Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–20] |
![]() |
Jackson, R., Hillard, D. (2003). Non-invasive Monitoring to Support Local Stewardship of Snow Leopards and Their Prey: Annual progress report summary.
Abstract: Under this grant awarded by The Leonard X. Bosack and Bette M. Kruger Foundation through the auspices of Cat Action Treasury, SLC set out to accomplish the following outcomes in our Stewardship Program:
As of July 1, 2003 we completed the following major activities: * Tested and compared different remote sensor and camera configurations to determine which is most reliable at “capturing” passing snow leopards; * Investigated sampling strategies and camera trap placement with respect to snow leopard travel patterns and marking behavior; * Compared different survey methods: direct (non-invasive capture of photos and DNA material contained in hairs), and indirect (sign transects and presence/absence surveys under the standard SLIMS protocol); * Assessed the attitude of local people toward snow leopards, wolves and other wildlife as well as their perceptions of benefits and costs associated with the Hemis National Park, in order to craft more effective conservation and park management measures. These activities mesh with SLC’s ongoing program of predator-proofing livestock corrals in settlements of the Hemis National Park, as well as outside protected areas (including Zanskar, Lingshed and Kanji. For each village’s corrals that are improved, we estimate that five or more snow leopards are saved from retaliatory killing by shepherds who lose valuable livestock. Our program in assisting villagers to gain supplementary income from tourism-related activities is gaining strength, with trainings in 10 settlements this spring. SLC brought staff of KCC, the Khangchenjunga Conservation Committee, a local NGO based in Sikkim to assist in the skills training and to exchange ideas and experiences from other areas. Following on from the groundwork laid during the first Bosack-Kruger grant to SLC, we launched a major initiative in collaboration with the Mountain Institute, the Himalayan Homestay program. Funding for this is being provided by UNESCO. For further information on these and other snow leopard conservation efforts, see our newly designed web-page. The following paragraphs summarize our accomplishments to date, supported by this grant. For detailed information, please consult the following reports, which are being mailed under separate cover: 1) “Local People’s Attitudes toward Wildlife Conservation in Hemis National Park with Special Reference to the Conservation of Large Predators” (prepared by Rodney Jackson, Rinchen Wangchuk and Jigmet Dadul) 2) “Non-Invasive Monitoring to Support Stewardship of Snow Leopards and Their Prey: Evaluation of Remote Camera Traps for Censusing Snow Leopards” (prepared by Rodney Jackson and Jerry Roe). |
Russian Academy of Sciences, W. W. F. (2002). Strategy for Conservation of the Snow Leopard in the Russian Federation. Moscow.
Abstract: The strategy for Conservation of the Snow Leopard in the Russian Federation was discussed and adopted at a meeting of a working group that included representatives from the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; representatives of state and environmental authorities from the Altai, Khakasia, and Tyva republics, as well as the Krasnoyarsk region; the Commission on Large Carnivores of the Theriological Society of the Russian Academy of Sciences; and WWF Russia.
|
Ahlborn, G., Jackson, R. A survery of Sagarmatha National Park and the endangered Snow Leopard.
Abstract: A survey was undertaken of selected parts of Sagarmatha National Park to determine whether snow leopard was present, using techniques developed during a recent in-depth study of the species in west Nepal, using radio-telemetry. Although the species was considered to have been extirpated from the park in the 1970's, occasional reports have originated from trekkers who reported “seeing a snow leopard near Mount Everest (Sagarmatha)”.
|
WWF Russia & WWF Mongolia Programme Office. (2011). Altai-Sayan Ecoregion WWF Newsletter April-June 2011 (Vol. April-June). |
WWF Russia & Mongolia. (2011). WWF Newsletter Altai-Sayan Ecoregion July – September 2011. |
Bai, Y. (2004). Snow Leopard Poaching and Trafficking Trade Survey Project Progress Reports in Xinjiang, China. China. |
Snow Leopard Conservation Fund, S. L. T., Panthera. (2010). Mining and Snow Leopard Conservation: Tost- Tosonbumba Mountains of Gurvantes Soum, South Gobi Mongolia.
Abstract: The Tost-Tosonbumba Mountains of South Gobi represent one of the most impressive habitats for the endangered snow leopard Panthera Uncia, supporting amongst the highest population density of this rare cat reported so far from across it's global range. A prestigious multi-institutional internal research collaboration was initiated in Tost-Tosonbumba in 2008 with the establishment of a sate of the art research station. Yet, lying outside any protected area, this important snow leopard population and its habitat face direct and urgent threats due to mining. Initiation of mining in the region would (i) severely impact an important snow leopard population and destroy much of its habitat, (ii) compromise the possibility of genetic exchange of snow leopards over a much larger landscape (iii) lay to waste ten years of effort with local communities that have involved improving livelihoods and seeking their co-operation in snow leopard conservation and (iv) squander the opportunity for Mongolia to continue a prestigious one of a kind, long-term international collaborative program on snow leopard research. It is critical that mining licenses in snow leopard habitats of the region be immediately revoked, and the local communities be supported in their efforts to develop the Tost-Tosonbumba Mountains into a local protected area.
|
Paltsyn, M., Spitsyn, S.V., Kuksin, A. N., Istomov, S.V. (2012). Snow Leopard Conservation in Russia.
Abstract: This publication reviews potential actions for the long-term conservation of
snow leopards and their habitat in Russia in conditions of anthropogenic influence and climate change in high elevation ecosystems. This edition is the result of many years of research conducted in the framework of WWF’s “Ensuring the long term protection of biodiversity in the Altai-Sayan Ecoregion” (1998-2011) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) financed by the Global Environment Facility “Conservation of Biodiversity in the Russian portion Altai- Sayan Ecoregion” (2005-2010). The publication contains materials needed to prepare a Russian Snow Leopard Conservation Strategy and was prepared for use by the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources to develop comprehensive priority conservation measures to protect this species. In addition, this publication is intended for protected area specialists and staff at federal and regional government agencies responsible for the conservation and monitoring of species listed in the Russian Federation Red Book. Reviewer: B. Munkhtsog, Candidate in Biological Sciences, staff scientist at the Institute for Biology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, and president of the Mongolian Snow Leopard Center. Translation to English: J. Castner. |
Mallon, D. (2013). Trophy Hunting of Cites-Listed Species in Central Asia.
Abstract: Executive Summary:
The report is part of a project aiming to strengthen capacities to implement CITES, especially in Central Asia and to satisfy the CITES‐related requirements of trading partners, to prevent overexploitation and to ensure legal international trade in wild fauna and flora does not exceed sustainable levels. The objective is to enhance the policies and regulations concerning trophy hunting in selected range States of the Argali Ovis ammon: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and to provide a framework for the establishment of sustainable hunting programmes that support conservation. This report is focused on the relevance of trophy hunting for conservation and associated local livelihoods. Sustainable use of biological diversity is an integral part of the Convention on Biodiversity (1992) and is seen as a valuable tool in conserving biological diversity. The Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines (AAPG) set out the basis for sustainable use of natural resources. The IUCN SSC1 Guiding Principles on Trophy Hunting as a Tool for Creating Conservation Incentives, and the European Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity provide further guidance on the sustainability of trophy hunting, including on highly threatened species. The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) together with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has also developed Best Practice Guidelines for trophy hunting. All five project countries are Parties to CITES, except Tajikistan, which has begun the accession process. Argali are the focus of the trophy hunting in the region and they represent the most expensive trophy in the five project countries. Other CITES‐listed hunting species are Brown Bear Ursus arctos, Wolf Canis lupus, Musk Deer Moschus moschiferus, Eurasian Lynx Lynx lynx (all mainly in Russia) and Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata. Markhor Capra falconeri and Urial Ovis orientalis have also been hunted at times but are not the object of regular trophy hunting programmes at present. Other widely hunted species are not listed in the CITES Appendices. A recent analysis by TRAFFIC of the CITES trade database showed that 10 245 hunting trophy items from species listed in the CITES Appendices were exported from the project countries between 2000 and 2010. Almost all trophy items consisted of Argali, Brown Bear and Wolf. Most were exported from Russia (9473 trophies), with smaller numbers from Tajikistan (705), Kyrgyzstan (668), and Kazakhstan (126), and 13 from Uzbekistan. In the region, wildlife is generally the property of the State, which awards rights to use it to individuals or other entities. National legislation covering hunting and wildlife protection may refer to sustainable use but this is undefined. The legal rights of local communities are also not generally specified. FAO and CIC produced a review of national legislation that set out in detail the basic principles of sustainable wildlife management laws (2008). One of the main findings was that legislative frameworks in the region frequently consisted of different legal instruments that were not always harmonized and sometimes overlapped. In some cases, there was also a lack of institutional clarity, with overlapping jurisdictions among different agencies. Poaching for meat and trophies or commercial products is a significant factor across the whole region, negatively affecting all the main hunting species, as well as protected species. Wild populations have been reduced, sometimes drastically so. Poaching of Argali and other mountain ungulates may be carried out by military or border personnel and is not restricted to areas outside formal nature reserves: indeed, law enforcement and protected area staff are sometimes complicit in illegal hunting, driven in part by the very low salaries. There are numerous recent examples of poaching and illegal trade in trophies of CITES‐listed species. The actual level of illegal off‐take is unknown. Known cases may represent a very small fraction of the real total. The wildlife conservation sector is under‐resourced across the region with a lack of funding, trained personnel, transport and other equipment severely limiting the effectiveness of anti‐poaching efforts. Memoranda of Understanding under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS MoUs) and their associated action plans for Saiga Saiga tatarica and Bukhara Deer Cervus elaphus bactrianus have proven to be effective instruments in facilitating species recovery. A CMS Single Species Action Plan for Argali is in preparation (Roettger & Singh, in prep) and will provide a framework for conservation. Trophy hunting in the region is predominantly organized on a commercial basis. Community‐based hunting initiatives in the region are in their infancy and face some legal and institutional obstacles. There are however promising developments: for example, five community‐based NGOs in Tajikistan are managing wildlife in legally assigned areas and three of them have hosted hunting clients (on non‐CITES species). Well‐developed community‐based trophy hunting programmes operate in Pakistan, targeted at Markhor Capra falconeri which is listed in CITES Appendix I, and in Namibia, which is widely seen as a leader in such programmes, and while the specific conditions and sociopolitical background of both differ in several ways from those in the region, they nonetheless provide instructive guidance on the principles of successful community conservancy organization. There is an extensive literature on trophy hunting, its potential to contribute to conservation of biodiversity and local livelihoods, and the potential negative effects of selective harvesting on species. The consensus view seems to be that selective harvest of trophy‐age males does not impact negatively in the short term, if only a low proportion of the available trophy‐age individuals are harvested, but uncontrolled harvest can lead to a decline in horn size and thus trophy quality, as well as have negative demographic effects. Trophy hunting programmes raise substantial revenues in some African countries, and in the best cases significant sums are received at community or conservancy level. However, this is not universally the case and inequitable benefit sharing remains a major challenge to be overcome. Good governance is an essential requirement when developing hunting and other forms of community based management initiative. A possible decline in size of Argali trophies in Kyrgyzstan has been reported and determining whether this is actually the case, and the causes, is a priority. Standardized monitoring, involvement of independent experts, transparency in quota setting and allocation of licences are all seen as prerequisites of well‐managed and sustainable hunting operations. Allocation of long‐term leases for concessions is needed to motivate managers to invest in anti‐poaching and other conservation measures and remove the temptation for short‐term profit that threatens the sustainability of the resource. Developing all forms of Community‐based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) – trophy hunting and tourism – is also recommended. As the concept is still new to many parts of the region, and the legal‐political background is not always sympathetic, building on examples of existing community conservancies (in Tajikistan) or where there is an administrative basis for local management of resources (Kyrgyzstan), is likely to be effective. Ensuring that communities and conservancies are legally empowered to manage and utilise wildlife and to receive revenues for such use is a basic requirement. Recommendations on good practice are set out in several publications and salient points relevant to the region are highlighted. |
Mallon, D., Kulikov, M. (2015). Transboundary Snow Leopard Conservation in Central Asia: Report of the FFI/CMS Workshop, 1-2 December 2014. |