrakhanskaya and Volgogradskaya regions of Russia. Those peculiarities of territorial habitat tell us to consolidate with the countries involved in Saiga conservation.

Saiga population number, starting from mid-90s, from year to year continued to decrease and in spring of 2000 was 150 thousands of specimen - it reduced 6 times. In some geographical regions this decrease was even larger, between Ural and Volga rivers - 10 times, in Betpak-Dala desert - approximately 20 times. And only on Usturt because of the small population number and not plain geography Saiga population decreased only in 1.5 times. Besides smuggling, main limiting factors for Saiga are: lots of snow, when it is impossible to get food, and illnesses. Winters with lots of snow were observed twice - in 1993/94 in Betpak-Dala and in 1996/97 between Volga and Ural rivers. In the first case more that 200 thousands of Saiga died, and in second - several dozens of thousands. We need to point out that before after cases of mass dying population grew to the normal in 3-5 years because of Saiga's high prolificacy.

National hunting was minimal in sizes (from 29 thousands in 1995 to 7 thousands in 1998), was controlled and wasn't the main factor of species population dynamic. Never the less, when the population number began to decrease, hunting was officially prohibited in 1998 - in Betpak-Dala region, and in 1999-2000 - on the whole Kazakhstan territory (by Government decree). But this official prohibition was not supported by real measures and Saiga population continues to decrease. Besides, Uzbekistan continues to have commercial trade for Saiga on its territory - there is no consolidation between countries in this. If this situation stays the same, Saiga can disappear in nearest years.

For effective protection of this species and its habitat area it is necessary to make a system of measures that would include ecological, legal, social-economical and organizational-cultural points. Main acts that should be done in this are increasing of protected territories system (with different status and protection ), firstly in mass breeding areas, main migration ways and wintering places of Saiga, developing security measures when building different cultural establishments, doing biotechnical acts for making habitat better, developing standard - methodical acts that would help protections organization, making observations and counting the number of population, strengthening sheriffs' work for effective anti - smugglers' protection, counting Saiga's population regularly, firstly counting numbers, sex and age contents, breeding and habitat conditions (plants, snow, epizootological conditions, etc.). This question is of interest to several countries, its solution is seen in making a regional (international) project with participance and for support of international funds and organizations.

Timing	Session	Title
Thursday, 8 Feb
09:00 – 10:30	1	Specific achievements of Biodiversity Planning Support Program (BPSP) regional and global components
11:00 – 12:30	2	The relationship between BPSP and other regional and global initiatives
14:00 – 15:30	3	The relationship of BPSP to the Clearing House Mechanism (CHM) (regional and national levels)
16:00 – 17:30	4	Identification and relationship with regional communities of practice and centers of excellence
Friday, 9 Feb
09:00 – 10:30	5	Priority areas for BPSP support to National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) implementation
11:00 – 12:30	6	The consultation process
13:00 – 15:00	7	Donor dialog
15:30 – 17:30	8	Preparations for Subsidiary Bodies for Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) presentations and post project evaluation

Northeast and East Central Asia

National Biodiversity Strategies & Action Plans

Newsletter

National Biodiversity
Strategies & Action Plans