Abstract: Represented is fauna of big salt-marsh valleys and pre-Kyzylkum area, a tier of low desert foothill valleys, tiers of lowland ridges, deeply cut hillside midlands, and cold highlands of the watershed ridge-top tier in the Jizak region of Uzbekistan. The highest tier of the Jizak region, a habitat of snow leopard, Menzbier's marmot, Siberian ibex, sometimes wild Tajik sheep coming from the East, bear ascending from lower elevations, and wolf in summer, has the most adverse living conditions. Central Asia argali and stone marten inhabit in central part of the North Nurata ridge.

Abstract: Fauna of the mammals in Dzungarian Ala Tau included 54 species, from them in IUCN Red book, the Red Data book of USSR and Kazakh Red Data Book listed snow leopard, dhole, brown bear, Central Asian otter, Turkestan lynx, manul, argali, marbled polecat and stone marten. Institute of geography of Kazakhstan offers the project on creation of protected territory on Dzungarian Ala Tau for biodiversity conservation and increase in number of rare and disappearing species.

Abstract: Afghanistan’s position in latitude, geography and at the intersection of three biogeographic realms has resulted in a surprising biodiversity. Its wildlife includes species such as the snow leopard, Asiatic black bear, Marco Polo sheep, markhor and greater flamingo. Principal threats include high levels of deforestation, land encroachment and hunting for food and trade. Continuing security issues have also made it difficult to monitor species abundance and population trends. Over the last decade, however, survey efforts have provided the first collection of species and habitat data since the late 1970s. Initial findings are enabling the Government and rural communities to begin implementing important conservation measures. This process has included policy development and protected area planning, promoting alternative livelihoods and responsible community management, and continuing research into the status of biodiversity in the field.

Abstract: A high percentage of rare species in Central Asia experience limited conditions for distribution. Geographic centers with higher species diversity are generally constrained in terms of territory: they are formed when ranges overlap. But in Central Asia and along its borders with Russia, centers of biodiversity overlap at the very marginal edges of ranges. Central Asian species cross into Russian territory, where desert and steppe are replaced by thick forest. Here the northern borders of their ranges are sharply fragmented and isolated. Typical examples for Central Asia are the ranges of the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), Asian leopard (Panthera pardus caucasica), striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena), Bukhara deer (Census elaphus bactrianus), markhor (Capra falconeri), blue sheep (Pseudois nayauf) and argali (Ovis ammon). In Russia are the Altai subspecies of argali, the Siberian argali (O.a.ammon), the mountain goat (Capra sibirica), Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa), snow leopard (Uncia uncia), Pallas' cat (Felis manul), dhole (Cuon alpinus), grey marmot (Marmota baibacina), Mongolian marmot (M. sibirica) and tolai hare (Lepus tolai). Where the numbers o f individuals has fallen to extreme lows, the most effective mechanism for species survival may be supporting the integrity of ranges, in order to preserve population exchanges between neighboring groups. The geographic location of reserves and other protected territories is vitally important for the survival of Central Asian species, given the acute fragmentation of their ranges. These reserves should include significant, viable centers of population the key places. Wherever the creation of permanent protected territories is impossible, a new tactic must be found, such as introducing temporary limitations on the use of land for agriculture and hunting. But all protected territories, whether temporary or permanent, should be connected, forming a core and periphery. The marginal range areas must not be forgotten, if total protection of endangered populations is to be accomplished.

Abstract: In response to dwindling wildlife populations and habitat, governments established national parks and protected areas, often with little input from people living in the immediate area. In some cases communities were relocated, but in most they are left to pursue traditional agricultural and pastoral livelihoods under a new set of rules. Important questions of land tenure remained unresolved, with a “fences and fines” approach to protected area management (Stolton and Dudley 1999).