«NEWS FROM OUR COLLEAGUES»

CURRENT STATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SYSTEM IN KYRGYZIA

During the last decade, the environmental conservation system in Kyrgyzia underwent considerable changes. The Ministers of Environmental Protection were changing very often, many professionals left the environmental conservation system, the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) has merged with the Ministry of Emergency Situations (MES) and moved to the city of Osh; part of the modern MES control functions were withdrawn and delegated to the State Forestry Service (SFS).

The Decree of the Kyrgyz President of 25.11.2001 # 342 “On the State Forestry Service”, without due subordination to federal acts, had set, changed and canceled a number of rights and obligations for some governmental officials and executive bodies. The rights and obligations of the government in the field of environmental control are fixed in the Acts “On Biosphere Areas”, “On PAs”, “On Ecological Assessment”, “On Fauna”, “On Environmental Protection”, etc.

In accordance with the Presidential Decrees #342 of 25.11.2001 and #3 of 4.01.2002 and the Statement “On the State Forestry Service in Kyrgyzia”, the State Forestry Service, being an economic unit, is authorised to execute control functions and t issue licenses. This contradicts to Articles 3 and 5 of the Act “On Fauna” of 13.05.1999 and a number of other legal acts stating that environmental control should be executed by the government through a specially authorised agency.

It turned out that hunting units that provide commercial services for legal entities and individuals are a part of the SFS structure. In other words, the governmental agency, not being part of the executive structure, can issue licenses to permit itself running commercial activities for its own needs. It means that SFS is not interested in providing other economic units with similar licenses. The situation contradicts to the government antimonopoly policy, it violates the basic principle set out in the Act “On Ecological Assessment ” — presumption of ecological guilt. According to Article 3 of the Act, the above mentioned decree had to be subject to the ecological assessment. It is a serious breach of conservation legislation if a law can become effective without any ecological assessment.

There is another negative output of the withdrawal of the agency responsible for biodiversity conservation from the government structure. Ecological assessment of biodiversity-related government statements has almost stopped. Protected areas remain outside the MES authority, and the SFS is not an executive body, so it is not included into confirmation lists.

According to the Governmental Statement #286 of 7.05.2002, the relic Lake Shorkul (Kosh-Karakol) and the Lake Sasyk-Kol located within the protected zone of the Lake Issyk-Kul, were transferred by the Issyk-Kul region administration into private possession.

The Act “On Kyrgyzia Mountain Areas” #151 (later, as amended on 10.08.2003, #194) delegates governmental regulation of resource use in mountain areas to a non-existent “specially authorised body in charge of mountain areas”. The act contributes for further complication of an already very complex system of responsibility and power delimitation between various government departments.

According to the Government Statement #694 of 4.11.2003, the Lake Chatyrkul was excluded from the PA fund and designated an industrial fish reservoir. This will cause lots of disturbance to inhabitants of protected areas located within the lake’s area: Karatal-Djaparyk Zapovednik and mountain goose zakaznik.

At the beginning of 2003, in accordance with the draft governmental Statement on the Foundation of the National Co-ordination Board for Ecologically-Sustainable Development, it was scheduled to create a structural department with powers of an interdepartmental management committee for ecological problems and projects. One could trace a contradiction between this draft document and normative legal acts that make heads of concrete ministries and departments responsible for co-ordination and management with regards to the fulfilment of international obligations. For instance, in accordance with the Kyrgyz legislation, the State Forestry Service is responsible for the fulfilment of the Convention on Biodiversity Conservation.

Today, economic priorities prevail over ecological concerns in territorial planning strategies and policies. The budget funding for conservation is provided according to a residual principle. Bureaucrats responsible for the development and adoption of ecologically important decisions do not request or take into account results of scientific researches. Research studies are not funded from the budget; the government gives money for salaries only.

Oleg Pechenyuk,
Independent Ecological Assessment