|
«INTRODUCTION»
PAs OF THE CENTRAL ASIA
The Central Asia is a huge area of over 4 million square kilometres
with great landscape and ecological diversity: from plain steppes and
deserts to mountain forests and tundra. More than 7 thousand higher
plant species, 9 hundred vertebrates and 20 thousand invertebrates inhabit
the area. The biodiversity here is characterised by a very high level
of endemism; in some parts of the region vascular plant endemism reaches
18—20%. Both Asian and Mediterranean flora and fauna could be found
here; two important bird migration routes (Afro-Eurasian and Central
Asian-Indian) cross the area. Academician N.I. Vavilov described the
Central Asia as a region with the biodiversity of global importance.
This is especially true for its plant biodiversity, because important
centres of wild cultivated plants origin with unique gene pools of their
ancestor forms are located here. One of the most important ways to protect
the unique zoological, botanical and landscape complexes is to create
a framework of protected natural areas of different categories and status.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and further transformations aggravated
conservation in the region. On the other hand, the responsibility of
new independent states for biodiversity conservation as a part of their
national heritage increased. The current system of protected natural
areas in the Central-Asian countries was developed basically in the
Soviet period. This is why the PAs have much in common. As before, zapovedniks,
national parks, refuges and nature monuments remain most effective tools
of biodiversity conservation and environment maintenance. All the countries
have other PA categories as well. Legal lists of PA categories as well
as new laws and acts identifying PA status differ in various countries.
However, as in many other regions, the current PA system in the Central
Asia provides no long-term guarantees for biodiversity conservation,
it does not ensure optimal environment. There is a number of reasons
for that, and many of these reasons are of common nature:
1. No regional ecological network — protected areas do not constitute
an integral framework, their total area is to small to ensure sustainable
protection for ecosystems and conservation of rare animal species.
2. No overall scientific analysis of the biodiversity – both in the
region as a whole and in the individual countries. As a result, conservation
of many ecosystems, including unique ones, is not ensured. In particular,
specific types of stony steppes and deserts are not protected and
there are no ecological corridors between different protected areas.
3. No single scientific-technical foundation for PA planning. As
a result, many current PAs do not fulfil their basic functions, including
top-priority functions identified during their designation; and natural
complexes in reserves are totally dependant on economic development
in neighbouring areas.
4. PA system elements are disintegrated; PAs are subordinate to different
governmental departments, and very often these department combine
nature use with PA management.
5. Insufficient co-ordination of PA development at regional level,
particularly with regards to PA designation, development and management.
6. Poor legal base for PA designation and management: legislative
changes related to environmental conservation and land property have
led, in particular, to illegal use of protected areas and attempts
to revise their boundaries.
7. No purposive promotion of PAs.
8. Uncertain status of areas reserved for PA designation. Many refuges
and national parks do not have zonation schemes, PAs do not have certificates,
many of these exist only on the paper.
9. Insufficient funding and logistic provision for PAs due to economic
reforms. Poor economic conditions of reserves affect negatively not
only the quality of research studies (where these are conducted) and
protection, but also lead to violations of protection rules and regulations,
and attempts to use commercial approaches when settling financial
problems. As a result, scientific research departments were liquidated
in a number of reserves.
10. Frequent rotation of top-managers and changes in the subordination
of PAs to governmental departments.
It is obvious that protected area management reflects socio-economic
and political changes in the countries of the region. The solution of
many global problems affects environmental conservation positively—
new protected natural areas with different status are designated, reserves’
budgets and salaries of PA staff are growing in the last years. As an
example, I would like to point out the designation of Katon-Karagai
National Park in Kazakhstan (over half a million hectares), nomination
of Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyzia, a Ramsar Convention site*
(over 600 000 ha), designation of Tajik National Park in the Pamir (2.6
million ha, or 18% of the total country area!), and the preparation
of application for designating Naurzum and Kurgaljino (Kazakhstan) World’s
Heritage Objects.
Ten years ago illegal tree felling was the most serious problem in
forest PAs, and now the improved energy and heat supply reduces the
scale of felling. Better quality of life and sufficient food supply
reduce poaching (unfortunately, this is a rare thing yet).
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many international organisations
are focused on the region, particularly on its ecology. Unfortunately,
direct investments into the maintenance of the protected area framework
are limited. However, there are some big projects, such as Western Tyan-Shan
and Nuratau-Kyzylkum (GEF/UNDP) aimed at detailed survey and efficient
conservation of concrete unique regions.
The WWF launched first relatively small projects in the region at the
end of 1999. The projects were mainly aimed at conservation of certain
species. The WWF worked in collaboration not only with reserves inhabited
by target species, but also with relevant ministries and departments
of the countries involved. It is necessary to note that most PAs used
the financial aid purposively which allowed to improve their situation
considerably.
In 2003, the IUCN launched another project to survey key PAs in the
region, identify most urgent PA issues and provide problem-solving recommendations.
The Biodiversity Conservation Centre in collaboration with local conservation
institutions is running management planning-related projects in Turkmenistan
and Uzbekistan.
We believe that the greatest asset of the Central-Asian PA network
are its people — those, who despite all difficulties of the transition
period do their best for conservation of the unique nature of the region.
The human factor in conjunction with the positive dynamics of PA development
during the last decade allows us to hope that, through mutual efforts,
we will preserve our living Planet for future generations.
*Hereinafter we refer to the spelling
of geographic names adopted by the Russian Federation in December 2003.
Olga Pereladova,
WWF Central Asia Program Director
| 
