Zonation of new protected area in Southern Ustyurt ... · Zonation of new protected area in...

Zonation of new protected area in

Southern Ustyurt (Uzbekistan)

Master Thesis

International Master of Science, Landscape Ecology and Nature

Conservation

by Rustam Murzakhanov

Supervised by Dr. Michael Manthey, University of Greifswald

Prof. Dr. Hans Dieter Knapp, University of Greifswald

Greifswald

2012

Zonation of new protected area in Southern Ustyurt (Uzbekistan)

2

Thesis submitted to the Botany and Landscape Ecology Institute of Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University of

Greifswald in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in

Landscape Ecology and Nature Conservation.

All views and opinions expressed therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not

necessarily represent those of the supervisors.

The maps might contain incorrect information regarding delineation of countries’ frontiers and

boundaries. I regret any errors or omissions that may unwittingly have been made.

© Rustam Murzakhanov

Master Thesis, December 2012

Ernst Moritz Arndt University Greifswald

Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology

Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science

Grimmer Str. 88

17487 Greifswald, Germany

www.botanik.uni-greifswald.de/msclenc

www.botanik.uni-greifswald.de

http://www.botanik.uni-greifswald.de/


2

Table of content

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 4

Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 6

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7

2 Study area .................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Country overview .................................................................................................................. 8

2.2 Study area overview .............................................................................................................. 9

2.3 History of research............................................................................................................... 11

2.4 Flora and fauna .................................................................................................................... 12

2.5 Human impact ..................................................................................................................... 12

3 Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 13

4 Results ........................................................................................................................................ 19

4.1 Describing the context for conservation areas ..................................................................... 19

4.1.1 Political setting ............................................................................................................. 19

4.1.2 Economic setting .......................................................................................................... 20

4.1.3 Social setting ................................................................................................................ 21

4.1.4 Threats .......................................................................................................................... 21

4.2 Identifying conservation goals ............................................................................................ 22

4.2.1. Spatial protection of landscapes .................................................................................. 22

4.2.2 Species protection ......................................................................................................... 25

4.2.3 Priorities ....................................................................................................................... 28

4.3 Collecting and compiling data on socio-economic variables .............................................. 29

4.4 Collecting and compiling data on biodiversity & other natural features ............................. 31

4.4.1 Biotopes features .......................................................................................................... 31

4.4.2 Species diversity ........................................................................................................... 35

4.4.3 Other natural features ................................................................................................... 37

4.5 Setting conservation objectives and targets for the protected area ...................................... 37

4.5.1 Identifying the type of the protected area ..................................................................... 37

4.5.2 Conservation objectives ................................................................................................ 40

4.5.3 Legal requirements and the legislate that established the protected area ..................... 41

4.6 Preparation of maps ............................................................................................................. 42

4.7 Zone integration ................................................................................................................... 42

5 Discussion and recommendations ........................................................................................... 47

5.1 Discussion of methods ......................................................................................................... 47

5.2 Discussion of results ............................................................................................................ 49

5.3 Mitigation of the risks ......................................................................................................... 50

5.4 Further research ................................................................................................................... 51

5.5 Recommendation ................................................................................................................. 51

6. References................................................................................................................................. 52

Annexes

List of flora species identified during expedition in Southern Karakalpak Ustyurt ...................... 55

List of bird species identified during expedition in Southern Karakalpak Ustyurt ....................... 65

List of amphibian and reptile species identified during expedition in Southern Karakalpak

Ustyurt ........................................................................................................................................... 70

List of mammal species identified during expedition in Southern Karakalpak Ustyurt ............... 71

Photos of the study area ................................................................................................................. 74


3

List of figures

Figure 1: Uzbekistan with selected study area ................................................................................ 8

Figure 2. Location of the study area ................................................................................................ 9

Figure 3. Climate diagram of Beineu. ........................................................................................... 10

Figure 4. Diagrammatic representation of the process of conservation planning ....................... 14

Figure 5 Existing and proposed protected areas round the study area .......................................... 23

Figure 6. Geobotanic regions of Southern Ustyurt Plateau ........................................................... 34

Figure 7. Expedition route in May 2012 – Southern Ustyurt plateau ........................................... 36

Figure 8. Radar diagram of management objectives for Ia category and the study area............... 39

Figure 9. Radar diagram of management objectives for Ib category and the study area .............. 39

Figure 10. Radar diagram of management objectives for II category and the study area ............. 39

Figure 11. Radar diagram of management objectives for III category and the study area ............ 39

Figure12. Radar diagram of management objectives for IV category and the study area ............ 39

Figure 13. Radar diagram of management objectives for V category and the study area ............. 39

Figure 14. Radar diagram of management objectives for VI category and the study area ........... 39

Figure 15. Conservation priority map of the study area ................................................................ 43

Figure 16. Socio-economic, cultural priority and infrastructure map of the study area ................ 44

Figure 17.Threat map of the study area ......................................................................................... 45

Figure 18. Proposed zonation of the study area............................................................................. 46

List of tables

Table 1. Description of our 11 main stages of conservation planning which is

described in Figure 4 …………………………………………………………………………….14

Table 2. Protected area management objectives and IUCN categories …………………………17

Table 3. Comparison national categories with international IUCN categories …………………20

Table 4 Existing protected areas in Ustyurt plateau and its surroundings ………………………25

Table 5 Flora and fauna species, which have been identified in Karakalpak Ustyurt

and included in the Red Data Book of Uzbekistan (2009) ……………………………………26

Table 6. Protected area management objectives and IUCN categories ……………………….37

Table 7. Digital comparison between management objectives ………………………………….39

Table 8. Species with national and global conservation status and outside of any

protected areas and major habitats ………………………………………………………………40

Table 9. Species with national and global conservation status and outside of

existing protected areas with high (I, II) category and major habitats …………….………….40

Table 10. Species with national or global conservation status and outside of any

protected areas and major habitats …………………………………………………………….41

Table 11. Species with national conservation status and outside of existing protected

areas with high (I, II) category and major habitats ……………………………………………41


4

Acknowledgements

I would like to express sincere gratitude to my supervisors Dr. Michael Manthey and

Prof. Dr. Hans Dieter Knapp, for their support during the preparation for this thesis and

supervision of the work.

Michael Succow Foundation, Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein and personally

Mr. Felix Näscher (Director General of the Office of Forests, Nature and Landscape) deserve a

great thank for the financial and consultant support of my study.

I also thank Jens Wunderlich for his support and especially with GIS and Dr. Walter Wucherer

for his advices about desert vegetation. I am really grateful to Mike Appleton for his

methodological advices. Thanks to international organizations: UNDP/GEF projects

―Strengthening Sustainability of the National Protected Area System by Focusing on Strictly

Protected Areas‖ (personally Sergey Zagrebin), ―Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Uzbekistan`s

Oil-and-Gas Sector Policies and Operations‖ (personally Evgeniy Chernogaev) and WWF

(personally Olga Pereladova).

I want to thank Jakhan Annacharyeva, Elena Bykova, Mariya Gritsina, Alyona Shmalenko,

Gurbanmyrat Ovezmuradov, Nikolay Gorelkin and many others for advices.

I was glad to work with confident team of international complex expedition to Southern

Karakalpak Ustyurt in May 2012. Especially I want to mention team-leaders – Natalya

Marmazinskaya, Dilarom Tajetdinova, Oleg Tsaruk, Maxim Mitrolopskiy and Sergey

Chebotarev. These results of the expedition have been made possible through the cooperation of

the Main Department of Forestry (Uzbekistan) and the Michael Succow Foundation (Germany)

under involvement of the project ―Central Asian Biodiversity Network‖ (CABNET) financed by

the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). The mission received financial support from

the Hermsen Foundation (Germany) and the Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Protection

and Nuclear Safety (Germany).

I am thankful to Dr. Tiemo Timmermann, Coordinator of LENC Master Programme, to the

tutors, colleagues and friends for supporting during these two years.

And of course the sincere gratitude goes to Teresa for her support and patience.


5

Acronyms

% Percentage

° C Degree Centigrade

BSAP Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora

CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

DAAD German Academic Exchange Service (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst)

GEF Global Environmental Facility

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

m.asl Meter above sea level

PA Protected Area

SDM Species Distribution Model

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

UNDP United Nations Development Program

WWF World Wide Fund For Nature


6

Abstract

The study adapts Systematic conservation planning map overlay and analysis approach for

zonation into national context in Uzbekistan. The adaptation model uses to develop zonation for

new protected area in Southern Ustyurt in Uzbekistan. The zonation has been done through

identifying threats, human impact, flagship species and most valuable habitats. The available

information about the study area is scarce and outdated. It’s typical for natural science in

Uzbekistan due to socio-economic changes after collapse of Soviet Union. International

ecological expedition in Southern Karapalpak Ustyurt (May 2012) allowed collecting actual data

from the study area. The proposed zonation can be use as a first draft for further discussion with

relevant stakeholders.

Keywords: Central Asia, Uzbekistan, Ustyurt, protected area, desert, zonation


7

1 INTRODUCTION

Spatial nature protection is one of the crucial tools against this loss. The Convention on

Biological Diversity (1992) describes a protected area (PA) as a geographically defined area

which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives. The

total area of PAs is a major indicator of spatial protection on global, national and regional levels.

According to Aichi Biodiversity Target No. 11 (2010) by 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and

inland water areas and 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance

for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably

managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other

effective area-based conservation measures (…). On national level this target is explained

another way. ―Protected area systems should contain adequate samples of the full range of

existing ecosystems and ecological processes, including at least 10% of each ecoregion within

the country‖.

Protected areas of different types have existed for at least several thousand years (Dudley et al.,

2005). Modern protected areas in Western civilization in the form of national parks only began

in the mid-1800s (Phillips, 2003). The evolution of concepts of protected areas can be

characterized by three different models: the classic model, the modern model, and the emerging

model (Ervin et al., 2010). The current emerging model fits to the Greifswald approach of

landscape ecology which is based on three pillars: Ecology, Economics and Ethics or social

affairs (Ott, 2002). According to this model a rationale for establishing protected areas is a

strategy to maintain critical life support systems (Ervin et al., 2010).

Zonation is a spatial strategy on the level of a protected area. To establish different types of

zones is particularly important for achieving the management objectives of larger,

multifunctional protected areas and those with diverse stakeholders (Appleton, 2012).

In recent years a big number of work has been published about approaches for planning PA

networks (e.g. Margules & Pressey, 2000) but much less were about processes for the internal

zonation of protected areas, although many of the techniques used for PA selection can be made

applicable to zonation (Appleton, 2012).

Since most of protected areas have been established during Soviet time, there are no guidelines

how to establish a protected area in Uzbekistan with considering the legal framework, nature

features and social context. That’s why I decided to set up following objectives for the thesis:

To adapt the international approach for zonation into a national context.

To develop a zonation for a new protected area in Southern Ustyurt.


8

2 STUDY AREA

2.1 Country overview

The Republic of Uzbekistan is situated in the central part of the Eurasian continent between 370 /

450 latitude north and 56

0 / 73

0 latitude east, within the subtropical zone of the northern

hemisphere. The territory covers 447 400 km2, and is bordered by Kazakhstan to the north,

Turkmenistan and Afghanistan to the south, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to the east. Uzbekistan is

divided into 12 main administrative provinces (viloyat) and the semi-autonomous Republic of

Karakalpakstan in the north-western part of the country.

Figure 1: Uzbekistan with selected study area (Rachkovskaya et al., 2003)

According to Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP, 1998), almost 85% of its territory is

occupied by desert or semi-desert, including the largest desert in Central Asia – the Kyzylkum.

These deserts are flanked by the extensive Tien Shan and Gissar-Alai mountain systems in the

east and south-east. The main water arteries are the transboundary rivers, Amudarya and

Syrdarya, which originate Aral Sea basin. These rivers are flanked by broad, flat valleys which

are intensely used for irrigated agriculture.

The climate of Uzbekistan is described as subtropical extremely continental with considerable

seasonal and daily fluctuations of temperature — long dry hot summer, humid autumn and

fluctuating weather in winter. Winds are normally from the north-east, east or south-east in

winter, and north, north-west or north-east in summer.

There are three main climatic zones in Uzbekistan: deserts and dry steppe, foothills, and

mountains. Nearly all the deserts and steppes lie below 400 m above sea level including


9

Kyzylkum Desert, Ustyurt Plateau, as well as Karshi and Dalverzin Steppes. The average

precipitation in these areas is less than 200 mm per year. The maximum precipitation occurs in

March and April, the minimum in August and September. Winter is fairly short, about 2 months

in the south and 5 months in the north, with only little snow cover (2 to 11 cm). Average

temperatures in January are +30C in the south (Termez) and -9

0C in the north (Ustyurt). The

frost-free period lasts between 190 and 200 days a year, but can be as short as 160 days in

Ustyurt Plateau. Spring is usually short and early, with the growing season beginning in early

March in the south and late March / April in the north. Summers in the deserts and steppes are

long, hot, and dry. The maximum temperatures recorded in summer are between +450 - +49

0C

and soil surface temperature can reach up to 60-700C (BSAP, 1998).

Protected areas of I-IV IUCN categories cover 4.9% of land in Uzbekistan (Zagrebin et al.,

2011).

2.2 Study area overview

The study area is situated in the south of Uzbek part of Ustyurt plateau.

Figure 2. Location of the study area (Rachkovskaya et al., 2003)

The Ustyurt Plateau is located in the western part of the country between the Aral Sea and the

Caspian Sea. Its area is about 200 000 km2, and its maximum altitude is 370 m in the southwest

(Zonn et al., 2009). The plateau is fragmented by steep cliffs (chinks) which are 60–150 m high.

There are also several elevation shufts at the east (near the Aktumsyk cape – up to 219 m), in the

central part (207 m), and at the south-west (Karabaur ridge, 275 m). The main depressions are


10

the Barsakelmes basin (about 50 m a.s.l.), Assake-Audan (with the minimum of 29 m a.s.l.) and

the Sarykamysh lake basin, which is situated outside the Ustyurt plateau (BSAP, 1998).

The average annual temperature is about 12 °C; the absolute maximum and minimum are +42

and –40 °C, respectively (Karnieli et al., 2008). The average annual precipitation in the southern

part is 90 mm (Allaniyazov & Sarybayev, 1983). There is no river in this part of Ustyurt and

there are several anthropogenic small lakes which are fed from self-emission artesian wells (e.g.

Shakhpakhty area). Temporary lakes appear in depressions during high-water years (Bakhiev et

al., 1988).

Figure 3. Climate diagram of Beineu.

The city is located in Kazakhstan near Ustyurt plateau (Rachkovskaya et al, 2003)

The Uzbek part of the plateau is called Karakalpak Ustyurt and it belongs to Kungrad district of

semi-autonomous republic of Karakalpakstan. Kungrad city is the center of the district and

located outside of the plateau. The study area is located in the southern part of Karakalpak

Ustyurt which includes two major geographic objects - Assake-Audan and Sarykamysh Lake.

Assake-Audan depression is located northwest of Sarykamysh Lake that cuts deeply into

Ustyurt. It is linked with the Sarykamysh Lake only via a narrow strait at absolute elevations of

45–50 m. Originating as a narrow strait northwest of the Sarykamysh Depression, it runs for 90

km westwards. Its width is 20–40 km. It is rimmed with cliffs and separated from the main

depression by steep, seldom flat, clear-cut slopes up to 8–10 m high, composed of Miocene

limestones and marls. The lowest absolute elevations are 30 m. Clearly discernible on the slopes

of the depression are the pebble and sandy-pebble shore ramparts and lacustrine terraces with

mollusk shells indicative of the fact that they were flooded by the Amudarya waters more than

one time (Zonn et al., 2009).

Sarykamysh is a closed brackish lake situated near the feet of cliffs of the South Ustyurt, in the

central part of the Sarykamysh depression. According to Zonn et al. (2009) in the past this was a


11

large evaporation lake in the plains of Central Asia. In the second half of the 1st millennium B.C.,

the irrigated lands extended enormously with the development of the antique culture in Khorezm

and other regions of Central Asia. As a result of the reduction of the water intake, the Aral-

Sarykamysh basin was divided into two lakes, of which one, Sarykamysh, dried out quickly. At

the turn of the 4th and 5th century, when irrigated farming degraded after the Sasanide-Hionite

wars, Sarykamysh Lake was restored for a short time. A new expansion of irrigation system

construction occurred in the seventh to eighth centuries and continued until the Mongolian

invasion and conquest of Khorezm by Tamerlan (Kostianoy & Kosarev, 2010). The

anthropogenic stage in the lake regime was related to land reclamation development in the

Khorezm province (Uzbekistan) and Dashoguz province (Turkmenistan). The construction of

main drains diverting drainage waters from irrigated lands and their connection to the ancient

channel of the Amudarya, the Daryalyk, ensured an annual supply of 5–6 km3 of water into the

lake. Nowadays about one fourth of the lake (northwest part) belongs to Uzbekistan, and the

remaining to Turkmenistan (Sanin, 1991). The total area is about 4150 km2

according to

calculation of satellite images from 2007 (Gorelkin 2012, pers. comm.). Since 1960s

Sarykamysh is fed by drain waters through the manifolds Daryalyk and Ozyorniy, which come

from irrigated lands on the left bank of Amudarya. The area of the lake had grown significantly:

in 1963 to 103 km2, in 1975 to 1450 km

2, in 2000 to 2575 km

2 (Zonn et al., 2009). The lake is

used for fishery in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

2.3 History of research

First official data about nature in the plateau was got from British diplomat Anthony Jenkinson

in the XVI century (Allaniyazov & Sarybayev, 1983). Later the Russian Empire organized

several complex expeditions in the end of XIX – beginning XX century after annexation of the

area.

Soviet Union made it to one of its priorities to develop the vast area of the country. A powerful

governmental agency – Council for Analysis of Productive Forces - has been established for this

purpose. For instance Complex Kazakh expedition under Academy of Science of USSR started

to work in 1926 (Allaniyazov & Sarybayev, 1983). Later Middle Asian State University

(nowadays National University of Uzbekistan in Tashkent) organized a complex expedition

under the direction of E. Korovin. The results were released in the publication ―Ustyurt

(Karakalpak), its nature and economy‖ in 1949 (Bakhiev et al., 1987). Momotov was the first

scientist who stayed for winter in Ustyurt from 1947 until 1949 (Momotov, 1953). Another

expedition under direction of N. Pelt investigated Southern Ustyurt in 1952-1953. The results of


12

the expedition were published in the book ―Way of agricultural development of Ustyurt‖ in 1956

(Pelt et al., 1956). The next important step was launching Ustyurt desert station as a part of

Complex institute of natural sciences of Academy of Science of USSR in 1961 (Allaniyazov &

Sarybayev, 1983).

Besides the complex expeditions there were several specific expeditions. E.g. Bogdanov

investigated herpetofauna of Ustyurt in 1960s (Bogdanov, 1961), Bazhanov worked with

mammals in the plateau in 1950s (Bazhanov, 1951). Reimov published a number of papers about

rodents, carnivores and ungulates in 1980s (Reimov, 1985, 1987).

The group of scientists did research about ecology and geobotany in 1980s and 1990s and as a

result several books like three-volume edition ―Floristical and ecological-geobotanical researches

in Karakalpakstan‖ (1987-1990) by Bakhiev et al and ―Ecological-geobotanical peculiarity

pastures in Karakalpak Ustyurt‖ (1983) by Allaniyazov and Sarybaev were published.

2.4 Flora and fauna

According to Rachkovskaya (2003) Southern Ustyurt floristically belongs to Western-Southern-

Turanian subprovince of Southern-Turanian province. The flora of Ustyurt comprises 724

species of 295 genera and 60 families (Bakhiev et al., 1987). According to the same source

biggest families are Chenopodiaceae (138 species), Brassicaceae (74 species), Asteraceae (70

species) and Poaceae (53 species).

The fauna of the plateau belongs to the Ustyurt zoogeographic territory of the subzone of

northern deserts of the Iranian-Turan province of the Mediterranean zoogeographic subarea. The

fauna of the region counts 25 species of reptiles, 1 species of amphibian (Bogdanov, 1961), 67

species of mammals, although 9 of them should be confirmed (Plakhov, 2002). 15 fish species

were found in Sarykamysh Lake and two of them are included in the Uzbekistan Red Data Book:

Aral Stickleback Pungitius platygaster aralensis and Turkestan Barbel Barbus capito

conocephalus (Zholdasova et al., 2009).

The plateau is an important bird migration route. 230 bird species can be encountered in various

seasons in wetlands (Sarykamysh and Sudochye lakes) near the plateau (Kashkarov et al., 2008).

2.5 Human impact

The human impact on the environment, mostly determined by the shrinkage of the Aral Sea,

construction of roads and railways, poaching, and geological exploration is partially immense.


13

3 METHODS

The current work is focused on planning one protected area for conservation habitat in Southern

Karakalpak Ustyurt. The proposed area will be part of the national network of protected areas

which has been developed within the Master plan. This document is defined as a comprehensive

summary of the activities and strategies needed to ensure a fully representative and functional

network of well managed and financed protected areas. Besides the plan for expanding the

protected area network, the master-plan also includes chapters about protected area management

and the enabling environment.

In practice, the often used approach for zonation is based on existing designations, simple

criteria and expert judgment (Appleton, 2012). This approach allows defining borders on the

basis of available data. At the same time the method has several limitations mostly because of

lack of a strategic element to the process. For example, delineation of core zone tends to be

based more on their remoteness and/or unsuitability for other uses (Appleton, 2012).

Pressey and Bottrill (2009) reviewed 4 different approaches in conservation planning and

suggested a unified method which consists of 11 stages.

Figure 4. Diagrammatic representation of the process of conservation planning

(Pressey & Bottrill, 2009)

As explained by the authors, in practice some stages can be undertaken simultaneously and there

are many feedbacks from later to earlier stages. From the time that stakeholders are first


14

involved, for example, they will contribute in different ways throughout the process (A). Among

the reasons for feedbacks are possible revisions of the boundaries of the planning region when

biodiversity data are collected (B). Another reason involves lessons for planning decisions (Stage

9) from maintenance (Stage 11) that indicate ways of locating and configuring conservation

areas to minimize subsequent liabilities for management (C). Recent enlargement of the

framework is illustrated by the addition of stages to those described by Margules & Pressey

(2000), enclosed by the dashed rectangle (D). Notably, the newer stages are mainly concerned

with the social, economic and political context for the more technical stages that follow.

Table 1. Description of our 11 main stages of conservation planning which is described in Figure 4.

(Pressey & Bottrill, 2009)

Stage Description

1 Scoping & costing

the planning

process

Decisions are necessary on the boundaries of the planning region, the

composition & required skills of the planning team, the available budget,

necessary funds in addition to those available & how each step in the process

will be addressed, if at all

2 Identifying &

involving

stakeholders

Important stakeholders include those who will influence or be affected by

conservation actions arising from the planning process, or be responsible for

implementing those actions. Different groups of stakeholders will need to be

involved in different ways in specific stages of planning.

3 Describing the

context for

conservation areas

The planning team describes the social, economic & political setting for

conservation planning, identifying the types of threats to natural features that

can be mitigated by spatial planning & the broad constraints on, &

opportunities for, conservation actions

4 Identifying

conservation goals

May begin with agreement on a broad vision statement for the region that is

then progressively refined into qualitative goals about biodiversity (e.g.

representation, persistence), ecosystem services, livelihoods & other

concerns. Goals help to identify the need for spatial data.

5 Collecting data on

socio-economic

variables & threats

Relevant spatially explicit data will include variables such as tenure,

extractive uses, costs of conservation, & constraints & opportunities to which

planners can respond. Will also involve predictions about the expansion of

threatening processes.

6 Collecting data on

biodiversity &

other natural

features

The planning team will collect spatially explicit data on biodiversity that

include representation units (e.g. vegetation types), focal species & ecological

processes. This may extend to ecosystem services (e.g. maintenance of water

flows, carbon sequestration).

7 Setting

conservation

objectives

Involves interpreting goals to define quantitative conservation objectives for

each spatial feature (e.g. 2,000 ha of vegetation type 16,500 individuals of

each species) &, where necessary, qualitative objectives related to

configuration, past disturbance & other criteria.

8 Reviewing current

achievement of

objectives

Remote data, & perhaps also field surveys, are used in this stage to estimate

the extent to which objectives have already been achieved in areas considered

to be adequately managed for conservation

9 Selecting additional

conservation areas

With stakeholders, this stage requires decisions about the location &

configuration of additional conservation areas that complement the existing

ones in achieving objectives. Factors influencing decisions will include costs,

constraints on, & opportunities for, effective conservation.

10 Applying

conservation

actions to selected

areas

Application of conservation actions requires a variety of technical analyses &

institutional arrangements to ensure that selected areas are given the most

feasible & appropriate conservation management & that areas are prioritized

for action when resources are limited


15

11 Maintaining &

monitoring

conservation areas

Activities ensure that individual areas are managed to promote the long-term

persistence of the values for which they were established. This involves

explicit management objectives & monitoring to ensure that management

actions are effective.

The proposed approach has quite broad application and goes beyond zoning of a protected area.

Appleton (2012) developed a systematic conservation planning map overlay and analysis

approach which consists of 8 stages.

Stage 1: Establish the legal and administrative context for zonation

Stage 2: Data compilation and mapping

Stage 3: Field research and consultation

Stage 4: Defining objectives and targets for the zones

Stage 5: Preparation of maps

Stage 6: Zone integration

Stage 7: Consultation and adaptation

Stage 8: Zone adjustment and finalization

I adapted proposals from Pressey & Bottrill (2009) and Appleton (2012) for the national context.

Stage 1: Describing the context for conservation areas

1.1 Political, economic and social setting for conservation planning,

1.2 Identifying the types of threats to natural features that can be mitigated by spatial

planning

Stage 2: Identifying conservation goals

2.1 Review of current spatial protection

Analysis of existing protected areas in the plateau.

2.2 Review of current species protection

Analysis of species in the region with global and national conservation status.

2.3 Priorities and obligations for protection of species and habitats

Identification of most vulnerable species according to 4 categories:

species with national and global conservation status and outside of any protected

areas;

species with national and global conservation status and outside of existing

protected areas with high (I, II) category;


16

species with national or global conservation status and outside of any protected

areas;

species with national or global conservation status and outside of existing

protected areas with high (I, II) category.

Stage 3: Collecting and compiling data on socio-economic variables

3.1 Compiling data about industrial impact

3.2 Compiling data about agriculture impact

3.3 Compiling data about transport impact

Stage 4: Collecting and compiling data on biodiversity & other natural features

4.1 Biotope features

4.2 Species diversity

4.3 Other natural features

Stage 5: Setting conservation objectives and targets for the protected area

5.1 Identifying the category of the protected area

According to Dudley (2008), categories can be selected:

Before the protected area is established, when decisions about management

objectives should be part of the planning process.

After the protected area has been established, when management objectives have

already been decided and choosing the appropriate category is mainly about

finding the one that best fits the protected areas as a whole; although looking

carefully at the categories at this stage might also stimulate some changes in

management objectives and activities.

In an established protected area where there is already a category but either

management is changing to address emerging conservation priorities and

problems or there are doubts about whether the right category was chosen in the

first place. However, changing a category in most countries is governed by the

legal framework on protected areas and should follow an assessment at least as

rigorous as the one applied in defining the existing category in the first place.

The category should be based around the primary management objective (Dudley, 2008).

For identification of the type of PA the matrix of management objectives has been used. Nine

objectives have been proposed by IUCN (1994).


17

Table 2. Protected area management objectives and IUCN categories

Adaptation from Atauri-Mezquida et al., 2008

Management objective Ia Ib II III IV V VI

Science 3 1 2 2 2 2 1

Wilderness 2 3 2 1 1 0 2

Biodiversity protection 3 2 3 3 3 2 3

Environmental services 2 3 3 0 3 2 3

Natural/cultural features 0 0 2 3 1 3 1

Tourism and recreation 0 2 3 3 1 3 1

Education 0 0 2 2 2 2 1

Sustainable use 0 1 1 0 2 2 1

Cultural attributes 0 0 0 0 0 3 2

3 = Primary objective; 2 = Secondary objective; 1 = potentially applicable

objective; 0 = Not applicable

The management objectives for the study area have been identified on the basis of expert

assessment.

The choice of the most relevant category for the study area has been made with visual comparing

via building a radar diagram and finding the best overlapping between a category and the study

area. At least one primary objective should match completely. The difference between other

objectives should be as less as possible.

The identification of the protected area has been based on regional, national and global

conservation targets, management objectives, national legal framework, and actual economic

situation.

5.2 Setting conservation objectives

Analysis of suitable habitat in the study area for every selected species has been made.

5.3 Legal requirements and the legislate that established the protected area

Stage 6: Preparation of maps

6.1 Conservation priority map.

6.2 Socio-economic, cultural priority and infrastructure map

6.3 Threat map

The maps have been made with ArcGIS 10.

I used base map as Jarvis et al., 2008.


18

Stage 7: Zone integration

The zonation has been made according to following criteria:

Most valuable habitats for flagship species;

Connectivity with protected areas in other countries;

Migration corridors for flagship species to other countries


19

4 RESULTS

4.1 Describing the context for conservation areas

4.1.1 Political setting

The legal framework for protected areas and nature conservation in Uzbekistan includes

international conventions, laws and acts of the President, Oliy Majlis (Parliament), decrees of the

Cabinet of Ministers and regulatory acts of ministerial level agencies. Items of international

conventions to which Uzbekistan has acceded shall have priority over the national legislation.

The legal framework consists of:

Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan (1992),

The Law ―On nature protection‖ (1992),

The Law ―On water and water use‖ (1993),

The Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan ―On administrative responsibility‖ (1995),

The Law ―On protection and use of flora‖ (1997),

The Law ―On protection and use of fauna‖ (1997),

Land Code (1998),

The Law ―On forest‖ (1999),

The Law ―On protection and use of cultural heritage objects‖ (2001),

The Law ―On protected areas‖ (2004),

The Law ―On technical regulation‖ (2009).

Uzbekistan is a part of the Convention of Biological Diversity (1995), Convention on

International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1997), Convention on

conservation of migratory species of wild animals (1998), Convention on Wetlands of

International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat (2001) and others.

The Law ―On protected areas‖ claims that the system of protected areas in Uzbekistan is based

on IUCN categories. According to the law, Uzbekistan has following types of protected areas:

state nature reserves (zapovednik),

complex (landscape) zakazniks,

http://multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=3708607_1_2


20

natural parks,

state monuments of nature,

areas for preservation, reproduction and restoration of certain natural objects and

complexes,

protected landscapes and areas for management of certain natural resources.

The state biosphere reserves are identified as protected areas separately.

Table 3. Comparison national categories with international IUCN categories

National category IUCN

category

State nature reserve (zapovednik) Ia

Complex (landscape) zakaznik Ib

Natural park II

State monument of nature III

Area for preservation, reproduction and restoration of certain

natural objects and complexes

IV

Protected landscapes and area for management of certain

natural resources

V

Biosphere reserve Mixed

According to the law ―On protected areas‖ (article 13) the protected area can be established

through a decision of Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan and local bodies of

state authority based on the order stipulated by the legislation.

4.1.2 Economic setting

The major drivers for economic development of the Ustyurt plateau in Uzbekistan are oil and gas

activity and infrastructure development (railway and motorway).

Ustyurt oil and gas area is the largest in Uzbekistan and it is the least explored. About 25 oil and

gas deposits have been discovered there in the course of explorations. Plots have already been

assigned to the companies ―Gazprom‖, ―Petrovietnam‖ and others. All this implies further work

in developing natural resources, which may have a negative impact on the plateau’s ecosystems.

Railway, road A-380 and several gas pipelines go through Karakalpak Ustyurt but outside of the

study area.


21

4.1.3 Social setting

The plateau has unique cultural and historical objects. Valuable architectural and archaelogical

sites are preserved there, such as the ruins Beleuli and Alan fortresses. In the past, caravan routes

ran across this plateau, along which towns, fortresses and caravanserai were situated. Old

cemeteries with mausoleums are scattered throughout the whole plateau. Permanent population

lives in two big (Karakalpakstan, Jaslyk) and several small settlements and counts about 10.000

people (UNDP, 2012).

The study area itself doesn’t have resident population. There is a camp for gas workers near

Shakhpakhty depression. Shakhpakhty gas field is for the moment the only operating gasfield in

the study area. It was discovered in 1962 and exploited since 1971. Russian company

―Zarubezhneftegaz‖ (branch of ―Gazprom‖) re-exploits Shakhpakhty from 2006 to 2015.

Fishermen work on Sarykamysh Lake on seasonal basis. Together with permanent residents who

live outside of the study area, there are a lot of shift workers who are employed in gas industry,

fishery, frontier protection and other working fields.

4.1.4 Threats

Poaching from local population

The unemployment rate is high and many local inhabitants from the settlements in Northern

Karakalpak Ustyurt are involved in poaching activities to ungulates. Local people illegally hunt

for goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa subgutturosa), saiga (Saiga tatarica tatarica) and

Urial (Ovis vignei arkal) for meat and horns (in case of saiga). Hunting takes place during the

whole year (Bykova & Esipov, 2012). The establishment of new the protected area will allow

expanding anti-poaching activity.

Extractive industry

Activity of the extractive industry in the Ustyurt region will cause a significant aggravation of

poaching and disturbance, noise, chemical contamination from accidents, blocking of access to

habitat and degradation of vegetation and soils. Negative effects of industrial development on

saiga populations have been observed during a previous industrialization phase of the region in

1970s. At that time large-scale mortality of saigas was observed when canals were placed on

their migratory routes. Current situation of migratory species (e.g. saiga and goitered gazelle) are

so vulnerable that even small disturbances can strongly affect the population (Milner-Gulland,

2012). A new protected area could encourage gas companies to develop measures to mitigate

activity.


22

Border fence

According to commitments of Customs Union between Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia a

border fence was built along the border between Karakalpak Ustyurt and Kazakhstan.

Based on experience of the effects of fences on migratory ungulates in other countries, Milner-

Gulland (2012) expects that in the short term saigas may attempt to cross the fence and die in the

attempt, or experience serious stress and injury. Any accumulations of saigas at the fence will be

easy targets for poachers. This mortality could cause a substantial reduction in an already

extremely depleted population. A new protected area could bring this topic for negotiations on

bilateral level.

Unsustainable fishery

The lake in the study area is used for fishing and there are seven fish farms leasing nine sites

with a total area of 4.510 ha. The lake is one of the biggest water bodies in Karakalpakstan: its

share in the total fish catch of Karakalpakstan constituted 25% and 50% in 2009 and 2010

respectively (Ten et al., 2012). The fish catch is transported to Kungrad by heavy trucks which

lead to strong impact of soil surface of the plateau. Most of the fishermen work seasonally in

spring and autumn. The breaks are during winter and summer (from 10th

of July to 10th

of

September) depending on weather conditions and not considering fish life cycle. It’s necessary to

regulate fishery to become more sustainable.

Level of the lake

Experts predict a decreasing of the lake in the nearest future. The major reason for it is the partly

diversion of water from the collectors feeding Sarykamysh Lake to fill an artificial lake in

Turkmenistan, Altyn Asyr. This may lead to an increase in salinity and a decline of the fisheries

importance of the lake (Ten et al., 2012). This problem is situated on political level although the

establishment of new protected area could bring a new impulse for the negotiations.

4.2 Identifying conservation goals

4.2.1 Spatial protection of landscapes

Ustyurt is divided among Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan and has several protected

areas.


23

Figure 5 Existing and proposed protected areas round the study area


24

The Kaplankyr zapovednik in Turkmenistan was established in 1979 and protects the east-

southern border of Ustyurt. Next to the zapovednik the Sarykamysh zakaznik is located

(Jashenko, 2006). Both protected areas border with Karakalpak Ustyurt. Another protected area

which is bordering to Kaplankyr and Sarykamysh is Shasenem zakaznik but it is located outside

of Ustyurt Plateau and its surroundings.

The Ustyurt zapovednik in Kazakhstan was established in 1984 for conserving south-west part of

the plateau (Jashenko, 2006). Next to the zapovednik Kenderli-Kajasanskaya State Natural

Protected Zone (IV IUCN) is located but it is situated outside of Ustyurt Plateau.

Currently, Karakalpak Ustyurt has one protected area for protection of saiga (Saiga tatarica

tatarica) which is zakaznik Saigachiy. However, its existence is rather formal and it doesn’t

perform its nature conservation functions properly. But according to the Law ―On protected

areas‖ forestry and hunting grounds are considered as PA and are accounted in the total PA Area

of Uzbekistan. Karakalpak Ustyurt comprises the lands of Kungard forestry and hunting ground

(260 651.5 ha), and Khojeyli forestry and hunting ground (158 585 ha). The protection of

zakaznik, forestry and hunting ground are rather formal. Zakaznik ―Saigachiy‖ doesn’t have any

staff and Kungrad forestry and hunting ground have only 6 rangers. It means that every ranger

must protect 43 442 ha which is equivalent more then 60 000 football playgrounds.

Khachaturov and Tikhomolov (1985) proposed to establish Southern-Ustyurt zapovednik with a

total area of 900 000 ha. This proposal was discussed among scientists and decision-makers

during several years.

Southern Ustyurt was considered in terms of conservation not so long time ago. For instance, a

complex ecological expedition was organized by Academies of Sciences from Turkmenistan,

Kazakhstan and Karakalpakstan in the end of 1970s. The major goal of the expedition was the

elaboration of a feasibility study for a transboundary (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and

Uzbekistan) protected area (zapovednik). Unfortunately, it’s impossible to find more detailed

information about this expedition now.

The GEF/UNEP/WWF project ―The Econet of Central Asia‖ proposed several protected areas in

the plateau including Ustyurt national park with focus on transboundary nature conservation in

2006.

The ongoing UNDP/GEF project ―Strengthening Sustainability of the National Protected Area

System by Focusing on Strictly Protected Areas‖ is developing a Master plan for protected areas


25

and has proposed a number of protected areas in Ustyurt including Southern-Ustyurt zapovednik

in the study area. The total area of the zapovednik is 1 420 897 ha.

Existing and proposed protected areas as well as other valuable areas have been mapped in

Figure 5

Globally the share of cold-winter deserts under protection is 7.61% (United Nations List of

Protected Areas, 2003). On national level cold winter deserts are underrepresented in the

protected area system. Only 3,5% of the deserts are under nature protection (Zagrebin et al.,

2012). Both numbers are not big enough to reach Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2010).

On regional level the plateau has a number of protected areas in three countries.

Table 4 Existing protected areas in Ustyurt plateau and its surroundings

IUCN

Category Name of PA Area, ha

Coverage in per

cent

Ia Ustyurt zapovednik 223.342

Ia Kaplankyr zapovednik 282.800

Subtotal 506.142 2,53%

IV Sarykamysh zakaznik 551.066

IV Saigachiy zakaznik 1.000.000

VI

Kungrad forestry and

hunting ground 260.651,50

VI

Khodjeyli forestry and

hunting ground 158.585

Subtotal 1.970.302,50 9,85%

Total 12,38%

Overall, 2,53% of the plateau is under strict protection (Ia) and 9,85% is under lower level of

protection (IV-VI).

4.2.2 Species protection

The Red Book of Uzbekistan (2009) contains 4 plant, 25 bird, 1 reptile, 2 fish and 9 mammal

species with natural habitat in Ustyurt and near Sarykamysh Lake. A hunt for Red Book species

is prohibited although there are no special measures for their protection - in the plateau. The

international status is defined by IUCN guidelines (2001) and list of Threatened species (2012).


26

Table 5 Flora and fauna species, which have been identified in Karakalpak Ustyurt and included in

the Red Data Book of Uzbekistan (2009)

Species National

status

Global status CITES Spatial

protecti

on

Additional

information

Flora

Climacoptera ptiloptera,

U.P. Pratov

2 NE - Endemic

Malacocarpus

crithmifolius, (Retz.) C.A.

Mey.

2 DD - Relict

Salsola chiwensis, Popov 3 NE - Relict

Euphorbia sclerocyathium,

Korovin et Рорov

2 NE - Endemic

Fauna

Birds

Ardeola ralloides, Scopoli 2 (VU:D) LC D IV Breeding

Platalea leucorodia, L. 2 (VU:D) LC D IV Winter

Plegadis falcinellus, L. 2 (VU:D) LC D IV Breeding

Phoenicopterus roseus,

Pallas

2 (VU:R) LC I IV Breeding

Cygnus olor, Gmelin 3 (NT) LC I IV Breeding

Cygnus cygnus, L. 2 (VU:R) LC U IV Winter

Aythya nyroca,

Gueldenstaedt

3 (NT) NT IV I, II CMS

Breeding

Oxyura leucocephala,

Scopoli

1 (EN) EN

A2bcde+4bcde

II

CITES

IV I CMS

Migration

Aquila chrysaetos, L. 2 (VU:R) LC S I Nest

Aquila heliaca, Savigny 2 (VU:D) VU C2a(ii) I

CITES

IV I, II CMS

Breeding

Aquila rapax nipalensis,

Hodgson

3 (NT) LC D II

CITES

- Resident

Aegypius monachus, L. 3 (NT) NT II

CITES

I Resident

Circaetus gallicus, Gmelin 2 (VU:D) LC S II

CITES

I Breeding

Pandion haliaetus, L. 2 (VU:R) LC I II

CITES

IV Breeding

Falco cherrug, Gray 3 (NT) EN A2bcde+3

cde+4bcde

II

CITES

I I CMS

Resident

Falco naumanni, Fleischer 3 (NT) LC S II

CITES

I I, II CMS

Migration

Haliaeetus albicilla, L. 2 (VU:R) LC I I, II

CITES

IV I, II CMS

Winter

Pelecanus onocrotalus, L. 2 (VU:D) LC U IV Breeding

Pelecanus crispus, Bruch 2 (VU) VU

A2ce+3ce+4ce

I

CITES

IV I, II CMS

Breeding

Egretta garzetta, L. 2 (VU:D) LC I IV Breeding

Otis tarda, L. 1 (CR) VU

A2cd+3cd+4cd

I

CITES

- Migration

I, II CMS

Chlamydotis undulata 2 (VU:D) VU A2bcd I, II IV Breeding


27

macqueenii, Gray CITES

Glareola nordmanni,

Fischer

2 (VU:R) NT IV II CMS

Migration

Larus ichthyaetus, Pallas 2 (VU:D) LC D IV Winter

Pterocles alchata, L. 2 (VU:D) LC S - Breeding

Fish

Pungitius platygaster

aralensis, Kessler

3 (NT) NE -

Barbus capito

conocephalus, Kessler

2 (VU:D) NE I

Mammals

Paraechinus hypomelas

hypomelas, Brandt

3 (NT) LC U I

Mellivora capensis

buechneri, Baryshnikov

1 (CR) LC D -

Hyaena hyaena hyaena, L. 1 (CR) NT D I

Acinonyx jubatus

venaticus, Griffith

0 (EX) CR D I

CITES

-

Caracal caracal michaelis,

Heptner

1 (CR) LC U I

CITES

-

Equus hemionus kulan,

Groves et Mazak

0 (EW) EN

A2abc+3bd

I

CITES

IV

Gazella subgutturosa

subgutturosa, Güldenstädt

2 (VU:D) VU A2ad I

Ovis vignei arkal,

Eversmann

1 (CR) VU A2cde II

CITES

-

Saiga tatarica

tatarica, L.

3 (VU) CR A2acd II

CITES

IV

Reptiles

Elaphe quatuorlineata

sauromates, Pallas

2 (VU:R) NT -

Legend of national status:

Flora

2 – Rare species

3 – Reducing species

Fauna

0 (EX) – Regionally extinct

0 (EW) – Extinct in the Wild

1 (CR) – Critically Endangered

2 (VU:D) – Vulnerable: Declining

2 (VU:R) – Vulnerable: Naturally Rare

3 (NT) – Near Threatened

Legend of global status:

LC I – Least Concern, increasing population trend

LC U – Least Concern, unknown population trend

LC S – Least Concern, stable population trend

LC D – Least Concern, decreasing population trend

NE – Not Evaluated

DD – Data Deficient

NT – Near Threatened

VU – Vulnerable

EN – Endangered

CR – Critically Endangered


28

4.2.3 Priorities

For the identification of the most important habitats species the following criteria have been

used:

species with national and global conservation status and outside of any protected areas;

species with national and global conservation status and outside of existing protected

areas with high (I, II) category;

species with national or global conservation status and outside of any protected areas;

species with national conservation status and outside of existing protected areas with

high (I, II) category.

Besides legally protected species, which have been mentioned in 4.2.2, two other species with

global conservation status have been added into the list. Agrionemys horsfieldii has a status

―Vulnerable A2d‖ which means the population reduction in the form of a reduction of at least

20%, projected or suspected to be met within the next ten years or three generations, whichever

is the longer, based on actual or potential levels of exploitation. The species have been recorded

during the expedition (see Annex III).

Otocolobus manul has a global status ―Near Threatened‖ and is a rare species in Uzbekistan

(Gritsina, 2012). I included this species into the list because it inhabits Kaplankyr zapovednik

(Jashenko et al., 2006), which is located next to Uzbekistan border.

1. Species with national and global conservation status and outside of any protected areas

Ovis vignei arkal

Acinonyx jubatus venaticus

Elaphe quatuorlineata sauromates

2. Species with national and global conservation status and outside of existing protected

areas with high (I, II) category

Saiga tatarica tatarica,

Equus hemionus kulan,

Oxyura leucocephala,

Aquila heliaca,

Chlamydotis undulata macqueenii,

Glareola nordmanni,

3. Species with national or global conservation status and outside of any protected areas


29

Pterocles alchata

Pungitius platygaster aralensis

Mellivora capensis buechneri

Caracal caracal michaelis

Agrionemys horsfieldii

Otocolobus manul

Climacoptera ptiloptera

Malacocarpus crithmifolius

Salsola chiwensis

Euphorbia sclerocyathium

4. Species with national or global conservation status and outside of existing protected areas

with high (I, II) category

Aquila nipalensis

Ardeola ralloides

Platalea leucorodia

Plegadis falcinellus

Phoenicopterus roseus

Cygnus olor

Cygnus cygnus

Pandion haliaetus

Haliaeetus albicilla

Pelecanus onocrotalus

Egretta garzetta

Larus ichthyaetus

4.3 Collecting and compiling data on socio-economic variables

Industrial impact

During Soviet time the plateau was the object for exploration by geologists in 1960s. They found

gas and oil deposits there. Later, in the middle of 2000s the Uzbek government offered

investment sites to foreign companies from Russia, Vietnam, Korea for further prospecting.

Members of international complex expedition (May, 2012) found traces from exploration


30

seismology from Soviet geologists as well as new activity. Usually these were traces from heavy

trucks, geological and household rubbish, and craters from explosions. New geological activity

has been done with less harm because usually the geoexploration companies follow

environmental rules. It generally means less different kind of rubbish. Nevertheless, the

ecosystem is so fragile that most of anthropogenic activity is still visible even if it happened 50

years ago.

New camp for gas workers near Shakhpakhty depression was built in 2004. The old Soviet camp

is abandoned now.

Gas employees (90% of them are citizens of Uzbekistan and others are from Russia) work here

on a shift basis and change every month. They don’t have any weapon and there is no impact in

terms of poaching from them. Their routes are mostly out of the study area.

Newly discovered Dzhel gas deposit is located 15 km south-west from Shakhpakhty. It’s quite

difficult to get updated information about plans for further gas development.

Agricultural impact

The study area had been used as a seasonal pasture (spring-summer-autumn) during Soviet time.

Bakhiev counted 50.000 livestock in 1990. The network of water wells had been established for

supporting livestock activity. After getting independence there was no a regular pasture but the

expedition found traces of shepherd stops. It seems that the area is still used as a pasture during

spring time when there is no shortage with water and the desert is covered by ephemeral plants.

Members of the expedition noticed that areas around water wells are highly degraded and slowly

regenerated.

During Soviet time saiga antilope (Saiga tatarica tatarica) was an object for mass hunting

(Mitropolskiy et al., 2005). The meat used to be soldin shops in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

The impact from fishermen includes unsustainable fishery, soil degradation from transport, dogs

and rubbish. Dogs in the fish camps can prey to wild animals including juvenile animals from

flagship species. The rubbish around fish camps contains monofilament gill nets and may cause

the death or lethal injuries of waterbirds and animals.

Transport impact

The impact from motor transport is one of the major impacts to the vegetation. It leads to wind

erosion of the soil surface which consists of gypsum with particles of melkozem. Wheels of


31

motor transport transform the surface into a plump dusty paste. Itis difficult to drive on this

surface so every car usually makes a new route. Sometimes, the width of this kind of route is

about 300-500 m (Rafikov, 1989). 15-20% of pasture lands are highly degraded by heavy

transport along gas pipelines and other geological activity (Bakhiev et al., 1990).

The major motor transport users are:

Geologists. Irregular users with heavy trucks inside the study area. Sometimes they build

new earth roads for transporting heavy drilling machineries.

Gas workers. Regular users with mostly light off-road cars outside the study area

(Shakhpakhty-Karakalpakstan railway station).

Fishermen. Regular users with heavy trucks inside the study area.

Border guards. Regular users with light off-road cars inside the study area.

Rangers. Regular users with light off-road cars inside the study area.

Shepherds. Irregular users with heavy trucks inside the study area.

4.4 Collecting and compiling data on biodiversity & other natural features

4.4.1 Biotopes features

The study area is a part of Turanian biogeographic province of Palearctic realm (Udvardy, 1975).

It also belongs to the global ecoregion ―Central Asian deserts‖. The ecoregion is included in

Global 200 network which has been proposed by Olsen and Dinerstein in 1998 as a science-

based global ranking of the Earth's most biologically outstanding terrestrial, freshwater and

marine habitats.

Bakhiev (1988) identified 4 major types of plant communities in the study area: gypsophitic,

halophytic, psammophytic and tugai.

According to Allaniyazov & Sarybayev (1983) Karakalpak Ustyurt is divided to 27 geobotanical

regions. But in terms of conservation targets it is sensible to merge some of them in order to

concentrate on the relevant ones. After adaptation to the aims of this thesis, the study area

contains 8 regions.

Shakhpakhty is a closed depression. There are several brackish artesian wells and two natural

sulphur-rich thermal springs (Kashkarov et al., 2008) at the bottom with halophytes and

Phragmites australis around. The area of the wetland covers about 2.5 km2 (Kashkarov et al.,

2008). Phytogenic lumps which are created by Tamarix hispida surround the wetland. The region


32

is populated by animal species because of water but at the same time highly degraded due to

anthropogenic activity.

Eastern Assake-Audan is a part of big Assake-Audan depression. Haloxylon aphyllum and

Kalidium caspicum dominate there with spots of phytogenic lumps which are mainly composed

of Tamarix hispida. There are areas with plump solonchak . The area is degraded because of

logging and other anthropogenic activity.

Western Assake-Audan is a part of big Assake-Audan depression. The region has similar

vegetation as the eastern part but the major difference is that it contains spots of sand with

psammophytes like Ammodendron conollyi, Aristida spp., Caligonum spp.

Shordja is a former bay of Sarykamysh. Nowadays it is a small depression with dominance of

solonchak and gypsum soil and rare spots of Haloxylon aphyllum.

Transassake-Audan is an area with a flat landscape and homogenous vegetation of Anabasis

salsa, but with some spots of tugai vegetation which shows high level of ground water.

Kulan-takyr is a region with a dominance of Artemisia-Anabasis community

Dry lake is a unique karst depression with steep slopes. Artemisia spp. and Salsola orientalis

dominate there although ephemeral plants grow here as well.

Kazakhly district covers the Uzbek part of Kazakhly depression. Artemisia spp., Anabasis salsa,

Salsola arbuscula, Nanophyton erinaceum and Anabasis brachiata dominate there.

A map with geobotanic regions is given in Figure 6.

Four major biotopes have been identified in the study area.

Shrub saxaul desert with dominance of Haloxylon aphyllum on a high layer and sometimes

perennial and annual plants like Kalidium caspicum, Salsola orientalis on low layer (Allaniyazov

& Sarybayev, 1983). Despite of small areas (3,5% according to Rachkovskaya, 2003), the habitat

is valuable for a lot of animal species.

Dwarf semi-shrub desert with dominance of Anabasis salsa. According to Allaniyazov (1983)

about 80% of the desert is covered by communities with dominance of Anabasis salsa. But

Artemisia spp., Salsola spp. are present here as well (Allaniyazov & Sarybayev, 1983). This is

zonal vegetation (Rachkovskaya et al., 2003).

Wetland is the area of brackish water along the shore of Sarykamysh Lake and Shakhpakhty


33

small lake. The major vegetation along the cost is represented by Phragmites australis and

Турhа аngustifoliа.

Cliff is a steep cliff of a plateau. In the study area cliffs exist in Shakhpakhty depression, Assake

Audan depression, and South Cliff of the plateau in front of Sarykamysh Lake. The results of the

expedition prove that cliffs have more plant diversity than the plateau (see Annex I). Cliffs are

suitable habitats for some endemic species like Ovis vignei arkal.

Salt desert is another widespread biotope in the study area. The surface is sparsely covered by

halophytes like Halocnemum strobilaceum, Kallidium caspicum, Sueda microsperma,

Climacoptera spp. This biotope doesn’t have crucial importance for selected flagship species.


34

Figure 6. Geobotanic regions of Southern Ustyurt Plateau


35

4.4.2 Species diversity

The international ecological expedition in Southern Karapalpak Ustyurt took place in May 2012.

Five working groups assessed the biodiversity in terms of botany, entomology, herpetology,

ornithology and mammalogy. Such complex investigations with the participation of the above

listed scientists of various specializations have not been carried out in the recent decades. Overall

the groups did 1164 km of driving route (Marmazinskaya et al., 2012a). The route of the

expedition is shown in Figure 7.

Plant diversity

The botany group registered 340 plant species in the study area. The results of botanic group are

represented in Annex I.

Birds diversity

Three Important Bird Areas (IBAs) have been identified in Karakalpak Ustyurt. These are

―Saigachiy zakaznik‖, ―Northern part of the Assake-Audan depression‖ and ―Sarykamysh lake

and surrounding Ustyurt plateau‖. Last two are located in the study area. Northern part of the

Assake-Audan depression has IBA number UZ004 and an area of 5 288 ha. The territory was

identified 5 km south of Shakhpakhty gas camp (Kashkarov et al., 2008). ―Sarykamysh lake and

surrounding Ustyurt plateau‖ has IBA number UZ050 and an area of 95 974 ha. This IBA

includes a 2 km wide strip of the Uzbekistan part of lake Sarykamysh, the cliffs of the eastern

escarpment of the Ustyurt plateau and part of the plateau including the Sarja depression (Ten et

al., 2012).

The ornithology group registered 103 bird species in the study area. The results of the

ornithology group are represented in Annex II.

Reptile and amphibian diversity

The herpetology group registered 17 reptile species and 1 amphibian species in the study area.

The results of the herpetology group are represented in Annex III.

Mammal diversity

The mammology group registered 37 mammal species in the study area. The results of the

mammology group have been published (Marmazinskaya et al., 2012a & 2012b) and are

represented in Annex IV.


36

Figure 7. Expedition route in May 2012 – Southern Ustyurt plateau


37

4.4.3 Other natural features

In terms of geographical features, the UNDP/GEF project ―Strengthening Sustainability of the

National Protected Area System by Focusing on Strictly Protected Areas‖ has identified two

objects in the study area: ―Assake-Audan depression and Northern Sarykamysh‖ and ―Dry lake‖

(Zagrebin et al., 2012).

Assake-Audan and Sarykamysh depressions are rare nature objects on regional level. Both

objects used to be the bottom of a big ancient water reservoir. Clearly discernible on the slopes

of Assake-Audan depression are the pebble and sandy-pebble shore ramparts and lacustrine

terraces with mollusk shells indicative of the fact that they were flooded by the Amudarya waters

more than once (Zonn et al., 2009). The combination of the cliff of Southern Ustyurt together

with the lake as well creates impressive sights.

Another geomorphologic object is ―Dry Lake‖. This is a unique object on global scale.

According to one of the hypotheses this hollow was made by a small asteroid in the middle

Neogen (11 – 7.3 mln years ago). ―Dry Lake‖ appears to have a cryptoexplosion structure with a

size of 7 to 10 km and a maximum depth of 40 meters.

4.5 Setting conservation objectives and targets for the protected area

4.5.1 Identifying the type of the protected area

Table 6. Protected area management objectives and IUCN categories

Management objective Ia Ib II III IV V VI Study

Area

Science 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 1

Wilderness 2 3 2 1 1 0 2 3

Biodiversity protection 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3

Environmental services 2 3 3 0 3 2 3 1

Natural/cultural features 0 0 2 3 1 3 1 1

Tourism and recreation 0 2 3 3 1 3 1 0

Education 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 0

Sustainable use 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 2

Cultural attributes 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0

Comparison management objectives between a category of protected area and the study area via

radar diagram


38

0

1

2

3

Science

Wilderness

Biodiversity protection

Environmental services

Natural/cultural featuresTourism and recreation

Education

Sustainable use

Cultural attributes

0

1

2

3Science

Wilderness




Education

Sustainable use

Cultural attributes

Figure 8. Radar diagram of management

objectives for Ia category (brown) and the study

area (magenta)

Figure 9. Radar diagram of management objectives

for Ib category (brown) and the study area

(magenta)

0

1

2

3Science

Wilderness




Education

Sustainable use

Cultural attributes

0

1

2

3Science

Wilderness




Education

Sustainable use

Cultural attributes


objectives for II category (brown) and the study

area (magenta)


objectives for III category (brown) and the study

area (magenta)

0

1

2

3Science

Wilderness




Education

Sustainable use

Cultural attributes

0

1

2

3Science

Wilderness




Education

Sustainable use

Cultural attributes

Figure12. Radar diagram of management

objectives for IV category (brown) and the study

area (magenta)


objectives for V category (brown) and the study

area (magenta)


39

0

1

2

3Science

Wilderness




Education

Sustainable use

Cultural attributes


objectives for VI category (brown) and the study

area (magenta)

At least one primary objective matches in every graph.

For each comparison I have calculated the difference between the objectives.

Table 7. Digital comparison between management objectives

Management objective Ia-SA Ib-SA II-SA III-SA IV-SA V-SA VI-SA

Science 2 0 1 1 1 1 0

Wilderness 1 0 1 2 2 3 1

Biodiversity protection 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Environmental services 1 2 2 1 2 1 2

Natural/cultural features 3 3 1 0 2 0 2

Tourism and recreation 0 2 3 3 1 3 1

Education 0 0 2 2 2 2 1

Sustainable use 2 1 1 1 0 0 1

Cultural attributes 0 0 0 0 0 3 2

Difference 9 9 11 10 10 14 10

Legend: SA – Study Area

As we can see from the results categories Ia and Ib are most suitable for the study area.

According to the national legislation it should be zapovednik (strict nature reserve) or complex

(landscape) zakaznik respectively. Both types have advantages and disadvantages. Complex

(landscape) zakaznik is a new type for the country and there is no comparable protected area in

Uzbekistan. A legal framework like subordinate legislation has not been developed yet. Uzbek

legislation has another type of zakaznik which belongs to IUCN category IV. This is one of the

weakest forms of PA, because zakazniks do not have own staff and legal entity.

On the other hand to provide a protection appropriate for a zapovednik for such a huge area

means to exclude it from economic activities. It is challenging to convince decision-making

people to do so in the current political context.


40

Nevertheless, both categories stipulate a different zonation.

According to the law ―On protected areas‖ (article 19) a zapovednik has core and buffer zones.

Core zone is an area where any activity is prohibited, except for research and monitoring of

nature. Measures to realize fire-prevention are allowed as well.

In case of complex (landscape) zakaznik, the article 22 of the same law claims that any activity

is prohibited except for research, recreational activity, monitoring of environment as well as

haymaking and grazing, collection of wild plants for nutritional purposes, wild medicinal and

technical material for own needs of the staff of the complex (landscape) zakazniks and the

people living in their buffer zones.

The definition of the buffer zone is described in the article 46 of the law ―On protected areas‖.

Buffer zones are the territories bordering to state reserves, zakazniks and state monuments of

nature. In buffer zones economic and other activity is limited or prohibited with the purpose of

preventing negative impact on neighboring protected areas.

As we can see from the definitions, zapovedniks have stricter regime but as there is no resident

population in the study area the functions of a core zone will be similar. That’s why the zonation

includes only two zones – core and buffer zone.

4.5.2 Conservation objectives

The habitats of the following species have been chosen as priorities for spatial protection .

Table 8. Species with national and global conservation status and outside of any protected areas

and major habitats

Species Shrub saxaul

desert

Dwarf semi-shrub

desert

Wetland Cliff

Ovis vignei arkal X

Acinonyx jubatus venaticus X X

Elaphe quatuorlineata sauromates X X

Table 9. Species with national and global conservation status and outside of existing protected areas

with high (I, II) category and major habitats


desert

Dwarf semi-shrub

desert

Wetland Cliff

Saiga tatarica tatarica X X

Equus hemionus kulan X X

Oxyura leucocephala X

Aquila heliaca X X X

Chlamydotis undulata macqueenii X X

Glareola nordmanni X


41

Table 10. Species with national or global conservation status and outside of any protected areas

and major habitats


desert

Dwarf semi-shrub

desert

Wetland Cliff

Pterocles alchata X X

Pungitius platygaster aralensis X

Mellivora capensis buechneri X

Caracal caracal michaelis X X X X

Agrionemys horsfieldii X X

Otocolobus manul X

Climacoptera ptiloptera X X X

Malacocarpus crithmifolius X X X

Salsola chiwensis X X X

Euphorbia sclerocyathium X X X

Table 11. Species with national conservation status and outside of existing protected areas with

high (I, II) category and major habitats


desert

Dwarf semi-shrub

desert

Wetland Cliff

Aquila nipalensis X X X

Ardeola ralloides X

Platalea leucorodia X

Plegadis falcinellus X

Phoenicopterus roseus X

Cygnus olor X

Cygnus cygnus X

Pandion haliaetus X

Haliaeetus albicilla X

Pelecanus onocrotalus X

Egretta garzetta X

Larus ichthyaetus X

4.5.3. Legal requirements and the legislate that established the protected area

According to legislation both selected types of protected areas must be established through a

decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan upon proposal of a specially

authorized state body.

The land in the study area belongs to the state. The major administrators are:

Kungrad forestry and hunting ground

State land reserve

Oil and gas companies for geological survey on the basis of project sharing agreement

Fisheries (long-term rent).


42

According to law ―On protected areas‖ (2004) it allows including area with economic activity (in

this case, extractive and fishery) into a buffer zone of a protected area. The border of buffer zone

has to be discussed and agreed with all relevant stakeholders.

4.6 Preparation of maps

Conservation priority map (see Figure 15)

The map is based on biodiversity features which have been identified in 4.2. I also added Gazella

subgutturosa subgutturosa as a keystone species.

Socio-economic, cultural priority and infrastructure map (see Figure 16)

The map is based on socio-economic variables which have been described in 4.3.

Threat map (see Figure 17)

The map is based on threats which have been described in 4.1.4.

4.7 Zone integration

I used followed criteria for delineation of zones:

Most valuable habitats for flagship species

It is necessary to identify core zones which are as big as possible and as diverse as possible.

Connectivity with protected areas in other countries

The study area is bordered to Kaplankyr zapovednik and Sarykamysh zakaznik in the South-

East.

Migration corridors for flagship species to other countries

It is necessary to provide the corridors for ungulates that migrate from Kazakhstan.

The results of zoning is presented in Figure 18.

The core zone is 679 320 ha

The buffer zone is 801 716 ha

The total area is 1 481 036 ha.


43

Figure 15. Conservation priority map of the study area


44

Figure 16. Socio-economic, cultural priority and infrastructure map of the study area


45

Figure 17.Threat map of the study area


46

Figure 18. Proposed zonation of the study area


47

5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Discussion of methods

The current method of planning and zonation of protected areas is a mid-term process that needs

to involve all the relevant stakeholders and find consensus through different formats of

discussion. This is a crucial point during planning process of a protected area. Due to limited

resources it was impossible to follow the methodology which was proposed by Pressey and

Bottrill (2009) in a whole. Nevertheless, the adapted method allows developing a first draft of

the protected area for further discussions.

Below I discuss the adopted stages.

In the first stage the context for the study area has been described. According to the Emerging

model of protected areas (Ervin et al., 2010), the planning process must include different

stakeholders from different sectors. The identification of threats is a first step in the multi-level

process of zonation.

In the second stage it is necessary to identify priorities for conservation. There is no guideline

what exactly shall be priorities and it depends on the context which has been described in the

first stage. I tried to follow the commitments within the Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan of

Uzbekistan as a key document on national level for wildlife nature conservation. Unfortunately it

was adopted in 1998 for 10 years and is nowadays outdated. Another document which I used as a

basis was the draft of the Master-plan. The Master Plan for the Protected Area System of

Uzbekistan is a strategic document which consists of long-term conservation goals as well as a

plan for the expansion of protected areas in Uzbekistan. At the moment, the document is under

discussion with relevant ministries. Both documents should assist to meet the Aichi biodiversity

target on national level. So, I have identified most valuable species according to four categories:

species with national and global conservation status and outside of any protected areas;

species with national and global conservation status and outside of existing protected

areas with high (I, II) category;

species with national or global conservation status and outside of any protected areas;

species with national conservation status and outside of existing protected areas with

high (I, II) category.


48

The proposed categories allow identifying species of global and national importance which

urgently need spatial protection. I separated the protected areas with high categories because

lower types of protected areas function rather formal.

The selection of the four major habitats (Shrub saxaul desert, Dwarf semi-shrub desert, Wetland,

Cliff) is based on the ecology of selected flagship species and findings of the expedition. Based

on this information it is possible to highlight places and relevant habitats for the species and set

zones for the protected area.

For some species the national status differs from global status because Uzbekistan is on the edge

of distribution. This is the case for Mellivora capensis buechneri, Caracal caracal michaelis. A

global status is defined only for species but for subspecies it has not been determined. Caracal

caracal michaelis is only one of nine subspecies of caracal and lives in Turkmenistan,

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan (Nowell & Jackson, 1996). This subspecies is classified as rare

(Nowell & Jackson, 1996). Nevertheless the subspecies does not have separate international

status. In Turkmenistan C. c. michaelis is classified as National Red Book species with

progressively declining population (Turkmenistan RDB, 2011). In Uzbekistan Red Data Book

(2009) Turkmen caracal has critically endangered status.

Mellivora capensis consists of 10 subspecies (Vanderhaar & Yeen, 2003). M.c. buechneri

inhabits western part of Central Asia including Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.

The new subspecies has been determined by Baryshnikov in 2000 but Red Data Book of

Uzbekistan (2009) still describes only M.c. indica. It shows current level of conservation science

in the country. In Turkmenistan Red Data Book (2011) M.c. buechneri has endangered status.

Kazakhstan Red Data Book (2010) defines M.c. as a naturally rare species.

During the third stage I compiled socio-economic variables and threats that have been collected

while field work in May 2012 as well as from other sources. Unfortunately, it is difficult to

assess threats from extractive industry because of limited available information. De facto

extractive industry is a strategic sector of economy and governmental structures often do not

disclose those information.

The fourth stage consists of compiling biodiversity data. As I mentioned in Chapter 2 the

available data about the study area is limited and often outdated. Because of this the results of

the expedition have been the main source of information. The expedition team had limited

resources and could not cover the whole study area. The major investigations took place along

transects or have been due to the landscape pattern which were in proximity to the camps (see


49

Figure 7). The team also made observations on flora and fauna along the routes between camps

which do not cover the overall area. The amount and structure of most of the findings are not

enough to build species distribution models for flagship species.

During the fifth stage it was necessary to identify an appropriate type of protected area. Besides

the fact that national legislation is harmonized with IUCN categories, I must consider how the

law is implemented in practice. The matrix of management objectives (Table 6) allows showing

the best option. It can be changed if priorities in management objectives will be shifted during

consultations with stakeholders.

Another step during that stage was to set up conservation objectives. Due to scarce available

information it was impossible to use quantitative conservation objectives as it was proposed by

Pressey and Bottrill (2009). To mitigate the bias from one-year findings, especially for highly

mobile animals I used the biotopes conservation approach. A similar approach has been

proposed by Ibisch et al. in 2002 for data-poor regions. That method consists of 3 steps:

1. Extrapolation of species range using distribution data and abiotic factors describing the

probability of the occurrence of taxa.

2. Analysis of the current conservation status of habitats, the future threats and the resulting

predicted future conservation status using socioeconomic proxy-indicators (road access,

population density, etc.) and development scenarios.

3. The integration of the results of the first two steps, species ranges and future conservation

status.

The major task in the sixth stage was mapping available information which has been described in

previous stages. Because of the poor economic situation in the study area, I merged socio-

economic, cultural priority and infrastructure map. But in other cases it is recommended by

Appleton (2012) to prepare two different maps. Most of the maps have been printed in big scale,

which fits to format A4 or A3. As the maps have been developed in ArcGIS and it is possible to

prepare smaller scale in future.

5.2 Discussion of results

As it was mentioned before, the findings of the expedition were qualitatively only. The different

methods of five groups (botany, entomology, herpetology, ornithology and mammalogy) did not

allow mapping all findings properly.

The thematic groups had different tasks and used different approaches. Sometimes it was


50

difficult to combine them in a way that allowed having the opportunity for observing different

classes of animals. The expedition visited only several sand spots that are why psammophytes

and psammophiles are represented partially in the findings.

The time period for the expedition did not fit for some of the tasks. May usually is a good period

for observing flora and fauna in the desert, especially plants and insects. But April in 2012 was

exceptionally hot and with a small amount of precipitation. During the expedition ephemerals

were gone already and several families of plant species were out of observations. In case of

invertebrates the flight activity was almost finished as well. The findings were not sufficient and

I decided to exclude invertebrates from the chapter about species diversity. The logistic issues

for this kind of international expeditions take a lot of time and efforts and it is impossible to react

quickly to weather changes.

Among threats I did not mention climate change because for this ecosystem direct anthropogenic

impact is harsher than a long-term climate change.

5.3 Mitigation of the risks

That economic concerns are considered to be more important than ecological concerns could be

one of the major risks for a new protected area. The possible partner could be the UNDP/GEF

project ―Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Uzbekistan`s Oil-and-Gas Sector Policies and

Operations‖ aims to enable policy, legislative, and institutional environment for mainstreaming

biodiversity conservation considerations in the oil-and-gas sector. The project is developing

national maps where:

1. Oil and gas sector development must be avoided altogether.

2. Oil and gas extraction projects are allowed, but should have mitigation measures to

reduce impact to biodiversity.

3. Restoration and offset scheme is needed.

One of the major threats for flagship species is poaching by the local population who live outside

the study area. Simultaneously with spatial protection it’s necessary to work with local

communities. One of the possible partners in this area could be Saiga Conservation Alliance

(SCA) which works in Karakalpak Ustyurt with communities. An education program designed to

raise child awareness of saiga antelope ecology and conservation has been implemented since

2006 (Damerell et al., 2012). Partly activity of SCA implements via ―Ustyurt Landscape

Conservation Initiative‖ project in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Through a consortium of

partners, led by Pact, Inc. and including Fauna & Flora International (FFI), BirdLife


51

International and ACDI/VOCA and supported by USAID via SCAPES (Sustainable

Conservation Approaches in Priority Ecosystems), this initiative aims to reconcile ecosystem

conservation with local sustainable development, using the saiga antelope as a flagship species.

The project will provide opportunities for local communities to develop alternative livelihoods.

Another outcome of the project is supporting the Uzbek government to improve protection and

management of the Saigachiy zakaznik.

5.4 Further research

The aim of the thesis was to define the type and zones for the new protected area on the basis of

available data. Team-leaders of the expedition claimed that there is a big range of further

research in terms of species ecology as well as ecosystem dynamics.

Developing a vegetation map with most valuable vegetation spots like saxaul shrubland could be

another task. Because of sparse vegetation it is necessary to use high-resolution snapshots. But it

could be a challenging task to analyze such a big area (about 1 500 000 ha). For selection most

valuable biotopes it’s possible to use remote sensing in different period of year.

Another task could be building a species distribution model for a certain flagship species as well

as for species communities based on several-year information.

Assessment of the ecosystem services of the study area could be a challenging but interesting

task. Cold winter deserts do not provide obvious services like water purification or flood

prevention, but anthropogenic development of the desert may bring troubles to neighboring

arable land and human settlements.

5.5 Recommendation

As further steps it is necessary to discuss the current zonation with stakeholders, such as:

Local population from settlements in Ustyurt (Jaslyk, Karakalpakstan etc.)

Gas companies

Fishermen

Staff of Kungrad forestry and hunting ground

State Committee for frontier protection

International projects and organizations

It is also important to involve stakeholders from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan in the process.

Kungrad forestry and hunting ground could be a basis for the future protected area.


52

6 REFERENCES

Aichi Biodiversity Target, 2010. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/training/quick-guides/

Allaniyazov A., Sarybayev B., 1983. Ecological-geobotanical peculiarity pastures in Karakalpak

Ustyurt. Fan, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. [in Russian]

Appleton M., 2012. International approaches to zonation of protected areas: an overview.

Atauri-Mezquida J. A., Múgica-de la Guerra M., García J. G., de Lucio-Fernández J.V.,

Procedure for Assigning IUCN Protected Area Management Categories, IUCN 2008

2008-087

Bakhiev A., Viktorov S., Sagitov B., 1987. Floristical and ecological-geobotanical researches in

Karakalpakstan, vol. I, Fan, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. [in Russian]


Karakalpakstan, vol. II, Fan, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. [in Russian]


Karakalpakstan, vol. III, Fan, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. [in Russian]

Baryshnikov G., 2000. A new subspecies of the honey badger Mellivora capensis from central

Asia. Acta Theriologica 45, 45–55.

Bazhanov B.S., 1951. New data about teriofauna of Eastern Ustyurt. Izvestia AN KazSSR 105

47–60. [In Russian]

Bogdanov O.P., 1961. Amphibians and reptiles (Fauna of Uzbekskaya SSR, vol. I). Fan,

Tashkent. [In Russian]

BSAP - Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan of Uzbekistan, 1998

Bykova E.A., Esipov A.V., 2012. Condition of rare ungulate species in Ustyurt plateau

(Uzbekistan) and level of illegal hunting. Zoological and gamekeeping researches in

Kazakhstan and neighboring countries. Materials of International theoretical and practical

Conference devoted to centenary of birth of the founder of Kazakhstan’s mammology

and game management schools Sludskiy A.A. Almaty, Kazakhstan. 75-77 [in Russian]

Chape, S., S. Blyth, L. Fish, P. Fox and M. Spalding (compilers) (2003). 2003 United Nations

List of Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and UNEP-

WCMC, Cambridge, UK

Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/

Damerell P., Bykova E. Milner-Gulland E.J., 2012. Analysing environmental education on the

Ustyurt Plateau, Saiga News 15, 17-19

Dudley N. (Ed), 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland

Dudley, N., L, Higgins-Zogib, and S. Mansourian (2005); Beyond Belief: Linking Faiths and

Protected Areas to Support Biodiversity Conservation. Gland, Switzerland: WWF

International

Gintzburger G., Toderich K.N., Mardonov B.K., Mahmudov M.M., 2003. Rangelands of the arid

and semi-arid zones in Uzbekistan. CIRAD, ICARDA

Gritsina M., 2012. Preliminary results of investigations current steppe species of Felidae

distribution in Uzbekistan. Zoological and gamekeeping researches in Kazakhstan and

neighboring countries. Materials of International theoretical and practical Conference

devoted to centenary of birth of the founder of Kazakhstan’s mammology and game

management schools Sludskiy A.A. Almaty, Kazakhstan. 92-94 [in Russian]

Econet Central Asia, 2006. WWF/UNEP/GEF project documents. Available at:

http://www.wwf.ru/about/where_we_work/asia/closed/econet/eng

Ervin, J., N. Sekhran, A. Dinu. S. Gidda, M. Vergeichik and J. Mee. 2010. Protected Areas for

the 21st Century: Lessons from UNDP/GEF’s Portfolio. New York: United Nations

Development Programme and Montreal: Convention on Biological Diversity.

https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/training/quick-guides/

https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/

http://www.wwf.ru/about/where_we_work/asia/closed/econet/eng


53

Ibisch, P. L., Nowicki, C., Mueller, R. & Araujo, N., 2002b. Methods for the assessment of

habitat and species conservation status in data-poor countries – case study of the

Pleurothallidinae (Orchidaceae) of the Andean rain forests of Bolivia. Pp. 225–246 in:

Bussmann, R. W. & Lange, S. (eds) Proceedings of the First International Congress

―Conservation of Biodiversity in the Andes and the Amazon Basin‖ 24.–28.09.2001,

Cusco, Peru.

IUCN, 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management categories. CNPPA and WCMC.

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

IUCN, 2001. Red List Categories and Criteria version 3.1. Available at:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-and-criteria

IUCN, 2012. Red List of Threatened Species. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/

Jashenko R.V. (Ed.), 2006. Strict nature reserves of Central Asia. Nature Protected Areas of

Central Asia, Nr. 1. Tethys, Almaty, Kazakhstan. [in Russian]

Jarvis A., Reuter H.I., Nelson A., Guevara E., 2008. Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4, CIAT.

Available at: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org

Karnieli A., Gilad U., Ponzet M., Svoray T., Mirzadinov R., Fedorina O., 2008. Assessing land-

cover change and degradation in the Central Asian deserts using satellite image

processing and geostatistical methods. Journal of Arid Environments 72, 2093–2105

Kashkarov R.D., Welch G.R., Brombacher M., (Eds), 2008. Important Bird Areas in Uzbekistan

– Priority sites for conservation. Uzbekistan Society for the Protection of Birds (UzSPB),

Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Khachaturov A., Tikhomolov G., 1985. Optimization of protected network in Uzbekistan.

Problems of Desert Development 4, 48-59 [in Russian]

Kostianoy A., Kosarev A. (Eds), 2010. The Aral Sea Environment. Springer, Germany

Kovshar A., Zatoka A., 1991. About placement and infrastructure of zapovedniks in arid zone of

USSR. Problems of Desert Development 3-4, 155–161 [in Russian]

The Law of Uzbekistan ―On protected areas‖ (2004) [in Russian]

Milner-Gulland E.J., 2012. The implications of the border fence on the Ustyurt plateau for the

saiga antelope, and options for mitigation, Saiga News 15, 20-22

Nowell K. and Jackson P. 1996. Wild Cats: Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland.

Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L., 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243–253.

Marmazinskaya N., Gritsina M., Mitropolskiy M., 2012a. New data about rare mammal species

in Southern Karakalpak Ustyurt and Northen Sarakamysh depression (Uzbekistan).

Terrestrial vertebrate animals of arid ecosystem. Chinor ENK, Tashkent, Uzbekistan,

204-211 [In Russian]

Marmazinskaya N., Gritsina M., Mitropolskiy M., 2012b. New data about carnivore species

distribution in Southern Karakalpak Ustyurt and Northen Sarakamysh depression

(Uzbekistan). Materials of the International Conference ―Wildlife of Kazakhstan and

adjacent areas‖, 272-274 [In Russian]

Mitropolskiy O., Tashmukhamedov B., Azizov A., Dyakin B., 2005. Establishment of

zapovednik in Ustyurt plateau – way to conserve its biodiversity. Environmental Security

and Civil Initiative 6, 26-30. [In Russian]

Momotov I., 1953. Vegetation complexes of Ustyurt. Fan, Tashkent. [In Russian]

Olson D., Dinerstein E., 1998. The Global 200: A Representation Approach to Conserving the

Earth’s Most Biologically Valuable Ecoregions. Conservation Biology, Volume 12, Issue

3, pages 502–515

Ott, K. (2002). Landscape ethics and sustainability. Development and Perspectives of Landscape

Ecology. O. B. a. U. Steinhardt. Germany, Kluwer Academic Publisher: 307-325.

Pelt N., Chervinskiy V., 1956. Way of agricultural development of Ustyurt. Moscow. [In

Russian]

http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-and-criteria

http://www.iucnredlist.org/


54

Phillips, A. (2003); Turning ideas on their head: The new paradigm for protected areas. George

Wright Forum. Available at: http://www.georgewright.org/202phillips.pdf

Pressey, R. L., Bottrill M. C., 2009. Approaches to landscape- and seascape-scale conservation

planning: convergence, contrasts and challenges. Oryx 43 464-475

Rachkovskaya, E.I., Volkova, E.A., Khramtsov, V.N. (Eds.), 2003. Botanical Geography of

Kazakhstan and Middle Asia (desert region). St.Petersburg [in Russian]

Rafikov A., 1989. Questions of nature protection of arid areas in Uzbekistan. Problems of Desert

Development 4, 38-45 [in Russian]

Red Data Book of Kazakstan, 2010. Astana, Kazakhstan

Red Data Book of Turkmenistan, 2011. Ashgabat , Turkmenistan

Red Data Book of Uzbekistan, 2009. Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Reimov R., 1985. Mammals of Southern Aral region (ecology, protection and using). Tashkent.

[In Russian]

Reimov R., 1987. Rodents of Southern Aral region (taxonomy, ecology and economic

importance). Tashkent. [In Russian]

Sanin, M. 1991. Lake Sarykamysh and other drainage water reservoirs. Nauka, Moscow. [in

Russian]

Sultanov G.S., Persianova L.A., 1982. Zoological investigations in Middle Asia, Fan, Tashkent

[in Russian]

Ten A., Kashkarov R., Matekova G., Zholdasova I., Turaev M., 2012. Akpetky lakes,

Sarykamysh lake, Ayakaghytma lake, and their desert surrounds: three new Important

Bird Areas in Uzbekistan. Sandgrouse 34, 137-147

Udvardy M., 1975. A classification of the biogeographical provinces of the World. IUCN,

Switzerland

Vanderhaar J.M. and Hwang Y.T., 2003. Mellivora capensis. Mammalian Species 721, 1-8.

Zholdasova I.M., Soloviev D.M., Temirbekov R.O., Adenbaev E.A., Mustafayeva Z.A., Musaev

A.K., Orel M.M., 2009. Lake Sarykamysh in a changing hydrological regime. Abstracts

of the Republican Scientific-Practical Conference, Science in Karakalpakstan: Yesterday,

Today and Tomorrow. Nukus, Uzbekistan, 35– 36. [in Russian]

Zagrebin S., Mitropolskaya Yu., Popov V., Beshko N., Khasanov F., Magdiev Kh., 2012.

Recommendation for expansion system of protected areas in Uzbekistan. Tashkent,

Uzbekistan.

Zonn I., Glantz M., Kostianoy A., Kosarev A., 2009. The Aral Sea Encyclopedia, Springer-

Verlag, Berlin

http://www.georgewright.org/202phillips.pdf


55

Annex I

List of flora species identified during expedition in Southern Karakalpak

Ustyurt (May, 2012) Compiled by Tajetdinova D.

Species Assake-

Audan

Sarykam

ysh

East Ustyurt

border (cliff)

EQUISETACEAE RICH. EX DC.

Equisetum arvense L. +

Equisetum ramosissimum Desf. +

ASPIDIACEAE METT. EX FRANK

Dryopteris thelypteris (L.) A. Gray. +

Dryopteri filix mas (L.) Schott. +

SALVINIACEAE

Salvinia natans (L.) All. +

EPHEDRACEAE DUMORT.

Ephedra distachya L. + +

Ephedra. equisetina Bunge +

Ephedra intermedia Schrenk ex C.A. Mey. +

Ephedra lomatolepis Schrenk +

Ephedra pseudodistachya Pachom. + +

RANUNCULACEAE JUSS.

Clematis orientalis L. +

Ceratocephalus falcatа (L.) Pers. + + +

Ceratocephalus testiculata (Crantz) Bess. + + +

Delphinum songoricum (Kar. et Kir.) Nevski +

Delphinum rugulosа Boiss. +

Ranunculus platyspermus Fisch. ex DC. +

BERBERIDACEAE JUSS.

Leontice incerta Pall. + + +

PAPAVERACEAE JUSS.

Papaver pavoninum Schrenk +

Roemeria refracta (Stev.) DC. + + +

HYPECOACEAE NAKAI

Hypecoum parviflorum Kar. et. Kir. + + +

Hypecoum trilobium Trautv. +

FUMARIACEAE DC.

Corydalis schanginii (Pall.) B. Fedtsch. +

Fumaria vaillantii Loisel. +

CARYOPHYLLACEAE JUSS.

Minuartia meyeri (Boiss.) Bornm. +

Spergularia marina (L.) Griseb. + + +

Silene nana Kar. et Kir. + + +

Melandrium viscosum (L.) Cel. +

Gypsophila diffusa Fisch. et Mey. ex Rupr. +


56

Acanthophyllum borszczowii Litv. +

Dichoglottis linearifelia Fisch. et Mey. +

CHENOPODIACEAE VENT.

Chenopodium album L. + +

Chenopodium glaucum L. +

Chenopodium foliosum (Moench) Aschers. + + +

Chenopodium rubrum L. + + +

Chenopodium vulvaria L. +

Atriplex aucheri Moq. +

Atriplex cana C.A. Mey. +

Atriplex leavis C.A. Mey. +

Atriplex micrantha C.A. Mey. +

Atriplex moneta Bunge +

Atriplex tatarica L. + + +

Ceratocarpus arenarius L. + + +

Ceratocarpus utriculosus Bluk. + + +

Ceratoides papposa Botsch. et Ikonn. +

Ceratoides eversmanniana (Stgchegi. ex

Losinsk.) Botsch. et Ikonn.

+

Kalidium caspicum (L.) Ung.-Sternb. + +

Halocnemum stobilaceum (Pall.) M.Bieb. + +

Salicornia europaea L. (S. herbacea L) +

Sueda microphylla Pall. +

Sueda dendroides (C.A. Mey.) Moq +

Sueda confuse Iljin, Sueda acuminate (C.A.

Mey.) Moq.

+

Sueda paradoxa Bunge +

Sueda salsa (L.) Pall. +

Salsola australis R. Br. all. +

Salsola richteri Karel. (Salsola richteri (Moq.) +

Salsola arbuscula Pall. + + +

Salsola arbusculiformis Drob. +

Salsola rigida Pall. (Salsola orientalis S.G.

Gmel.)

+ + +

Salsola dendroides Pall. +

Salsola praecox Litv. +

Salsola iberica Sennen et Pau +

Salsola foliosa (L.) Schrad. + + +

Salsola micranthera Botsch. +

Climacoptera brachiata (Pall.) Botsch. + + +

Climacoptera affinis (C.A. Mey.) Botsch. +

Climacoptera lanata (Pall.) Botsch. + + +

Aellenia glauca (Bieb.) Aell. +

Aellenia subaphylla (C.A. Mey.) Aell. +

Horaninovia anomala (C.A. Mey.) Moq. + +

Girgensohnia oppositiflora(Pall.) Fenzl. + + +


57

Anabasis salsa (C.A. Mey.) Benth. еx Volkens + + +

Anabasis aphylla L. +

Anabasis eriopoda (Schrenk) Benth. ex

Volkens

+ + +

Anabasis cretacea Pall. +

Anabasis brachiata Fisch. et Mey. ex Kar. et

Kir.

+ + +

Haloxylon aphyllum (Minkw.) Iljin + + +

Nanophyton erinaceum (Pall.) Bunge + + +

Petrosimonia squarrosa (Schrenk) Bunge +

Petrosimonia sibirica (Pall,) Bunge +

Halimocnemis sclerosperma (Pall.) C.A. Mey. + + +

Halimocnemis villosa Kar. et Kir. + + +

Halimocnemis karelinii Moq. + + +

Gamanthus gamocarpus (Moq.) Bunge + + +

Halogeton glomeratus (MBieb.) C.A. Mey + + +

POLYGONACEAE JUSS.

Rumex crispus L. +

Rumex drobovii Korovin +

Rumex marschallianus Reichenb. +

Rheum tataricum L. +

Atraphaxis frutescens (L.) C.Koch. +

Atraphaxis spinosa L. + + +

Calligonum caput-medusae Schrenk. +

Calligonum triste Litv. +

Calligonum leucocladum (Schrenk.) Bunge + + +

Polygonum acetosum M. Bieb. +

Polygonum amphibium L. +

Polygonum aviculare L. +

Polygonum patulum M. Bieb. + + +

LIMONIACEAE LINCZ.

Limonium otolepis (Schrenk) O. Kuntze +

Limonium lessingianum Lincz. +

REAUMURIACEAE EHRENB.

Reaumuria fruticosa Bunge ex Boiss. +

Reaumuria oxiana (Ledeb.) Boiss. +

Reaumuria tatarica Jaub. et Spach. +

TAMARICACEAE LINK.

Tamarix elongate Ledeb. + + +

Tamarix hispida Willd. + + +

Tamarix laxa Willd. + + +

Tamarix passerinoides Delile ex Drsv. + +

Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb. + + +

FRANKENIACEAE S.F. GRAY.

Frankenia hirsutа L. + + +

Frankenia pulverulenta L. + + +

CAPPARIDACEAE JUSS.

Capparis rozanowiana B.Fedtsch. +


58

Capparis herbaceae Willd. (C. spinosa L.) + + +

(CLEOMACEAE PAX. – ЛЕОМОВЫЕ)

Cleome fimbriata Viary Journ + + +

BRASSICACEAE BURNETT. =

CRUCIFERAE JUSS.

Arabidopsis pumila (Steph.) N. Busch. +

Descurainia sophia (L.) Webb. et Prantl. +

Erysimum diffusum Ehrh. +

Erysimum szernjajevii N. Busch. +

Chartoloma platycarpum (Bunge) Bunge +

Tauscheria lasiocarpa Fisch. ex DC. + + +

Goldbachia laevigata (M. Bieb.) DC. + + +

Goldbachia pendula Botsch. +

Strigosella africana (L.) Botsch. + + +

Strigosella scorpioides (Bunge) Botsch. +

Strigosella stenopetala (Bernh.) Botsch. +

Strigosella trichocarpa (Boiss. et Buhse)

Botsch.

+

Matthiola robusta Bunge +

Tetracme quadricornis (Steph.) Bunge +

Tetracme recurvata Bunge +

Leptaleum filifolium (Willd.) DC. +

Streptoloma desertorum Bunge +

Diptychocarpus strаctus (Fisch. ex M.Bieb.)

Trautv.

+

Chorispora tenella (Pall.) DC. +

Euclidium syriacum (L.) R.Br. +

Octoceras lehmannianum Bunge +

Lachnoloma lehmannii Bunge +

Alyssum dasycarpum (Steph.) C.A. Mey. +

Alyssum desertorum Staf. +

Alyssum marginatum Steud. ex Boiss. +

Meniocus linifolius (Steph.) DC. +

Crambe edentula Fisch. et Mey. ex Korsch +

Lepidium aucheri Conringia orientalis (L.)

Dumort. Boiss.

+ + +

Lepidium subcordatum Botsch. et Vved. +

Lepidium perfoliatum L. +

Lepidium pinnatifidum Ledeb +

Lepidium obtusum Basin. +

Lepidium songaricum Schrenk +

Cardaria repens (Schrenk) Jarm. +

Megacarpaea megalocarpa (Fisch. ex DC.) B.

Fedtsch.

+

Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. +

Thlaspi perfoliatum L. +

MALVACEAE JUSS.

Malva neglecta Wallr. in Syll. Ratisb. +

UTRICACEAE JUSS.


59

Utrica dioica L. +

EUPHORBIACEAE JUSS.

Euphorbia densa Schrenk in Bull. +

Euphorbia inderiensis Less.ex Kar. et Kir. + + +

Euphorbia seguierianа Neck. +

Euphorbia turczaninowii Kar. et Kir. + + +

THYMELAEACEAE JUSS.

Diarthron vesiculosum (Risch.et C.A. Mey.) +

ROSACEAE JUSS.

Hulthemia persica (Michx.ex Juss.) Bornm. + +

Potentilla supina L. +

Rosa majalis SJ. Herrm. +

FABACEAE LINDLEY = LEGUMINOSAE

JUSS.

Medicago sativa L. +

Sphaerophysa salsula (Pall.) DC. +

Halimodendron halodendron (Pall.) Voss. +

Astragalus ammophilus Kar. et Kir. +

Astragalus bacaliensis Bunge + + +

Astragalus brachylobus DC. +

Astragalus leiophysa Bunge +

oxyglottis Steven ex Biev. +

Astragalus tribuloides Delile. +

Astragalus turczaninovii Kar. et Kir. + +

Astragalus xanthoxiphidium Freyn et Contsch.

ex Sint.

+ + +

Glycyrrhiza aspera Pall. + + +

Ewersmannia subspinosa (Fisch.) B. Fedtsch. +

Alhagi pseudalhagi (M. Bieb.) Fisch. +

RUTACEAE JUSS.

Haplophyllum bungei Trautv. + + +

Haplophyllum obtusifolium (Ledeb.) Ledeb. + + +

Haplophyllum ramosissimum (Pauls) Vved. +

Haplophyllum versicolor Fisch. et Mey. +

GERANIACEAE JUSS.

Erodium cicutarium (L.) L’ Her. +

Erodium litvinovii Woronow. +

Erodium oxyrrhynchum M. Bieb. +

ZYGOPHYLLACEAE R. BRWN. EN

FLINDERS

Zygophyllum eichwaldii C.A. Mey. +

Zygophyllum miniatum Cham. + + +

Zygophyllum ovigerum Fisch. et Mey. ex

Bunge

+ + +

Zygophyllum oxianum Boriss. + + +

Zygophyllum pinnatum Cham. (Z.macropterum

C.A. Mey.)

+ + +

Zygophyllum turkomanicum Fisch. ex Bunge +


60

PEGANACEAE (ENGL.) TIEGH. EX

TAKHT.

Peganum harmala L. + + +

Malacocarpus crithmifolius (Retz.) C.A.Mey. +

NITRARIACEAE BERCHT. ET J.PRESL

Nitraria schoberi L. +

Nitraria sibirica Pall. +

TETRADICLIDACEAE (ENGL.)TAKHT.

Tetradiclis tenella (Ehrenb.) Litv. + + +

APIACEAE LYNDL. = UMBELLIFERAE

JUSS.

Scandix stellata Banks et Soland +

Ferula assa-foetida L. + + +

Ferula canescens (Ledeb.) Ledeb. + + +

Ferula caspica M. Bieb. + + +

Ferula dubjanskyi Korov. + + +

Zosimia absinthifolia (Vent.) Link.

(Z.orientalis Hoffm.)

+ + +

Cryptodiscus ammophilus Bunge +

Cryptodiscus didimus (Regel.) Korov. + + +

Chaerophyllum prescottii DC. Prodr. +

DIPSACACEAE JUSS.

Scabiosa olivierii Coult. + + +

ASTERACEAE DUMORT. = COMPOSITAE

GISEKE

Inula caspica Blum.

Inula multicaulis Kar. + + +

Pulicaria gnaphalodes Boiss. + + +

Pulicaria prostrata (Gilib.) Aschers. +

Tanacetum achillefolium (Bieb.) Sch. Bip. + +

Tanacetum santolina C.Winkl. +

Artemisia diffusa Krasch. ex Poljak. + + +

Artemisia juncea Kar. et Kir. + +

Artemisia scoparia Waldst. et Kit. +

Artemisia terrae-albae Krasch. + + +

Artemisia turanica Krasch. +

Senico subdentatus Ledeb. + + +

Echinops dubjanskyi Iljin + +

Echinops meyeri Iljin + + +

Cousinia dichotoma Bunge + +

Cousinia minuta Boiss. +

Saussurea salsa (MBieb.) Spreng. + + +

Jurinea cyanoides (L.) Reichb. (J. cyanoides

DC.)

+ + +

Jurinea persimilis Iljin + + +

Cirsium ochrolepideum Juz. (Breea och…) ?

Russowia sogdiana (Bunge) B. Fedtsch. + + +

Centaurea squarrosa Willd. + + +

Centaurea adpressa Ledeb +


61

Rhaponticum nitidum Fisch. + + +

Acroptilon repens (L.) DC. + + +

Amberboa nana Iljin (A. nanata Iljin) +

Amberboa turanica Iljin + + +

Schishkinia albispina (Bunge) Iljin +

Oligochaeta minima (Boiss.) Briq. +

Koelpinia linearis Pall. + + +

Koelpinia tenuissima Pavl. et Lipsch. +

Koelpinia turanica Vass. ex S.Koval. +

Tragopogon krascheninnikovii S. Nikit. +

Tragopogon marginifolius Pavlov +

Scorzonera pusilla Pall. + + +

Scorzonera sericeolanata Krasch. et Lipsch. + + +

Scorzonera gageoides Boiss. +

Epilasia acrolasia (Bunge) C.B. Clarke. + + +

Epilasia hemilasia (Bunge) C.B. Clarke. + + +

Lagoseris aralensis (Bunge) Boiss. + + +

Heteroderis pusilla Boiss. +

RUBIACEAE JUSS.

Asperula humifusa (M. Bieb.) Bess. +

Galium spurium L. +

ASCLEPIADACEAE R.BROWN

Cynanchum sibiricum Willd. +

SOLANACEAE JUSS.

Solanum dulcomara L. +

Solanum nigrum L. +

Solanum olgae Pojark. +

Lycium ruthenicum Murr. + + +

Hyoscyamus niger L. + + +

Hyoscyamus pusillus L. + + +

CONVOLVULACEAE JUSS.

Convolvulus arvensis L. + + +

Convolvulus erinaceus Ledeb. +

Convolvulus fruticosus Pall. + + +

Convolvulus hamadae (Vved.) V.Petrov +

CUSCUTACEAE DUMORT.

Cuscuta cupulata Engelm. + +

Cuscuta kotschyana Boiss. +

Cuscuta pellucida Butk. +

CYNOMORIACEAE

Cynomorium songaricum Rupr. +

BORAGINACEAE JUSS.

Heliotropium arguzioides Kar et Kir. +

Heliotropium dasycarpum Ledeb. +

Suchtelenia calycina (C.A. Mey.) A. DC. + +

Cynoglossum viridiflorum Pall.ex Lehm. +

Paracaryum intermedium (Fresen.) Lipsky + + +


62

Heterocaryum laevigatum (Kar. et Kir.) A.

DC.

+ + +

Heterocaryum macrocarpum Zak. + + +

Heterocaryum rigidum A. DC. + + +

Lappula microcarpa (Ledeb.) Guerke +

Lappula semiglabra (Ledeb.) Gueke + + +

Lappula spinocarpos (Forsk.) Aschers. ex

Kuntze

+

Asperugo procumbens L. +

Rochelia bungei Trautv + + +

Rochelia leiocarpa Ledeb. + + +

Rochelia retorta (Pall.) Lipsky +

Onosma stamineum Ledeb. + + +

Arnebia decumbens (Vent.) Coss. et Kral. + + +

Nonea caspica (Willd.) G. Donf. +

Gastrocotyle hispida (Forsk.) Bunge +

Rindera cyclodonta Bunge + + +

SCROPHULARIACEAE JUSS.

Chaenorrhinum spicatum Eug. Kor. (Ch.

spicatum L.)

+

Scrophularia leucoclada Bunge + + +

Dodartia orientalis L. + + +

Veronica campylopoda Boiss. +

Veronica tennuissima Boriss. +

OROBANCHACEAE VENT.

Orobanche cernua Loefl. +

Orobanche cumana Wallr. +

Cistanche ambigua (Bunge) G.Beck. +

Cistanche flava (C.A.Mey.) Korsch. +

PLANTAGINACEAE L.JUSS.

Plantago lagocephala Bunge +

LAMIACEAE LINDEY = LABIATAE JUSS.

Thuspeinantha persica (Boiss.) Briq. +

Eremostachys tuberose (Pall.) Bunge + + +

Lagochilus Bunge acutilobus (Ledeb.) Fisch. et

Mey.

+ + +

Chamaesphacos ilicifolius Schrenk + + +

LILIACEAE JUSS.

Gagea afghanica Terracc. +

Tulipa buhseana Boiss. +

Tulipa sogdiana Bunge +

IRIDACEAE JUSS.

Iris longiscapa Ledeb. +

Iris sogdiana Bunge +

Iris teniifolia Pall. +

ALLIACEAE J.G. AGARDH


63

Allium borszczowii Regel +

Allium caspium (Pall.) M. Bieb. + +

Allium sabulosum Stev. ex Bunge +

Allium schubertii Jucc. +

Allium turkestanicum Regel. +

ASPARAGACEAE JUSS.

Asparagus breslerianus Schult. et Schult. + +

Asparagus inderiensis Blume et Pacz.

(A. kasakstanicus Iljin)

+

Asparagus oligiphyllus Baker. (A. persicus

Baker.)

+ +

Asparagus turkestanicus M.Pop. +

CYPERACEAE JUSS.

Scirpus (Schoenoplectus) litoralis (Schrad.)

Palla

+

Scirpus hippolytii V. Krecz. +

Scirpus tabernaemontanii (G.G. Gmel.) Palla +

Carex diluta M. Bieb. +

Carex karelinii Meinsh. +

Carex pachystylis J. Gray +

Carex physodes Bieb. +

Carex pseudocyperus L. +

POACEAE BARNART. = GRAMINEAE

JUSS.

Arthratherum karelinii (Trin. et Rupr.) Tzvel. +

Arthratherum pennatum (Trin.) Tzvel. +

Stipagrostis pennatum (Trin.) Travel. +

Achnatherum caragana (Trin. et Rupr.) Nevski +

Achnatherum splendens (Trin.) Nevski +

Stipa caspia C.Koch +

Stipa caucasica Schmalh. (St. bella Drob.) + + +

Stipa hohenackeriana Trin. et Rupr. +

Aeluropus litoralis (Gouan.) Parl. +

Aeluropus repens (Desf.) Parl.

(A. lagopoides (L.) Trin. ex Thwaites)

+ +

Schismus arabicus Nees. + + +

Poa bulbosa L. + + +

Festuca valesiaca Schleich. (F. valesiaca

Gaudin.)

+

Catabrosella humilis (Bieb.) Tzvel. +

Bromus japonicus Thunb. +

Agropyron fragile (Roth.) Nevski + +

Eremopyrum orientale (L.)Jaub.et Spach + + +

Eremopyrum triticeum (Gaertn.) Nevski + +

Taeniatherum сrinitum (Schreb.) Nevski +

Leymus angustus Trin. Plig. +

Leymus junceus Fisch. +


64

Leymus multicaulis (Kar. et Kir.) Tzvelev +

Leymus racemosus Lam. +

TYPHACEAE JUSS.

Typha faveolata Pobed. (T. angustifolia L.) +

340


65

Annex II

List of bird species identified during expedition in Southern Karakalpak

Ustyurt (May, 2012)

Identified by Mitropolskiy M., Atakhodjaev A.

Compiled by Murzakhanov R.

№

Species

Nation

al

status

Global

status

Shakhpak

hty

Assake-

Audan

Sarykam

ysh

1. Podiceps cristatus, L. LC U +

2. Phalacrocorax carbo, L. LC I 8

3. Ardea cinerea, L. LC U 2

4. Ardea purpurea, L. LC D 4

5. Egretta alba, L. LC U 14

6. Ardeola ralloides, Scopoli 2

(VU:D)

LC D

1

7. Nycticorax nycticorax, L. LC D 5

8. Botaurus stellaris, L. LC D voice, 1

9. Platalea leucorodia, L. 2

(VU:D)

LC D

7

10. Plegadis falcinellus, L. 2

(VU:D)

LC D

230

11. Phoenicopterus roseus,

Pallas

2

(VU:R)

LC I

68ad, 4

juv

12. Cygnus olor, Gmelin 3 (NT) LC I 190

13. Tadorna tadorna, L. LC I 71

14. Anas platyrhynchos, L. LC D + +

15. Anas strepera, L. LC U 3

16. Anas crecca, L. LC U 2 +

17. Anas clypeata, L. LC D 3

18. Netta rufina, Pallas LC U 67

19. Mergus merganser, L. LC I 1

20. Accipiter nisus, L. LC S 1

21. Buteo rufinus, Cretzschmar LC S 1 2

22. Aquila chrysaetos, L. 2

(VU:R)

LC S

2ad, 1juv

23. Aquila heliaca, Savigny 2

(VU:D)

VU

C2a(ii) nest, 1ad 1ad, 1juv

24. Aquila nipalensis, Hodgson 3 (NT) LC D 1,1ad,

1juv

25.

Neophron percnopterus, L.

EN

A2bcde

+3bcde+

4bcde 2

26. Pandion haliaetus, L. 2

(VU:R)

LC I

1

27. Falco cherrug, Gray 3 (NT) EN

A2bcde 5


66

+3cde+4

bcde

28. Falco tinnunculus, L. LC D Nest, 1ad 2

29. Falco naumanni, Fleischer 3(NT) LC S

2

30. Perdix perdix, L. LC D +

31. Fulica atra, L. LC D + +

32. Chlamydotis undulata

macqueenii, Gray

2

(VU:D)

VU

A2bcd + 2, +

33. Burhinus oedicnemus, L. LC D 1

34. Pluvialis squatarola, L. LC D 2

35. Charadrius leschenaultii,

Lesson

LC U

+ 79

36. Charadrius asiaticus, Pallas LC D 5

37. Charadrius alexandrinus LC D 40

38. Vanellus leucurus,

Lichtenstein

LC U

3

39. Arenaria interpres, L. LC D 13

40. Himantopus himantopus, L. LC I 117

41. К Haematopus ostralegus, L. LC D 27

42. Tringa glareola, L. LC S 1

43. Tringa nebularia, Gunnerus LC S 3

44. Tringa erythropus, Pallas LC S 3

45. Tringa stagnatilis,

Bechstein

LC D

2

46. Actitis hypoleucos, L. LC D 8

47. Phalaropus lobatus, L. LC D 225

48. Calidris minuta, Leisler LC D 290

49. Calidris ferruginea,

Pontoppidan

LC I

2

50. Calidris alpina, L. LC D 14

51. Glareola pratincola, L. LC D +

52. Glareola nordmanni,

Fischer

2

(VU:R)

NT

6

53. Larus ridibundus, L. LC D 79

54. Larus ichthyaetus, Pallas 2

(VU:D)

LC D

8

55. Larus genei, Breme LC I 115

56. Larus heuglini, Bree LC I 2

57. Larus cachinnans, Pallas LC S 16

58. Gelochelidon nilotica,

Gmelin

LC D

51

59. Hydroprogne caspia, Pallas LC I 1 4

60. Sterna hirundo, L. LC D 2 1

61. Sterna albifrons, Pallas LC D 7

62. Streptopelia decaocto,

Frivaldszky

LC I

2 2

63. Streptopelia senegalensis,

L.

LC S

2

64. Cuculus canorus, L. LC D 2


67

65. Bubo bubo, L. LC D + 1

66. Athene noctua, Scopoli LC S 2, nest

67. Caprimulgus aegyptius,

Lichtenstein

LC D

2

68. Apus apus, L. LC D 30 153

69. Coracias garrulus, L. NT 1

70. Merops apiaster, L. LC D 7

71. Merops persicus, Pallas LC S 16 3 27

72. Upupa epops, L. LC D 2

73. Galerida cristata, L. LC D 2 2 16

74. Melanocorypha calandra,

L.

LC D

1 2

75. Alauda arvensis, L. LC D 2 19

76. Riparia riparia, L. LC D 218 36

77. Hirundo rustica, L. LC D 1

78. Motacilla alba, L. LC D 1

79. Lanius isabellinus,

Hemprich & Ehrenberg

LC S

1

80. Lanius collurio, L. LC D 1

81. Lanius pallidirostris, Cassin NE 2

82. Oriolus oriolus, L. LC S 1 1

83. Sturnus roseus, L. LC U 22

84. Podoces panderi, Fischer LC D 4 1

85. Corvus frugilegus, L. LC D 2

86. Corvus ruficollis, Lesson LC I 12

87. Acrocephalus agricola,

Jerdon

LC D

10

88. Acrocephalus dumetorum,

Blyth

LC I

15 4

89. Hippolais caligata,

Lichtenstein

LC I

3 1 3

90. Hippolais rama, Sykes LC S 1 1 4

91. Sylvia curruca, L. LC I 2 2

92. Sylvia nana, Ehrenberg LC S 1

93. Phylloscopus collybita,

Vieillot

LC I

1

94. Phylloscopus trochiloides,

Sundevall

LC I

5

95. Scotocerca inquieta,

Cretzschmar

LC D

1

96. Saxicola maura, Pallas NE 2

97. Saxicola caprata, L. LC S 2

98. Oenanthe oenanthe, L. LC D 1 2

99. Oenanthe pleschanka,

Lepechin

LC S

10 13

100. Oenanthe picata, Blyth LC S 2

101. Oenanthe finschii, Heuglin LC S 1 3 1

102. Oenanthe deserti,

Temminck

LC S

1 1

103. Erythropygia galactotes, LC S 1


68

Temminck










NE – not evaluated


VU C2a(ii) – Vulnerable, Population size estimated to number fewer than 10,000 mature

individuals and A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature

individuals. Population structure represents like mature individuals are in one subpopulation.

VU A2bcd – Vulnerable, Reduction in population size based on the following: An observed,

estimated, inferred or suspected population size reduction of ≥ 30% over the last 10 years or

three generations, whichever is the longer, where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased

OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of the

following:

(b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon

(c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat

(d) actual or potential levels of exploitation

EN A2bcde+3bcde+4bcde - Endangered, reduction in population size based on an observed,



or may not be understood or may not be reversible, based on the following:




(e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or

parasites.

A population size reduction of ≥;50%, projected or suspected to be met within the next 10 years

or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years), based on (and

specifying) the following:





parasites.

An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population size reduction of ≥ 50% over

any 10 year or three generation period, whichever is longer (up to a maximum of 100 years in the

future), where the time period must include both the past and the future, and where the reduction

or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based

on (and specifying) any of the following:


69




(e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites.

EN A2bcde+3cde+4bcde – Endangered, reduction in population size based on an observed,



or may not be understood or may not be reversible, based on the following:





parasites.







parasites.

An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population size reduction of ≥ 50% over

any 10 year or three generation period, whichever is longer (up to a maximum of 100 years in the

future), where the time period must include both the past and the future, and where the reduction

or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based

on (and specifying) any of the following:





Legend of findings:

+ - unquantified presence (findings in a pellet, tracks etc.)

Ad – adult

Juv – juvenile


70

Annex III

List of amphibian and reptile species identified during expedition in Southern

Karakalpak Ustyurt (May, 2012)

Identified by Tsaruk O., Kirshey T., Abduraupov T.


№ Species Nationa

l status

Global

status

Shakhpak

hty

Assake-

Audan

Sarykam

ysh

Amphibians

1. Bufo viridis, Laurenti LC D X

Reptiles

2. Agrionemys horsfieldii, Khozatsky VU A2d X X X

3. Teratoscincus scincus, Schlegel NE X X

4. Alsophylax pipiens, Pallas LC S X

5. Tenuidactylus caspius, Eichwald LC I X X X

6. Mediodactylus russowii, Strauch LC S X X

7. Trapelus sanguinolentus, Pallas NE X X X

8. Phrynocеphalus helioscopus, Pallas NE X X X

9. Eremias velox, Pallas NE X X X

10. Eremias intermedia, Strauch NE X X X

11. Eremias scripta,Strauch NE X X

12. Eryx miliaris, Pallas NE X X

13. Coluber karelini, Brandt NE X

14. Coluber rhodorhachis, Schmidt LC D X

15. Spalerosophis diadema, Schlegel NE X

16. Elaphe quatuorlineata sauromates,

Pallas

2

(VU:R)

NT X X

17. Psammophis lineolatus, Brandt LC S X X X

18. Gloydius halys, Pallas NE X









VU A2d – Vulnerable, Reduction in population size based on the following: An observed,




following:



71

Annex IV

List of mammal species identified during expedition in Southern Karakalpak

Ustyurt (May, 2012)

Identified by Marmazinskaya N., Gritsina M., Mitropolskiy M., Soldatov V.


Species National

status

Global

Status Shakhpak

hty

Assake-

Audan

Saryk

amysh

Hemiechinus auritus, Gmelin LC U Х Х Х

Paraechinus hypomelas hypomelas, Brandt 3 (NT) LC U X Х Х

Diplomesodon pulchellum, Lichtenstein LC S Х

Myotis blythii, Tomes LC D

Nyctalus noctula, Schreber LC U Х

Pipistrellus pipistrellus, Schreber LC S Х Х

Lepus tolai, Pallas LC U Х Х Х

Spermophilus fulvus, Lichtenstein LC U Х Х Х

Spermophilus pygmaeus, Pallas LC D Х

Allactaga jaculus, Kerr LC D

Allactaga elater, Lichtenstein LC D Х Х

Allactaga severtzovi, Vinogradov LC U Х

Pygeretmus pumilio, Kerr LC U Х Х

Dipus sagitta, Pallas LC S Х

Stylodipus telum, Lichtenstein LC D Х

Jaculus blanfordi turcmenicus, Vinogradov

& Bondar

LC D X

Eremodipus lichtensteini,Vinogradov LC U Х

Cricetulus migratorius, Pallas LC U Х

Ellobius talpinus, Pallas LC D Х Х Х

Ondatra zibethicus, L. LC S X

Meriones libycus, Lichtenstein LC S Х Х Х

Meriones meridianus, Pallas LC U Х Х

Rhombomys opimus, Lichtenstein LC S Х Х

Mus musculus, L. LC S Х Х

Canis lupus, L. LC S Х Х Х

Vulpes corsac, L. LC U Х X

Vulpes vulpes, L. LC S Х Х Х

Mustela nivalis,L. LC S X

Mustela eversmanni,Lesson LC S Х

Vormela peregusna, Güldenstädt

VU

A2c

Х

Mellivora capensis indica, Kerr 1 (CR) LC D Х

Felis silvestris libyca, Forster LC D Х Х

Caracal caracal michaelis, Heptner 1 (CR) LC U X

Sus scrofa, L. LC U Х

Ovis vignei arkal, Eversmann

1 (CR) VU

A2cde

Х

Saiga tatarica tatarica, L. 3 CR Х Х Х


72

(VU:D) A2acd

Gazella subgutturosa subgutturosa,

Güldenstädt

2

(VU:D)

VU

A2ad

X Х Х

Equus hemionus kulan, Groves et Mazak

0 (EW) EN

A2abc

+3bd

Х Х


0 (EW) – Extinct in the Wild

1 (CR) – Critically Endangered










VU A2c – Vulnerable, reduction in population size based on the following: An observed,




following:


VU A2cde – Vulnerable, reduction in population size based on the following: An observed,




following:




VU A2ad - Vulnerable, reduction in population size based on the following: An observed,




following:

(a) direct observation


EN A2abc+3bd – Endangered, reduction in population size based on an observed, estimated,

inferred or suspected population size reduction of ≥ 50% over the last 10 years or three

generations, whichever is the longer, where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased or

may not be understood or may not be reversible, based on the following:



73








CR A2acd - Critically Endangered, reduction in population size based on an observed, estimated,

inferred or suspected population size reduction of 80% over the last 10 years or three

generations, whichever is the longer, where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR

may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on (and specifying)





74

Annex V

Photos of the study area

Shakhpakhty depression

Photo: Jens Wunderlich

Cliffs of Shakhpakhty depression


Members of International complex ecological

expedition to Southern Karakalpak Ustyurt


Old Shakhpakhty – abandonded gas camp

Photo: Rustam Murzakhanov

New Shakhpakhty – working gas camp

Photo: Tom Kirshey

Heavy degraded by motor transport desert



75

Fishermen’s camps along Sarykamysh lake


Monofilament gill nets around fish camps


Typical road in gypsum desert

Photo: Tom Kirshey

Elaphe quatuorlineata sauromates

Photo: Tom Kirshey

Mellivora capensis buechneri

Photo: Tom Kirshey

Equus hemionus kulan

Photo: Sebastian Schmidt

Zonation of new protected area in Southern Ustyurt ... · Zonation of new protected area in...

Documents

Transcript of Zonation of new protected area in Southern Ustyurt ... · Zonation of new protected area in...