PROJECTS

The Government’s Position

Unfortunately, we have to state that high-profile officials started to address the forests issues only after it became obvious that the lack of action would leave us with no forests to take care of. Greater understanding of acuteness of the problems came as a result of the pressure applied by scientists, ecologists, NGOs dealing with environmental issues.

Which of the government’s positive intents have been legally defined?

1. String pine forests have been classified as “extremely valuable forest”, thus introducing a complete ban on lumber production in these forests. Only forests protection and development actions can take place in string pine forests.
2. The government has increased payments for lumber production by 6-8 times for commercial lumber and 1.5-2 times for heating lumber.
3. In December 2001 the government passed a ban (governmental decree #1671) on exports of round pine lumber and heating lumber in the form of pine logs. Unfortunately, the decree has had limited impact on lumber production as a result of the lack of control over implementation of the decree.
4. Governmental decree #699 “On urgent measures to prevent illegal lumber production and premeditated forest fires” was passed in May 2001. The document calls upon Ministry of Internal Affairs to fight wood smuggling and Emergency Situations Agency to improve fire prevention and fire fighting measures. So far implementation results have been negligible.
5. In September 2001 the government published its decree #1186 “On certain issues concerning compensation for damages caused as a result of breaking environmental protection regulations”. The document provides for significantly more severe penalties for perpetrators. For example, 10-15 cubic meters of illegally cut trees can lead to initiation of a criminal case. Earlier the perpetrators could get away paying an insignificant penalty fee.

It is interesting to note that Environmental Protection Ministry estimated that the decree would allow to stimulate lumber processing inside the country’s territory, leading to creation of new jobs, increased tax payments and forest resources utilization fees. Unfortunately, so far these estimates have found limited support in the surrounding economic reality.

6. This year for the first time within last several years the budget allocates 168 million tenge (1.1 million USD) for forest development projects. This is twice as much as last year’s appropriation.

7. On July 16, 2002 Kazakhstan’s Government issued a decree “On prohibiting exports of lumber”. The action served as grounds for hopes that the country will be able to stop widespread wood smuggling or at least significantly limit illegal lumber production. However, practical experience indicates that bans alone can not solve the problem.

Forestry Code Draft
Forestry Code draft should constitute a topic for a separate discussion. Last year it was actively discussed by scientists, ecologists, NGOs. In January the Government submitted the draft Code for parliamentary review. It is expected that the Code will be adopted in June this year.

Many NGOs, scientists and ecologists criticize the draft. Some even proposed development of an alternative draft.

What are the key targets for criticism?

Let’s look at some key points.

1. The draft provides for forestry decentralization. Specifically, it is proposed to transfer ownership rights for all forests to representatives of the local executive branch. Experts harshly criticized the provision calling for separation of forests ownership into two categories – republican and communal. The vast majority of experts believe that this will be a mistake. All forests must have republican status.

It is also proposed that regional forestry management departments will be responsible for issuing forests utilization permits. However, opponents of the draft Code believe that local officials are not interested in protection the nation’s interests. They need extensive oversight, otherwise we’ll have empty slots instead of forests.

Moreover, experts note that proposed decentralization runs contrary to the government’s decree #752 issued on May 29, 1995 which puts forestry utilization permits issuance exclusively in the realm of the state forestry and environmental protection agencies.

2. Current draft Code limits public involvement in forests conservation and development issues. The general public has the right to get information about forests and associated resources. Nothing else is provided for. (Article 58).

3. The draft Code allows local representative bodies to adopt regional programs aimed at protection and rational utilization of forests and protection of associated animal life (Article 14.1). But there is no definition of the role of these program. Who will assess value of these programs? The draft provides no clear answers.

4. The draft does not provide for adequate protection of forests. Hence there is a proposal to reclassify forestry protection units as militarized units. Then forestry protection personnel will have more rights and protection means.

5. The draft Code insufficiently addresses general public interests. For example, one of the provisions calls for collection of fees from tourists visiting forests for recreational purposes or to gather berries and mushrooms. Section 2, Article 41 provides general public with complete freedom to choose specific locations for recreational activities, however, “only in authorized locations”. Such a vague language will create circumstances in which no one will know where exactly people can and can not go. In reality, most likely people will not be authorized to go anywhere.

Consequently, to provide a sufficient degree of clarity it is necessary to define what people can do, where and if not free of charge, then how much should be paid. Otherwise, people will face frivolous local interpretations of the law. Some territories will seemingly be closed but for certain fees all bans and restrictions will most likely be lifted.

6. Article 110 should be altogether excluded from the draft. It provides government entities with certain functions of commercial enterprises. Instead entrepreneurship development measures should be clearly defined. Currently the draft Code devotes almost no attention to these issues.

7. The draft clearly reveals the government’s intent to monopolize forestry management rights. If this is the case, experts insist that the government should present a forestry development concept since state monopoly will require the government to fully finance and provide for execution of the state orders.

8. A significant shortcoming of the draft – a lot more attention is devoted to legal provisions related to forests utilization than to forests development and conservation.

9. There are also opponents of privatized forests provided for by the draft Code. Opponents believe that introduction of the right to create private forests will lead to wholesale privatization of forests.

However, on the other hand, if the land is privately owned or rented out for significant periods of time then why not have the right to manage whatever has been grown on that land. Or purchased from the state. Be that wheat or trees. By the way, to grow a tree for commercial purposes takes on average 20 years. And it is fully logical to provide tax breaks to people growing private forests.

The government is reviewing the possibility. More over, it is ready to allocate land lots with preferential treatment. In other words, the government believes that private ownership will lead to expansion of forests.

But the changes will come

The current year promises if not a revolution in forests conservation and development then at least a profound change in existing situation.

First of all, starting from the beginning of the current year ministry of Agriculture is responsible for all forests. This agency will carry out ecological monitoring, control the volumes of lumber production and check legality of all actions taken with respect to the nation’s forests. In their turn, regional Akims’ offices (regional executive branches) will work to ensure preservation and development of forests. 124 forests management units have been transferred to regional Akims’ offices. National budget has also appropriated more than 1 billion tenge (approximately 7 million USD) for forests conservation and development purposes.

Another novelty. Since 2003 all commercial lumber production proposals have to pass through the tender procedure. The Ministry’s Forestry and Hunting Committee has issued this year’s appropriate tender regulations.

Earlier we had a distribution system under which the would be woodsmen sent lumber production applications to regional territorial forestry and hunting departments. Then Forestry Committee reviewed all applications. Based on the current year’s estimated lumber resources particular enterprises were authorized to cut certain amounts of trees. Lumber production quotas were allocated by regions and by specific enterprises.

From now on Akimats will organize local forestry tenders. However, only enterprises with appropriate equipment, specialists and potential to ensure appropriate forests development will have access to forestry tenders. Territorial divisions of the Forestry Committee will monitor all tender procedures.

Currently discussed Forestry Code draft will introduce the idea of commercial lumber production license. The licenses will define production technologies, forests development techniques and even the types of equipment and pressures on underlying soils. Earlier anyone with a saw had a chance to get involved in lumber production.

Representatives of the Committee firmly believe that forestry tenders will introduce profound changes in Kazakhstan’s forestry management. However, knowing how corrupt our tenders are it is irresponsible to believe that forestry tenders will become an exception. We’ll have to wait and see.

More than 50 entities have submitted lumber production applications. Usually they cut up to 10 thousand cubic meters of trees per year. However, considering more stringent requirements posed for potential producers most likely only several of them will win the tender.

What are the volumes of forest resources allocated for tendering purposes this year? About 750 thousand cubic meters. 500 cubic meters in Atyrau region, 34 thousand – in Akmola region, 98 thousand – in Kostanai region, 187 thousand – in Northern Kazakhstan region and 402 thousand in Eastern Kazakhstan region.
Starting from the current year there is a ban on cutting pine trees because only last year we lost approximately 10% of all pine trees as a result of forest fires.

Will our production companies be able to distribute all forest resources allocated for 2003? In other words, will they be able to cut everything that is allocated for the current year considering existing strict requirements? Most likely, the answer is negative.

Will we feel the lack of lumber? Once again the answer is most likely negative because the country imports 70% of its lumber from Russia. So, under any circumstances local lumber producers are not the key player on the country’s market.

Moreover, last year local producers survived because of log exports to China. Currently log exports are banned and producers will have to merge and develop processing techniques to support production of furniture, paper etc. In other words, they will have to establish their own production facilities creating new jobs.

Some forests management units disagree with the need to organize tenders in Kazakhstan. They believe that tendering procedures are illegal until the new Forestry Code is adopted defining tendering procedures. However, representatives of the Forestry Committee believe that temporary tendering regulations adopted by the government provide sufficient legal background. Moreover, the country’s Civil Code defines overall tendering procedures for state property sales. Forests also constitute state property hence can be managed using overall Civil Code provisions.

Will we ever replace what has been destroyed?

String pine forests are considered to be the oldest ones on Earth. The exist only in Canada and in Kazakhstan along Irtysh river. String pine forests survived the Ice Age, different climate changes, tectonic shifts. In Canada the state carefully watches the pine forests while in Kazakhstan within the last five years fires and smugglers destroyed a third of relic string forests. Realization of the scale of losses came only very recently.

This year a governmental decree created two natural reserves having the status of highly protected by the government. Reserves include the string forests growing in Pavlodar and Eastern Kazakhstan regions.

The first reserve – Ertys Ormany (Irtysh forests) includes two forests management units – Chaldai and Beskargai. The second reserve – Semei Ormany (Semipalatinsk forests) contains 10 forests management units.

Establishment of forests reserves represents the first part of the project aimed at preservation and sustainable development of forests in Kazakhstan. In general international financial agencies are ready to provide Kazakhstan with required billions of tenge to support forestry reconstruction and development. Delineation of specific highly protected territories represents the key funding requirement. The World Bank is ready to provide 30 million USD for 30 years to implement the project aimed at restoration of string pine forests where commercial lumber production has been discontinued. If the project is approved financing will start in 2005.

However, even this year experts expect a significant decrease in the number of forest fires which were often caused by deliberate acts (commercial enterprises were allowed to work in burnt down portions of forests). Now forest maintenance units will work in the burnt down areas and all income will be spent to finance restoration projects.

Let’s also mention some other projects implemented in the framework of the forests restoration program funded by international financial institutions.

For example, wild apples conservation project implemented in the woods of south eastern Kazakhstan. Barbarous commercial activities on the slopes of Zailiiskii Alatau have put wild apple trees at the brink of extinction.

Global Ecological Foundation (GEF) and United Nations Development Program (UNDP) allocated 230 thousand USD to implement restoration and conservation projects in Ile-Alatau national park – home to most of the wild apple trees.

Another forests-related project financed by UNDP and GEF is aimed at biodiversity preservation in Kazakhstan’s Altay region, which accounts for 50% of all the nation’s forests.

As a result of Oasis project there is now a green zone near the town of Aralsk preventing the spread of salt and sand from the open Aral Sea bed to the near by towns and villages.

Zhanartau project has been implemented in Southern Kazakhstan region preventing further soils degradation in Otrar region.

Overall in the framework of the small grants program working in Kazakhstan since 1997 Global Ecological Foundation has financed 57 environmental protection projects involving local populations.

<< BACK ::