Establishment of the International Ural Sturgeon Park to Secure Sturgeon Conservation and to Facilitate Sustainable Integrated Water Management

Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)

Abstract

The only free-flowing river in the Caspian basin, the Ural River, is a unique ecosystem with a preserved natural hydrological regime and the last remaining in the Caspian basin unaltered sturgeon spawning habitats. To secure its further preservation the river basin ecosystem and human activities in the region must be managed in an integrated sustainable manner. Though there is now an international consensus on the need for an integrated approach to sustainable river basin management, there is no standard definition of the term “sustainable” or consensus on how to reach this state. Sustainable development of watersheds should consider three main components: economic, social and environmental, which can hardly be reached in real-life watershed management. Using sturgeon species as a natural indicator and an incentive for transboundary IWRM cooperation in the Ural river basin is suggested. To secure basin IWRM and sturgeon stock restoration the Ural River Sturgeon International Park should be established. The Ural River Basin Project, which aims at the creation of such a Park, is described in this paper. Activities towards successful integrated water management in the Ural Park will not only work towards sustainable watershed management, but also secure preservation and restoration of sturgeon. Local communities (Cossacks) involvement in sturgeon conservation and water management also resolves social and economic problems by restoration of the traditional life style.

Keywords

Watershed river basin integrated water resource management indicator species integrated environmental assessment community-based environmental protection Ural river Cossacks integrated modelling uchug sturgeon beluga 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anthony, A.J., Alsharhan, A.S., et al. 2003. Integrated water resources management is more a political than a technical challenge. In Developments in Water Science. ed., 9–23. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Aspinall, R. and Pearson, D. 2000. Integrated geographical assessment of environmental condition in water catchments: linking landscape ecology, environmental modelling and GIS. Journal of Environmental Management. 59. (4): 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AzovBas. 2002. Proceedings. Azov Sea Basin Workshop Novocherkassk, Russia, Green Don.Google Scholar
  4. BBC. 2007. Russia’s Cossacks rise again. [on-line] BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/europe/6937562.stm [cited 10 November 2007].
  5. Bolshov, A. 2000. Otcenka suchshestvuiushih nacionalniuh okhraniaemiuh territorij i ih statusa zaschity, osobenno transgranichniuh i migriruiuschih vidov. Kazakhstan. Biodiversity CRTC, Second Regional Caspian Workshop, Alma-aty, Caspian Environment Program.Google Scholar
  6. Borodin, N.A. 1901. Uralskie Kazaki i ih rybolovstva. St. Petersburg, Izdanie “Vestnik Kazachih Voisk”.Google Scholar
  7. Brockhaus, F.A. and Efron, I.A. 1898. Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary. St. Petersburg: Brockhaus & Efron Publishing House.Google Scholar
  8. Chaves, H.M.L. and Alipaz, S. 2007. An integrated indicator based on basin hydrology, environment, life, and policy: the watershed sustainability index. Water Resource Management. 21. 883–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CITES. 2003. Sturgeons of Romania and CITES. [on-line] Black Sea Sturgeon Management Action Group. 30/06/03. http://rosturgeons.danubedelta.org/ [cited May 1 2004].
  10. CITES. 2004. A brief history of sturgeons and CITES. [on-line] Steering Committee. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/Sturgeon/history.shtml [cited April 2004].
  11. Dal, V.I. 1961. Uralskij Kazak (1842). In Dal, V.I. Novels and essays. ed., Moscow: Pravda.Google Scholar
  12. EU. 2000. European Union Water Framework Directive. European Union.Google Scholar
  13. FAO. 2007. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006. Rome: FAO Fisheries Department.Google Scholar
  14. Fohrer, N. 2005. Advances in sustainable river basin management. Ecological Modelling. 187. (1): 1.Google Scholar
  15. Giupponi, C. 2007. Decision Support Systems for implementing the European Water Framework Directive: the MULINO approach. Environmental Modelling & Software. 22. (2): 248–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harris, G. 2002. Integrated assessment and modelling: an essential way of doing science. Environmental Modelling & Software. 17. (3): 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. He, C., Malcolm, S.B., et al. 2000. A conceptual framework for integrating hydrological and biological indicators into watershed management. Landscape and Urban Planning. 49. (1–2): 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hedelin, B. 2007. Criteria for the assessment of sustainable water management. Environmental Management. 39. 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes, R.M. and Oberdorff T. 1999. Applications of IBI concepts and metrics to waters outside the United States and Canada. In: Simon T.P. (Ed.) Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. London, CRC Press, pp. 79–96.Google Scholar
  20. Jakeman, A.J. and Letcher, R.A. 2003. Integrated assessment and modelling: features, principles and examples for catchment management. Environmental Modelling & Software. 18. (6): 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jansky, L., Pachova, N.I., et al. 2004. The Danube: a case study of sharing international waters. Global Environmental Change Part A. 14. (Supplement 1): 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Janssen, W. and Goldsworthy, P. 1996. Multidisciplinary research for natural resource management: conceptual and practical implications. Agricultural Systems. 51. (3): 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jewitt, G. 2002. Can integrated water resources management sustain the provision of ecosystem goods and services? Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C. 27. (11–22): 887–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jonker, L. 2002. Integrated water resources management: theory, practice, cases. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C. 27. (11–22): 719–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karpov, A.B. 1911. Uralci. Istoricheskij ocherk. Uralsk: Army Publishing House.Google Scholar
  26. Kauffman, G.J. 2002. What if… the United States of America were based on watersheds? Water Policy. 4.(1): 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keyl, F. and Wolff, M. 2007. Environmental variability and fisheries: what can models do? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, doi: 10.1007/sl 1160-007-9075-5.Google Scholar
  28. Kgarebe, B.V. 2002. Water resources management: the challenge of integration. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C. 27. (11–22): 865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krysanova, V., Hattermann, F., et al. 2007. Implications of complexity and uncertainty for integrated modelling and impact assessment in river basins. Environmental Modelling & Software. 22. (5): 701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lagutov, V. 1995. Mekhanizm unichtozheniya riubniuh zapasov Yuga Rossii i puti ih spaseniya [The mechanism of extermination of fish stocks in South Russia and possibilities of their restoration]. Novocherkassk: Donskaia Rech.Google Scholar
  31. Lagutov, V. 1996. Imitacionnoe modelirovanie zhiznennogo tsikla osetroviuh v basseine reki Don. [Simulation of Sturgeon Life Cycle in the Don River Basin]. MSc Thesis, Department of Applied Mathematics, South Russia State Technical University, Novocherkassk.Google Scholar
  32. Lagutov, V. 1997. Simulation Model of Sturgeon Life Cycle as a Tool in Sustainable Water Management. MSc Thesis, Department of Environmental Sciences, Central European University, Budapest.Google Scholar
  33. Lagutov, V. 1999. New Environmental Policy. Sustainable development: from myth to reality. 13th Global Biodiversity Forum, San Jose, Costa Rica.Google Scholar
  34. Lagutov, V. 2003. Modelling of radionuclides washout with surface water runoffs from radioactive waste storage site. Luxemburg, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.Google Scholar
  35. Lanini, S., Courtois, N., et al. 2004. Socio-hydrosystem modelling for integrated water-resources management-the Herault catchment case study, southern France. Environmental Modelling & Software. 19.(11): 1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Larocque, G.R., Mauriello, D.A., et al. 2006. Ecological Models as Decision Tools in the 21st Century: Proceedings of a conference organized by the International Society for Ecological Modelling (ISEM) in Quebec, Canada, August 22–24, 2004. Ecological Modelling. 199. (3): 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Letcher, R.A., Croke, B.F.W., et al. 2007. Integrated assessment modelling for water resource allocation and management: a generalised conceptual framework. Environmental Modelling & Software. 22.(5): 733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu, Y., Guo, H., et al. 2007. An optimization method based on scenario analysis for watershed management under uncertainty. Environmental Management. 39. 678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Malecha, N.I. 2002. Slovar govorov uralskih (jaickih) kazakov. Orenburg: Orenburg Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Margesson, R. 1997. Environment and international water management: dealing with the problems of the Danube Delta. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 17. (3): 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mysiak, J., Giupponi, C., et al. 2005. Towards the development of a decision support system for water resource management. Environmental Modelling & Software. 20. (2): 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parker, P., Letcher, R., et al. 2002. Progress in integrated assessment and modelling. Environmental Modelling & Software. 17. (3): 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pullar, D. and Springer, D. 2000. Towards integrating GIS and catchment models. Environmental Modelling and Software. 15. (5): 451–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. RAMSAR. 2002. Sustainable Management of Water Resources: The Need for a Holistic Ecosystem Approach Running out of Freshwater or Maintaining Freshwater through a Ecosystem Based Approach — An Easy Choice. 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), Valencia, Spain, The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.Google Scholar
  45. Running out of Freshwater or Maintaining Freshwater Through a Ecosystem Based Approach —An Easy Choice. 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), Valencia, Spain, The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 2005.Google Scholar
  46. Raymakers, C. and Hoover, C. 2002. Acipenseriformes: CITES implementation from Range States to consumer countries. Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 18. (4–6): 629–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Refsgaard, J.C., Nilsson, B., et al. 2005. Harmonised techniques and representative river basin data for assessment and use of uncertainty information in integrated water management (HarmoniRiB). Environmental Science & Policy. 8. (3): 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. RF. 2007. ВОДНЫЙ КОДКС РОССИЙСКОН ФДЕРАДИИ. (Water Code of the Russian Federation). Legal Information Consortium ≪Kodeks≫ (In Russian). RK. 2002. National Action Plan for rehabilitation of the Caspian Sea environment for 2003–2012. Ministry of Environmental Protection, Republic of Kazakhstan.Google Scholar
  49. RK. 2002. National Action Plan for rehabilitation of the Caspian Sea environment for 2003–2012. Ministry of Environmental Protection, Republic of KazakhstanGoogle Scholar
  50. Russian State Duma. 1995. Committee on Ecology, Russian State Duma. Hearing on “Improvement of fishery policies in the Azov Sea Basin”. Report by Dr. V. Lagutov.Google Scholar
  51. Scoccimarro, M., Walker, A., et al. 1999. A framework for integrated catchment assessment in northern Thailand. Environmental Modelling and Software. 14. (6): 567–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Semple, E.C. 1907. Geographical boundaries. II. Bulletin of the American Geographical Society. 39. (8): 449–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sendzimir, J., Magnuszewski, P., et al. 2007. Anticipatory modeling of biocomplexity in the Tisza River Basin: first steps to establish a participatory adaptive framework. Environmental Modelling & Software. 22. (5): 599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shen, J., Parker, A., et al. 2005. A new approach for a Windows-based watershed modeling system based on a database-supporting architecture. Environmental Modelling & Software. 20.(9): 1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Suter, I. and Glenn, W. 1999. Developing conceptual models for complex ecological risk assessments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 5. (2): 375–396.Google Scholar
  56. Thorsten, W., Eloy, R., et al. 2004. Dealing with uncertainty in spatially explicit population models. Biodiversity and Conservation. 13.(1): 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. TRAFFIC. 2003. Bleak outlook for world caviar trade: North America sturgeon, paddlefish stocks at risk. [on-line] 22 May 2003. http://www.traffic.org/news/press-releases/bleakoutlook.html [cited 2004 April 20].
  58. TRAFFIC. 2007. Stamp of approval for caviar. [on-line] TRAFFIC. http://www.traffic.org/home/2007/6/29/stamp-of-approval-for-caviar.html [cited 2007].
  59. Turnock, D. 2001. Cross-border conservation in East Central Europe: the Danube-Carpathian complex and the contribution of the World Wide Fund for Nature. GeoJournal. 55. (2–4): 655–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. UNECE. 2003. Transboundary Water Cooperation in the newly independent States (NIS). Moscow-Geneva United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.Google Scholar
  61. UNECE. 2006. Preliminary Assessment of the Status of Transboundary Rivers Discharging Into the Caspian Sea and Their Major Transboundary Tributaries. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.Google Scholar
  62. UNECE. 2007. Transboundary Accidental Water Pollution, Liability and Compensation: Challenges and Opportunities, Budapest, Hungary, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.Google Scholar
  63. UNEP. 2004. Learning from Baia Mare. [on-line] The Environment Times. http://www.environmenttimes.net/article.cfm?pageID=112 [cited 10 December 2007].
  64. Uralbas. 2007. Proceedings. First Ural River International Workshop Orenburg, Russia.Google Scholar
  65. van Ast, J.A. 2000. Interactive management of international river basins; experiences in Northern America and Western Europe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere. 25. (3): 325–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van Delden, H., Luja, P., et al. 2007. Integration of multi-scale dynamic spatial models of socio-economic and physical processes for river basin management. Environmental Modelling & Software. 22. (2): 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vidal, J.-P., Moisan, S., et al. 2007. River model calibration, from guidelines to operational sup-port tools. Environmental Modelling & Software. 22. (11): 1628–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Von Harthausen, A. 1972. Studies on the Interior of Russia. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  69. WWF. 2002a. WWF Factsheet: Sturgeon. The Materials of 12th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, Santiago, 3–15 November 2002.Google Scholar
  70. WWF. 2002b. Sturgeon 2020. Initiative for Providing Habitats for Sturgeons. Program despcription and schedule, Budapest, WWF.Google Scholar
  71. WWF. 2003. Global 200. Blueprint for a living planet. [on-line] World Wildlife Fund. http://www.panda.org/about_wwfwhere_we_work/ecoregions/global200/pages/regions/region159.htm [cited April 2004].

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central European UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.DonEco Research and ConsultingRussia

Personalised recommendations