|
|
1st
Workshop on National
Biodiversity Strategies & Action Plans in Northeast and East Central Asia Experiences and Lessons 26 -28 April, 2000, Beijing, China |
Developing and Implementing National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP): Lessons from Kyrgyz Republic
Prepared by Emil Shukurov and Chinara Sadykova
1. Introduction
The Kyrgyz Republic is the newly independent state, is located in the centre of Eurasia. It shares borders with Kazakhstan, China, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. The Kyrgyz Republic is a small country (198,500km2) dominated by mountains, with over 90% of the country above 1000m altitude. These fragile mountain ecosystems support a unique assemblage of plants and animals. The Kyrgyz Republic has about 2% of the world flora and more than 3% of world fauna. This figure is rather big if we take into account that the country occupies only 0.03% of the whole area of the world or 0.13% of the dry land area.
Since 1991 economic, social and political reforms have been taking place in the country. New political parties and independent mass media have appeared, but economic difficulties still limit their activity. A referendum in October 1998, led to the institution of private property rights in the Kyrgyz Republic.
Agriculture and industry dominate the economy of the Kyrgyz Republic. Arable land represents about 7% of the territory, of which 64% relies on irrigation to enable production. During recent years both these sectors have been seriously damaged by the economic crises associated with political transition.
Today, the population of the Kyrgyz Republic is around 4.6 million people. Overall, 34% of the population lives in urban centres, while the remaining 66% lives in rural areas. For administrative purposes, the country is divided into a series of regions, or oblasts.
Approximately 80% of the population are estimated to live below the poverty level (the official index was 71.3% in 1997). Alongside the growth of poverty, there is an increasing gap between the richest and the poorest in the population, representing a decline in the balance of earnings. The income of the richest 20% of the population is 7.1 times higher than the income of the poorest 20%.
The economic crisis has resulted in both increasing pressures on biodiversity and a reduction in the effectiveness of existing mechanisms for environmental protection. Despite its size, the Kyrgyz Republic has a relatively high species-richness; possessing nearly 1% of all known species in just 0.13% of the world’s land mass. Recently declines in many species have become evident, and 9.5% of bird species and 18.1% of mammal species are now considered to be at risk of extinction. A number of rare and valuable ecosystems have nearly disappeared, and forest cover has declined by over half in the last 50 years.
The biological resources of the Kyrgyz Republic play an important role in the economy and traditions of the country. Many species are used directly, either for subsistence or commercial extraction. The country is a centre of origin for domesticated fruit crops, and still possesses a number of wild relatives of these plants (e.g. walnuts, apples, apricots, and pistachio). Natural habitats are a vital part of many traditional land use practices, e.g. grazing which relies on the maintenance of mountain meadows. The loss of biodiversity has both a direct and indirect impact on people’s welfare and quality of life – be it changes in water quality, access to natural resources, or erosion of culture and traditions linked to biodiversity. The mountains of the Kyrgyz Republic also play an important role in providing fresh water to other Central Asian countries.
The institutional and administrative base related to biodiversity conservation activities in the Kyrgyz Republic is undergoing rapid transformation The political and economic changes have meant that most organisations are severely under - resourced and are taking time to adapt to the new situation. Both individuals and organisations involved in biodiversity conservation activities are discovering their new roles in this changing environment: the role of state agencies is becoming more focussed; the relatively young NGO movement is becoming more diverse and experienced; and businesses are recognising their social, as well as economic, responsibilities.
In the Kyrgyz Republic, legal protection of natural resources occurs through a series of laws and legal quotas enforced by the prosecutor’s office and courts. In principle, the existing legal base covers all elements of the relationships between nature and society. Regional, interstate co-operation on environmental issues is also developing, and agreements have been signed with a number of other Central Asian states. Ecological legislation in the Kyrgyz Republic comprises ten Laws and 70 Acts which regulate activities connected with biodiversity.
2. NBSAP origin and background
The National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP), developed in 1995, identified that joining further international environmental conventions was a priority for the Kyrgyz Republic.
The Kyrgyz Republic ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on 6th August 1996. One of the first commitments of the Kyrgyz Republic government under the CBD was to prepare a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) as an initial stage in biodiversity protection. Work on NBSAP preparation started in February 1998. The BSAP provides a thorough review and assessment of current biodiversity and the factors affecting it within the country. Principles and approaches for biodiversity conservation are then developed, in line with those outlined within the provisions of the CBD, but with reference to the national framework which will implement the plan. This review has been used to develop an integrated plan that will provide conservation activities over the coming five years.
The plan has been designed in the light of guidelines produced by UNEP and UNDP. The development of the plan took into account as many of the suggested guidelines regarding participation and appropriateness as possible, with the intention of strengthening the plan, and the likelihood of its effective implementation..
The main principles for the development and implementation of the BSAP have been adapted from the Pan European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS), which in turn was developed from the principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Adoption of these principles links the BSAP with other related strategies, and ensures that approaches in the Kyrgyz Republic are in line with those of other nations in Europe.
Main principles for NBSAP:
Careful decision-making. Precautionary principle. Translocation. Ecological compensation. Ecological integrity. Restoration and re-creation. Use of best available technologies and best environmental practicePolluter pays. Public participation and access to information. ‘Think global, act local’ Realistic and achievable objectives Flexiblity and adaptablity should be key criteria Collaboration and co-ordination between and within projects. Transparent projects. Financially and institutional sustainability. Cost-effectiveness and efficiency Integrated and consistent activity Appropriate technology and techniques Endemic species should be given priority. Indigenous traditions and knowledge should be the basis for activities wherever possible.
3. NBSAP scope and objectives
The NBSAP represents the first comprehensive review of boidiversity in Kyrgyz Republic.The Kyrgyz Republic contains a great wealth of biodiversity resources – in terms of species, ecosystems and landscapes. Although a small nation by land mass, the Kyrgyz Republic displays a wide variation in elevations and geology, leading to a broad range of habitats, which is reflected in a high diversity of species. The ecosystems represented range from high mountains, to lowland fertile plains and large freshwater systems. The character of biodiversity in the country reflects the high altitude of much of the land, being dominated by montane and alpine species. A range of factors over the last century have had an impact on biodiversity in the Kyrgyz Republic, resulting in declines in many groups, and leading to concern for a growing number of species, including key ones of economic importance. In total, 20 different classes of ecosystem are recorded in the Kyrgyz Republic. Most of these ecosystems (14 or 63.6%) are found between 2000-3000 m altitude, although only 30.8% of the territory lies within this range. Furthermore, the range of ecosystems is not evenly distributed throughout the country. Sixteen ecosystems (72.7%) are found in Western and Central Tien Shan, while the Ferghana valley and Southern Kazakhstan biogeographic region have the fewest ecosystems, three and five respectively. Thirteen ecosystems are represented in Alai, while ten ecosystems are found in other biogeograhic regions (Northern Tien Shan and Issyk-Kul).
Overall forest loss has been dramatic over the last decades – fir and juniper forests have declined by over 35%, fruit and nut forests have declined by 50%, and pistachio and almond forests have reduced to only 30,000 ha over the last 50 years.
Destruction of natural ecosystems, linked to increases in cultivated lands, poses the greatest threat to biodiversity in the Kyrgyz Republic. Fragmentation of natural communities also results from an extensive road-network, much of which connects seasonal or temporary settlements. Meanwhile, other ecosystems suffer indirect anthropogenic impacts. Overgrazing has restricted regeneration in fruit and nut forests, making their future uncertain. It has led to the degradation of pastures, and to drastic reductions in the numbers of wild ungulates. Threats to species include habitat change, pollution, direct competition with livestock, and the spread of invasive species, and diseases. Many of the remaining populations of species listed in the national Red Data Book are at the critical lower limit of viability, from which the populations may not be able to recover. The tiger became extinct in the Kyrgyz Republic at the turn of the century, and now the otter faces a similar fate. Even species thought of as common, such as pheasants and wild boar, were completely exterminated in many regions, but have since been reintroduced in some areas.
Table 1. Number of threatened species in the Kyrgyz Republic
|
Taxa |
No. of species in KR |
No. of threatened species |
No. of internationally threatened species |
|
Lower plants |
3676 |
? |
? |
|
Higher plants |
3786 |
71 |
? |
|
Annelid worms |
1282 |
6 |
? |
|
Molluscs |
168 |
2 |
? |
|
Insects |
10290 |
50 |
4 |
|
Fish |
75 |
6 |
1 |
|
Amphibians |
4 |
3 |
- |
|
Reptiles |
33 |
5 |
3 |
|
Birds |
368 |
35 |
8 |
|
Mammals |
83 |
15 |
4 |
The overall aim of the NBSAP project is the protection and rational use of biological and landscape diversity for the sustainable social and economic development of the Kyrgyz Republic.
The objectives are a quantifiable representation of the overall aim, and an expression of what achievement of the aim will mean. This is given in terms of actual changes in biodiversity or economic status. The objectives also provide a target towards which all planned activities should contribute, and a clearer focus as to how the overall aim might be achieved.
Objectives
The action plan outlines the practical activities to be carried out within each strategic component, in order to fulfil the objectives and the overall aim. Actions are sub-divided into a set of constituent, and inter-related, activities. A number of the listed activities will be implemented under existing plans or projects, whereas others will be designed and developed from scratch. All activities are intended to provide clear outlines for implementation, with indicative costings and time-scales, and defined outputs. Relative priorities for activities are indicated through the attached time-scale – high priority activities, including those on which further activities depend, are shown to start earlier in the five-year plan than other, more peripheral, activities.
Outputs are the verifiable achievements for each activity, and provide a basis for evaluation of success or completion. These outputs are proximal achievements, but completion of any activity is also expected to have impacts on wider indicators of success, including the general objectives of the plan.
4. NBSAP development
The BSAP preparation process involved the management and co-ordination of the following groups:
|
Steering Committee
|
|||||
|
Consultant specialists
|
|||||
|
BSAP Co-ordinating team National advisor
|
Stakeholders
|
||||
|
Mass media
|
|||||
|
International team
|
|||||
BSAP Co-ordination Team - formed the core focus for the preparation process.
Steering Committee - the BSAP preparation process was overseen by the Steering Committee (SC). The SC was made up of senior representatives of key government agencies (Environment, Forestry, Finance), academic institutions, and NGOs. The SC was chaired by the Minister of Environmental Protection. The SC provided overall guidance, approval and political support for the key stages of the preparation process.
International Team - the Ministry of Environmental Protection invited the UK-based conservation NGO Fauna & Flora International (FFI) to provide general management and technical assistance to the BSAP preparation process. The three members of the FFI team worked with the BSAP co-ordinating team at all stages of the process.
Consultant Specialists - Over 50 specialist consultants were involved in the preparation of the BSAP. Most were involved for short periods of time to lend their skills and experience to the project. At various stages of the process, these consultants formed smaller working groups, to work together to look at different issues. However, due to the inter-disciplinary nature of the project, the focus was on maximum collaboration between as many different stakeholder groups as possible, rather than being confined to fixed working groups.
Stakeholders - Hundreds of individuals and organisations were involved in the preparation of the BSAP. The range of stakeholders widened as the process continued, and stakeholders were encouraged to increase their level of participation (from being kept informed of progress, to taking the initiative themselves in planning and implementing activities). The national and far-reaching importance of the BSAP meant that many stakeholders had an input into the project as part of their job, rather than being employed specifically for the BSAP project.
Mass Media - representatives from mass media (TV, radio and newspapers) were encouraged to attend and even participate in many of the preparation activities. A national environmental public awareness programme (funded by the British government’s Environmental Know How Fund) was run parallel to the BSAP preparation with guidance from FFI.
Process
Stage 1: Preparation (Months 1-2)
Recruit general project manager.
Local consultation with Ministry of Environmental Protection and key stakeholders and specialists.
Develop and agree work-plans.
Develop and agree terms of reference.
Recruit BSAP team (co-ordination team, national consultants).
Key outputs
-
Working procedures established.
-
BSAP team established.
Stage 2: Information Gathering and Evaluation (Months 3-4)
Consultant briefing on BSAP and information needs.
Preliminary information gathering.
Planning and training workshop.
Further information gathering.
Public forums (Bishkek and Osh cities).
Country study preparation.
Country study distribution.
Country study presentation forums (Bishkek and Osh).
Key outputs
Country Study produced.
Increased stakeholder awareness and involvement.
Stage 3: Action Planning (Months 5-9)
Action planning workshop.
Draft action plan production.
Draft plan review and agreement.
Final plan production.
Key outputs
Final plan produced.
Wider stakeholder involvement.
Stage 4: Implementation (Month 10 onwards)
Draft plan launch.
Financing search and allocation for actions.
Establishment of BSAP co-ordinating mechanisms.
Implementation of BSAP actions.
Key outputs
Start of implementation of BSAP actions.
Co-ordination of implementation
5. Relationship with development planning
The Ministry of Environmental Protection developed the BSAP with technical support and management advice from the international conservation NGO, Fauna & Flora International. A grant for the production of the BSAP was offered by GEF (via the World Bank).
NBSAP contains a number of common cross-sectoral implications for biodiversity conservation. The Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) and State Forestry Agency (SFA) are central to state-run biodiversity conservation, as they manage the most extensive areas of conservation priority and receive the majority of resources allocated directly to biodiversity conservation. However, the other government agencies play a very important role in conserving biodiversity outside these protected areas - a role that is likely to become increasingly important. The recreation department of the Administration of the President has management responsibility for Ala-Archa National Park and Tokmok zakaznik. The Chief Division of Hunting Enterprises and Hunting Supervision and the Republican Society of Hunters and Fishermen (‘Kyrgyzokhotrybolovsoyuz’) have management responsibility for a variety of hunting zakazniks in the country. Oblast and rayon administrations (‘hakimiats’) have responsibility for various national parks and zakazniks (including natural and geological monuments).
The Ministry of Agriculture and Water Economy has a variety of national, local and extension departments working throughout the country on all aspects of agriculture and water issues. The importance and extent of agriculture in the country has a considerable influence on biodiversity, both directly and indirectly.
The State Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources also influences the biodiversity of the country, being a key agency in mountain environments, where work ranges from studying to exploiting mineral resources. Mineral extraction involves blast-hole drilling and other activities that may directly affect biodiversity. The State Agency for Surveying and Land Resources has an indirect impact on biodiversity. This agency provides registration and distribution of land for agricultural use and other economic purposes. The Kyrgyz Union of Hunters and Fishermen (‘Kyrgyzokhotrybolovsouz’) and the Kyrgyz Medicinal Industry (‘Kyrgyzlekrasprom’) also directly affect biodiversity. Good experience of planning and plan development exists within institutions.
NBSAP have not received high level political backing yet. But in nearly future NBSAP will be signed such a Governmental Document and it will be useful for their implementation.
In the Kyrgyz Republic there is a significant resource of highly qualified specialists working on biodiversity issues. As well as working within state agencies, academic institutions and businesses, most of them are also active members of different ecological NGOs. International NGOs addressing biodiversity issues are still becoming established in the Kyrgyz Republic. Key organisations include: Fauna & Flora International, IUCN, NABU, and WWF. In addition, several international organisations provide funding and technical assistance support for projects, these include, the World Bank, Ebert Fund for Central Asia, Eurasia Foundation, Soros-Kyrgyztsan Fund, HIVOS, Know-How Fund, UNDP, TACIS, and the Adenauer Fond.
6. Implementation
Reports on the implementation of the BSAP will need to be produced for a number of reasons and for a number of different audiences.
Annual national report on progress. This is produced for initial consideration by the Steering Committee, and by higher-level institutions. This report should include details of all activities undertaken, with details of their success and outputs. The report should include a review of progress against the set targets, an identification of gaps, lessons learnt and any changes required in the light of changing circumstances, at a national or local level.
Public report on progress. The public report should contain the information from the national report that is most relevant to the general public, and a wider range of groups or individuals interested in or affected by biodiversity conservation.
International reports on implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The CBD Secretariat requires regular reporting on the progress of individual countries with regard to their commitments to the CBD. However, these reports should ideally be more concise, aimed at a broader international audience, and may also be produced in English. Guidelines for national reporting are available from the CBD Secretariat.
Final report on progress. At the end of the five year period a final implementation review will be produced. This will not only review achievements over this time, but will also outline reasons for success or failures in implementation of various elements in the initial plan, lessons learnt, and recommendations for the next planning period.
NBSAP implementation in Kyrgyzstan: In 1997 the Kyrgyz Republic with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan developed the Transboundary Biodiversity in West Tien Shan Project in accordance with the CBD. This project is include in NBSAP in activity A1 Increase effectiveness of the protected areas network.
Transboundary Biodiversity Project in West Tien Shan is started in March 2000, GEF through World Bank provide the financial support.
In December of 1998 was created Ecological NGO Consortium, Counterpart Consortium (USAID) provided financial assessment. . It was activity NBSAP D4 Establishment a co-ordinated network or coalition of existing NGOs, to optimise resource use, provide a focus for donors and government agencies, and to avoid intra-NGO competition.
The NGOs are signed memorandum of partnership. Project for the production of an ecotourism Code of conduct and ecotourism promotion in the Kyrgyz Republic was develop by ecoconsortium through financial support of the Know How Fund (UK). The objective of the project was to work in partnership with national NGOs, the tourism sector, and relevant Ministeries to develop a code of conduct for ecotourism in the Kyrgyz Republic, and to help to promote sustainable tourism. This ensured complementary in knowledge as it covered a full range of cross-sectoral specialists. Amongst the actions that they identified were the following strategic components:
C.2.1. Develop policies in all sectors that ensure that the needs of conservation and sustainable development are integrated into national level decision making.
C.3.6. Develop programmes which involve private business within the sphere of sustainable use.
C.6.1.Develop a structure to promote regulate ecotourism within the government.
C.6.2. Identify key areas for ecotourism development, taking to account tourist opinions and the relative vulnerability of areas.
C.6.3. Develop and implement plans for ecotourism development, where appropriate including protected areas and buffer zones, with clear assessments of any impacts.
M.4.1.Conduct a series of training sessions devoted to writing business projects on biodiversity for Ministry and protected areas staff, NGO businessmen and others.
7. Monitoring and follow-up
Monitoring and evaluation form the vital link between the implementation of activities, assessment of their success and the subsequent evolution of the plan. Monitoring and evaluation is an integral part of the implementation process; it is not something that is done once the activities have finished.
The Country Report was submitted at COP 4 in Bratislava. Kyrgyzstan will intend to present NBSAP to COP5.
The process of monitoring and evaluating the BSAP will use existing structures and readily available information as far as possible, rather than creating new structures or collecting new types of information. Monitoring and evaluation needs to be continual and on-going. The process of evaluating and monitoring the BSAP will involve a number of different steps:
The implementing organisation for a particular activity will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the progress of that activity. This will take place within the existing structures of the implementing organisation, but be measured against the BSAP outputs and objectives.
The co-ordinating unit will be responsible for gathering information about the implementation of BSAP activities from the various implementing organisations. Information will be collected through regular communications with implementing organisations (including reports and interviews).
The results of the monitoring and evaluation will be widely disseminated, especially amongst the implementing organisations. Dissemination will be through the various reporting systems of the BSAP and public awareness activities.
Process of monitoring and evaluating the BSAP
Core Indicators
In addition to the objectives and outputs, it may be necessary to monitor a range of more general indicators, which assess the actually status of biodiversity. A set of core indicators, with which to monitor the state of and pressures on biodiversity at a national level has been proposed by the Global Biodiversity Forum (Exploring Biodiversity Indicators and Targets under the Conservation on Biological Diversity Global Biodiversity Forum, 1997).
State indicators
Ecosystem quantity indicators
‘Self-regenerating’ areas (includes natural and semi-natural areas) and ‘anthropogenic’ areas (heavily modified areas), as a percentage of total area.
Self-regenerating area per ecosystem type, as a percentage of total area.
Extent of existing self-regenerating area by size class category (e.g. 100-1,000 ha, 1,000-10,000 ha, etc.).
Ecosystem ‘biodiversity quality’ indicators
Distribution or abundance of select indicator species or taxonomic groups, as a percentage of an assumed/known baseline.
Number of indigenous species of one or more select taxonomic groups, as a percentage of an assumed/known baseline.
Various ‘biodiversity quality’ variables as a percentage of assumed/known baselines. These could include: percentage of forest area, percentage of total agro-ecosystem area in natural patches, and percentage of remaining endemic species.
Indicators for threatened and extinct species and habitat types
Number of threatened species as a percentage of selected taxonomic groups.
Number of threatened habitats as a percentage of total per country.
Pressure indicators
Habitat loss indicators
Percentage of self-regenerating areas converted annually into: agricultural production, urban use and other intensively modified land-use activities.
Percentage of watersheds significantly impacted by dams or formation of channels.
Percentage of areas with population densities exceeding 100 inhabitants/km2.
Over exploitation indicators
Total number of important species harvested relative to estimate of sustainable off-take levels.
Average size/weight/age per unit of off-take of a particular taxonomic, or other, group.
Amount of agricultural area lost in 10 years due to erosion or other environmental degradation, as a percentage of area brought into agricultural production in the same period.
Exotic species indicators
Total number of exotic species as a percentage of particular taxonomic, or other group.
Relative abundance/biomass of exotic species as a percentage of a particular taxonomic, or other, group per country.
Pollution indicators
Average measures of a particular group of substances particularly harmful to biodiversity, compared to the soil, water and air standards for such substances.
Other national indicators
A set of wider national-level indicators can be used to monitor and evaluate a range of factors that have a direct or indirect impact on biodiversity conservation. These may include:
Demographic figures (e.g. population levels and changes).
Economic indicators (e.g. GNP, GDP, inflation, trade figures, etc.).
Education indicators (e.g. literacy, secondary and higher education levels, etc.).
Health indicators (e.g. mortality levels and causes, access to medical care, etc.).
Political indicators (e.g. democratic changes, etc.
8. Lessons learned
In analysing the current status of biodiversity in the Kyrgyz Republic a number of specific institutional constraints and opportunities for biodiversity have emerged. These have been collated and compared in the table below as a first stage in the development of realistic objectives, strategies and actions, which take account of the true situation, and are thus more likely to be effective.
Table 2. Specific institutional and related factors, and associated constraints and opportunities
|
Constraints and limitations |
Strengths and opportunities |
|
|
Organisational capacity for biodiversity management |
Reduced financial resources and budgets have resulted in a reduction of the capacity of government agencies Organisational inertia and historical legacy have led to delays in adaptation to the new economic and social situation |
Strong organisational base for biodiversity management still exists. There is high potential for attracting external investment into capacity building and training programmes to raise the skills and develop new technologies. |
|
Human resources for biodiversity management |
Low morale has resulted from salary reductions in real terms across government agencies, local administration and scientific institutions A reduction in the availability of professional staff for biodiversity management has resulted from the limitations in training and professional development in this field |
A core of well-qualified and committed people exists, despite low salaries and difficult working conditions |
|
Equipment and physical resources |
Very limited investment in equipment and physical resources has resulted in current resourcing being insufficient to meet current and future commitments |
Clear opportunities exist to substantially improve the resource base even with limited investment |
|
Experience of international projects |
A general lack of experience exists in implementing activities in a 'market economy' or international style (e.g. financial accountability, participation, project cycle management, etc.). |
Ongoing training programmes are rapidly increasing capacity to meet the needs of international projects, which will be hastened by increasing exposure to such methods of working |
|
Information transfer |
Limited information transfer has led to inefficiency and lack of co-operation |
Availability of new technologies is increasing opportunities for information sharing and transfer between individuals and organisations |
|
Research |
Research has generally been academically based with little application directly to management of biodiversity |
A strong research base exists, which can be applied more effectively as part of directed research programmes. |
|
Co-ordination and partnership |
Limited co-ordination and communication exists between government agencies and the developing NGO community, particularly in the light of changing roles and responsibilities of these institutions Few case studies exist demonstrating an experience of inter-sectoral collaboration (e.g. government-NGO, or business-NGO partnerships). |
The increasing recognition of the need to involve stakeholders in the management of biodiversity will result in greater co-ordination between government agencies and NGOs. Opportunities are developing to work in partnership with the growing private sector, and promote direct involvement in biodiversity management . |
|
Participation |
There has been a lack of wide stakeholder participation in the planning, management and sustainable use of natural resources. |
Pilot models of participatory planning and management of biodiversity are attracting external funding Participatory techniques are now being developed as part of sustainable development programmes |
|
Public awareness |
Low levels of awareness of the importance of biodiversity and its links with sustainable development exist among rural communities, the general public and decision makers. |
Increasing opportunities for enhanced public awareness, supported by more widely accessible communication systems. Raising awareness of the importance of Kyrgyz biodiversity and ecosystem functions (such as watersheds) among decision makers, donors and the international community is likely to encourage further investment. |
|
Legislation |
Enforcement of legislation has been limited or inconsistent as a result of limited enforcement mechanisms. |
A strong and well developed legislative base represents an important strength for further legislative development |
This Table 2. has demonstrated that there is a wide range of both constraints and strengths, which need to be taken into account in biodiversity conservation planning for the Kyrgyz Republic. In general, the situation of economic and political transition in the region underlies many of the constraints on biodiversity conservation. However, many of the institutional structures remain in place, and along with the growing NGO community, provide an important basis for the development of further biodiversity related activities. In fact, biodiversity itself may prove to be one of the most important resources or assets for economic development in the Kyrgyz Republic, and thus for further support of biodiversity conservation. The main lessons for NBSAP process is the Government didn’t learned the important of biodiversity conservation and natural ecosystems.
9. Recommendation for improving the impactof the NBSAP process
The implementation of the BSAP will affect and be affected by a wide range of institutions, policies and plans.
An enormous range of groups will implement the plan. Their awareness, support and input to the preparation are essential.
Although many people are stakeholders in biodiversity conservation, it is not a priority for many of them. Successful implementation of the plan relies upon goodwill, support and approval.
Although the plan will become official government policy, There will be few mechanisms for enforcing the implementation of the plan.
The limited financial resources available for biodiversity conservation means that the BSAP would be more effective if it focused on more efficient use of existing resources, rather than creating new institutions.
The transitional nature of the Kyrgyz Republic’s social, political and economic situation meant that the BSAP had to be designed to adapt as necessary to changes over the coming years.
The report is primarily a national policy outline for biodiversity, aimed at mobilising co-ordinated action over a wide range of implementing groups. The audience for the report will include politicians, government officials, representatives of NGOs, businesses, scientists and donors – including national, international, governmental and non-governmental donors, as well as the corporate sector. The full report is, therefore, designed to include information that might be useful to all of these different sectors. Information contained within the report will also be useful to a broader range of the community, such as journalists and teachers, along with all direct and indirect users of biodiversity.
NBSAP should focus on preserving on all of the natural ecosystems, on preventing natural landscapes interning in to cultural landscape. Next step, should be made on revival of the natural ecosystems in their arial, through decreasing of anthropogenic. impact in the places where it lead to generation and transition nature protection. In Kyrgyzstan the priority task should reduction mountains forests in a former arial, reduction wetlands, limit of road construction, especially, in the places where the roads do not connect constant settlements in enlarge zones free from cars. Increasing number of protected arias; creation of plantations and nurseries for endangered species of the plants and the animals.
Bibliography
Academy of Science of the Kyrgyz Socialist Republic. 1952-1970. Flora of the Kyrgyz Socialist Republic. Volumes 1-11. Frunze.
Academy of Science of the Uzbek Soviet Republic 1979-1989. Plant definer of the Central Asia. Volume 1-10.
Anon 1985. Red Book of the Kyrgyz Socialist Republic. Frunze
Anon. 1990. Problems of study and conservation of biodiversity. Frunze. 176 pp.
Anon. 1992. Biological resources of Kyrgyzstan (Ecological, geographical and nature protection aspects). Bishkek.148 pp.
Anon. 1996. Problems of study and conservation of biodiversity. Bishkek.
Anon. 1996. Nutfruit forests in the south of Kyrgyzstan. 2nd Edition.Bishkek.
Anon. 1996. National action plan on environmental hygiene of the Kyrgyz Republic. Bishkek.
Anon. 1996. Cadastre of the genetic resources of Kyrgyzstan. Volumes 2-3. Bishkek.
Anon. 1996. Ecological Kyrgyzstan. Bishkek. 145 pp.
Anon. 1997. Social and economic situation in the Kyrgyz Republic. Operative Information Bishkek.
Anon. 1998. Biodiversity Conservation in Central Asia. An analysis of biodiversity and current threats and initial investment portfolio. Almaty-Ashgabat-Bishkek-Dushanbe-Gland- Moscow-Washington. 111 pages.
Cohen, S., and Burgiel, S. W. (eds.) 1997. Exploring Biodiversity Indicators and Targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity. BIONET, Washington DC.
DETR. 1998. Planning for Biodiversity: Full workshop proceedings, Bristol UK, November 4-7, 1997. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.
Gan, P.A. 1970. Forests of Kyrgyzstan. In Forests of the USSR. Science, Moscow.
Groombridge, B. (ed.). 1992. Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth's Living Resources. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Chapman and Hall, London.
Hagen, R. 1998. Draft Guide for Countries Preparing National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. UNDP/GEF, New York.
IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1991. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. IUCN, Gland.
Ministry for Environmental Protection (1995) National Environmental Action Plan. Bishkek.
Ministry for Environmental Protection. 1997. Collection of legislative acts of the Kyrgyz Republic on environmental protection. 1st edition. Bishkek.
National Environmental Protection Programme. 1997 Ecological Indicators. Bishkek.
Nikitina, E.F. 1962. Flora and vegetation of pastures hay-meadows of the Kyrgyz Ala-Too range. Frunze. 283 pp.
Shukurov, E.Dj. 1987.. Zoo-geographical divisions by districts. In Atlas of the Kyrgyz Socialist Republic. Volume 1. State Agency for Geodesy and Cartography, Moscow. 123pp
Shukurov, E.Dj. 1989. Wild mammals of Kyrgyzia. Frunze. 176pp.
Shukurov, E.Dj. 1990. Zoogeographic map. In Natural conditions and resources of yrgyzstan. State Agency for Geodesy and Cartography, Moscow.
Shukurov, E.Dj. 1990. Ecological and geographical study of the Kyrgyz basin. Frunze. 36pp.
Shukurov, E.Dj. 1991. Natural and anthropogenic environments of Kyrgyzstan. Bishkek. 125pp.
Shukurov, E.Dj. 1992. Zoo-geographic basis for protection and rational use of land vertebrates of Kyrgyzstan. Bishkek. 34 pp.
Shukurov, E.Dj. 1997. Problems of biodiversity in Kyrgyzstan.News of the National Academy of Science of Kyrgyzstan. 2-3, 89-92
UNDP 1998. National strategy for sustainable human development in the Kyrgyz Republic. Bishkek
UNDP/UNEP 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. Rio de Janeiro.
UNDP 2000. National human development in the Kyrgyz Republic. Bishkek, 1999
Web page maintained by Institute of Botany, CAS and Institute of Zoology, CAS