COMMUNITY, FORESTS AND PASTURES in Kyrgyz Republic World Bank, KAFLU and GIZ Study Asyl Undeland 11 March, 2015

Objective and Methodology The objective is to enhance knowledge for understanding the institutional, legal, and operational issues in forestry sector to support reforms The methodology used: survey and case study conducted by the KAFLU in 4 leskhozes, baseline study by the UNIQUE/GIZ Review of legislation, data and documents related to forest management and use

Important Figures Forests in Kyrgyzstan are scarce: Forests have designated by law only protective function. Commercial timber felling prohibited in all forests, and sanitary felling fully prohibited in walnut and juniper forests. The demand in timber is not met: minimal annual demand for timber is 400,000-500,000 m3, but only 25,000 m3 come from maintenance cutting, 67,500 m3 imported from Russia, about 40,000-50,000 m3 illegally smuggled. One third of stoves and heating systems in country are on charcoal/fuelwood The direct economic contribution of the forests is extremely low, making 265,200,000 KGS (about US$ 5 mln) or 0.2 percent of the total agricultural output in Kyrgyzstan in 2013. Forest covered area Including Ha % Forest-covered area of the SFF and protected areas Forest-covered areas outside of the SFF and protected areas 1,164,065 5.61 839,560 4.22 277,000 1.39

Major Findings: Communities near forests are poor, use forest mostly for grazing livestock, collection of nuts and fruits About 2.4 million of population lives near forests and depends on its resources Share of various land lease fees in total FE revenue in 2013 (%)

Most important forest related sources of livelihoods: 1st Livestock grazing, 2nd Hay making, 3rd Timber and fuelwood, 4th collection of nuts and fruits

Forests Management: Shortcomings are manifest Shortage of human, financial and organizational resources: Financial: In 2013 allocation from state budget for forestry was about US$2.3 mln, which makes about 0.15% of the overall country’s state budget. Revenue from the use of resources was another US$2.35 mln. About 67% is spent on salaries and social payments Human resources: 836 persons, with 2,150-3,500 ha per ranger in mountainous rough terrain The management system is hierarchical and inflexible, comprised of four tiers: SAEPF Department of Forest Ecosystems and Specially Protected Areas seven Territorial Divisions for Environmental Protection and the Development of Forestry Ecosystems, 41 Leskhoz and separate 8 Lesnichestvo 202 Lesnichestvos, with 978 Obhod- ranges.

FORESTRY SECTOR PERFORMANCE: CLIENT SATISFACTION Survey results show that there is illegal timber felling and fuelwood harvesting in all areas Information dissemination by the FE is insufficient: People think than information dissemination by the leskhoz is still weak –almost half of respondents think that they are either never or rarely informed by the forestry on decisions made  People think that FE is not always fair in its decision making. 56% of respondents were not sure if leskhoz always make fair decisions, 9% think that it never make fair decisions (9%), 6% think that sometimes FE can be unfair (6%). Some people think that there is corruption in the forest management system (22% think so and 41.7% did not want to respond to that questions).

There are strong economic, social and environmental rationales for forest reforms Forests important for a poorest segment of the population. Second, there are important ecological changes happening, most notably due to climate change and its effects Poor protection of the resource leads in some cases to damaging levels of exploitation Finally, the existing management systems are clearly inadequate for efficient, equitable, and effective use of the resources, yet there is a clear path towards how such management could be improved within the context of overall positive economic returns from such enhanced management.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR BETTER FOREST MANAGEMENT: Recommendations from communities Communities think that making legal framework better and tougher, increasing salaries of the working level Leskhoz staff and joint forest management of Leskhoz with communities would improve forest management

OPPORTUNITIES FOR BETTER FOREST MANAGEMENT: Recommendations for Project Policy and legal and operational framework A holistic cross-sectoral approach – landscape based - factoring in all uses of areas in strategy and legislation The incentive structures for leskhoz should be improved by revising their administrative and financing frameworks with greater autonomy and financial incentives would provide leskhozes with resources for operations. Governance mechanisms reflected in legislation and in processes

OPPORTUNITIES FOR BETTER FOREST MANAGEMENT: Recommendations for Project Improving capacity and operating procedures: The knowledge base for forestry management: Inventory and mapping with the use of RS and GIS for better planning and monitoring Forestry extension support to forestry personnel and to communities in regards (afforestation techniques, efficiency of water use, processing technologies for NTFP) Afforestation for public goods Public- private partnership for commercial afforestation Public- community partnership 1) in a landscape with multiple uses to ensure wider participation, such as where there is livestock grazing, timber felling, haymaking and other uses. 2) high value products to address poverty; 3) where conflicts is acute- pastures