Of Econet Implementation in Central Asia

STRATEGY OF SUSTAINABLE FUNDING OF ECONET IMPLEMENTATION IN CENTRAL ASIA

Strategy of sustainable funding of ECONET implementation in Central Asia consists of two major components:

 Identification of the order of implementation of different ECONET elements and components (prioritization of ECONET implementation);  Identification of the sources of funding for establishment and sustainable management of these elements.

The key question for biodiversity conservation and for ECONET implementation is considering this problem to be one of the first priorities of the regional development. Such recognition could allow to expect internal (countries of the region) and external efforts and support. Conceptual background of the sustainability of ECONET implementation in Central Asia is based on the obligations of the countries on the PoW on Protected areas CBD, together with national and regional strategic documents (National Strategies and Action Plans on sustainable development and on Biodiversity Conservation, Regional Environmental action plan (REAP)).

Initially, 5 priorities were identified for REAP preparation:  land degradation  air pollution  water pollution  waste management  mountain ecosystems degradation

These priorities partly covered biodiversity conservation problems (for example, mountain ecosystems degradation, but separately this problem was not developed in the REAP. ECONET integration into REAP (by the decisions of ISDC) as a major component, ensuring biodiversity conservation, creates mechanisms of resources mobilization for this purpose both on national, regional and international levels. Legal and political mechanisms of this process are ensured by including biodiversity conservation as a separate goal in the Framework Convention on Environmental Protection for Sustainable Development in Central Asia. The preparation of the Convention was initiated by UNEP; it is already prepared and is passing through the final stages of formal evaluation / endorsement, as a preparation to an official signing, which is planned for the next ISDC meeting. Differently from REAP, biodiversity conservation is picked out in a separate paragraph of the Convention (§13). Intentions and obligations of the countries on ECONET implementation and management (especially its transboundary elements) are in details stated in a Protocol of the above named Convention (which is also passing the process of formal evaluation / endorsement, as a preparation to an official signing). ECONET scheme is endorsed by the relevant Ministries of the region and adopted as the main base for the long-term development of the system of protected areas in the countries. (The system and the level of endorsement is a bit different in the countries, depending on the administrative structures and responsibilities, and on the administrative belonging of the protected areas).

In accordance with the PoW on protected areas CBD: - by 2006 the countries are supposed to conduct a complete GAP-analysis of representativeness of the existing system of protected areas; - by 2010 - a global terrestrial network of protected areas is expected to be created, characterized as complex, representative, effectively managed – on national and regional levels; - by 2015 all protected areas and ecological networks of protected areas are supposed to be included in the landscape complexes and coinciding sectors, basing on ecosystem approach and taking into consideration ecological connectivities and concept (if applicable) of ecological networks.

As a part of “ECONET-Central Asa” project GEP-analysis was completed in the scale of the whole region, while planning and future implementation of ECONT is the base for execution of the obligation of the countries for the next period. This information was included in the National Reports of the countries of the Region to the Conference of Parties CBD. During a special Side- Event, which was organized during CoP 8 CBD in Curitiba, Brazil, in March 2006, official heads of national delegations of the countries of the region confirmed that the countries are ready for a long- term full-scale implementation of ECONET scheme. They announced very important country contributions (full implementation of ECONET including more then 40 % of the territory of the region; about a half of this area – territories of sustainable development). ECONET endorsement by ISDC on the regional level creates a legal base for its transboundary status – both for ECONET as a whole, and for its particular transboundary elements.

PRIORITIZATION OF ECONET IMPLEMENTATION

Prioritization of ECONET implementation is determined by a complex of parameters, which were used as a base for its design:  objective analysis of diversity (space images analysis);  integrated analysis of biodiversity, including diversity of ecosystems, recent and historical (i.e. potential) distribution of key species;  analysis of anthropogenic pressure. Optimal (“ideal”) ECONET design is compared to the existing system of protected areas; representativeness of the recent system of PAs is analyzed (GEP-analyze: coverage of key ecosystems and habitats of key species by the system of PAs, necessary for their sustainable development). Possibility of ECONET development is base on ecosystem-landscape background: territorial complexes are identified, which unite areas of different status (in terms of ECIONET and in terms of protected areas system). In case of joint ECONET elements implementation and further proper functioning, these c landscape territorial complexes would ensure conservation and sustainable development of a defined complex of ecosystems (ecoregion).

Potentially, there are different ways of ECONET implementation:  “Mosaic” establishment of separate PAs and areas of sustainable development (buffer zones and ecological corridors) in the most important areas in different parts of the countries / region. In this case the established elements are not obligatory connected with each other, but the percentage of the area of the country, covered by ECONET increases gradually and more or less evenly over the whole territory.  Sort-term full-scale creation of a complete complex of PAs, ecological corridors and buffer zones in a single ecoregion, identified as first priority (concentration of efforts and funding in one ecoregion). In this case the percentage of the area of the country, covered by ECONET increases as well, but irregularly. In this case, complete functioning of ECONET is ensured in a model ecoregion – with clear outcomes both for biodiversity and for socio-economic development.

Non of these two ways separately can be considered to be optimal, while combination of them can give the best results: establishment of ECONET elements of different status in the most actual, priority areas all over the country / region, with a simultaneous reservation of lands for future ECONET implementation throughout the region. At the same time, concentration of efforts and funding in some particular area in accordance to prioritization (on a national and regional level) could allow to create the whole complex of ECONET elements and its sustainable development.

Prioritization of the areas (territorial complexes) was conducted in the frame of the project/ It was based on:  Integrated analysis of the biodiversity value of the ecoregion (including presence of unique/ most representative ecosystems, species, etc; Map 1);  Integrated threat-analysis (Map 2) and accordingly on the level of probability of conservation and sustainable development of this complex without urgent nature conservation measures. This component, besides the rest, includes the coverage of the ecoregion by an existing system of PAs (Map 3) and the previous funding of nature conservation measures in this area (national and international; Map 4).

In reality, prioritization is based on a variable complex of objective indexes, identified and analyzed in the frame of the project. Besides that an important base for prioritization is composed by a complex of various factors, which can’t be formalized, but are really very important. They include:

1) Consultations with variable stakeholders: independent experts, institutions, administrative and governmental bodies; 2) Evaluation of prioritization by key nature resource-using ministries.

The latest phase of ECONET evaluation /scheme adoption allowed to identify the major landscape- territorial complexes of ECONET. More detailed descriptions - fact-sheets were prepared for these complexes. These fact sheets are already used for the endorsement of ECONET implementation plans and can be used in future for different purposes, including fundraising. Potential partners are already identified for a whole set of landscape-territorial complexes of ECONET – including on going projects or adjacent projects of different stages of development (e.g. World Bank, UNDP), different foundations, programs. For example, not only biodiversity conservation projects and programs were identified as potential partners for ECONET implementation, but projects and programs aimed on sustainable development of the countries and of the whole region. The major example of such a program in the region - Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management (CACILM) – large-scale program for sustainable land-use development and combat desertification. Accordingly, special proposals were developed on model elements of ECONET implementation (with a special attention to ecological corridors and buffer zones) for the national components of CACILM packages. 1 1 3

2 4 The following levels of priorities of landscape-territorial complexes can be identified for the further development of proposals for implementation, projects for different donors:

 ECONET elements (EE) of the first level of priority - especially valuable territories (including unique ecosystems, key habitats of specially threatened species), practically not covered by the existing system of protected areas; missing special additional funding during the last decade, but with a real perspective of economic development, which is a visible threat for biodiversity. In fact such a combination of characteristics means, that if this EE won’t be established in the nearest future - 5 years, it would result in important loses in BD, which would need to be reported to CBD. Even ecological catastrophes of different scale are visible, which would lead to an important damage to local communities. It can be even forecasted that damage compensations would be much more costly then funding needs of the EE establishment.  ECONET elements (EE) of the second level of priority – urgency of EE establishment about 10 years. These areas can also include especially valuable territories (including unique ecosystems, key habitats of specially threatened species), but they are either partly (to an important extent) covered by the existing system of PAs, or / and with comparatively low anthropogenic pressure. It should be taken into consideration, that for an important part of these areas such conditions could be temporary (“opportunity” situation), and this chance need to be used. Otherwise the chance would be loosed, delays in EE implementation would result both in biodiversity loses and in unfavorable natural conditions for economical development of the region. (For example, degradation of a grassland ecosystem would resulting loses of productivity, which can be estimated from the economical point of view; while EE establishment would help to save biodiversity and to keep production of the ecosystem on a high level, which can ensure positive development of the level of life of the local communities, inhabiting this area)..  ECONET elements (EE) of the third level of priority. Territories, which can be characterized with stable state of biodiversity and rather low level of threats. Integrated long-term approach is needed for their sustainable development (programmes of development for about 30 years). These areas look practically hopeless when approached with a short term (2-3 year) project, as long-term process can be only initiated, but won’t give any visible results, as for real result long biological processes need to be accomplished, as well as mentality of local people need to be seriously changed. (Examples of such programmes – natural forests restoration; sustainable use of water – with freshwater ecosystems restoration, etc.) Sustainable EE establishment of this type is possible only in the case that it is included in the long-term governmental and regional plans, and in case of deep cooperation of variable stakeholders with a leading role of national teams. A possible approach to implementation of such ecoregional complexes of ECONET can be based on a local short-term but highly-effective model projects (some farmers communities) with future replication of such an experience for the whole ecoregion /landscape unit (Amudarya watershed  ECONET elements (EE) of the forth level of priority – territories, where suitable level of protection is already ensured by the existing system of protected areas and with comparatively low level of threats (thanks to low population densities and /or ecologically-friendly sustainable methods of local resource-use). Comparatively low support (technical help to existing PAs, HD/PR activities, etc.) would be sufficient to keep sustainability. Such forms of development as ecological tourism are possible in such areas, as well as other forms of socio-economic development, supporting biodiversity conservation and livelihood improvement. ESTIMATION OF THE ECONET IMPLEMENTATION COSTS.

The mean approximate estimated costs of different types of Econet elements establishment in the region is the following:

 Core areas of ECONET (strict protected areas – zapovedniks, national and nature parks): - survey of the area, scientific background preparation, necessary maps - mean cost not less then 10 thousands USD for 100 sq. km of the area (the costs can vary seriously on plains and mountainous areas) - mean funding needed not less then 50 thousands USD for one PA site; - preparation of the legal background, concordance, organization of the land-use, resource-use, land allotment - - mean funding needed not less then 100 - 200 thousands USD for one PA site; - initial infrastructure (buildings, equipment, motor transport, management plan development, etc.) - mean funding needed not less then 200 thousands USD for one PA site; - running costs – about – 50- 100 thousands USD a year. Total – not less then 350 – 500 thousands USD of initial investments and about – 50- 100 thousands USD a year of running costs (this part is recently to an important extent covered for the existing PAs by governmental budgets –and should be planned as a part of for the new established PAs).

 Ecological corridors (Isanctuaries of different status) : - survey of the area, scientific background preparation, necessary maps, - mean cost not less then 10 thousands USD for 1000 sq. km of the area (the costs can vary seriously on plains and mountainous areas) - mean funding needed not less then 10 thousands USD for one PA site; - preparation of the legal background, concordance, organization of the land-use, resource-use, (no land allotment is invisaged) - mean funding needed not less then 50 thousands USD for one PA site; - initial investments - mean funding needed not less then 50 thousands USD for one PA site; - running costs – about – 10-20 thousands USD a year. Total – not less then 100 thousands USD of initial investments and about – 10-20 thousands USD a year of running costs (this part is recently to an important extent covered for the existing PAs by governmental budgets –and should be planned as a part of for the new established PAs).

 Buffer zones – areas of sustainable land- and resource-use: - survey of the area, scientific background preparation, necessary maps, - mean cost not less then 10 thousands USD for 1000 sq. km of the area (the costs can vary seriously on plains and mountainous areas) - mean funding needed not less then 10 thousands USD for one PA site; - preparation of the legal background, concordance, organization of the land-use, resource-use, (no land allotment is invisaged) - mean funding needed not less then 20 thousands USD for 1000 sq km of the area - not less then 10 thousands USD for one PA site; - creation of the initial infrastructure – initial investments in sustainable economic development – mean costs not less then 50 -100 thousands USD for one site; - running costs (should be covered by the income, received from the economic development of the area) Total – around 100 thousands USD of initial investments for one site. One integrated ECONET complex - landscape unit, ecoregion - ensuring sustainable development of the complex of ecosystems; (can include one or numerous core-areas, a system of ecological corridors and buffer zones): not less then 2-3 mln USD of initial investments needed (projects, state budget, additional sources of funding) and 100 - 500 thousands USD a year of running costs (state budget, ecological funds, additional sources of funding). This part of funding should be in future to a great extent covered by the income, received from sustainable economic development of the area ( ecological corridors and buffer zones).

Total estimation of the costs of Econet establishment in the region, including legal and administrative accomplishment: – about 2000 mln USD in Kazakhstan (in 20 years; more then 50 % of initial investments from different sources, the rest – running costs. Taking into consideration the modern level of funding of nature conservation activities – 3 mln 300 thousands USD a year, including 1 mln 600 thousands USD a year for the system of protected areas - this means increasing of the regular governmental funding of the system of PA up to 3-5 mln USD a year, and funding of investment part by different types of projects and additional sources of funding (see below); - about 40-50 mln USD per the rest of the countries (in 20 years). Taking into consideration the modern funding of the PAs system at the level of 200-250 thousands USD (Tajikiztan, Kyrgyz Republic) – up to 500 – 600 thousands USD (subject to a real currency rate) – it means increasing of the regular governmental funding of the system of PA up to 1.5-2 mln USD a year, and funding of investment part by different types of projects and additional sources of funding (see below).

STRATEGY OF ECONET FUNDING DEVELOPMENT IN CENTRAL ASIA

The modern financial situation of the countries of Central Asia doesn’t allow the governments of the countries to allocate the necessary funding for sustainable development of the system of protected areas. This is especially true for those PAs, which were created with the goal of sustainable use of nature resources, and where initial investments are obligatory not just for ensuring the necessary regime of conservation, but for establishment of an infrastructure, necessary for the goals of this PA. The following review is devoted to a comparative analysis of potential additional sources of funding for PAs in the developing countries.

Initial suppositions: 1.According to the latest investigations, the mean amount of budget allocations for PA in developing countries is about 30 % of minimum funding, needed for sustainable development of these territories. In some areas with outstanding biodiversity (Central Africa and Indo-China) official budget for PA management (per ha) is less then 3%. 2. Budget allocations for PA in a lot of developing countries decreased on 50 % for the period of 1990-2000 in real relative amounts (although absolute amounts could increase). The main reason for this situation is that export of consumer goods became the first priority in the situation of political and financial crisis or in the stage of transitional economy. 3. International funding – donor’s support for biodiversity conservation continuously decreases after the peak of 1992 (Meeting in Rio-de-Janeiro). 4. A lot of gazetted nature parks continue to be “parks on paper”, as they don’t receive enough funding even for the staff (salary, uniforms, minimum equipment, fuel for patrolling).

There are only three possible ways of funding for the development of the system PAs / ECONET implementation in Central Asia:  Regular (every year) allocations from the state budget;  Taxes and levies from direct and indirect resource-users, which are used straight for nature conservation and PA development;  Grants and charity from private persons, joint-stock companies, foundations, non- governmental organizations and governmental Aid agencies (GAA), including such financial mechanism as debt-for-nature swaps; nature conservation trust-funds (NCTF), which can be used for stock jobbing (getting profits from long-term grants.

Countries of the region should develop a system of combined use of all three sources of funding, as it is practically unrealistic, that any of them could be sufficient if alone.

(1) Regular (every year) allocations from the state budget

Living nature and ecological tourism can became an important mechanism of economical development and creation of working places in developing countries. But this would happen only in case, that the Government of the country would allocate sufficient initial funding for nature conservation and for infrastructure construction (including roads), and would support practical implementation of the laws, according to which logging, agriculture and other forms of nature- resources use are forbidden inside the protected areas. Besides that, income from ecological tourism in the protected areas should be directed for the other purposes of economic development:  Non-timber forest products, medical plants, nuts, etc. – all renewable products which can be developed in buffer zones;  Watershed protection;  Limitation of carbonic ejection;  Other ecological services (for example, protection of spawning areas) which would give results later, outside the borders of PAs.

It should be specially mentioned, that during the last 5 years budget allocations for nature conservation and for the development of the system of protected areas seriously increased in the majority of the countries of Central Asia, for example in Kazakhstan – both in absolute and in relative meanings.

(2) Taxes and levies from direct and indirect resource-users used for nature conservation.

Lots of countries of the World invent special taxes and livers connected with the ensuring of the functions of protected areas. These taxes and livers become reasonable in case of a high level of attendance of the protected areas. In the system of protected areas of the countries of Central Asia these taxes and livers are step by step invented in the system of strict protected areas (zapovedniks), which are neither aimed on visiting, nor for any other resource-use. A contradiction appears: the new taxes and livers doesn’t create a really important new source of funding for the protected area, but becomes a serious obstacle for monitoring research, which can’t be conducted by the limited staff of the PAs. (limited funding doesn’t allow to have the necessary scientific staff in the PAs; similarly, limited funding of the national scientific institutions doesn’t allow to pay necessary taxes to conduct monitoring researches). Such taxes and livers can be rather useful for national nature parks – but this type of PAs just starts to be developed in the region. The analysis of existing world experience shows, that only a small part (if any) of the taxes and livers is directed for the support of PAs and biodiversity conservation. In the majority of cased the income is going to the state budget and then distributed for different purposes. The second major problem is a regular absence of differentiation of taxes and livers for locals and foreigners. International visitors are ready to pay important amounts for traffic to the parks, and they are quite credible to pay higher taxes and livers then local visitors. Foreign visitors are ready to pay more if they are sure, that this money would be used straight for nature conservation. This experience should be taken into consideration in the region of Central Asia for inventing new differentiated system of taxes and livers. Taxes and livers of extractive industries (fishery, oil and gas extraction, logging, mining)

Development of extractive industries is recently one of the major sources of income and budget growth of the countries of the region. In particular, important economical growth, which is obvious during the last years in the Republic of Kazakhstan, in Turkmenistan is connected first of all with oil and gas extraction and export. Oil and gas extraction and fishing (sturgeons – very limited now because of catastrophic decrease of the populations of the species) are very important for the countries of Caspian sea basin. But a system of deductions doesn’t exists - from the profits of these industries for the development of the system of PAs, which insures sustainability of these industries.

Taxes and livers for watershed protection.

This question is very complicated and very sensitive for the region - as well as the whole problem of water distribution, rational use of water resources for irrigation and energy production, optimization of the system of irrigation, etc. It should be only pointed out, that ECONET implementation – creation of a system of PAs of different categories ( ecological corridors and buffer zones first of all) should be considered to be an important obligatory component for solving all these problems.

Industrial carbonic ejection. Climate change Convention (Kyoto protocol) obliged developed countries to limit the ejection of CO2. Developed country can partly cover demands on the limitation of CO2 ejection by financial support of the forest restoration in a developing country (these forests can naturally compensate CO2 ejection of developed countries). This “CO2 trade” can be considered as some kind of taxes and livers for the use of one of the most important functions of the forests. This trade could bring really important funding to the developing countries, possessing important areas of the forests. It is specially important to analyze the potential of such a trade for Central Asian countries. The forests of the region can’t be considered a source of economical development by the way of sustainable logging, as industrial forest restoration is practically impossible because of extreme aridity of the region. So the main value of Central Asian forests is ecological, environment stabilization. Anyway such “CO2 trade” - taxes and livers for the use of one of the ecological functions of the forests – would be useful for biodiversity conservation and PAs system development only in case directing these funds straight for natural forests conservation. Alternative use of the income from “CO2 trade” for forests plantations, or for other programs (such as social or military) won’t be really a correct way.

Property taxes.

Property taxes are a potential funding source, which becomes more and more important with the growth of prosperity of the country, and with the growth of the layer of well-doing people. Invention of such taxes should be preceded by in-depth analysis of socio-economic situation in the country (with regional differentiation), identification of starting dimension of property to invent the taxes, and differentiated scale of taxes.

Lottery profits, sale taxes, tobacco taxes, livers for number plates, stamps with the pictures of wild nature..

Differently from property taxes, which become obligatory when invented, these group of taxes have a “voluntary” type. People are free to choose – to participate or not in these forms of activities, to buy or not to buy these products, and so – to pay or not to pay these taxes. People with completely different level of profit can support by that way nature conservation in a different scale. It is especially important to insure transparency of the use of these funds and feed-back to the payers.

Hunting taxes.

Nature conservation programmes, which are funded through taxes from hunters and fishermen can be a very efficient nature-conservation tool in the following conditions:  they shouldn’t raise threats for species diversity of the wild nature;  any particular case needs to have a scientific background for licensing, based on a correct monitoring; this licensing should be strictly executed;  each hunter or fisherman should be ready to pay important amounts.

International trophy hunting could be such a source of funding in Central Asia. In the recent situation, populations of the majority of species – potential objects of trophy hunting – are on rather low level. Such a population decreased was caused, first of all by a heavy pressure of poaching during the period of economical difficulties in the countries. In such a situation it is especially important to guarantee proper background for licensing, and exact execution of the rules. Besides that, it income from the trophy hunting should be systematically distributed between: - development of the PAs system, ensuring sustainable development of the species (object of trophy hunting) in the natural ecosystem; - support for the development of local communities, inhabiting the area of programme development (the only alternative to the species’ poaching in the same region); - monitoring of the species and anti-poaching control of the area; - support of the administrative staff, ensuring the above-named processes and procedures.

Fines for illegal logging, hunting, fishing.

In some countries a part of fines or totally all fines for illegal logging, hunting, fishing inside the PAs are directed for the accounts of governmental bodies, which support and management of these PAs. In some countries money received for selling confiscated illegal wood, fish, and other nature products is used by the same way. But application of this experience demands special legal base, as majority of the countries suppose it to be better to use these sources of income as an additional part of a joint governmental budget, which is further distributed for different purposes. In the system of anti- poaching control of the PAs of the FSU, a fixed percent of the fines was paid to a ranger as a prize. This system can and should be renewed as it allows to support rangers system of the PA whose level of salary is still very low. But differently from a total salary raise, such prize system makes individual income of rangers dependant from the efficiency of the work.

Fires for pollution.

Another possible way for increasing funding of the system of PAs and biodiversity conservation – reservation of a part of the funds arriving as fines for environment pollution and “injunctions” (payments for permission to eject some quantity of pollutants). Different East-European countries (including Poland, Hungary, Check Republic and Bulgaria) created national environmental funds, which receive dozens and even hundreds millions dollars a year by collecting taxes and fines for pollutions. Part of these funds can be used for PAs system development. It can be a fixed percent (5% in Poland) which is directed straight for the nature conservation purposes and PAs support. In the majority of the Central Asian countries of ecological funds are created on the governmental and administrative region levels, but the usage of these funds is very variable un-systematic

Income form privatization of state enterprises. In the presence of the necessary legal base, not only fines for illegal logging, hunting, fishing, fines for environment pollution, but also a part of income form privatization of state enterprises can (and should) arrive to the accounts of governmental and regional ecological funds. Some fixed percent of these funds can be an important source of funding for the ECONET implementation in Central Asia.

In spite of an important income potential, only users’ dues, taxes and fines won’t be able to pay off all the management need of the system of PAs. Similarly to users dues, connected with tourism, they can suddenly abruptly decline - for example, as a result of internal or international policy, economical crisis or civil conflicts – inside or outside the country (as it had happened during the war in Persian gulf). Income, arriving from taxes and livers of extractive industries (logging, coal-mining, etc.) can also greatly vary following changes of economical conditions of exhaustion of the resources. This is the reason why users’ dues, taxes and fines can’t be the only source of funding for nature conservation, and should be considered just an addition to regular allocations from the governmental budget and international donors support.

(3) Grants and charity (international and internal)

The third major source of funding for ECONET implementation (biodiversity conservation, PAs system support in the developing countries ) – additional to (1) regular allocations from the governmental budget and (2)reserved percent of users dues, taxes and fines, is (3) grants and charity from private persons, joint-stock companies, foundations, non-governmental organizations and governmental Aid agencies (GAA), international donor agencies and funds. In the majority of developed countries private charities and companies compose a small part of funding. The reason for that is an absence of serious taxes privileges for donors, or complete absence of stimulation for charity. Besides that, there are no charity traditions in the mentality and national culture of these countries, besides religious and social purposes. In contrast to above defined, there are lots of foundations, based by wealthy private persons in US and other developed countries. Such examples can be given as Mack Arthur Fund, Packard Fund, Mott, Gilman, Funds etc. These fund spend dozens of millions dollars a year as a support for National parks and variable nature conservation measures in developing countries. International non- governmental organizations funded by charity donations of millions of their supporters spend also dozens and even hundreds millions dollars for PAs and biodiversity conservation in developing countries. The largest of them are WWF, The Nature Conservancy – TNC and Conservation International. Till now the TNC activity was rather limited in the area of project execution. But just recently they are conducting a special analytical survey of the biodiversity conservation potential of all most important ecoregions of the World. “Ecoregions of risk” (very valuable, but the most threatened – where lack of nature conservation activities can lead to an irreplaceable losses of biodiversity) and “Opportunity ecoregions” (highly-valuable ecosystems, where favorable conditions for biodiversity conservation need to be promptly realized, or this opportunity can be loosed together with unique biodiversity). Thanks to cooperation of WWF and TNC, including the usage of the information materials of “ECONET-Central Asia” project, a number of ecoregions of Central Asia are now included in these lists. This fact seriously enlarges potential funding possibilities from variable sources for ECONET implementation in these ecoregions.

International donor agencies are the major international sponsors for biodiversity conservation as a whole and development of the system of protected areas in particular. Among the largest the following can be named: USAID in US, GTZ in Germany, DGIS – Netherlands, European Union, GAA of Denmark, Norway, Sweden (DANIDA и NORAD, SIDA), Department of International Development of UK (DFID), Switzerland, UN programs – UNDP and UNEP, and the largest - World Bank and GEF. Each of these Agencies has its own policy and priorities (including the list of the countries of the priority activities), and they are regularly changed. For example, during the previous decade territorial priorities of the countries of European Union, GAAs of majority of European countries and US included Russia, but did not include the countries of Central Asia. During the last years, with an important growth of national income, Russia is excluded from the lists of developing countries, demanding urgent support, while Central Asian countries are included (as the level of income is still insufficient, while social situation is recognized to be stable enough, so the risks of investments are decreasing). The list of international donors, who practically never funded national parks – of some other special nature conservation activities in the developing countries, includes Japan, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain.

Comparatively small private foundations, which are quite numerous in the countries of Central Europe and US, prefer to fund small-scale practical projects, first of all – aimed on the protection and restoration of the most attractive flagship species. Attraction of this type of funding for ECONET implementation is possible as well, as the majority of core areas and ecological corridors of ECONET are habitats of rare and endangered species. In this case integrated biodiversity analysis, conducted by the project, is especially important. WWF species TDP has prepared an analytical review of the experience and potential of flagship species distribution analysis for planning and establishment of the system of protected areas, ensuring sustainable development of these species. This review was launched during 8-th CoP 8 CBD, Curitiba, Brazil, in March 2006. Two out of seven species, suggested as the most vivid examples all over the World were taken from Central Asian experience (saiga and Persian leopard), with maps prepared as a part of biodiversity database of ECONET project.

Internal charity of the wealthy people and companies of the countries can become a real funding source for the biodiversity conservation. To invent possibility for that the following conditions are obligatory: - Legislation, creating special favorable taxes’ conditions for persons (and companies) in case of donating important amounts for biodiversity conservation and development of the system of PAs; - Active HD work in large cities – centers of business development (and potential sources of charity), although they are situated away from core areas of ECONET. Successful fundraising work in this case depends on identification of attractive “links of interest”: traditional recreation areas of the citizens (ECONET elements), identification of species – national symbols, traditional for national mentality, etc. - presence of a sustainable non-governmental organization, registered in the country, legally capable to accept charity and ensuring its purposeful use and transparency of reporting system.

Nature conservation trust funds (NCTF)

International donors agencies usually fund only short-term projects – 2-5 years. But until sufficient long-term funding is insured, sustainable results won’t be achieved in nature conservation. Changes in social and ecological mentality are long-term processes. A constant source of long-term funding allows long-term planning, capacity building, infrastructure creation. All these conditions ensure efficient implementation of biodiversity conservation measures. Nature conservation trust funds (NCTF) – is one of the widespread forms of ensuring long-term funding of PAs system development in developing countries. Nature conservation trust funds can be established for supporting a particular national nature park, nature conservation activities in the whole country, for an international transboundary reserve, for some particular form of nature conservation activities, of for supporting numerous NGOs through a small-grant’s system aimed on different aspects of nature conservation and sustainable development of local communities. Nature conservation trust funds can be in general defined as funds or property, which: (1) can be used only for special purposes; (2) should be kept separately from other funding sources, i.e. governmental budget; (3) should be managed by independent councils. Nature conservation trust funds can provide, the following important profits: 1. Long-term continuous funding; 2. Small grants; 3. Improvement of possibilities for funding acceptance (they allow to protract important portions of donors’ funding for long periods); 4. Funding of running costs; 5. Catalyst in nature conservation policy; 6. Improves the role of civil society; 7. Decentralization involvement of local communities).

The first experimental establishment of Nature conservation trust funds is on-going now in the Republic of Kazakhstan, in the frame of Wetlands project UNDP Kazakhstan.

One of the usual ways to increase the amount of funds in the NCTF and other nature conservation reserves (ecological funds, etc.) is through the mechanism debt-for-nature swap. Such transaction are used in order to convert international grants in hard currency into equivalent in local currency for its practical nature conservation use inside the country. Usual steps which need to be undertaken to implement this financial mechanism, are the following: 1) International nature conservation services purchase international debts of a developing country (to foreign creditors) – with an important discount of the scope of the debt; 2) International nature conservation services agree on annulment of the debt in exchange to an agreement with the Central Bank of the developing country to pay the equivalent amount in national currency; 3) The equivalent amount in national currency is used for funding of the PAs system development and other nature conservation measures inside the developing country. The key for the deal is willingness of foreign creditors (usually – commercial banks) to sail the international debts of the developing country for the amounts, much lower then its nominal value. This willingness is usually based on the assumption that the developing country won’t be capable to pay the complete value of the debts. This financial mechanism could be attractive for Financial Ministries of the developing countries for the following reasons: it can deliver the limited national reserve of hard currency, which otherwise have to be used for paying international debts. Or, in another case, if the country is not going to pay these debts, the mechanism debt-for-nature swap would reduce the total international debt of the country – and improve the credibility of the country, allow it to receive new international loans.

THE MODERN STATE OF THE COUNTRIES OF THE REGION (ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION OF INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS) AS A BASE FOR PREDICTION OF THE OPTIMAL REALISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF NATURE CONSERVATION FUNDING – ECONET IMPLEMENTATION. All Central Asia countries have the following similarities of political and economical situation:

1. After the brake of the USSR social end economical system of the countries was seriously violated and needed special measures to recover and to be re-established in a new format; all countries of the region passed through the period of crisis of transitional economy, followed by going out of the crisis differently. 2. Clan structure of nations, oriental traditions, high level of corruption and /or rather strict administrative anti-corruption measures , necessity to prevent a threat of terrorism interference (from the bordering countries, which try to speculate on the commonality of the religious background) – all these are the bases which limits market economy development and development of the mechanisms of sustainable financing . Recently, there are serious differences in the socio-economical development of the countries of the region: Republic of Kazakhstan: the development of market economy is successfully on-going. A year growth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is about 9,5%, the main income arriving from gas and oil. This allows to draw an analogy with the economic development of Russia during the last decades. Banc sector is actively developing, extending its services outside the country. According to the official information of the Central Bank of Kazakhstan, a year level of inflation for 2005 was 7,1% (08.09.2006 13:37 Kazakhstan Today)/ Still, the Government of Kazakhstan forecasts, that mean growth of the GDP in 2007-2009 would reach 19,2%. This information was officially presented in the Parliament during the discussions, devoted to the State budget for 2007. In accordance to the official estimations, GDP would reach 11879,8 billiards tenge in 2007 – or 21,7% of growth; in 2008 - 14036,6 billiards tenge, or 18,2% of growth; in 2009 - 16540,4 billiards tenge, or 17,8% of growth. Budget deficit (as presented in the same Law project) is estimated on the level of 133140 mln tenge in 2007, or 1,1% of GDP; 143131 mln tenge in 2008, or 1% of GDP; 82 702 mln tenge in 2009, or 0,5% of GDP. Beside that, the Law states, that real mean level of GDP growth in 2007-2009 would be not less then 8,8%. Mean level of growth of the industrial production would be on the level of 8,2%, gross output of agriculture - 3%, building - 22,6%, transport services 6,6%, communication services - 24,5%, trade- 9,1%.

Mean level of year inflation for the three year period is forecasted 5-7%, world prices of oil Brent is supposed to stay on the level $60 for a barrel, tenge rate : 1 $ - 117 tenge. Export of goods is expected for $32900,6 mln in 2007, $34932,2 mln in 2008, $38580 mln in 2009. Accordingly, import is planned on the level of $25603,9 mln in 2007, $28215,6 mln in 2008, $31242,2 mln in 2008. Recently, the level of budget funding of the nature conservation is comparatively rather high (3 mln. 300 thousands USD в 2006 , including funding for the system of PAs -1 mln. 600 thous. USD, funding a year more then doubled during the last three years). Comparative speed of growth would most probably slow down in the nearest 10 years. The most promising source of funding for the nature conservation as a whole and Econet implementation in particular – is half-commercial projects, where developing income could in future compensate relative decrease of state budget funding for the operational costs of PAs and monitoring of sustainable development projects. Turkmenistan – country with strongly developed centralized leadership and full governmental controle of the economic development. PAs system budget is comparatively high and stable (growth of funding during the last three years - 60-70 % a year). “Know-how” projects are the most effective: an original idea is implemented using external support, successful model is evaluated, and further on – replicated though responsible governmental and administrative bodies. In the modern conditions of Turkmenistan it is very important to develop projects, based on renovation of traditional national forms of land- and resource use and community regulation.

Triangle of Tajikistan, Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan keeps some internal strain, connected with unsolved questions of some fragments of state borders regulation, water and energy use, as well as territorial and ethnic problems (after S.G.Luzianin, 2005).

Republic of Uzbekistan, as well as all other central Asian countries, is still in the middle of a process of economic and social adjustment. The list of necessary economic and political reforms is still long. A strongly rising foreign debt and serious environmental problems increasingly limit the scope for action in economic policy. Economy is not stable yet, the level of inflation rather high. But comparatively high level of investment risks is compensated to a great extent with a very high cost-effectiveness of investments (thanks to low prices). Strong governmental control over the external investments is developed. Development of the PAs system management is very slow and contradictive, as well as the growth of funding (436 thous. USD in 2003, 507 thous. USD in 2004, 510 thous.USD in 2005). Any forecast of PAs system funding is very difficult, as there is practically no forecast for the economy development of the country as a whole during the next 10-20 years. “Know-how” projects are the most effective.

Kyrgyz Republic is one of the poorest countries in the region. The country possesses hardly any mineral resources and the productive agricultural area makes up only 7% of the total surface. (KFW report). In the past the Kyrgyz government has been trying hard to implement economic reforms but the agenda of adjustment measures required is still long. Political and civil problems (including “Tulip Revolution” of the spring 2005) practically had no impact on the PAs system management and funding, which kept to be stable, although comparatively not very high (120 thous. USD in 2003, growth up to 200 - 250 thous. USD a year in 2004 - 2006). Being really dependant from investing countries, State institution of the Kyrgyz Republic are open for negotiations for “debts for nature” and similar. Governmental nature conservation initiatives (e.g. creation of a number of new protected areas during the last years) together with high cost-effectiveness of the projects, and governmental control and support of the project implementation – make Kyrgyz Republic very attractive for nature conservation investments. The Republic of Tajikistan is the poorest country in the region and depends heavily on food imports (KFW report). Besides consequences of the brake of the USSR (common with different countries), until 1996 Tajikistan was plagued by a long-lasting civil war. As a result, the economy in large parts of the country did, in fact, come to a standstill. Recently (for about 10 years already ) peace is reestablished, internal conditions are very stable. Prioritization of nature conservation on the governmental level is very high (e.g. creation of the protected areas, covering more then 12 % of the territory of the country, state funding of the system of PAs has twice doubled during the last 4 years: 43 thous. USD a year in 2002-2003, 120 thous. USD in 2005 and 200 thous. USD in 2006). Humanitarian investments are very developed in the country. Serious investments are needed to renew the infrastructure, destroyed during the period of social conflicts. Investment projects are optimal, stability of the results could be achieved through integration of traditional forms of land- and resource-use, historical national traditions and community involvement and management. Very important is high level of governmental initiatives in nature conservation activities.

Conclusion.

It is important to point out, that nature conservation success depends not just from the amount of money, which is spent for this purpose, but from the cost-effectiveness of the nature conservation activities. Additional funding is a necessary but not sufficient condition for solving nature conservation problems. Real biodiversity conservation and its integration into the process of socio-economical development via establishment of a full-scale ecological network is possible only if this form of activities is identified as one of the first national priorities on the highest governmental level, and importance of this process is in-depth realized by civil society and local communities of the country.