KAMEL CHORFI, ENGREF, NANCY, CO-ORDINATOR ith participation of Jean–Guénolé CORNET, Gabriella ROESLE, ENGREF, Nancy Aybek NADYRBEKOV, SFS, Rahat MURZAKMATOVA, FRI & Ormon SULTANGAZIEV, AUB, Bishkek
THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT FOR SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF JUNIPER FORESTS IN SOUTH KYRGYZSTAN: THE VIEW FROM THE LOCAL POPULATION
September 2004 Kamel CHORFI, ENGREF, Nancy, Co-ordinator with participation of Jean–Guénolé CORNET, Gabriella ROESLE, ENGREF, Nancy Aybek NADYRBEKOV, SFS, Rahat MURZAKMATOVA, FRI & Ormon SULTANGAZIEV, AUB, Bishkek
THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT FOR SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF JUNIPER FORESTS IN SOUTH KYRGYZSTAN: THE VIEW FROM THE LOCAL POPULATION
September 2004
2 The Co-ordinator:
Born in 1964, Kamel CHORFI has graduated in USSR with a “Master in forest engineering” from the Voronej Forest Technical Institute (VLTI). From 1990 to 2002, he successively acted as the head of the Forest Management Department in the Regional Office of Forest Development (ORDF) in Batna (Algeria), as Project Manager in the Hungary-Canadian wood processing entreprise PATELLA in Budapest (Hungary), as a scientific assistant in the Agro-Forest Management Society, SAFA-Aurès (Algeria), and as the head of technical department in the Agricultural Concessions Society (SCA) in Batna (Algeria). In 2003, Kamel CHORFI obtained a “Master in wood science” from the French Institute of Forestry, Agricultural and Environmental Engineering (ENGREF). He is currently scientific assistant of the JUMP project and doctoral applicant at the Laboratory of Forest Policy, ENGREF, Nancy, specialising on the social and economic aspects in forest management plans elaboration.
Laboratoire de Politique Forestière de l’Ecole Nationale du Génie Rural, des Eaux et des Forêts (ENGREF) Nancy, France. Front cover: Village land use mapping with local population at Alai leshoze.(photo Nathalie Cornet-Willefert, 2004). JUMP, a project funded by the European Union and implemented by the French Institute of Forestry, Agricultural and Environmental Engineering (ENGREF). This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of ENGREF and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.
Printed in France - September 2004
3 CONTENTS
Forewords………...…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...5
Chapter 1: VILLAGE LAND USE PLANNING USING PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL AS A TOOL FOR INVOLVING PEOPLE IN FOREST MANAGEMENT ISSUES ………………………………………………………………………………………..…..…………7
1.1 The Village Land Use Planning (VLUP)………………………………….……………………………………7 a) Need of new approaches to promote Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)………7 b) Village Land Use Planning principles………………………………..………………………………………………8 c) Village Land Use Planning process description………………………………………………………….…11 d) Development of management plans…………………………………………………………………………………18 e) Implementation and monitoring of management plans ……………………….…………………….. 22
1.2 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)………………………………………………………….………………... 23 a) Principles of Participatory Rural Appraisal …………………………………………………………..……… 23 b) Participatory Rural Appraisal tools ……………………………………………………………………….……….. 23
1.3 The VLUP process as implemented in Juniper forests in S.Kyrgyzstan……….……26 a) Time table of concrete action ……………………………………………………………………………………………26 b) Work organisation ….………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………27
Chapter 2: THE RULES OF ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 31
2.1 Local administration inherited from the USSR system …………………………………………. 31 a) Local administrative pattern ….…………………………………………………………………..………….…………… 31 b) Mining conflicts between local administrations …………………………………………………..………. 32
2.2 Partial lands privatisation …..……………………………………………………………………………………….…… 33 a) Former land repartition .………………………………………………………………………….………………………….... 33 b) Agricultural land privatisation ……………………………………………………………..………………………..…...34 c) No change of status for forests and pastures …………..………………………………………………………36
2.3 Severe control of the forest fund …..………………………………………………………………………….…….36 a) Legal access to forest resources………………………………………………………………………………….………36 b) Forbidden access to forest resources ………………………………………………………………………………...38 c) The case of irrigated lands on the forest fund ……………………………………………………..………….38
4 2.4 Access to administrative fund mainly limited by natural factors …………………………38 a) Agricultural lands allocation ……………………………………………………………………………………………...38 b) Pastures and forests located on administrative fund ..………………………………………..…………39
2.5 The social organisation .……………………………………………………………………………………………….……39 a) Local stakeholders analysis ……………………………………………………………………………….………………..39 b) Identification of interest groups .………………………………………………………………………………………..40 c) Social organisation at local level .………………………………………………………………………………………42
Chapter 3: THE USE OF LAND AND FOREST RESOURCES AT VILLAGE LEVEL…………..43
3.1 Local dependence on naturel resources …………………………………………………………………….…43 a) Land use: farming versus livestock raising ..…………………………………………………………..……...43 b) Wood products use: firewood and timber .…………………………………………………………………….45 c) Other goods and services from forests ……………………………………………………….……………………49
3.2 Establishment of villages profiles .………………………………………………………..………………………..49 a) Highest villages (type 1) ………………………………………………………………………….………………………….50 b) Medium villages (type 2) ….………………………………………………… ……………………………………………..50 c) Lowest villages (type 3) …………………………………………………………………………..…………………………..51
Chapter 4: DIRECTIONS FOR A SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT INVOLVING LOCAL PEOPLE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..….53
4.1 Logic to cope with current issues …………………………………………………………………………………..53 a) Need of cheap energy .………………………………………………………………………………………………………….53 b) Need of wood for construction …………………………………………………………………………….…………..54 c) Need of any sources of goods and incomes ..………………………………………………………………….54 d) Patent inequity of power .…………………………………………………………………………………….………………55 e) Curb on rural development ..……………………………………………………………………………………………..…55
4.2 Tracks for possible improvement ……………………………………………………………………………………56
4.3 Concrete hypothesis for development at village level ……………………………………..………...59 a) General improvement of the current use of Juniper firewood ……………………………..……59 b) Management hypothesis for each village type ..………………………………………………….………….72
Conclusion ………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………….75 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….76 Annexes……………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..….…77
5
FOREWORDS
In a permanent search for sustainability, forestry activities cannot be conducted separately from the needs expressed by the stakeholders. This is why forest management is to be based on a sincere and complete association of local people to forestry interventions with the aim of getting foresters and local population both realise that the participation of everybody is absolutely needed for a successful action. In the case of the Juniper forests in South Kyrgyzstan, where poor economic conditions (lack of energy resources and unemployment) force local people to use the natural resources in an irrational and excessive way, there is an urgent need to find out adapted measures to stop the depletion and promote sustainability. The association of local users to the proposed solutions is urgently required. This is why one of the main objectives of the European Union JUMP project through the introduction of Integrated Management Plans, is to take into consideration the human pressure on forest, the local needs, the present socio-economic conditions and the expectations at village level, the local users being considered as final beneficiaries. The methodology developed through the European Union JUMP project for this purpose is the Village Land Use Planning (VLUP), already experimented in other countries with similar conditions. It consists in participatory procedures that aim at finding commonly accepted solutions among foresters and villagers, taking into consideration not only the forest itself, but also the activities which are carried out at the level of the whole local society. A compromise indeed has to be established between the ecological need to ensure the sustainability of the ecosystem, the economic requirements from the Forestry Department to guarantee the viability of forest management, and the social demands from the local users. These integrated management plans are intended to provide goods and services to local people without decreasing the potential of the resource for the future generations. For such a purpose, the involvement of local population is absolutely needed in the technical, economic and social actions to be carried out. Such management plans established in a participatory way alone will ensure the sustainability of the resource for the benefit of the future generations.
Prof. Gérard BUTTOUD ENGREF, Nancy, France 6 7 CHAPTER 1
VILLAGE LAND USE PLANNING USING PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL AS A TOOL FOR INVOLVING PEOPLE IN FOREST MANAGEMENT ISSUES
1.1 The Village Land Use Planning (VLUP) a) Need of new approaches to promote Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)
In many developing countries all over the world, economy weaknesses and social dissension have resulted in an irrational use of the natural resources. Forests may represent one of the main concerns in this regard, since they are at the mean time particularly vulnerable and of great interest for the society. They provide many goods to the local population and ensure key environmental, economic and social roles.
To find out adapted measures to prevent forest depletion and promote sustainability, forest management has to take into account the human pressure on forest, local needs, present socio-economic conditions and expectations from the local users. This means that local people is to be involved in order to reverse this decline by planning their forest land use as a community. In this respect, decision makers need to understand and strongly take into consideration the multiple needs and uses of this resource by the society, and primarily by the local population living in and around wooded areas. Indeed, rural communities are generally the first ones depending on forest resources for their daily life, and thus are the first to be affected by such degradation. Furthermore, the Forestry Department can no longer take the sole responsibility for the management of forests, since it has not the capacity to ensure the integrity of resources in the future.
The purpose of the Integrated Management Plans to be introduced with the EU JUMP project in the Juniper forests of South Kyrgyzstan, is therefore to raise the local communities’ awareness and ownership of forest resources, and to make them understand that they need to protect forests for their own interest.
8 Previous experiences prove that a necessary means to achieve this goal is to involve the local stakeholders into forest management, and to consider them as a main actor. Another lesson drawn from experience is that forests can not be considered and managed separately from other natural resources used by local communities, such as pastures or agricultural lands, since the use of one resource often affects the others. The main methodological concern is to find out effective approaches and tools to bring local communities together with State representatives for a better management of forest. In this respect, many innovative techniques used for planning at community level have been tested in various forestry projects. One of these techniques is Village Land Use Planning(VLUP). The objective of the VLUP is re-designing the respective roles of forest services and rural population for a better management of natural resources, stating the rights and duties of each interest group. b) Village Land Use Planning (VLUP) principles
The VLUP is based on the following principles: • Participation: villagers are the users of the land and thus should be involved in planning their future uses. The forest services have to support the villagers and make them committed and responsible related to the required management activities. This means that the forest services are not there to dictate what villagers have to do, but they have to co-ordinate activities derived from people needs on the condition that these activities do increase or maintain the productivity of the ecosystem.
• Social organisation: different people in a village make different uses of the land/forest. Therefore, the task of improving the productivity of the forest area and preventing it from degradation can only be implemented if villagers work together, are willing to compromise, organise themselves in order to increase the capacity to solve their conflicts. This needs an existing structure at local level for dialogue and organisation.
• Controlled use: sustainable use of forest/land requires a proper timing and localisation of uses in the right intensity, commitment of all users and adherence to locally determined rules and regulations. For this reason, VLUP should define which areas are to be used, how, when and by whom.
• Agreed distribution of rights, concessions and obligations among stakeholders: if one group in the village feels that they are unfairly treated as for the access or other benefits, they may not feel committed to the management plan and not follow its rules and regulations. That is why stakeholders, through negotiation, should agree on who will do what, where and when. It should be also agreed how benefits will be distributed.
9 • Integrated approach: the activities in the whole village area and the interaction between different forms of land use need to be analysed and planned together in order to get a coherent decision making process.
• Gender specific: during the Village Land Use Planning, attention is paid to the different roles of men and women in land use. In every society women and men do different things, have access to different resources and benefits, and have different responsibilities (these differences are rooted in social organisation, cultural beliefs and values). VLUP should pay a special attention to women contribution.
VLUP is a set of flexible procedures that structures the co-operation between the forestry services and the villagers in order to assist each other in the development and implementation of management plans to increase and sustain the productivity of vegetation (trees, shrubs, grass…) for their benefits. For this, the establishment of management plans has to be based on both expertise and participation to determine their content, by using specific data collection, analysis and planning tools.
10 Figure n°1: The methodology of the social approach: the VLUP
Social forestry
To give the villagers guidelines on what they can do to counter the degradation process and improve land management, and what assistance the forest services could provide.
VLUP
Objectives A tool to assist the local population to increase and sustain the productivity of vegetation for their benefits.
Management plans focuses on the access to land and land use, which contents are determined by :
The potential Bio-physical management activities opportunities ( Establishment and Participatory maintenance activities) Rural Socio-economic Appraisal opportunities The needs and wishes ( PRA ) of the land users
What people do, Constraints in need, want and what the village inhibits to reach what they want ?
Development and implementation of management plans to control the use of the area by the villagers themselves.
11 c) The Village Land Use Planning process description
The VLUP is structured in five phases which are: preparation, analysis of village land use, social organisation, development of management plans, implementation and monitoring. Through this process, local villagers come to feel ownership of the plans. This means that there is a chance they will implement them willingly, and that the activities and impacts will be sustainable. The involvement of both villagers and forest services means that realistic technical solutions to the problems can be decided on.
Preparation
The preparation phase gives the opportunity to build up confidence between the villagers and the forest services. The preparatory activities start in several villages in which forest land uses in the neighbouring of Juniper forests are obvious. The initial stage of this phase is based on information from the field (collected before by forest services…). The activities concentrate on collection of basic, factual data for making a village profile, awareness raising about the land degradation process and social forestry promotion, and explanation of the VLUP process.
• Initial data collection: the VLUP team needs a basic understanding of the situation of the villages or the project area. To this end, the team starts its fieldwork by analysing the situation, especially those elements related to socio- economic and natural resources aspects. Among the essential elements to cover, the team considers the following: - the population and the number of families of a community, - the ethnic composition, - some indications on the population growth, - some information on any long term or seasonal migration of villagers to areas outside their usual boundaries, - information on the main occupations of villagers and their sources of income, - some indications on poverty levels in the villages (try to identify how many families in the planning area are considered poor, average…).
• Awareness raising: is essential to convince villagers of the need to do something to stop the degradation process of the juniper forests. In this respect, the VLUP team prepares a programme of meetings to be held in all locations of the village, in order to establish a basis of confidence and understanding for future intervention in the whole village. The VLUP team makes sure that the influential people attend the meetings and not hold meetings with the same people all the time, otherwise people might lose interest in the project. During this stage, the message to be transmitted includes problems, reasons and effects of forests degradation. 12 • Social forestry promotion: the meetings present social forestry as a means to tackle the degradation process of Juniper forests. The explanation of the social forestry aims at indicating management options in establishment, maintenance and harvesting for various vegetation types, and gives the villagers a clue about what they can do to counter the degradation process, improve land management and what assistance the forest services can provide.
The VLUP team organises promotion meetings in the field in order to ensure the quality of work and make sure that the interest of the villagers in the project is real (acceptance by major sections in the village of the VLUP principles and objectives to work towards : participation, controlled use, agreed distribution of rights, concessions and obligations…).
Analysis of village land use
Only when it is known what the villagers do and want, and what they can really do, it is then possible to assist them in improving their situation (improvement of the productivity of their village area). In this respect, this second phase of VLUP includes three groups of activities: • Preparatory activities: this preparation allows the VLUP team to reflect upon data already available and focus their attention on major issues and all relevant user groups: - Preparation of basic village map: visit the village and trace its boundaries. During this visit the team can ask some interested villagers to help by walking around and indicating boundaries, and also inform the elders of the village on the provisionnal programme of data collection in the village. It draws transects on the map to indicate the walking routes for field observations. It is very important to make sure that different land uses are crossed, and all the areas used for grazing, wood collecting and grass cutting are covered.
- Definition of interest or user groups in the village: The formulation of different interest groups in a village may differ per village. These can be defined basing on the following (3) criteria: land tenure-ownership, location and major source of income.
- Exchange and reflection on existing information and key-issues: The VLUP team deserves further attention to the following key-issues for social forestry: - the use of trees, grass and shrubs of forest and farmlands, - presence/dependence of livestock in the area, - marketing of wood/ shrub/grass and other products, - major sources of income per user group, - land and forest tenure arrangement,
13 - social organisation, - present forest activities on private and communal lands, - rules and regulations concerning land management, - the role of women.
• Planning of the field programme: The VLUP team makes a schedule for field work and invites the identified user groups (both men and women) to the introductory village meeting, which timing and location might however be adjusted basing on the data and information collected during the first field visit.
Data collection
The data collection programme starts with an organised meeting in the village, in order to explain: - the objectives of the project, - the activities of this phase, - the expected involvement of the villagers (including women), - the expected result of this phase.
It is especially important that the villagers understand what the VLUP team have communicated to them, why they are asked and why they are supposed to attend the meetings. Before starting to make observations, the team has to: - Identify the position on the map, - Indicate on the map the boundaries between forest and agricultural fields, privately or communally owned lands, - Distinguish areas with different forms of vegetation and plantations, - Indicate the grazing routes and areas which are used for grazing, grass cutting or wood collecting, - Indicate areas that are disputed (take a note of who are the parties in conflict).
The VLUP team begins the field work by walking the routes and transects as indicated on the basic map. During this walks it makes observations and indicates boundaries between different types of land use or vegetation on the map. Alongside these observations, the team interviews villagers passing on the way or farmers working in the field. The questions address the key– issues (use, purchase and sales of trees, grass and shrubs or other products of the forest ; presence of livestock in the area ; major sources of income…) by using the What, Where, When, Who, How and Why. The result of interviewing depends on the manner the interview is performed. For this reason, some rules are respected during this operation:
14 - Do not start a meeting with questions but make a chat to put the villagers at ease, - In order to obtain answers, it is important to ask questions as neutral and understanding as possible (do not ask threatening questions like: why do you steal the wood from the forest?), - Avoid questions the villagers have only to answer with yes or no, - In order to get further information on the issue, continue by asking using complementary questions like: How do you mean? Can you tell us more about that? Anything else?…
It is important that the VLUP team daily checks the data obtained. Basing on this, the team has to focus on the development of an activity profile in alternation with interviews, in order to show the division of tasks among men, women and children.
In order to learn from the villagers what they perceive as major problems and let them think about the reasons for these problems and opportunities to solve them ; the VLUP team makes a problem census, analysis and solutions exercises.
To get the most reliable information, the team organises meetings per interest group (already defined during the preparation phase). To maximise attendance and participation, meetings are to be hold in places where the interest groups live. The meetings per interest groups include the four following steps: • Introduction: the team takes the opportunity to introduce again the project and the VLUP process and gives an explanation of the purpose of the meeting, emphasising that the team wants to learn from villagers about their major problems concerning forest land management. • Problem census: After dividing the participants in separated groups, the VLUP team explains them the main question which they have to answer: Which problems do you have with use of forest? When each group has written answers, the team summarises them in a common list and ask each group again to assign priority to the problems (which problem they find most important, which second, third...). • Problem analysis and formulation of solutions: the VLUP team asks the participants to form again their same groups in order to discuss the problems they listed before by answering to the next key questions: - Why do you have this problems? - How can you solve it? • Summary and conclusion: the VLUP team concludes the meeting with a summary of the mentioned problems, causes and possible solutions. A team member ends the meeting by explaining villagers that they have learned a lot from them, thank them for the contribution, and inform them that the team will come back to their suggestions during future discussions concerning constraints and opportunities for improving forest management. 15 Data processing and analysis
After data collection, the information from different sources (key-issues based on data from the observations in the field, interviews, meetings…) is combined, cross- checked and discussed among the whole VLUP team and with the villagers. Exchanging the data gives an idea on management objectives, organisation and management opportunities.
In order to create a common framework for discussion, the VLUP team starts this session with the general description of the village's social composition, organisation, land rights and conflicts. The discussion ends with the problems, analysis and solutions as perceived by all stakeholders and by the VLUP team. The results of data processing includes the following points: • Description: describes the social organisation and composition of the village, land rights, rules, regulations and conflicts. This information provides the basic background of the situation in the village. • Land use map, land ownership and control map: indicates the vegetation and present forest/land use (such as areas used for wood collecting, grass cutting, grazing…), the areas with different tenure arrangement or areas under control of specific interest groups. This tool provides information on which future decisions concerning management will be based, and gives an idea about management objectives and activities as proposed by all the stakeholders if they are realistic or not. • Activity profiles: includes activity profiles of men, women and children per interest group. • Land use matrix: describes the use of trees, grass and shrubs per interest group. Any future intervention might change the actual use. To judge the feasibility of the changes it is necessary to understand what should be changed and why. • List of products and table on sale and purchase: indicates the products, preferences, reasons and estimates income value per interest group (includes information on present consumption and eventually projected needs). This tool gives an indication of the importance of products per stakeholder: increasing of value and income of these products might be one of the major management objectives to be discussed. • Summary of the problems and solutions: as formulated by the villagers.
Social organisation
In social forestry the villagers are responsible for improving the forest land management. This might be realistic only if the various interest groups in the village are willing to compromise, organise themselves, and feel committed to improve the productivity of the forest area and prevent it from degradation.
16 The mains activities in this phase are:
• Analysis of social relationships: assist in understanding the way that the social relationships are organised around forest. For this reason, detailed data on social relationships has to be collected, processed and thoroughly analysed. The following points have to be considered: - influential people or interest groups, - composition of land property groupings, - conflicts related to land property, land management or other issues (among owners, among tenants and between owners and tenants ), - interests and motives of various groupings for participation or not in forest management activities.
• Representative village organisation: community organisations may be defined as groups of people who have rationale for working together in order to achieve a goal. In social forestry, it is believed that they are one of the key to successful projects. This is the reason why the VLUP team considers the following question: do we have, or could we build an organisation which would be representative for the community and could carry out the objectives of the project?
To this end, the VLUP team, in collaboration with the forest services, identifies the existing (formal and informal) community organisations in the area of the project, especially those which address issues relating to land and natural resources use, and analyse their degree of cohesion within the community, identify the key individuals in the community who influence village life, find out how they came into this position and their potential to take on responsibilities.
This kind of organisation provides mechanisms and procedures through which villagers need can be identified, management measures negotiated and worked out, interests of the various stakeholders reconciled and agreements on use and management reached.
The role of this organisation also allows to control the use of the natural resources in the village in order to increase or sustain the productivity of ecosystem, supports the development of management plans and ensures its implementation. If a new organisation (committee) is proposed, the procedure of creating consists of two main steps: - Informing the villagers: the VLUP team asks agreement of the influentials for the constitution of the representative village organisation, and informs them about the necessity to nominate representatives interested in the project, willing to work for the community, acceptable to the villagers, allowed to take decisions on forest/land management after consulting their groups and able to create support for the taken decisions.
17 - Meetings: the team attends meetings of selected groups in order to explain them the aim of the project, the objectives, the role and the importance of the organisation, the role and tasks of representatives, the steps in the planning process and also a consultation about needs, wishes and desired vegetation.
• Identification of general needs, wishes and desired (wanted) vegetation: the needs of villagers are taken into account. For this reason, the VLUP team discusses with the representative village organisation the wishes, needs and desired vegetation in the whole area.
To get a picture of what people want, the team makes a goal statement exercise which consists of 2 main parts: First, let the representative village organisation discuss the following key questions: - how they would like to see their area (forest, lands…) in the future? - what products they want from the forest? - which location of the forest should produce which products? - what changes in present forest/land use are needed to realise this production?
Second, the VLUP team checks further through the goals using some complementary questions such as: - why do they want to produce these kind of products? - is it for their own use or for commercial purposes? - if they want to sell, to whom would they like to sell? - what would they like to do with the money? - would they also mobilise other resources for the same purpose?
The changes in forest/land use and increases in productivity are meant to solve the problems mentioned during the problem census (phase 2).
In order to see if the proposed changes will contribute to improving the situation, the team presents the results of the problem census which have been made by the villagers during the data collection, and continues the analysis of these problems by asking: Why, where, what, with whom, when and how these problems occur? how was the situation, why it was different and what caused these changes?
Then, the team checks if the proposals improve or aggravate the situation.
18 d) Development of management plans
Three main purposes of drafting management plans are taken into account:
Figure n°2 : Main purposes for drafting management plans
1 To discuss and formulate options for improved management
The timing and the All stakeholders right intensity of use involved
2 Description of timing of use 3 To make decision and to come to with the appropriate intensities an agreement on controlled (quantity) management
Inform people Local use and practices
The present condition of vegetation and terrain Who? Is allowed to use What? The local needs With what Constraints and How When? obligations? opportunities in the much? management unit
Serve as Guide the An agreed upon monitoring and implementation Management evaluation tool of improved plan management activities
Improves chances of increasing productivity of vegetation and sustainability
19 Identification of management units
The VLUP develops an integrated approach implying attention to the interaction among different uses, and vegetation within and between areas (for example: grazing in area where also Juniper trees are growing ).
Such an integrated approach requires a broader perspective than just considering a specific area for a specific use. To define the level of integration, the most important possibility is to form a closed group that will contribute to manage the area and also reap the benefits. This limited area is called management unit.
In most of the cases, a management unit includes different vegetation types and different uses at the same time. For determination and prioritisation of their management units, the VLUP team checks the most likely management units on the basis of information about ownership, users and forest/land use as well as the limits of the use areas.
Based on the above, it is decided upon the appropriate management units. In principle, the village area is considered as a management sub-unit. In order to assign priorities to the units, many factors are taken into account: - needs or type of products required and preferred by villagers, - capacity of the forest services to tackle these areas, - absence of major conflicts and opportunities for implementing controlled use, and an agreement upon distribution of rights and duties in the unit.
After identification and definition of management sub-units, it is necessary for the VLUP team to organise a meeting with the representative village organisation to assist them to formulate the rules and regulations for functioning in order to reach an agreement, because sustainable management according to the project might be insured only if users agree upon management objectives and activities. Among the issues to be discussed: the role of the members, the way to take decision, to resolve conflicts and the selection of management positions.
In this respect, the VLUP team together with the representative village organisation members: makes a list of all the users of the management unit, checks the land ownership, checks the use of the area, updates the social relationship matrix (presence of conflicts…).
Based on this information the team holds meetings with the various users groups in order to discuss the objective and the procedure of making a management plan.
20 Data collection in the management unit
Before starting to collect data, it is necessary for the VLUP team to explain to the representative village organisation the objectives of drafting management plans and the need for controlled use to stop the depletion of the resources, and discuss the present condition of the vegetation, the reasons for its present state and its consequences, in order to make them aware of the necessity of management plans.
The data collection starts by dividing the management unit in sub-units basing on three main points: description of the present situation, opportunities and local management knowledge and skills:
Figure n°3: Data collection in management units
Local management 1 Description 2 Opportunities 3 (Options for improvement) knowledge and skills
Area
Vegetation cover For improving the (Dominant species, productivity of the presence or absence of vegetation Vegetation species…) maintenance practices and uses Vegetation conditions ( healthly, overgrazed,…) Vegetation harvesting practices Terrain conditions ( aspect, erosion, limiting factors…) Social and economic Possibilities benefits of & constraints the local population
Identification of management activities
The VLUP team, the forest services and the representative village organisation sit together to discuss the results of the previous stage (data collection) and also prepare a meeting (in the field) which will principally relate with the content of the management plan, the formulation of management objectives, management activities and time schedule.
21 Figure n°4: Management activities
Formulation of Formulation of Content of the management objectives management activities management plan
- Which activities could management objectives be undertaken to produce agreed upon by all - Which products are needed? of which the needed and desired stakeholders vegetation ? products? - Where do they think these products Activities per sub-unit should be produced and why? Product to be produced - How should they use the area to produce What they would these products? ( according to management need to produce objectives) - What changes do they need in their these? present forest/land use to implement the Inputs to provide and proposed uses? expected outputs per Establishment & - Why do they need these products for? Is activity it for uses per user group, for own use, for maintenance interventions sales…? Calendar of activities (What to do and when ?) - How much do they need (estimation of Marketing & harvesting production)?
It is important for the VLUP team, together with the forest services and the representative village organisation, to evaluate all the proposed activities in order to verify if the proposed management options are: • feasible: will not limit the implementation of any of the others. • effective: will produce what is asked for.
In this respect, it is necessary to undertake an assessment of the proposed management plan by discussing these issues: • Are the proposed management options feasible in the area ? - Organisationally: Control tasks, authority… - Economically: cost/benefits. - Socially: controlled use by all interest groups. - Physically: species, products… • ill the proposed options and activities solve the problems mentioned in the problem census? Will they take into account and cover needs of all stakeholders? • Will management options make an optimal use of each area? • Do the proposed activities will help to improve the vegetation? • What could be the (negative) effects if some area will be closed for use (grazing, firewood collection…), and in which way these effects could be prevented?
22 Drafting of operational guidelines
The management plan is describing the management objectives, activities, inputs, outputs, timing and intensity of use in a particular area. In order to clarify all detailed actions (related to establishment, maintenance and harvesting activities), it is necessary to prepare guidelines in which actions, timing and intensity will be explained in detail. The process of the elaboration of the operational guidelines includes the following steps:
Figure n°5: Guidelines for the management activities
Step 1 Define Issues Which issue needs further elaboration considering: • What villagers already know? • What do they practise? • What are they supposed to do? Step 2 Define Who is concerned ? Which villagers will be affected by these guidelines. ( determine who will perform the identified activities)
The VLUP team conduct a meeting in the field in Step 3 Discussions order to discuss and agree upon the proposed guidelines.
The VLUP team together with the forest services and Step 4 Training the representative village organisation conduct a practical session on both technical and organisational training ( how to perform activities, decision making, conflict management… ) .
e) Implementation and monitoring of management plans
A continuous checking of implementation of management plans in the field is then needed in order to take informed decisions on activities, and if necessary in making adjustments. Monitoring takes place at two levels: village and forest services levels. It is the task of both forest services and the representative village organisation (villagers) as the main responsible managers and users of the area. During this phase, they check if what is done is agreed upon and if it leads to what was wanted to be reached. The answer to this question is to be based on data collection and analysis by checking of activities and their quality, transect walks to see terrain and vegetation conditions, interviews and meetings with villagers and interest groups and collecting of quantitative production data.
23 1. 2 Participatory Rural Appraisal ( PRA )
The methodology of VLUP goes beyond data collection and analysis involving participatory planning techniques and awareness raising activities. In this respect, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is considered as an effective tool for gathering information, especially in rural areas, basing on village experiences where communities effectively manage their natural resources. a) Principles of PRA
PRA aims motivating and enabling villagers to make their own appraisal, analysing their development potential, constraints and identifying common goals and objectives. Three key principles form the basis of PRA activity: • Participation: PRA relies heavily on participation by the local people, as the method is designed to enable villagers to be involved, not only as sources of information, but as partners in analysing the situation. • Flexibility: The combination of techniques is determined by material conditions, such as the time and resources available and the location of the work. • Team work: PRA works best when conducted by a team of various specialists, including female, speaking the local languages and with a few outsiders present.
The central part of PRA is interviewing: asking questions, listening to and recording the answers, and then posing additional questions to clarify or expand on a particular issue, systematically using the What, Where, When, Who, How and Why, in a way that respondents can fully express their own perceptions in their own words. The interviews aim at understanding the villagers view of a project and the logic of their judgments. b) Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools
There exist a wide range of participatory tools and techniques available which can be used according to the situation or needs. The most common PRA tools include : • Problem census: the objective is to collect information and make villagers aware of their problems, to learn from them what they perceive as their major problems in the management of forest/lands, and consequently to let them think about the reasons why the present problems and what opportunities in order to solve them. • Activity profile: it shows among all stakeholders the division of tasks among men, women and children. • Land use matrix: it indicates the use by villagers (or other user groups) of trees, shrubs and grass for fodder, fuel, construction or other purposes.
24 • Observation: in this technique, related indicators are used in the field to verify the collected information or to generate questions (for example, if the dung is used for cooking purposes, it means that there is a scarcity of firewood in the area). • Evaluation by ranking: three types of ranking techniques are commonly used in participatory evaluation: - Problem ranking: elicits villagers perceptions of the most important problems they face. - Preference ranking involves participants in assessing different items or options to be chosen, using criteria that they themselves identify. - wealth ranking: involves the community members in identifying and analysing the different wealth and social groups they are part of. This enables to learn more about the socio-economic conditions of the beneficiaries, as well as about local people's definitions and indicators for well-being. • Mapping techniques: as a result of PRA, mapping not only provides information about the physical characteristics of the community, but can also reveal much about the socio-economic conditions and how the participants perceive their community. The objectives of activity maps are: - to facilitate the participation of the various social sections in village or stakeholders (in relation to land use) in the planning, - to structure communication and facilitate the identification of the issues for negotiation between them, - to easily and correctly define the location of the activities to be carried out in the plan.
25 Figure n°6: Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), phases and tools
Organization of PRA Phase 1 Before fieldwork
Selection of Objective interdisciplinary team To identify topics, sub-topics or checklists on which to build Forester questions before going to the field Agriculturist How to carry out field works, which tools and Sociologist techniques to be applied for collecting the required information. Villagers Other experts Guidelines for collecting required information
Phase 2 During fieldwork
Villagers - oriented To obtain information on villagers knowledge, local customs and practices
Maintaining protocols Data collection by applying and rapport building tools and techniques • Collection of existing information, • For collecting reliable information, it • Interviews with villagers, is very important that the team • Observations in the field, develop communication and establish working relationships with villagers. • Group meetings, • Activity profiles, • A code of conduct of the team during the interviewing and • Land-use matrix, discussions with villagers. • Problem census. • Participatory mapping.
Phase 3 After fieldwork
A discussion should be Findings are presented Final report carried out inside the team at village level validated by both about the collected for comments, forest services information critics and suggestions and villagers
26 1.3 The VLUP process as implemented in Juniper forests in South Kyrgyzstan
a) Time table of concrete action
The basic rationale underlying VLUP is that the village community in this region shares a defined space in which strong social, economic and ecological interactions occur between the various forms of natural resources use. Thus, the villagers have an important challenge in the use of these resources and a vital interest in their effective, equitable and sustainable management. In the context of the JUMP project, the implementation is also structured in five phases. The three first phases are planned for the first year of the project (2004), to be completed during the two following years as shown on the following diagram: Figure n°7: Time table of the VLUP process implementation
Forest services VLUP villagers Process
Phases
1 2 3 4 5
Preparation Analysis of Social Development Implementation village land use organisation of management & monitoring plans To give the opportunity to To give the To bring the To guide the build up possibility to various To discuss and implementation confidence villagers about stakeholders formulate options of improved between the improvement of together by for improved management villagers and the productivity of showing them the management with all activities and to forest services their village area benefits they can interest groups serve as ( what they do and get if they start involved. monitoring and want and what they working jointly for To make decisions evaluation tool are able to do ) the same purpose and to come to an agreement on - Village selection controlled - General data - Data collection in - Analysis of management collection the village social - Awareness raising - Data processing relationships - Social forestry and analysis - Informing - Identification of management units promotion the villagers - Data collection in management units - Project introduction meetings - Identification of management activities The information - Identifica- available is - Drafting of management plans tion of needs - Drafting of operational guidelines discussed with the & wishes The role and villagers responsibilities of in order to get the villagers are conclusions The rights and duties of all defined with them for development stakeholders are specified
27 b) Work organisation
During three months of field work, the JUMP team, constituted with a mix group of 6 persons from the ENGREF, from the Forest Research Institute(FRI), the State Forest Service (SFS) and from the Agricultural University in Bishkek (AUB), worked successively in 7 Territorial Management Units (TMU - leshozes), performing VLUP on a sample of 19 villages, spread all over the Juniper zone in South Kyrgyzstan. The choice of the TMUs takes into account the geographical diversity and the availability of TMUs’ directors.
In each TMU, 2 to 5 villages were selected according to the following criteria: • Village location: the selected villages are situated around forests managed by the Forest Service. • Villager’s dependence on forest resources: in the selected villages, there is a strong link between the local population and the forests around. The villagers rely on forest resources for common needs. • Occurrence of conflicts: in the selected villages, severe conflicts happened in the past between foresters and the local population. • Village accessibility: the access to the most part of the selected villages was difficult. • Local forester availability: the foresters in charge of the selected villages could work with the VLUP team.
The team was generally divided into sub-groups, working in different villages of the same TMU. Each sub-group was including one member from ENGREF, one member from FRI, AUB or SFS and one or two local foresters. One week was devoted by village, with generally 2 to 4 days on the spot.
28 Figure n° 8: The field work methodology, VLUP concrete implementation
VLUP Team
1 member from ENGREF
Repartition in Sub-groups 1 member from FRI, AUB or SFS 1 or 2 local foresters (SFS)
At Territorial At the level of Management local Unit level administration
Based on PRA At village Techniques level
Main activities : Data collection, raising awareness of villagers and foresters
• Get all the staff • Introductory meeting with the local • Make the local informed and aware of population to introduce the team, its authorities aware of the JUMP project. relationships with the Forest Service, the presence of the • Gather foresters and ask the JUMP project and its objectives. team. Explain the them about their Convince people to support the project. JUMP project and its perceptions of forests, Build confidence. objectives. villages and the • Transect walking to get a better • Ask information about villagers’ uses of understanding of the villagers way of the main issues, the resources. life. It helps to raise new questions and social organisation, • Select with the Director to cross information.. and collect some data the villages for VLUP. • Meeting with interest groups to get concerning the village Prepare a basic map by more details and unbiased information selected for VLUP. village. (the weakest interest groups keep silent • Ensure the local in presence of local leaders). foresters will be present • Land mapping meeting to draw, at the with the VLUP team. end, the current land use in the village and to raise propositions for Based on improvements. The final map is PRA approved by all local leaders. Technique
Main activities : Data analysis, cross-check data among sub-groups
• Analyse of the current situation: how do villagers use lands and forest resources ? • Expected situation: in order to be sustainable, how should be the use of lands and forest resources? • Concrete actions to carry out: what is it possible to do at village level ?
29 Figure n° 9: Map showing the zone of the JUMP project and TMUs territories
OSH TMU Nookat TMU
Utch Kurgun Lailak TMU Batken TMU TMU Alai TMU Tshon Alai TMU
Map of the zone of the project showing the TMUs in which social and economic study have been carried out
Villages in which social and economic study have been carried out by the VLUP team Alai TMU Nookat TMU Utch Kurgun TMU Batken TMU Lailak TMU • Kitchi Boululu • Kara Oy • Maiden • Kaindi • Andarak • Tshon Boululu • Kaindi • Karaul • Sartala • Kok Tach • Kitchi Karakol • Koge Kelen • Austam • Gaz • Madaniat • Agart • Tamacha • Ak Bosogo • Kuturma
30 31 CHAPTER 2
THE RULES FOR ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION
2.1 A local administration inherited from the USSR system a) Local administrative pattern
There exist multiple State bodies at local level, inherited from the former system and still oriented towards control activities. The main ones are certainly the Aiyl-okmots, which can be compared with a town council, and the Forest Service. Among its various roles, the Ayil-okmot is in charge of the ‘administrative fund’, while the Forest Service is in charge of the ‘forest fund’. Besides these two organisations, other public institutions have less importance at local level. It is worth to quote the Gosregistor responsible for land registration and the Goscontrol in charge of livestock and natural resources control.
Aiyl-okmot
The word Aiyl-okmot refers both to the smallest administrative organ at local level and to the district this organ is responsible for. One Ayil-okmot gathers from 2 to 5 villages, generally located close one to each other in the same valley, which means that there is no formal decision taken at the village level. It is the place were most decisions are taken or need to transit trough. The main administrative building is located in the biggest village of the Ayil-okmot. It is led by the chief of the district, elected by the local population.
Most of the time, there is also one representative of Aiyl-okmot by village. He is chosen by the village population and is primarily in charge of collecting land tax and reporting to Aiyl-okmot. He may also be responsible for special tasks, such as helping families to prepare funeral or promoting local organisations. Though Aiyl-okmot can be compared as a town council, it has less autonomy. Despite the process of decentralisation initiated in the early 90s, it is still dependent on higher authorities.
32 For instance, Aiyl-okmot is responsible for administrative lands allocation to villagers, but needs to refer to regional administration to privatise bad lands and to Bishkek administration to privatise irrigated lands. As a matter of fact, there are no many conflicts between Aiyl-okmot and local people. Indeed, representatives are drawn from the local population and support local interests. For instance, the taxes established by Aiyl-okmot for renting administrative lands are always lower than the Forest Service taxes for the same services. This support from local administration to villagers may be at the expense of the foresters, who represent the second main public authority at local level.
Forest Service
The Forest Service in Kyrgyzstan is divided into Territorial Management Units (TMUs) formerly called leshozes or lesnitshestvas, in charge of the management of the forest fund. TMUs generally match with regions. They are State enterprises directly responsible for the control of natural resources and the implementation of forest management, and consequently, represent central actors at the local level. b) Mining conflicts between local administrations
At local level, the control of public lands is shared between Aiyl-okmot and leshoze, which may have different interests and appreciation of the importance of natural resources. The Aiyl-okmot council is elected for a limited period of time and tends to plan natural resources management only in the short-term. The purpose is less to preserve the resource rather than to get the best benefit from it, in a way that promotes local development and ensures the best support from local electors. For this reason, Aiyl-okmot generally facilitates local population access to administrative fund, sometimes at the expense of the resource itself.
On the contrary, the Forest Service chain of command ensures a severe control on forest management to prevent from overuse and degradation in the long run. Leshozes also get most of their incomes from the use of forest resources. Eventually, foresters take advantage of this authoritative position, which confers a really power. As a result, some conflicts spring between foresters on one side, and Aiyl-okmot or local people on the other side.
Problem of long-term leases transferred back to the forest fund
During the Soviet period, administrative lands were given to the State farms called sovkhozes (State farms) and kolhozes (community farms) while the forest fund, except from pastures, was theoretically devoted to forestry. However, in order to supply the demand for more pastures, more and more forests were transferred to sovhozes and kolhozes through long-term leases.
33 Because of new ecological concern, this trend was reversed from the 70s, but in the late 80s many lands devoted to forestry were still used for cattle to graze. With the breakdown of URSS and the drop in cattle size, these lands have been progressively given back to leshozes, at the end of the long-term leases.
However, these changes in land ownership from administrative to forest fund are source of many disagreements. While Aiyl-okmot used to make access to public land easy with small taxes for land use and weak control, taxes to leshozes are higher and foresters’ control much more stringent. As a result, local people do prefer to deal with Aiyl-okmot rather than with leshoze and claim to Aiyl-okmot to impede the transfer of long-term leases back to leshoze. As Aiyl-okmot supports local population, it sometimes results in conflicts.
Problem with land boundaries
There are also regular arguments concerning the boundaries between the administrative and forest funds. Since the USSR collapse, the numerous changes of land ownership have not always been registered and scarcely been marked on the field. The principle is that all lands suitable for farming belong to the administrative fund, while all forests belong to the forest fund. But in practice it is more complex and sometimes even local foresters may be confused on the exact location of the forest fund limits.
Overlapping functions between local administrations
Overlapping functions between local administrations are mainly related to control activities. They make bureaucratic redundancies, misunderstanding sometimes conflicts, for instance between the Forest Service and the Goscontrol, both responsible for forest control. In total, 4 administrative bodies aim at controlling the use of natural resources at local level.
2. 2 Partial lands privatisation a) Former land repartition
During the USSR period, private land property had been abolished. Apart from the small private garden automatically given to each family to build house –generally the best irrigated lands– all the territory had kept a public status. It used to be primarily divided between the forest fund (Gos-lesfond) controlled by leshozes, and the administrative fund (Gos-zemzapas). This distinction is mainly based on the following criteria: possibility of land irrigation, land slope, presence of forest and distance from village centre.
34 Generally speaking, all the irrigated lands as well as the most flat non-forested lands belong to the administrative fund. They are devoted to agriculture or haymaking. The closest pastures from villages, which are generally used in spring and autumn and sometimes in winter, are also part of the administrative fund. Most summer pastures situated high on mountains and the forested lands usually located on mountains slopes belong to the forest fund. Bad lands generally devoted to haymaking or sometimes to grow potatoes can be located both on administrative fund (around villages), and on forest fund (farther from villages). There is also a minor part of forests which belongs to the administrative fund.
Figure n° 10: The land repartition during Soviet period
Land type Forest fund Administrative fund Private lands Irrigated lands - ++ * + Bad lands ++ *- Pastures(spring, winter & autumn ) -++- Summer pastures ++ - - Forests ++ + - Unusable area (rock, water…) + + - (- absent ; present + ; many ++ ; * partly privatised after 1990 ) b) Agricultural land privatisation
The agrarian reform
The lack of agricultural lands is certainly one of the major limiting factors for local development. The reason comes from the topography of Kyrgyzstan, with only 7% of arable lands. As a result, every plot of land suitable for agriculture used to be registered, assigned to farming and strictly controlled.
In the early 90s, the collapse of USSR and the dislocation of public farms pushed up the privatisation of agricultural lands all over the country. With the closure of the few industries in countryside (mainly mining), farming and livestock raising remained more than ever the only means of existence in rural area, so that it was urgent to give State properties back to local people.
A new agrarian reform was voted and implemented in the whole Kyrgyzstan during the early 90s, to distribute cattle and the major part of kolkozes and sovkhozes agricultural lands to former workers. People living in cities were not given anything, but the rules of repartition in countryside were quite fair. In each Aiyl-okmot, 75% of all agricultural lands –bad lands and irrigated lands– were distributed per capita. The more children a family had, the more land it was given, the precise area of land received per capita depending on the total area to be allocated in each Aiyl-okmot.
35 The residual 25% remained to Aiyl-okmot to be used as a reserve for further village extensions. As long as they are not allocated, these spare plots are put on hire for the profit of the local administration.
Private gardens and “ uluch”
The agricultural lands privatised during the reform are locally called uluch. Each villager was allocated uluch of bad lands and uluch of irrigated lands. Depending on villages, the area of uluch allocated per capita turns around 0.05 to 0.10 ha for irrigated land, and 0.10 to 0.20 ha for bad lands. Together with the former private gardens, it consists in all the private lands in countryside.
Figure n° 11: Land repartition at village level
Lands repartition At village level At forest level
Forest fund lands Private lands Administrative lands Belonging to the Forest Belonging to the local Belonging to the local fund population Administrative fund (Gos Les Fund / Leshoz)
House + Vegetable garden According to : « Agarod »
Availability During In average USSR period 0.15 Ha / family Demand Collapse of More than Activities to the USSR 0.15 Ha / family undertake Actually About 0.07 Ha / family
« Uluch » lands Repartition Lands which belonged during seems USSR to Sovhozes and equitable Kolhozes. The repartition for No conflicts related to population was according to the repartition the quantity of members in of land at village level each family.
36 This land privatisation was done at the Aiyl-okmot level which ensures a fairer repartition among local communities. Indeed, in many places high on altitude there was no more free land. The scarce arable lands were already used for private gardens, and villagers were given plots from other villages of the same Aiyl-okmot, and sometimes from other Aiyl-okmots. Thus many local people were allocated uluch very far from their living places, that are not convenient to use. c) No change of status for forests and pastures
While most agricultural lands were privatised, all forests and pastures as well as the bad lands belonging to the forest fund kept the public status. As a matter of fact, no land from the forest fund was given to people. The access to forest resources and pastures has remained under the control of local administration or leshoze.
2.3 Severe control of the forest fund a) Legal accesses to forest resources
Summer pastures
All villagers are allowed to raise cattle on summer pastures around their living places, as long as they pay the tax for pasture to the leshoze. The amount paid is function of the size and kind of cattle: sheep, goats, horses, cows and yaks. Cattle owners agree with the local forester on a plot of pasture. In practice, there are only very few new comers. Most people are used to come on the same place every years and know each other. Access to pastures has scarcely been a source of conflicts since the drop of livestock size at the beginning 90s. Even if cattle have been increasing again over the last decades, there are still many unused pastures in the forest fund. The most protests come from the interdiction to build houses on pastures. Kyrgyz people traditionally live in “yurtas” or tents to breed cattle during the summer, but they now complain it is not convenient.
Lands for haymaking
It is rather the same structure as for pastures. Villagers rely first on private bad lands to make hay. If it is not enough, they agree with the local forester on a plot of land on the forest fund where to make hay, and pay a tax in function of the area used and the amount of hay collected. It can also be possible to rent lands for haymaking on the administrative fund. It depends on the local situation. Above 2,000 m of altitude, lands where to make hay are generally few and badly productive, demanding much more workforce, so that villagers usually prefer to buy the complement from other places.
37 Firewood collection
All families living in villages close to forests of the forest fund are allowed to collect a limited amount of firewood, as long as they pay the tax to leshoze. The quantity of wood given for collection per family goes generally from 1 to 3 m3/year, sometimes up to 6 m3/year, depending on the village.
In theory, the local forester allocates plots of forest where to pick up firewood, although in practice people concentrate wood collection in the closest forests from their living places. The volume of firewood given for collection is established by the leshoze, taking into account ecological requirements, but disregarding the local demand for cheap energy.
As a result, villagers pay annually for a few cubic meters but actually use much more. This discrepancy between the real needs of firewood and what people are allowed to collect, represents a major source of conflicts. In addition to that, the firewood collected should be only dead wood lying on the soil or being swept down by avalanches and water. The collection of branches, roots or any living wood, as the fact to exceed the few cubic meters allowed, is likely to be fined by local foresters.
Non Wood Forest Products (NWFP)
Legally, one needs to pay a tax to the leshoze to collect more than a limited amount of NWFP (mainly honey, mushrooms, wild berries and medicinal plants). In practice they are mainly used for domestic purpose and generally collected for free. Hunting like fishing are usually forbidden, so that NWFP scarcely represent significant incomes in rural area.
Figure n° 12: Amount of leases to use natural resources on the forest fund
Summer Hay Firewood Non wood forest pasture products
Payment Payment Payment per Modality of payment per capita per area amount
Cow: 30 som Logs : 150 No tax, or only for Average taxes Horse: 45 som 200 som/m3 honey making (it varies from one Goat: 45 som som/ha Brushwood : TMU to another) Sheep: 15 som 80 som/m3
The ‘som’ is the Kyrgyz currency. 1Euro = 50 som.
38 b) Forbidden access to forest resources
All Juniper forests in South Kyrgyzstan are under a strict protected status, which means that tree felling is everywhere forbidden. Even sanitary felling are reduced to nothing and need to be carried out by foresters only. Villagers themselves are never allowed to fell Juniper, even dead trees, and risk considerable fines if they break the law. On the other side, market price is very high because of the lack of wood for construction (about 8,000 to 10,000 som/m3).
Timbers imported from Russia result expensive for rural people and on the whole, apart form a small production of spruce in Alai, leshozes do not sell timber. Consequently, villagers rely only on private plantations for timbers…or break the law. c) The case of irrigated lands on the forest fund
By definition, irrigated lands take part into the administrative fund and not into the territory controlled by the Forest Service. However, there exist numerous small plots of watered lands included in the forest fund, that suit to agricultural activities. They are usually scattered on stream shore and flat places. Some of them (the largest and the most accessible) are already used by TMUs for tree-nurseries, or rent to villagers. But the most part remains unused or used illegally by the local population. The point is that these very small plots of irrigated lands (often just a few hundred square meters) are not convenient for the TMUs. They are not registered as watered lands and legally included in the surrounding pastures or forests, where farming is always forbidden. As a result, though they represent potential resources for the local population, these lands are scarcely developed.
2.4 Access to administrative fund mainly limited by natural factors a) Agricultural land allocation
Rules for newcomers
In rural area of South Kyrgyzstan, newcomers are not immigrant but just represent the natural growth of the local population. Since the agrarian reform, they have been allocated uluch in function of village land reserves. In many places these reserves were rapidly exhausted and the next persons did not get anything. New families have also been given smaller and smaller private gardens. This represented an average area of about 0.20 ha during the soviet period, whereas nowadays it sometimes goes down to 0.07 ha per family.
39 Although most agricultural lands have been given back to local communities during the process of privatisation, private gardens and uluch are hardly sufficient for rural people to rely only on farming activities on their private lands. They need to count on additional revenues or to use more agricultural lands.
Leasing of agricultural lands
Depending on the village, it can be possible to lease agricultural lands to Aiyl-okmots, both irrigated or bad lands. Due to the scarcity of the resource, leases for irrigated lands are expensive, and utilised only by few villagers. Bad lands are much cheaper and generally cheaper than what leshozes demand for such lands on the forest fund. b) Pastures and forests located on administrative fund
Pastures adjacent to villages are generally part of the administrative fund and as such, are controlled by Aiyl-okmots. They are used in spring and autumn, when summer pastures are still not accessible, and sometimes even in winter. Access is paying, calculated in function of the area grazed and not in function of the cattle size, like on summer pastures. As a matter of fact, the access to pastures of the administrative fund results cheaper than the access to summer pastures. Due to the slack control on these pastures, their accessibility and the modalities of payment, there is a higher risk of degradation than on summer pastures. However, no complaint was expressed by local people regarding the state and quality of these pastures. Besides agricultural lands and pastures, a minority of forests also belong to the administrative fund, although the Aiyl-okmots in charge of this resource usually do not have the skills required to manage it. Generally located close to human settlements, these forests are badly controlled and probably more threatened by illegal uses than the forests managed by the leshozes.
2.5 The social organisation a) Local stakeholders analysis
Human capital
The villages in South Kyrgyzstan generally include from 40 to 500 families, with an average of 3 to 6 children per family, depending on the region. Most people are Kyrgyz, but it exists a kind of ethnic graduation in function of the altitude, between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks/Tajiks. Kyrgyz traditionally live high on mountains whereas Uzbeks and Tajiks are settled lower on valleys, especially along the Fergana valley and the enclaves.
40 The population size is increasing in rural area. However, in most villages located in high altitude, there is no more free land for new families, which forces young people to leave. They may settle in another village of the same Aiyl-okmot, or leave for big cities or foreign countries such as Russia or Kazakhstan. They always keep in contact with their families.
Figure n°13: Features of human capital in countryside
Ethnicity Human capital Evolution of population
Only Kyrgyz Mountains Population size stationary > 2000 m Young people have to leave because of the lack of free lands Kyrgyz & Uzbeks or Valleys Population size increasing Tajiks 800 - 1500 m Young people settle down in villages on free irrigated lands b) Identification of interest groups
The main distinction among local stakeholders is between foresters and non-foresters, commonly called villagers. Though foresters are not numerous compared to villagers, they are present in most villages around forests and do play an important role at local level. Besides this first distinction primarily based on power, the second main difference comes from local people’s wealth. Three categories can be drawn from this analysis. They are mainly based on cattle ownership, and not on private land ownership: • the richest: own more than 50 cows and horses, some hundred of sheep and goats, often yaks, a big house and a car or a truck. They can sell most of their production on market and have enough money to invest. For instance, they can rent more agricultural lands, buy farming equipment or send children to university. It represents about 10% of villagers. • the middle rich: have 2 to 20 cows, a few horses or donkeys, or 20 to 60 sheep, or goats. They produce enough for domestic consumption and manage to sell a part on market. They sometimes have permanent jobs, such as teachers, whose wages help to make ends meet. They suffer from the heavy cost of transport to trade goods, they have no fund to invest and scarcely can send children to university. They often live on credit and reimburse when receiving pensions, public aids or revenues from the sale of their products. They represent the majority of villagers. • the poorest: have no cattle at all or only 1or 2 cows and a few sheep. They do not sell anything and seriously depend on public grants. They are often families of widowed, disabled or old people with no child. It represents about 10% of villagers. There is no forester in this category.
41 In practice, there is a continuum in the wealth level among villagers. It results from multiple factors which are mainly (ranked by priorities):
Figure n°14: Factors from which results the wealth ranking among villagers
1 Collapse of the USSR The wealth situation Adaptation to the new ( the most important and influent parameter) of people during the social, economic and USSR (Generally the politic situation rich still the richest The most influent people during nowadays) the USSR at local level 4 3 2 Willingness to work & workforce within Multiple sources Power the family of incomes Categorie of people, which misuse The poor villagers are those In addition to the basic revenues their authority ( administrative, politic…) who have an uncapacity from livestock to get richer (oldness, illness…) or ( permanent salary, public grants, passive relation to work pensions…)
Figure n° 15: Interest and influence of local stakeholders regarding the access and use of natural resources
Foresters Villagers Poor Middle Rich Interest ++++++
Influence ++ - - ++ ( - very low ; + middle ; ++ high )
Gender issues
The tradition in South Kyrgyzstan puts an emphasis on the social role of men and particularly of old men. However, there is no patent difference of power between men and women, though women are more hardworking than men. Women take part into decisions, work on fields, sell products on market and can deal with the family budget. Many activities can be carried out undifferently by men and women, though some tasks are systematically allocated to the one and not to the other. Women are responsible for domestic works. They milk cows and prepare yoghurt and creme, make bread, cook and sometimes deal with handicraft. Men are in charge of the tasks that require more physical strength, like ploughing fields.
42 Leadership pattern
The highest authorities at local level are: the representative of the local administration, the Ailbache, and the local forester. There is no policeman in countryside and scarcely other official representatives. The Ailbache is the village representative, chosen by the community, and any project or action at village level goes necessarily through him. He generally benefits from a certain authority in addition to his official function, provides advice and can solve conflicts, though his influence greatly depends on his personality and on the village cohesion. The local forester has usually been living for a long time in the village he is working, if he is not born on the spot. He knows everybody well, but generally does not get much support from the local population, for he is feared. The only traditional group of importance is the council of old men, though they have been losing more and more authority over the last decades. They used to be considered as the wisest and take part to all decisions at village level. With the Ailbache and the local forester, they represent the three key actors in forest communities. Any decisions endorsed by them is very likely to be approved by the rest of the population. In addition to that, the Imam, the school director and basically the well educated and richest people, also have a certain influence and play a role in the leadership pattern. c) Social organisation at local level
Local organisations
Though people were used to work together, the common organisation of labour has completely disappeared with the collapse of USSR and since, each family has been working only for itself. There is almost no common organisation to collect firewood, to raise cattle, to carry on agricultural tasks or to sell crops on market. There is no shared strategy between villagers, and market exchanges remain very low. In the same place, each one has the same activities, the same needs, the same output and the same goods to sell –which explains the difficulty to trade them. There exist however many local associations at village or Aiyl-okmot levels, such as old men councils, school councils, women councils or young people comities, but none of them really plays a leading role. The most spread organisation is the Djamat which is a saving bank shared between a group of villagers. All associates regularly contribute with a small sum of money put in common. The whole savings can be used by one of the members to invest, to help someone in the need or to fund public works in the village.
Relationships between local stakeholders
Relationships are generally good within villages, though the worsening of livelihood since the early 90s have weakened social links. Most conflicts occur with foresters, and not among villagers or with the Aiyl-okmots’ representatives. The family plays a central role and relatives are always ready (obliged) to help each other.
43 CHAPTER 3
THE USE OF LAND AND FOREST RESOURCES AT VILLAGE LEVEL
3.1 Local dependence on natural resources
The main reason for the local people dependence on natural resources is basically the absence of any other source of incomes in countryside. There is almost no industries or service enterprises and apart from civil servants, nobody receives a salary. All activities are related to the use of natural resources. a) The Land use: Farming versus livestock raising
Livestock raising: an activity part of the culture
Livestock raising has always used to be the main occupation of the Kyrgyz population. It suits with the mountainous topography of the country and takes advantage of the numerous pastures scattered all over the territory. A large majority of people own cattle in countryside, though the importance of livestock breeding varies from one place to another.
This activity provides many derived goods such as meat, wool, milk and various products made from milk. They are used for both domestic and commercial purposes, depending on market accessibility. Cattle breeding generally represents the main source of incomes in the countryside. It is not subject to climatic hazard like farming. People sell cattle when they are in the need, to face expenditures.
From autumn to spring, cattle graze on pastures just around the village –if such pastures exist– or are kept on stables to be fed with hay. These autumn and spring pastures are not sufficient to feed cattle in summer. People usually lead them up on summer pastures in May or June and come back to village in August or September. The whole family can live on pasture to breed cattle or just a few members, depending on the other activities to carry out in village. Each family generally breeds its own cattle, except when people own only a few heads. In this case, villagers prefer to gather their cattle and breed them in turn, or to pay a professional shepherd for that.
44 Haymaking: a limiting factor
A task directly related to livestock raising is haymaking. It is often a limiting factor preventing people from owning more cattle. Villagers manage to make hay everywhere it is possible on private lands, for domestic consumption or for sale. They also rent lands to Aiyl-okmot or leshoze for this purpose. However, in villages located high in altitude there are few lands suitable for haymaking and hay grows very slowly, so that villagers often have to buy it down in valleys. The main concern in this case is the transport of hay which results very expensive.
Farming activities depend on natural factors
After livestock raising, the main activity is certainly farming, though its importance varies a lot from one village to another. The altitude factor considerably limits the agricultural possibilities at village level, because it is directly related to the winter length, the local climate, and it appears to be also correlated with the area of irrigated lands on which farming activities depend. Indeed, the higher a village is located, the steeper are the slopes and the more it is squeezed between mountains. As a result, farming potential and output in villages are mainly related to altitude.
Figure n°16: Correlation between village altitude and various factors Altitude (m) Low: only incomes Very tough Generally 8 months 100% 0% from livestock 2500 very low raising and potatoes winter Farming Upper Limit Potatoes badly grow Livestock Even hay often needs raising to be planted.
2000 Only potatoes
Natural hay 50% 50% 1500 Corn, wheat, some fruits, tobacco U. L. Sunflower, 1000 most vegetables & fruits U. L. Smoother Higher : incomes 5 months Water melon, Farming from both livestock winter Higher melon U. L. raising and farming
Climate Village area of Farming importance of Variety of goods harshness irrigated lands potential the activity & incomes
Up to 1500 m most crops can grow, they are mainly cereals for making flour (wheat and corn), sunflower for oil, tobacco, potato, many vegetables and fruit trees.
45 With the rise in altitude, farming becomes more and more difficult, up to the highest human settlements at almost 3000 m where only potato can still grow. Agriculture takes place on private gardens, always very well maintained, and everywhere on irrigated lands. Apart from potato, sometimes planted on dried lands, all crops need water which restricts considerably the farming potential. Again, there is no common organisation for field works or to sell harvests. Husbandry can represent an important source of incomes for villagers, but it depends on market prices and on climatic hazards.
The importance of livestock raising also depends on farming activities. If villagers are already busy to plough or harvest on fields, they can not keep cattle on pastures during the summer. In fact, with the diminution of altitude, natural conditions become less stringent, which allows a rise in farming activities and results in the decrease of livestock output. b) Wood products use : Firewood and timber
Firewood collection
The former USSR system used to supply the local population with electricity, sometimes gas and mainly coal for heating in the countryside. It was cheap and very convenient so that local people did not even look at forest for firewood, except maybe on pastures during summer. With the breakdown of the former system, electricity began very expensive and coal output dropped, which has driven people to count mostly on firewood. Coal is currently used only around the few working mines of South Kyrgyzstan or by the richest families. Price is very dependant on transport, around 800 to 2,000 som/ton, given that a family needs annually 2 to 3 tons.
Concerning firewood, villagers have clear preferences. The best tree specie is Juniper and especially Juniperus Turkestanica. It is known to have the best energetic power. Besides Juniper, local people often use brushwood, tobacco stems and sometimes birch or willow. Poplar, though being the most important tree specie planted on private lands, is scarcely used for energy but as building materials. There is no private plantation devoted to firewood production and no firewood market.
In addition to firewood, some people also dry excrements from cattle and use it as a source of energy called kizik. It has an energetic power comparable with coal, but the bulk available from a family cattle is generally too small for people to rely only on it. It usually complements firewood to heat in winter, except for the few richest persons who own enough cattle for depending only on kizik. It results that although most people use firewood, the poorer they are, the less alternative energies they have, and the more firewood they collect in forest.
46 Influence of natural and social factors
There is no collective organisation for firewood collection and each family works for itself. It explains why wood collection is so badly distributed, leading to severe over- collection and forest degradation around villages, while there is still a lot of dry wood farther into forests.
In fact, the human pressure on forest is directly related to forest accessibility, which depends on the possible means of transport and the distance between forest and people living place. If there are only footpaths, people usually carry firewood on horse or donkey backs, walking maximum 10 km away. But if there are roads, they can go farther and bring much more wood at once, depending of foresters’ control. They sometimes use rivers to float firewood down to village. However, partly because of the foresters’ control, villagers do not stock big amounts of firewood –or only a few cubic meters before winter– but collect it regularly. Firewood consumption also depends to a large extent on altitude and climate harshness.
The amount of firewood annually used per family is quite difficult to assess, between 5 and 30 m3. The main concern is that it is far above what people are allowed to collect. In many places, this activity is not sustainable and people complain that they need to go farther and farther from villages to find dry wood.
Figure n° 17: Main factors causing firewood over-consumption
Altitude Wealth factor Accessibility where the to forest village is located Poor and Rich Bad Good average villagers Low High villagers
Low Human High pressure Low The need for Only Coal, on forest Firewood High Firewood Main Electricity, resources For heating energy pressed ( firewood used for dung included ) heating
Climatic winter conditions length in winter ( + 6 months )
Overuse of firewood
47 Besides these natural factors, some social aspects should be taken into consideration to understand and assess the local consumption of firewood from Juniper forests. The first one is certainly the density of population.
The more populated is a village –from 20 up to 500 houses– the more acute is the pressure on the surrounding resources. The second factor is probably the resultant of the local people awareness of ecological issues and the authority of local foresters. It may change significantly from one place to another, which results in the intensification or alleviation of the local pressure for firewood.
In some villages the population manages to use mostly brushwood, kizik or firewood drawn from private gardens, while other communities in similar situations rely chiefly on Juniper.
Eventually, the amount of firewood collected by villagers depends on their wealth level. Nevertheless, it seems that firewood consumption and the related pressure on forest resources, result mainly from natural factors.
Timbers for construction and commercial purposes
Although it concerns the same resource, there are some major differences between the uses of timber and firewood: • rural people daily consume firewood while they scarcely need timber for domestic uses, • except on private plantations, tree felling is everywhere forbidden while firewood collection is only limited, which allows a certain degree of freedom, • the use of timber results in tree felling, whereas firewood collection does not necessarily degrade forest immediately, • there is no market of firewood whereas the sale of timber can be lucrative.
Most of timber in countryside is used for building houses. Local people manage to use other materials when it is possible, for instance they fence gardens with living hedgerows or stone walls, but they do necessitate wood to build houses. Timber is extensively used for the frame, the roof, to consolidate walls and traditionally for a multitude of inside and outside decorations. It results that a minimum of 100 trees is required to construct a new house, given that about 5 new houses are built every year for 100 families. In addition to that, minor activities such as bridge building or house maintenance also require timber. Local people have clear preference concerning timber. The best one, which is traditionally used due to its high longevity and special beauty, is of course Juniper. Among the three different species, Juniperus Seravschanica and Juniperus Semiglobosa are preferred to Juniperus Turkestanica as building materials. Other tree species such as spruce, pine or willow are too scarce to represent a significant source of building materials.
48 Due to the lack of construction materials, in certain villages, the sale of timber can represent a major source of incomes in rural area, legally or not (prices turn around 8,000 to 1,0000 som/m3). The biggest demand comes from big cities like Osh, especially in Juniper which is very much used by rich people (due to its longevity and aesthetic characteristics).
Figure n° 18: Major factors causing timber illegal felling in Artcha forests
Altitude where the The local forester Accessibility village is located
Bad Good Low High The level of authority that he Which species - exert on local + How far the could be used as population, his people have to go timbers for moral principles and in order to reach construction and relation regarding the Artcha forest, commercial the main tasks of his and by which purposes ? work ? means they bring the timbers until the village ?
Other fast Only Artcha: growing species the other fast Less possibilities grows , growing for Artcha illegal especially species badly felling Poplar grows
People act easily ( illegal felling of Artcha timbers )
Intensive illegal felling
Poplar versus Juniper
Besides Juniper, the main tree specie used for timber is Poplar. Poplar lumbers often require chemical treatments against insects and do not have the nice colour of Juniper, but they suit for building houses and Poplar is a fast-growing specie. For these reasons, most people plant poplars in private gardens.
49 Depending on altitude and land quality, they can be felled after 10 to 20 years and are used both for domestic and commercial purposes. Poplar represent a kind of saving bank for local people, who may sell them when they are in need (prices turn around 1,000 to 3,000 som/trunk). Basically, the more poplar plantations there are in a village, the less Junipers are felled: “Poplar saves Artcha” said an old Kyrgyz, “if there was no Poplar, most Artcha forests would have already disappeared”.
The illegal felling of wood for construction and commercial purposes is difficult to assess. Like with firewood, the importance of illegal felling and the development of poplar plantations depend mainly on natural factors (the altitude and accessibility) but also on social factors. In altitude, Poplar badly grows above 2000 m. Local people have to buy it lower in valleys or to count on Juniper. With the decrease of altitude, the climatic conditions improves and the area of irrigated lands in villages generally increases, so that poplar plantations become more and more frequent. At 1500 m, most families have their own plantations and scarcely need Juniper for domestic uses.
Concerning social factors, there are villages where people rely mostly on Juniper although they could grow Poplar, while in other places villagers systematically plant trees in advance not to have to fell Juniper trees later on. This difference results from a complex mix of factors such as the local forester authority, the culture of villagers (which seems quite different between the south-eastern regions and the edge of the Fergana valley) and the possibility to sell Juniper timber on market. As a conclusion, a question may be asked: if the overuse of firewood (which doesn’t result from tree felling) causes serious degradation to the Artcha forests, what will be the consequences of this illegal felling for house construction and commercial purpose? c) Other goods and services from forests
There exist many other goods and services provided by forest. It is a place to collect NWFP, to hunt, to fish and especially to rest. The temperature is cooler during summer and everywhere, calm and beautiful landscapes are worth seeing. These wonderful mountainous scenery in South Kyrgyzstan constitute a great potential for tourism, that local people want to develop. Villagers have also granted some sites in forests with special spiritual values.
3.2 Establishment of villages profiles
The analyse of the use of the land and forest resources shows clearly that the major factor that characterises villages and brings about differences in villagers way of life, and the way they use natural resources, is the activities undertaken at village level.
50 The village altitude has a direct impact on local population’s choice of their main income activities. There is in fact a continuum of situations along with altitude, which makes possible the definition of types of villages. a) Highest Villages
In highest human settlements, above 2,000 m, most activities are devoted to livestock raising. It represents the major source of goods or incomes and all villagers live on pastures in summer. The only agricultural tasks are to grow potatoes and to make hay. Due to the climate harshness and the lack of free lands, life conditions are more difficult than lower in valleys, and most of the time, young people have to leave. Problems of health and nutrition are common, because of the lack of vegetables and fruits. Villages are often isolated and sometimes become inaccessible in winter. Traditions are generally more alive.
The high pressure on Juniper forests in this type of villages is especially related on high needs in energy. Although the use of firewood is generalised everywhere into forests in South Kyrgyzstan –except in the vicinity of coal mines– the related pressure on natural resources differs from one place to another. It depends mainly on village altitude and on forest accessibility from village.
Though in summer people live on pastures generally adjacent to forests, the needs of energy at this time of the year are minor. Most consumption takes place in villages during winter. The pressure on Juniper forests in these area concerns also the grazing activity, especially in certain villages, where there is not enough pastures and grazing is not strongly controlled. b) Medium Villages
In the villages located around 1,500 m of altitude, thanks to better natural conditions, farming output counts for half of local people incomes. The population relies on both crop growing and cattle raising, and benefits from multiple goods and sources of revenues.
Life conditions are generally easier. If there is still free arable lands, young people can settle down in the village. Because of lower needs in energy, more fuel material drawn from farming activities (poplar, fruit trees, tobacco…), the pressure on Juniper forests in this type of villages is low.
As already mentioned, the illegal consumption of wood for construction results from various natural, social and economic factors, and is much more difficult to assess. Generally speaking, illegal felling occurs more frequently in highest villages than in medium’s.
51 c) Lowest villages
Below 1300 m, livestock raising becomes a secondary activity and generally ceases to exist beneath 800 or 1000 m. These villages are devoted to farming and benefit from a cooler climate. They are scarcely located in the vicinity of forests and depend just a little on this resource. There are enough flat lands, but the major concern is the lack of water for irrigation.
The altitude of 1,500 m seems to be the balance point between farming and livestock raising, as expressed by a villager living at this altitude: “If you live upper on mountains, you’ll need more cattle, but if you live lower, you’ll need more watered lands for farming”.
Figure 19: Villages profiles, main activities depending on the altitude
Main activities in village land area
1500 m 2500m Village altitude
Lowest Medium Highest villages villages villages
Villages having Villages having a variety Villages having Agriculture as a main of sources of incomes livestock as main source of incomes (Agriculture + Livestock…) source of incomes
Low High Pressure on Juniper forests
52 53 CHAPTER 4
DIRECTIONS FOR A SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT INVOLVING LOCAL PEOPLE
4.1 The present logic to cope with current issues a) Need of cheap energy
Energy is a bare necessity, thus, whatever is the villagers’ consciousness of forest ecological role or the severity of foresters’ control, people are compelled to use firewood. The main concern is that the bulk they are allowed to collect is far below their needs, which necessarily forces them to break the law. The purpose is therefore to avoid being caught red handed by the local forester, or to make with him a kind of agreement, or even to be lucky enough to be one of his relatives or friends of him.
There are many ways to conceal firewood use. Firstly, villagers never collect important bulks at once, but small quantities regularly. Secondly, each family works only for itself. There is no common organisation, no firewood market and no way to assess the real consumption. It results that the pressure on forest for firewood is badly distributed, which enhances the process of degradation. Eventually, villagers avoid and fear foresters.
These indirect means are really present in villages of type 1 (highest), except for the few richest people, and become of secondary importance in villages of type 2 (medium). The point is that in village of type 1, everybody clearly collects firewood beyond the legal volume, so that all villagers can be potentially fined by the local forester.
In addition to that, the annual tax for firewood is not paid by all families. The poorests refuse to pay this tax or just can not. The local forester can ask for being paid in kind or in workforce, but as a matter of fact a minority of families do not pay anything. Where is the boundary between those who have to pay and those who can be exempted? It is often the local forester’s choice.
54 b) Need of wood for construction
Domestic use
Again, the most illegal uses of timber occur in villages of type 1, where local people have no other source of building materials than Juniper. The point is that unlike firewood collection: tree felling is strictly forbidden everywhere on public lands and once timbers are used for building, they stay visible.
Thus, foresters can easily control the use of timber in villages. If a villager needs wood for construction, though he can not rely on private tree plantations, he necessarily risks to be fined. In practice, as the charges stated by the law to punish illegal felling are clearly excessive, the local forester himself decides on the amount of money to charge, which gives way to abuses of power and conflicts.
There are two main ways for villagers to acquire illegally wood for construction: either they come to a sort of agreement with the local forester to ‘buy’ him the right to fell Juniper, or they fell trees and manage afterwards to pay as less as possible in fines or bribes. It can also be a source of conflicts, but in all cases it brings about forest degradation.
Illegal market
Whereas the local consumption remains limited, the informal market of Juniper has alarming consequences. The main concern is that there is a high demand for timber mainly from cities, which makes this activity very profitable. It triggers the development of illegal networks against which foresters are powerless, because these networks are covered by higher authorities. c) Need of any sources of goods and incomes
The main concern in countryside is the lack of jobs and revenues. Most villagers endeavour each year to make ends meet and live on credit. The poverty in countryside really leads the way villagers behave. They always manage to take advantage of any possible incomes or to cut down expenditures. The increasing use of firewood since the collapse of USSR, or the spread of timber illegal market, have been mainly caused by the population impoverishment.
Local people seek after any public aid, pension or salary, they strive to sell products on market and manage not to pay taxes, or to delay payments. Poverty compels villagers to get round the law, which results in forest degradation and brings about conflicts with foresters, or informal agreements to the detriment of forests.
55 d) Patent inequity of power
The poorer, the weaker
The main concern is that the rules of access to forest resources are not working, as they disregard the needs of the local population for firewood and timber. Consequently, most villagers have to get round the law to live, which necessarily puts them under the grasp of foresters. The poorer villagers are, the more dependent they are on these resources, and the more likely they are to depend on the local forester’s power. On the contrary, rich people do not necessitate forest resources, and in all cases, they have much more influence and means to defend themselves than poorer villagers.
Foresters turn aside from their role
Foresters are most of the time controlling villagers on the forest fund, and spend only a few weeks a year in forest works, such as plantation or seed collection. “They just come to collect taxes and that’s all” complained a villager. e) Curb on rural development
The population living in and around forests in South Kyrgyzstan clearly depends almost only on natural resources. Consequently, the people’s activities and main sources of incomes, their purchasing capacity and eventually the level of poverty in countryside stem from the mixed use of these different resources: • agricultural lands –mainly watered lands even though dry lands play also an important role– used for growing crops, vegetables and fruits, and for haymaking, • pastures devoted to livestock breeding, • and forests providing many goods and services, among which firewood and timber are the most important ones.
The rules of access to these resources are therefore of prime importance for the rural economy and have a direct impact on villagers’ livelihood. Agricultural lands, though really insufficient, are fairly allocated among villagers and seem to be rationally used for the benefit of the local population. However, there are still many unused plots of watered land in the forest fund.
Pastures have generally not been the object of conflict since the drop of cattle size, after the collapse of USSR. Nevertheless, the fact there has been no conflict does not prove that there has been no degradation of this resource. It is just possible to say from this analysis that there was no complaint from villagers, regarding an eventual degradation of pastures.
56 On the opposite, the forest resources are gravely lacking and the current misconsideration of the local people needs by the Forest Service brings about serious consequences. It brings inherent conflicts, which sometimes pollute local social relationships and impedes the development of an organisation between villagers and leshoze, for a better use of Juniper forests. For these reasons, the difficulties caused by the present way of management of forest resources put a curb on the regional rural development.
Despite a laudable goal of nature conservation, the forest management in South Kyrgyzstan does not answer the various issues it has to cope with. The resources are not finally effectively protected and an obsolete management limits the possibilities of productive social relationships.
4.2 Tracks for possible improvements
The main causes of Juniper forests degradation
Besides a number of ecological constraints, the depletion of Juniper forests at local level results mainly from two factors: the domestic use of firewood, which is the cheapest source of energy for forest communities and the domestic and commercial uses of timber. On the opposite, the grazing of cattle, though it was considered as a main cause of forest degradation, seems to have no longer been alarming since the drop in cattle size in the early 90s.
The current uses of Juniper wood, both as a source of energy and for building materials, is caused itself by the scarcity of alternatives to these resources, and in some cases a poor consciousness of local stakeholders regarding ecological and social issues.
Lack of cheap alternatives to Juniper wood
Whatever the villagers’ level of consciousness, if they are really in the need of cheap energy or building materials, they go round the law and exploit forest resources. There is no other way.
The first issue is the lack of energy and building materials. Coal and electricity outputs, as well as timber imports, dropped with the collapse of USSR and left the local population without the resource to live…except the Juniper forests. However, the productivity of these forests is far below the local demand for wood. Although it exists some substitutes, such as poplar plantations which play a major role to supply the local population, they are not sufficient and Juniper forests are still overexploited.
57 The second concern is the expensiveness for the local population of the current alternatives to Juniper wood. It may come from the scarcity of these resources (such as coal or market timbers), but mainly derive from the poverty in rural area. As a result, any improvement of livelihood in forest communities would lessen the local dependence on natural resources and release the pressure on forest.
Lack of consciousness
Though it already exists a traditional awareness in favour of forest conservation, the local people’s attitudes regarding the use of natural resources may differ from one village to another, and is sometimes worrying.
Indeed, if a better consciousness of the importance to preserve forests can not release people’s needs for Juniper wood, it can at least put a curb on their greed. In other places, the disregard of the people needs by the Forest Service in some other place had led to the lack of forest communities’ awareness of ecological issues.
The directives for Juniper forest management needs to focus on three main objectives in order to be sustainable: • to improve the current use of Juniper wood and develop alternatives to this resource, • to enhance the livelihood in forest communities, • to rise both villagers and foresters awareness for a new participatory management of forests.
Any action that aims at supporting one of these goals is likely to have a direct positive impact on forest resources. However, there is a need to strongly consider all the possible consequences before acting, by pondering the ecological, social and economic aspects. It can be achieved by reflecting on the following questions: • first of all: does this action ensure the sustainability of forest resources in the long run? • then, what is considered as a necessary condition for sustainable forest management? Does this action fulfil the needs and expectations of the local population? Does it support the local development? Is it fair and will it bring no conflict? • eventually, since foresters are in charge of the forest fund, and in that sense, represent central actors of forest management: does this action jeopardise the weak economy of TMUs?
58 Figure n° 20: Hypothesis for a sustainable management of Juniper forests at village level
Sustainable Management of Juniper Forests at village level
Improve juniper Enhance life Rise villagers wood use & level in forest and foresters develop alternatives communities awareness
Firewood Timber Optimise Develop Villagers Foresters land use new profitable activities
Expand TMUs support to Take actions spread Reconsider the rules directly devoted to alternatives to of villagers’ access to awareness rising (seminars, training juniper wood the forest fund & discussions)
Develop alternatives to Promote awareness juniper wood at rising through Increase the role indirect means village level, by of villagers in local people (share of forest responsibilities, themselves management forest works …)
Improve the current firewood collection
59 4.3 Concrete hypothesis for development at village level a) General improvements of the current use of Juniper firewood
The use of Juniper timber is strictly forbidden for a better conservation of the resource. For this reason, any possible improvement of Juniper use concerns only firewood consumption.
• Get a better understanding of the demand for firewood, and the real impact of this use on natural resources • Set up a common and transparent system to control firewood Objective collection and disperse the related pressure all over the forest. • Raise the local people’s awareness on ecological issues by increasing their participation into forest management. • There is not a clear knowledge of the impact of firewood collection on forests, which impedes to take adequate measures Reasons for • Firewood collection is badly distributed, which causes in some it places a severe depletion of the resource, for the bad of the local population itself. However, it is well known that in remote forests there is still a lot of firewood available. • The pressure for firewood on Juniper forest is lessen in Ecological the proximity of human settlements, where the degradation is the most alarming. • The supply in firewood is better planned and requires Expected less work for local people. results • The are less conflicts between villagers and foresters Social regarding firewood collection. • There is a possibility to raise the villagers’ awareness of ecological issues, through their involvement with foresters to collect firewood. Economic • TMUs’ incomes for firewood do not change in the short term. They may increase in the future.
Actors Concrete actions Local • Assess the real demand for firewood by village: (i) at foresters the village level, (ii) on summer pastures.
Preparatory Local • Identify the places most affected by firewood over- tasks foresters collection. Foresters, • Identify the places where firewood is still available for villagers collection.
60 • Set up at village or summer pasture level, common Foresters organisations for firewood collection, controlled by the Main with local foresters. Ensure a fair distribution of the actions villagers firewood collected among villagers.
• Close and replant the most degraded plots: (i) these Foresters, plots are identified with villagers, (ii) plantations are villagers carried on with villagers.
• the main constraint is the lack of the resource itself. Remote forests Constraints may not be accessible, or it may be too difficult to bring the & firewood collected there, back to villages. It depends on the opportuni- situation, but it seems possible (at least in Alay TMU where the ties director made himself this proposition). • Another issue may be, depending on the local context, the lack of trust between villagers and foresters.
• If the control is slack and the resource too scarce, such Ecological common organisations may not ensure the decrease of the pressure on the most degraded forests, but on the contrary, spread it to distant places.
• There is a risk of conflicts between villagers regarding Risks Social the distribution of rights and duties within these common organisations.
Economic • There is no direct risk for TMUs’ budget.
Village Interest of Reasons type proposal
• The lack of energy is the main concern in these villages. Due to the important needs for energy and the good Type 1 + + accessibility of wooded lands, the pressure on forests for firewood is high.
• The lack of energy is scarcely the major issue, but it is Type 2 + still important.
+ / - • The needs for energy are low and forests less accessible. Type 3 The pressure on forests for firewood is small.
61 Detailed hypothesis (A): Develop alternatives to Juniper wood
• Spread at village level, by the villagers themselves and with the Objectives support of TMUs, the plantation and maintenance of any brush or tree that can provide firewood and timbers. • As long as there will be a lack of energy and building materials Reasons (which are bare necessities) the local population will have to count on for it forest resources, whatever the severity of foresters’ control. That is why it is necessary to fulfil the local demand to release this pressure for firewood and timber. Ecological • The pressure on forest resources decreases. • The local population, everywhere it is possible, grows itself the wood it needs, both for energy and building materials : (i) it enables the development of timber market which increases the incomes of the local population and Expected Social supplies the villages located high in altitude, results where only juniper can grow. (ii) it enhances the level of awareness of ecological issues among the local population. (iii) it makes local people less dependent on forest resources. Economic • In the short and mid terms, TMUs take part to these market activities and produce timbers for their own interests, which improve their incomes. Villagers are unlikely to supply themselves in firewood before a long time, so that TMUs are not to suffer from the loss of firewood leases incomes. • In the long term, the role of TMUs will have to be redefined: State organisation or private enterprise?
Actors Concrete actions The TMUs • Put in common the different experiences and technical support TMUs knowledge to establish a list of the main species suitable alternatives together to produce firewood or timber. It will give the ecological to Juniper (project features of each plant to help users to identify the best wood level) species that fits to the local conditions.
TMU • Spread and grow in tree-nurseries these species to supply the local population with. TMU & • Register the unused plots of the forest fund, that suit to villagers grow these species (on stream shores…) • Identify the plots of forest most affected by Juniper felling and ensure more control and authority.
62 • Provide saplings to the local population. They can be Develop- TMU paid in kind or given for free, for the cost of saplings ment of should not put local people off. alternatives to juniper wood by the • Allocate to villagers the plots of the forest fund suitable villagers TMU & for growing trees. Seal contracts between TMU and local themselves villagers individuals: the land remains the ownership of the TMU and the tenant is responsible for the plantation and maintenance. Interest are shared between TMU and the tenant. • TMUs provide advice (if not material) to help local people in plantations.
• The first two constraints are natural ones: they are: the lack of free lands suitable for planting trees, and the high altitude of many Constraints human settlements that impedes to grow most of the plants (except & Juniper). opportuni- • In the case of juniper felled by puissant networks for commercial ties purpose, foresters are generally powerless (law-breakers are protected by higher authorities). • Again, the reluctance of villagers to work with foresters will have to be overcome, although it changes from one village to another. • The use of poplar is already widely spread and plays a crucial role in timber production.
Ecological • There is no strong ecological risk. The multiplication of alternatives to Juniper wood is unlikely to have a reverse effect on forests.
Risks Social • There is a real risk of conflicts between villagers concerning the allocation of forest fund plots. It has to be strongly taken into consideration to find out a fair way, agreed by the villagers themselves, to distribute access rights. It will depend on the local context.
Economic • A good management of these activities should prevent TMUs from facing additional financial difficulties.
63 Interest Village of Reasons type proposal
• Though there is a real need for both firewood and timbers, Type 1 - / + there are very few possibilities to implement this proposal at high altitude, because of the climate harshness and the lack of lands suitable for plantation. • There is the possibility to plant more substitutes to Type 2 ++ juniper. It will help to supply the local demand for firewood and timbers. • Even though the pressure on forests is low and the need ++ for fuel-wood is smaller, the local population often lacks Type 3 (especially of energy and especially of building materials. for • Moreover, an increase in timber output will help to timbers) supply, in the long term, the villages located at high altitude.
64 Detailed Hypothesis (B) : develop new profitable activities at local level
• Develop new sources of incomes for the local population, that can Objective bring additional revenues to the ones already existing from farming and livestock raising, and lessen the local dependence on forest resources. • The human pressure on forest is directly related to the level of Raisons poverty in rural area and the local dependence on natural resources. for it There is really the possibility to develop new profitable activities and to add value to the local production, by ensuring the transformation of goods at village level. Ecological • The pressure on forest resources decreases. • There is a rise in life level with the spread of market Expected Social activities. results • TMUs can, to a certain extent, take part to these new Economic activities. In any case, they benefit from the rise in life level.
Actors Concrete actions Transforma Villagers, • Build small timber processing farms at local level, in -tion of the NGOs, places where timbers (mainly poplar) are enough local The available. production State… • Build fruits processing units at local level where fruit production is important. • Develop the market of non wood forest products such Develop- Villagers, as honey or medicinal plants. ment of new foresters • Investigate the possibilities to sell mineral water from activities springs. • Develop tourism activities. • It is required to invest an important amount of money to create such Constraints processing farms, and villagers can not bring it themselves. & However, it exists already many international organisations ready to opportuni- fund local development projects (World Bank, GTZ, ACTED…) ties • The development of these activities depends extensively on the global economic situation. • There should be no real ecological risk, as long as the Risks Ecological minimal precautions are taken. • There is a risk of unfairness among villagers between those who get support (from international projects, NGOs Social or the Forest Service), and those who do not receive anything. • Again, if these activities are related to the use of public natural resources, a special caution is required to share rights and duties among stakeholders.
65 Interest Village of Reasons type proposal
• These villages are often the poorest. Any new activity and Type 1 + income is very welcome. However, the natural constraints (climate, topography) make some activities hardly feasible. • There is both a need for new sources of incomes, and the Type 2 & 3 ++ existence of potentialities that have to be developed.
66 Detailed hypothesis (C): Raise local stakeholders’ awareness
• Enhance the awareness of both villagers and foresters, but in two different ways: (i) villagers get a better understanding of the Objective importance to protect forest resource, for their own interest, (ii) foresters realise the need to involve the local stakeholders into forest management to ensure the sustainability of the resources.
• In addition to the lack of the resource itself, there is also a lack of Raisons consciousness among the local stakeholders, which prevents people for it from understanding environmental issues in the long run.
• There is also a need to overcome the unwillingness of villagers and foresters to work together.
• A more rational use of Juniper gives way to a decrease Ecological of forest degradation. Expected • The local population feels ownership of the forest. results Social • Foresters and villagers are working together. • No change. Economic
Actors Concrete actions
Forest • Carry on seminars and workshops to train foresters (at Awareness Service, the local level) to new participatory practices. raising of NGOs, foresters JUMP (Remark : the socio-economic team of the JUMP project project has already begun this work through the socio-economic analysis)
• Carry on meetings led by the local foresters to inform Foresters, villagers on forest management and to raise awareness. Awareness Ailbache, • Carry on meetings led by influent individuals at village raising of Imam, old level (non-foresters such as Ailbaches, Imams or school villagers men… & directors), to compel people to respect and protect JUMP forest resources. project (Remark: the VLUP team has already begun to raise villagers’ awareness through the socio-economic analysis).
67 Indirect Forest It means any action that makes villagers take part to forest means for Service, management, makes them feel responsible for some forest raising villagers activities and increases their role in this field. Such indirect awareness methods can have much more impact than just meetings and discussions. Constraints • There is the need to train local foresters before expecting them to & raise villagers’ awareness. However, it already exists a long-time opportuni- tradition of forest protection rooted in the population, mainly for old ties people. Raising awareness activities, led by villagers themselves, can promote this heritage. • There can be ecological risks concerning the indirect Ecological means carried on to raise local people’s awareness. For instance, the transfer of responsibilities to the local Risks population in forest management, should be conducted with an extreme caution, to not lead to ecological disaster or social injustice. • The risk concerns as well the indirect means carried on. Social
Village Interest type of Reasons proposal • Villagers living high in altitude are counting more than Type 1 ++ others on forest resources for their daily lives. They need to be more involved into forest management, to raise their level of ownership of Juniper forests. • These villages are less dependent on forest resources than Type 2 + the villages of ‘type 1’. The access to arable lands is more important than the access to forests. Type 3 - / + • These villages are not dependent on forest resources.
Remark: It exists significant cultural differences between regions in South Kyrgyzstan, especially concerning the two eastern regions of Alay and Tchon-Alay. They are located at high altitude on the Tian-Shan mountains range. There are only Kyrgyz in these regions, traditionally anchored in livestock raising. The life stand is, on the whole, lower than in other places in South-Kyrgyzstan. There are numerous villages located in and around the forest fund in Alay and Tchon- Alay, and most of them can be classified in “type 1” (highest villages). Awareness raising activities are particularly needed in these two regions.
68 Detailed hypothesis (D): Optimise the use of the forest fund • The objective is to promote rural development by enabling the local population to take advantage of all the natural resources on the forest Objective fund, as long as their utilisation is sustainable. • The goal is also to enhance local communities’ responsibility regarding forest management. • The current incomes drawn from the use of the forest fund by local people, are far from what they could be. It comes from the stringent rules of the Forest Service that limits the access to natural resources, for it is not able to ensure that the exploitation of these ‘currently Raisons forbidden resources’ will not lead to the depletion of forests (there are for it and not only firewood and timbers, which utilisation needs to be limited, general there are also many watered and bad lands, non wood forest principle products…). These rules were established during the soviet period, in a completely different context. Nowadays, they put a curb on rural development, by inadequately limiting the access to natural resources. There is a need to reconsider this policy to optimise the use of natural resources on the forest fund. • The main purpose is to involve the local population into forest protection, since foresters are in no way able to ensure, by themselves, an effective control on this huge territory. In order to do that, there is a need to woo forest communities by giving them direct interests in forest management, and these interests have to be concrete (the promise that in the future their grandsons will be glad to have still forests… is not sufficient to compel people who are striving for life). One such interest at foresters’ hand, is to enlarge local people’s access to some profitable natural resources on the forest fund. There are obviously real risks related to that. • The rise in life level and the transfer of responsibilities to Ecological the local population in forest management, give way to a better management of juniper forests. • The most degraded forests around living places, which have been transferred to local individuals, are no longer Expected the objects of irrational uses. results • The more efficient use of natural resources breeds new incomes to the local population. Social • These new incomes or interests convince forest communities to use natural resources in a sustainable way. • New constructive ‘win-win’ relationships between Economic villagers and foresters are established, for the good of the forest. • TMUs benefit from the rise in incomes at local level, drawn from the use of the forest fund. 69 Actors Concrete actions
TMU, • Identify, at village level, all the forest fund lands which local access, use and even responsibility could be transferred foresters to the local population. The main questions to answer & local are: people - which rules to set up to ensure the conservation of natural resources on this plot of land in the long run? Preparatory - is there a benefit to draw from this plot of land, that tasks compels the tenant to ensure the protection of the resource ? Foresters • Set up clear criteria to determine who is entitled to make with the such contracts with the Forest Service, and who is not: local - Is it possible in this village, to fairly allocate among people the entitled beneficiaries, the lands of the forest fund selected to be transferred to the local community? And how to do it to be sure it will bring no conflict? The strong involvement of the local population is absolutely required at each step of the process, in particular concerning the rules of land allocation among villagers.
The situation is very changing from one place to another (availability of natural resources, density of population, cohesion of the local community…) so that propositions will always have to be adapted to the local context. It is too soon to detail the different possibilities of agreements, with the rights and duties of each side. Define and However, it already exists such contracts in South establish Each Kyrgyzstan (though they are very scarce and always set up agreements step in particular contexts). It is worth to present them. between should • Full transfer: Example in Utch-Kurgun TMU, village foresters involve of Maiden and the local The tenant received 10 ha of the forest fund including: (i) 3 villagers for people ha of irrigated lands he can use for his own interest, without the with paying any tax to the TMU, (ii) 7 ha of Juniper forest he is conserva- foresters responsible for (control and plantation of juniper, on an tion of agreed area). He is controlled regularly by the local forester. Juniper After 5 years, if the forest has been well controlled, he will forests get these 10 ha for 49 years. Particular context: (i) the tenant is a former forester, (ii) the 10 ha he got are located in a narrow valley, lost in the forest fund and far from people habitations. The fact it is hidden may be the reason why there was no conflict with the rest of the population (who would certainly have been glad to get 3 ha of irrigated lands!).
70 • Partial transfer : Example in Lailak TMU, village of Define and Andarak. establish Each The tenants used to rent annually plots of irrigated lands on agreements step the forest fund (about 150 families on 40 ha). Recently, the between should TMU provided tenants with saplings for people to plant and foresters involve grow them around their irrigated plots. There is still no and the local written agreement but tenants were promised 50% of the villagers for people benefits drawn from the sale of trees, within 10 or 15 years. the with It means that they are likely to keep their plots of land a conserva- foresters long time. tion of Particular context: (i) the same families have been renting Juniper annually the same plots of lands for a long time, (ii) there is forests a good social cohesion. • The lack of irrigated lands and potential revenues on the forest fund. In many cases, there is not enough profitable resources to enable a fair distribution among villagers, so that it is probably better to not Constraints share anything. & • The willingness of the local population to be involved in forest fund opportuni- management. ties • The understanding of many foresters at TMUs’ head level, that the current situation is not sustainable and that new solutions need to be found. • The possibility that new tenants, responsible for forest Ecological fund plots, will degrade the resource rather than protect it, is a real one. • There is a major risk of conflicts regarding the repartition of new rights and duties among the local Risks Social population. An unfair process of land allocation would have a dramatic effect on social relationships, which would necessarily affect the forest. • Eventually, there is a risk for the TMU to lose a notable part of its revenues, though it depends on the type of Economic agreements established with the local population.
Main recommendations : there seems to be a real potential on forest fund lands that is still unused, and that could play a significant role for the local population. However, there are important risks associated to this question (ecological ones of course, but even more social ones), so that this work needs to be carried on step by step, with an extreme vigilance. It is very likely that in many places, such solutions are to be refused because of the related risks. The situation is very changing from one village to another, so that there is a need to always adapt to the local context.
71 Interest Village of Reasons type proposal
Not only degradation of Juniper forests, but also conflicts occur in these villages, generally poorer than those located lower into valleys. Type 1 ++ The high dependence of local people on forest resources, makes this proposal particularly important in these villages. The major issue is the lack of sources of incomes at these altitudes (farming, poplar plantations… are very limited).
There is also a need to develop new sources of incomes and Type 2 ++ to raise villagers’ responsibility for forest resources. Furthermore, there are real potentialities on the forest fund at these altitudes.
This proposal is of secondary importance in these villages Type 3 + since local people rely mostly on farming, which is scarcely located on the forest fund.
72 b) Management hypothesis for each village type
Features of the village types
1 (highest) 2 (medium) 3 (lowest) Village type Ex: Ak-Bosogo (Alai) Ex: Gaz (Batken) Ex: Sartala (Batken)
Altitude > 2000 m Around 1500 m < 1500 m
Natural resources: ++ + - / + • forest (easily accessible) (accessible) (more scarce)
• summer pastures ++ ++ + • spring, autumn & - / + +++ winter pastures (scarce and unusable most of the year)
• bad lands for there may be a lot, but +++ haymaking hay badly grow • irrigated lands - ++ (very scarce, and (more flat lands, but lack of crops badly grow) water)
Main villagers' Livestock raising livestock raising Farming activities & farming
Human pressure on forests from: + / - - (possibility to rely on (lower needs, forest less • juniper firewood ++ other species than accessible) collection juniper)
• timbers felling + / ? - / ? - / ? (no poplar to (poplar plantations) (poplar plantations, forests substitute juniper) less accessible)
• livestock grazing ? ? - / ? (possible, though the (possible, though the (few grazing activity, social analysis has not social analysis has pastures often far from registered anything) not registered forests) anything)
- - Conflicts between + (more sources of (more sources of incomes, villagers and (local people poverty incomes) less dependency on forest) foresters and dependency on forests)
73 Management priorities for each village type
Management work should put an emphasise on places where the degradation of the Juniper forests is the most important, and where conflicts occur between foresters and villagers. It means in the villages of type 1 & 2. The villages of type 3 have generally little impact on forests and should not be taken as a priority, though some activities will need to be undertaken. Though the density of population is much higher at low altitudes, the map below shows that most of the territory in South Kyrgyzstan is located above 1300 m.
1 2 3 Village type Ex: Ak-Bosogo (Alai) Ex: Gaz (Batken) Ex: Saritala (Batken)
1. lack of lands Main problems 1. lack of energy. suitable for 1. lack of water to expressed by the 2. lack of hay. irrigation. irrigate lands. local population 3. lack of timbers. 2. difficulty to trade 2. difficulty to trade (put in order) 4. bad state of the road to and process local local production. village. production. 3. lack of energy. • due to the climate, crops and trees badly • due to the • the main constraint grow (except Juniper). topography, there is the lack of water • due to the topography, are few lands which impedes to there are very few suitable for farm more lands. Main constraints lands suitable for farming. farming or planting. • the low life stand and • the breakdown of the villagers’ the economy and dependence on forests, the high cost of cause conflicts with transport, make foresters. the trading of • village accessibility is local production often difficult. difficult. • it seems to exist • it already exists a significant • the population is social organisation at resources on the hard-working. Main opportunities village level. forest fund that • the proximity of the • the Kyrgyz tradition, could be Uzbekistan and more alive at high exploited for the Tajikistan borders altitude, requires to benefit of the increase market protect forests. population, exchanges. without degrading forests (mainly irrigated lands).
74 Hypothesis for management prioritises
Village type 1 Village type 2 Village type 3 Management priorities Ex: Ak-Bosogo (Alai) Ex: Gaz (Batken) Ex: Saritala (Batken)
Improve the current 1st level priority 2nde level priority 2nde level priority use of juniper firewood • it will improve the • local people scarcely use of firewood, but collect firewood in the not fulfil all needs. forests of the forest fund.
Hardly possible 1st level priority 1st level priority
Develop alternatives to • natural resources can • there is both the • develop timber juniper wood not fulfil all the local possibility and the production (and not needs for energy and need to develop firewood). It would timbers. External alternatives to help to supply the sources are required. juniper wood. villages located high in altitude.
nde nde 3rd level priority 2 level priority 2 level priority
Develop new • the main likely are • particularly timber profitable activities NWFP, spring water, processing farms. or hunting and tourism.
2nde level priority 2nde level priority 3rd level priority
Raise local (1st level priority in Alay (1st level priority in Alay • local people have little stakeholders' and Tchon-Alay TMUs) and Tchon-Alay TMUs) relationships with awareness forest. • it should focus on the illegal market of juniper timbers.
2nde level priority 1st level priority 3rd level priority • Optimise the use of the forest fund • though it is a very • there is real • the forest fund is often important, there is possibilities on the too far. still a lot of work to forest fund. do in that field.
75 CONCLUSION
More than the fragility of the ecosystem itself, the major concern for the sustainable management of the Juniper forest is the overall economic breakdown of the country. It results in high dependency of rural communities on natural resources, which leads to overuses and conflicts with foresters. However, beyond these obvious weaknesses, it exists real possibilities on which further improvements need to be built. First of all, it is the existing village organisation, from which it seems possible to set up a common and fair management of the main natural resources. It is then the awareness of the local stakeholders, which is, though distorted by the current socio-economic changes, traditionally in favour of forest protection. Eventually it is the forest fund itself, of which some valuable resources are still unused, and the Forest Service staff. Indeed, the existing network of foresters in countryside represents a unique vector for rural development, often the sole institution present at local level.
With such prospects, the stake is not only to ensure the conservation of a unique ecosystem, but even more to raise the livelihood of many local communities in the long run, and possibly to spread this example to similar situations over Central Asia. In such a perspective, the following hypothesis drawn from the VLUP exercise are to be discussed and detailed in the integrated management plans to be set up: improve the current use of Juniper fuel wood (it may be the first priority in places strongly dependant from the local Juniper forests), develop alternatives to Juniper wood where it is possible (for instance with Poplar plantations), develop new profitable activities (for whom? at which level? how?), raise local stakeholders’ awareness (for both villagers and foresters) and optimise the use of the forest fund (especially in the medium altitude places).
These management hypothesis are to be developed with a strong involvement of the local users, who need to be associated in the process of management plans elaboration and implementation, as they are the final main beneficiaries from the introduction of sustainable management of the Juniper forests of South Kyrgyzstan.
76 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Buttoud G. & Yunusova I., 2000: Present issues for a multi-purpose sustainable management of Artcha forests in the South of Kyrgyzstan. in: Proceedings of the international symposium: Problems of Juniper forests, looking for solutions, methods, techniques. Osh, Kyrgyzstan. 6-11 August. Kyrgyz-Swiss Forestry Support Programme & Forest and Walnut Research Institute, pp. 6-13.
Buttoud G. & Yunusova I., 2003: The mixed model for decision making as a conceptual framework for IMP formulation. in: Brun F. & Buttoud G. Edit. The formulation of Integrated Management Plans for mountain forests. Bardonecchia, Italy. 30 June–5 July 2002. European Observatory of Mountain Forests, Universita degli Studi di Torino, pp. 19-29.
Cornet J-G. & Rajapbaev M., 2004: Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Juniper Forests in South-Kyrgyzstan. Nancy, Ecole Nationale du Génie Rural, des Eaux et des Forêts, Commission of the European Communities, Artcha JUMP Project. 96 p.
Samyn J-M. & Nibbering J.W., 2003: Integrated participatory forest management in a densely populated mountain region, NWFP, Pakistan. in: Brun F. & Buttoud G. Edit. The formulation of Integrated Management Plans for mountain forests. Bardonecchia, Italy. 30 June–5 July 2002. European Observatory of Mountain Forests, Universita degli Studi di Torino, pp. 149-159.
Van den Hoek A. & Werter F., 1995: Village land use planning-Building on local experiences in Malakand-Dir-Pakistan, Forests Trees and People, n° 26/27, pp 12-17.
Van den Hoek A. & Werter F., 1994: Manual for village land use planning- Social Forestry Project in Malakand-Dir-Pakistan, training series n°5 A, pp. 21-105.
Yunusova I., 1999: The Kyrgyz forestry concept: a participatory process for forest policy formulation in Kyrgyzstan. in: Niskanen A. & Vajrynen J. Edit. Regional Forest Programmes: A Participatory Approach to Support Forest Based Regional Development. European Forest Institute (EFI) Proceedings, n° 32, pp. 93-104.
77 ANNEXES
Annex n° 1: List of Territorial Management Units (TMUs) visited, p 78.
Annex n° 2: List of the villages selected for VLUP, p 79.
Annex n° 3: Checklist of questions for VLUP, p 80-82.
Annex n° 4: Presentation of the situation in some typical villages as assessed from the VLUP team fieldwork, p 83-156.
78 Annex n° 1: List of Territorial Management Units (TMUs) visited
• Osh TMU Director : Abitov Sadir Vice director: Abougaziev Moussa Office address: Osh town (3222) 52693, (502) 573025.
• Nookat TMU Director : Atalov Djumanazar Tashtanbekovitch Vice director: Elchibelov Jorobay Aslanovich Office address: Nookat district, Jiyde town (3230) 22101
• Aravan TMU Director : Attokourov Jamamdik Office address: Aravan town (03231) 22370, or 51357 (director’s home in Osh),
• Alay TMU Director : Abdikalikov Anarbay Office address: Alay district, Gulcha town (3234) 26058
• Batken TMU and OFD Director : Kimsanov Abdykalyk Main forest engineer: Murzakulov Taalaybek Abdilaevich Office address: 715 100, Batken town (3622) 22359
• Uch-Korgon TMU Director : Maksutov Abdunooman Matisakovich Main forest engineer: Aldajarov Abdirazak Aldajarivitch Office address: 715 210, Kadamjay district, Pulgon town (3655) 23587
• Leilak TMU Director : Aliev Abdimalik Jetimishevish Main forest engineer: Murzakulov Kurmanbek Abdilaevich Office address: 715 000, Leilak district, Isfana town, Lesnaya street, number 2 (3256) 21267
79 • Annex n° 2: List of the villages selected for VLUP
Village distance Territorial Villages from TMU Altitude Management Units centre
1. Kitchi Bulele 50 km 2,100 m 2. Tshon Bulele 57 km 2,100 m Alai 3. Kitchi Karakol 50 km 2,300 m 4. Madaniat 60 km 2,600 m 5. Ak Bosogo 80 km 2,700 m
Nookat 1. Kara Oy 35 km around 2000 m & 2. Kaindi 95 km 2,200 m National park 3. Kodshe Kelen 120 km 2,400 m Kyrgyz Ata 4. Agart 40 km around 2,000 m
1. Maiden 70 km 1,500 m 2. Karaul 90 km 1,500 m Utch Kurgun 3. Austam 95 km 1,800 m 4. Tamacha 30 km 1,800 m 5. Kuturma 35 km 1,900 m
1. Kaindi 83 km 1,600 m Batken (formerly Raut) 70 km 1,300 m 2. Saritala 55 km 1,550 m 3. Gaz
Lailak 1. Andarak 14 km 1,800 m 2. Kok Tach 30 km 1,800 m
Aravan Only at TMU // level
Osh Only at TMU // level
80 • Annex n° 3: Checklist of questions for VLUP
1. At Forest Management Unit level
• Villages choice. • Number of village to visit in the Forest Management Unit. • Criteria for choosing these villages.
2. At Administrative Unit level
History of the village ( historical features which can help to understand the current organisation ) Human capital • Number of people and households (household size) / village. • Ethnic groups. • Changes over time in population. • Main activities carried out by villagers. • Seasonal or long term migration. Social capital • Social organisations (their aims, membership and roles) • Leadership patterns (village leaders) • Social rules and norms at village level (access to land, resolution of conflicts) • Relationships within villagers, with foresters and local authorities (fines, conflicts…). • Habits and traditions (meetings, festivities, holly sanctuaries …). Natural capital • Total area / village.
• Land ownership pattern : areas of agricultural lands (irrigated or not), pastures, lands for haymaking… belonging to Forest Management Unit, administration or private people.
• Administration unit incomes from land leases.
• Cattle size and repartition among villagers (average cattle number per family, % of families with cattle).
• Main villagers output. • Changes of land and land use over time (degradation, breaking down of traditional management system…). Infrastructure capital • Roads, means of transport, school, electricity, village shop, water supplies.
81 3. At village level
• Population. • Number of people and households. Main activities carried out by villagers & access to land Activities Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 • Actors, social groups (different roles of men, x x x women and children) • Place where it is carried out List of goods and services Goods & services Good 1 Good 2 Good x
• Amount purchased / collected xx x • Domestic / commercial uses • Rank importance for family budget (both for income & expenditures) Family incomes and expenditures matrix • Main sources of incomes and expenditures in the community, both cash and in kind? • How are expenditures spread out over the year ? (At what time of the year are people able to pay for land access or goods ? ) Social organisation • Main difference within villagers. Definition of social groups. • Social organisations; any activity carried out in common (their aims, membership, roles, location…). • Leadership patterns (leaders at VLUP level); do representatives exist? • Role and authority of leaders at VLUP level.
Villagers perception of natural resources • Villagers’ dependence on natural resources. • Villagers’ understanding of forest ecological role. • Change of natural resources over time (= land use history). • Main concerns Concern 1 Concern 2 … • Villagers x x • Foresters x x • Main expectations Expectation 1 Expectation 2 concerning land use … • Villagers x x • Foresters x x
82 VLUP team perception & observation • Stakeholders & social groups: what characterises them ? • Relationships within villagers, with foresters and local authorities (fines, conflicts) • Occurrence of conflicts, reasons and rules of regulation. • Level of villagers’ responsibility for / ownership of land. • Level of poverty. • Gender issues: position & role of women. • Impact of villagers uses of natural resources. • Land marks and boundaries.
Meetings & interviews carried out • Number of meetings & interviews for the VLUP. • Composition of people interviewed. • Which information seemed contradicting ? Which ones are difficult to have? • Any hints for VLUP work. • What was good – what was bad?
83 • Annex n° 4: Presentation of the situation in some typical villages as assessed from the VLUP team fieldwork
Territorial Village type Management Village according to the Page Units altitude ( leshozes) ( Highest, medium, lowest)
• Kitchi Karakol Type 1 (2,300 m) 84-92 Alai • Kitchi Bulele Type 1 (2,100 m) 93-102
Nookat • Kodshe Kelen Type 1 (2,400 m) 103-112 • Kaindi Type 1 (2,200 m) 113-118
Utch Kurgun • Karaul Type 2 (1,500 m) 119-128 • Tamacha Type 2 (1,800 m) 129-136
• Kaindi (formerly Type 2 (1,600 m) 137-143 Batken Raut) • Saritala Type 3 (1,550 m) 144-149
Lailak • Andarak Type 2 (1,700 m) 150-156
84 Forest Management Unit(leshoze): Alai Administrative Unit: Utch-Dobo Village: Kitchi-Karakol
Location/Short description: the village is located at 2300 m altitude, has a river and is surrounded by hills - some of them partly with rather dense Juniper forest at the edges. Altitude: 2,300 masl. Access: Distance from leshoze center (Gulcha): 50 km; good road access (main road to China and Tajikistan). Infrastructure: 1 school, 1 medical checkpoint, electricity existing, no market. Date: Mai 2004.
Population and social organisation
• Number of people and households: Around 400 households, 1600 people.
• Ethnic groups: Kyrgyz.
• Main difference within villagers, definition of social groups:
According to the discussion with the villagers and the local administration, the social groups in this village can be defined basically in function of the level of wealth. Wealth is mainly basing on criteria like the amount of cattle owned by each family, people with a permanent jobs and salary (in addition to cattle) and also the amount of private land. - Poor people (about 30% of villagers): nothing or just 1-2 cows and a few sheep. - Middle rich people(about 40% of villagers with cattle as the main source of incomes): less than 10 cows, and 60 sheep. - Rich people (about 30% of villagers): more than 12 cows and 60 sheep, with a permanent job and salary.
• Social organisations (their aims, membership, roles, location…) and rules:
There are 3 main organisation in the village: - Health organisation (3 doctors and 6 nurses), - Women organisation (Djamat): Production of handicrafts, - Aksakal (old men’s) council, every family is represented in this organisation. The main role of the members is to try to solve eventual conflicts in the village (a kind of local court). In the winter season, when cattle graze on pastures near the village, the villagers (families) organise themselves in turn to keep the whole cattle. Except this, there is no other activity carried out in common.
85 Leadership patterns - do representatives exist? Each organisation has a leader, but the most influent leader is the “Aksakal” council leader.
Main activities carried out by villagers & access to land
Cattle Culture of Firewood Activities Hay making keeping potatoes collection Actors, social Every body Every body Every body, Especially groups owning cattle owning cattle especially men youngsters Small plots of Between 3 & 8 land - most of In different Km from the summer them around Place where it places around village pasture: the home is carried out the village, (very difficult actually, only (there are other (cf village especially in access) They use one place for not irrigated map) the mountain horses to carry all the village. plots, more or zone. the firewood to less far from the village. the village). On summer pastures, from end of May till middle In august, Every time Annual September. before coming Plant in May when it is schedule, After back from and harvest in possible. frequency summer, summer September. They prepare a cattle grazing pastures. stock for winter. on common pastures close to the village. Social Each family Culture and organisation Individual Families work manage their sale are (common or organisation. together. own cattle. Individual. individual) All villagers Rules, land Foresters have received allocation. allocate a plot of land. Only the Culture on Who decides? summer It can be used collection of dry private land. According to pastures to the for agriculture wood is allowed. which villagers. or hay criteria? making. Equal access Equal access Equal access. Equal access. Equal access. for everyone? to land. Benefits Cattle, meat, To feed cattle Energy. Domestic use. drawn from it milk, wool… in winter. 86 Cattle Culture of Firewood Activities Hay making keeping potatoes collection Taxes paid to Taxes paid to People pay to the village the village Annual taxes administration the leshoze Related costs administration 240 som./ 3 m3/ to leshoze. (35 som/ha) or (35 som/ha/year, year to the leshoze whatever land (180 som/ha) use) Not sustainable There are (need to go Sustainability enough OK OK further and pastures further from village) During Soviet Cattle grazing union times, Change over pressure has Only potatoes they were Time drastically can be sufficiently / (historical dropped with cultivated (due provided with aspect) the collapse to the altitude). cheap energy of USSR. (coal and electricity). The situation becomes more Not enough Low prices on and more Related suitable land the market and Hay making. difficult. Each difficulties for hay heavy costs of family need making. transport. about 25 m3 /year (they only pay taxes for 3 m3). Supply the More land Supply the village with Possible Market plots for village with cheap energy improvements regulation. haymaking. hay. ( coal and electricity ).
Additional information to land repartition and use of natural resources: Due to the long period of winter and the high altitude (7 months, 2300 m ), there are not a lot of possibilities for agricultural activities. The only crops which are more or less adaptable to these natural conditions are potatoes. In terms of haymaking, grass neither doesn’t grow well. In order to cover this deficit, the local population has to plant a special kind of grass to feed their cattle (jashmin ). All the villagers consider as their first priority necessity in these extreme living conditions the need of firewood. The amount of needed firewood increases annually - they collect between 20-25 m3/family/year (much more then the officially given limit of 3m3 by the leshoze) as because it is the only source of energy (coal and electricity are too expensive). 87 Users of firewood can be divided into 2 groups: one group uses fire wood mainly for the preparation of food while for heating they additionally take coal and kiziaki (dried cattle dung). The other group is a category of people which only use fire wood all year around.
Concerning the repartition of the land in the village, the access to land can be divided into: - Lands for agricultural use, irrigated or not, belonging to the administration, - Forest lands, pastures and hay making, generally belonging to the Leshoze.
Each family receives from the administrative fund a plot of irrigated land: - During the Soviet union: 0,15 ha / member (15 sotok), - After 1994 : 0,07 ha / member (0,7 sotok). These lands are private, all the same the villagers have to pay a land tax: 1som./sotok/year.
Each family receives furthermore a plot of 0,15 ha (15 sotok)/familly (locally called Agorod =garden around the home). This for, every family has to pay a land tax: 60 som/ year (a family with more than 4 children under 16 years is exempt). Moreover, villagers can rent for 08 som/ha non irrigated (bagarni) lands belonging generally to the leshoze, which can be used for grazing or for hay making.
List of goods and services
NTFP Goods & Cattle and (medicinal Potatoes Firewood services derived goods plants, honey…) Every household, Almost every Medical mainly poor family has cattle. herbs: some Actors, level of and middle Prime importance Every people collect preference per rich people for all, even for family. it for their social group who have people who have own use. not enough a salary. kisaki (dried cattle dung) Base of people’s In theory, wealth (from Amount 3m3/ family/ nothing up to 50 purchased / - year. Small cows, 100 sheep collected Much more and several in practice. horses). Domestic / Domestic and Domestic Both. Domestic use. commercial uses commercial uses. use only.
88 Income: important, First income. Expenditure: Rank but depen- Expenditure: 240 som per importance for ding on important too as year Not family budget market they pay per (cheapest significant. (both for income prices. animal for energy & expenditures) Expenditure: grazing rights. source) not important.
Goods & Wood for Teaching in the Medical checkpoint, services construction village school Post Actors. Level of Families who 30 teachers (the 1 nurse, one doctor preference per need to build a school provides 11 (not university level), social group house. courses (7– 17 years). postman. Amount purchased / ?/ / collected
Domestic / Both, but mainly commercial uses // illegally. Rank importance for family budget Salary from the / Low payment. (both for income Aiyl-okmoto & expenditures)
89 Family incomes and expenditures matrix
Rank 1 4 2 3 5 Perma- Pension Main sources Allocation Cattle nent for old Potatoes of incomes for children salary people When villagers needs money, they have to sell cattle on the markets of Generally Gulcha and Osh. a little Incomes The frequency quantity spread over depends on their Monthly Monthly Monthly in the year needs October (especially in (0,5 - 1 winter and and t/family). in the period of school entrance).
Every family Old Men with & women (above 55 Teachers children 60 % of Social groups years All the villagers. doctors, under 16 the concerned receives nurses. year population receive monthly (about 100 about 800 som/ month/ som). child).
Flour : every family have to Taxes buy monthly Taxes for Main for Taxes for about 3 bags of hay / expenditures firewood pastures. flour. making. (400 som/bag); Clothes; Transports… Expenditures 240 som spread over Every time. /// per year. the year Social groups Every All cattle All cattle Every Every body. concerned body. owners. owners. body.
90 Villagers perception of natural resources (Villagers’ dependence on natural resources, their understanding of forest ecological role and change of natural resources over time)
The majority of the population consider that they are note able to exist and live without forests. They often said ”forest is a part of our life”. All interrogated persons mentioned the importance of forests in their livelihood (wood resources, hay, fire wood, medicinal plants…). They have a good level of general ecological knowledge. Many protective functions of forests have been specified, as for example protection from erosion, soil protection against landslides and preservation of the environment. People realise that the Juniper forest areas have decreased (in the past, there were very dense Juniper forests around the village). The majority of interrogated villagers consider, that Juniper forests should be protected. It is also necessary to foster regeneration (planting) in order to ensure a better environment and ecological conditions for the next generations (they are aware of the need to protect, though they have no choice as they have to use firewood as their only energy source available).
Villagers’ main concerns
Problem of energy (over use of firewood) High costs of Lack of Lack of wood energy : haymaking Main concerns Unemployment. for * Coal: 1200 Som/t and cattle construction. * Electricity: breeding. monthly about 150 Som (during winter). Very Very important important Importance (more and more Important. Important. (need to find for villagers difficult, no it illegally). solution). Very Very important, Importance important, threat for the // for foresters threat for the forests. forests. Necessity of Wood for Necessity to ensure help from Related construction coal & electricity / governance expectations has to be with low prices. (Government available. intervention).
91 Ideas, improvement of land use practices
- The foresters should make the local people more sensible about the risk of forest degradation. - It is very important to ensure plantations where firewood has been extensively collected (plantations of spruce). For this, it will be necessary to use the nursery of the leshoze which is already situated close to the village. - The Oblepikha plant, which grows along the river, must be protected because actually it is used as firewood. - It is necessary to carry on studies on new crops that could grow at this altitude, and new fast growing tree species in order to protect the Juniper forest from the overuse of firewood.
VLUP team perception & observation
Relationships within villagers, with foresters and local authorities: according to the discussions with the local population, there is good relationship between them, the local forester and local administration (no conflicts). The forester mentioned that he often doesn’t take taxes from the poor villagers.
Level of poverty: it tends to increase with unemployment, high costs of energy and extreme living conditions (altitude and climatic constraints).
Gender issues: position & role of women: both women and men are involved in the household management. In addition of household activities, women work on the fields (mainly cultivation of potatoes), and during winter they use their free time for handicrafts.
Impact of villagers uses of natural resources: In addition to the over collection of firewood, the need of building materials conduct the local population to illegal felling of wood for constructions. As a consequence, around the village there are juniper forests with very low density. In addition, young plantations of spruce in these areas are suffering due to the pressure of cattle grazing around the village.
Land marks and boundaries: Visible only in the village area (between the houses).
Meetings & interviews carried out - 3 meetings with more than 22 villagers the forester was not present at the discussions). - Meetings with 30 villagers together with local foresters and representatives of local administration. - During transect walking: discussion with 3 old men (in different places of the village), 5 women and different groups of young people.
92 Village land use map ( realised and agreed by both forester and villagers):
93 Forest Management Unit: Alai Administrative Unit: Bulele Village: Kitchi-Bulele
Location/Short Description: Valley with river, steep slopes and several settlements on both sides, road ends in village, pastures are situated deeper in the valley, great land slide danger, juniper sparely existing on each side of the valley. In the valley, poplar, willows, birches and bushes are growing. Altitude: 2000 masl. Access: Distance from leshoze centre: 50 km; good road access. Infrastructure: no public transport, 3 schools (primary and secondary), 1 medical centre, electricity existing – but often shut down, no shop, good water supplies. Date: May 2004.
Population and Social Organisation • Number of people and households: 403 households, 1785 people. - Number of population has been growing in the past years. - High number of especially middle age males who work 1-3 years in Osh, Bischkek, Alma-Aty, Russia. • Ethnic groups: Kyrgyz. • Main difference within villagers, Definition of social groups: 3 social groups according to wealth which is related to the amount of cattle: - Rich families: 100 sheep, 22 horses or cows. - Middle families: 10 sheep, 10 horses or cows. - Poor families: no cattle.
• Social organisations (their aims, membership and roles) and rules:
Organisation Function Members
Aksakal Soviet Local court/judgement deciding on crimes and 5-7 (council) conflicts on village level. Veteran Soviet Advising young people for their future. 7 Judgment and consulting on special women 5 Womens’ issues (women who have problems, women Soviet who behave bad..). Parents’ Soviet Decision making on the organisation of the 10 school. Kirk-Tschara, Young peoples’ Organisation of festivities and sport games. ? organisation
94 Organisation Function Members
Members of the Djamat (Families) pay 10-25 som per month and decide in community (men Neighborhoods, and women) how to spend the money each 20-50 people/ 10 Djamats month (maintenance of infrastructure, Djamat. supporting families in need, paying funerals, festivities etc…). Handicraft production (women: carpets, 3 women groups cushions, tissues; men: wooden products). and 1 men group
Leadership patterns - do representatives exist? - Every Soviet (council) and Djamat has a leader. Ayil-okmot(administration) leader. Main activities carried out by villagers & access to land Potato Firewood Activities Cattle keeping Hay making cultivation collection Families (men Usually men usually Actors, social All family Usually men and and plough, groups members. youngsters. youngsters. women plant & harvest). All seasons They have to go expect summer: 15-20 km in order Small plots Place where it pastures in and Places more to collect firewood of land next is carried out around villages; or less on the territory of to houses (cf village Summer: around the the village Tschon- or close by map) pastures higher village. Bulele; else deeper the village. up in the in the valley. mountains. * On summer pastures, from end of May till middle Plant in Normally once in a Annual Normally September. May and year legally schedule, around After summer, harvest late (otherwise frequency august. cattle grazing on September. illegally). common pastures close to the village. Social Each family Organisation Organisation In general, each organisation manage their family organises the (common or in family. in family. collection individually individual) own cattle. 95 Potato Firewood Activities Cattle keeping Hay making cultivation collection Each household Every family has to pay 240 som has a patch per year to the Summer of land, leshoze. They are pastures are Rules, land given by the only allowed to owned by the Each allocation.** Aiyl-okmato, collect dead and leshoze. Each person gets Who decides? depending dry wood, lying on family has 0,26 Sotok According to on the the soil or being pasture grounds for which number of swept down by which they haymaking. criteria? family avalanches and frequent already members water. Green wood a long time. (0,11 Sotok and branches are /pers). forbidden to take officially. Depending on Yes – though rich the fact how families can pay long a family Yes, Yes, others for the already settles in everybody everybody Equal access collection – though the village (new receives his receives his for everyone? they are less in families might share of share of need of firewood have a problem) land. land. as they can use and how much Kisaki.*** cattle they have. Domestic Cattle, meat, Hay in order Benefits use and Energy for cooking dairy, wool, to feed cattle drawn from it sale and heating. kisaki. *** in winter. (market). Annual fee Each household Annual fee of 4.5 pays taxes to the of 4.5 som/Sotok Each household LESHOZE for som/Sotok (1 Sotok= pays 250 som/year grazing rights: (1 Sotok= Related costs 100m2) paid to the leshoze in 1 cow-30 som , 100m2) to order to collect 1 horse -40, 1 paid to Aiylokmato firewood. sheep – 7, 1 Ailokmato. goat – 80 som. Pastures itself are sustainable – but the demand Not sustainable – for pasture amount of Sustainability See left. OK. grounds is available firewood higher than the increases. availability.
96 Potato Firewood Activities Cattle keeping Hay making cultivation collection Up to three years ago, During Soviet Cattle grazing they Change over union, the village pressure has planted time was sufficiently dropped with the / wheat – but (historical provided in cheap collapse of the soils aspect) energy (coal and USSR. have electricity). become too poor. The growing number of people, The present Low potato the lack of amount of lands prices on alternative energy for pastures is the market and the general seen as a (especially decrease of forests limiting factor; Limiting in 2003: lowers the The payment factor. Not 1 kg = 1 availability of Related rules of the enough land som); firewood. People difficulties leshoze are not for hay traders have to go farer accepted (see making coming to every year to infos Aiyl- available. the collect their okmato); the villagers firewood. The steep slopes are don’t pay official amount of dangerous for enough. firewood for each calves. household is not sufficient. Supply the Possible Discuss the Supply the Potato villagers with coal improvements payment prices village with price and cheaper of the leshoze. hay. regulation. electricity.
* In most of the cases, pastures are close to the forest. If not, people use Kisaki as a energy source . *** Kisaki: dried cattle dung is used for heating and is told to heat even better than fuelwood). ** 6,102 ha of lands which include all pastures are belonging to the leshoze lands.
97 List of goods and services
NTFP Cattle and (medicinal Goods & services derived Potatoes Firewood plants, goods honey…) Almost every family Every Women use has cattle household; juniper as Prime mainly poor medicine*. Users. Level of importance and middle Medical preference per social Every family for all, even rich people herbs: some group for people who have people collect who have a not enough it for their salary. kisaki. own use.
Base of peoples wealth (from In theory, nothing up 3m3/family/ Amount purchased / to 50 cows, / year. Much Small. collected 100 sheep more in and several practice. horses).
Domestic and Domestic/commercial Domestic Domestic use commercial Both. uses use only. mainly. uses.
Income: First income. important - but Expenditure: depending Rank importance for Expenditure: important on market family budget (both cheapest Not too, as they prices. for income & energy significant. pay per each expenditures) source. animal on Expenditure the summer not pastures. important.
98 Teaching Hand made Wood for in the Medical Goods & services products construction village checkpoint (handicraft) school Groups of There are women (carpets, 75 1 medical Users. Level of Families who tissues) and men teachers sister, one preference per need to build (wooden working doctor (no social group a house. products: for the university furniture, village level). instruments…). school. Amount purchased / / On demand. / / collected Both, but Domestic / For domestic mainly / commercial uses use and for sale. illegally. Rank importance for family budget Low /Low. / (both for income & payment. expenditures) Additional information to Use/information of/on Juniper: - Clean teeth. - Medicine for skin injuries. - Medicine against flue. - Juniper Smoke for good spirits in the house. - The green colour can be used for dying tissues. - Juniper is used as construction wood as well as firewood. - Up to 100 trees are used for the construction of a house. - Juniper types existing, one doesn’t have a lot of side branches. - Juniper as construction wood is cheap in comparison (1000-2000 som/m3) and can be sold to people elsewhere in order to construct expensive saunas etc. (imported timber from Russia costs up to 8000 som).
Family incomes and expenditures matrix
Rank 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Credits Cattle and Govern- Main sources Sale of Permanent concerning derived mental of incomes potatoes. salary. cattle products. help. breeding. After harvesting, Incomes Can be in Not related spread over sold any Regularly. Regularly. September, to seasons. the year time. October.
99 Teachers (75 teacher Most among 196 Social groups families Most Cattle Old people. working concerned (cattle families. owners. people), owners). foresters, nurse… Food, Main clothes, Tax for Tax for hay Tax for / expenditures transports pastures. making. firewood. … Expenditures At the Every spread over beginning / Once a year. / time. the year of summer. Social groups Every All cattle All cattle Every body. / concerned body. owners. owners.
Villagers perception of natural resources
Villagers’ dependence on natural resources: • They are concerned about their nature. • They consider not being able to exist without forests. • They consider Juniper as their wealth. • They mention the next generation. • The talk about the connection between landslides and forests (some mention climate changes). • They have no choice using firewood as it’s the only available energy source next to kisiaki(dried cattle dung).
Villagers’ understanding of forest ecological role( some opinions): • Forest supports health. • Nature lies in gods hands. • Trees grow by themselves-this is given by god – so why do they have to pay to the leshoze? • some people take care not to touch young trees. • They actively want to participate in the protection of forests.
Change of natural resources over time (land use history): • Forest degradation has been increasing in the past years (strong degradation of forests around the village). • There used to be trees of 15m height around the village. • Up to three years ago, wheat was cultivated in the village – meanwhile the soils got too poor. • In the past years, the village has suffered from several earth slides – the danger of earth slides increases.
100 Villagers’ main concerns
Lack of lands Lack of Price Earth slides, 8 for energy of Main houses out of 18 pasture (coal, potatoe Plantations concerns had to be and electricity, s on the evacuated) hay- gas) market making High At Soviet (3 years ago, the times, school local school kids Importance Very kids used to High. won a competition High. for villagers high. plant spruce in Bishkek trees. concerning natural hazards). Importance High. High. High. High. High. for foresters Coal and other energy There should sources The government be more have to be has to get active plantations - Related / available – and help the / not only expectations else the village with spruce but degradation technical support. also walnut of forests trees etc. can not be stopped
More problems: • In general no help from the governance. • No work – a lot of people just sitting around. • The leshoze doesn’t inform people sufficiently about their work and plans. • Half of the price of a house has to be paid for the fine concerning Juniper construction wood.
Ideas, improvement of land use practices: • some villagers see forest land leases for villagers as a possible improvement. • The leshoze has to do more information work/better inform the people. • The leshoze alone can not protect the forests - locals have to support the controlling and protection work.
101 VLUP team perception & observation
Relationships within villagers, with foresters and local authorities (fines, conflicts…): - The leshoze has a lot of power in the village. - Villagers understand the foresters – the foresters understand the villagers.
Occurrence of conflicts, reasons and rules of regulation: - Rules of grazing rights (they have to pay for each animals’ access to the leshoze): the taxes are considered too expensive is too expensive. - Boarders between villages concerning the places of firewood collection are not evident. - Controversial subject among villagers: question of leasing forest lands. - Villagers who cut young trees observed by others. - They say that the local people use a small amount of the Juniper wood – most of it is sold elsewhere. - Conflict: the leshoze wants to plant spruce – people don’t want this as they don’t see a profit out of it.
Î Regulations: see above “Ideas, improvement of land use practices”
Level of villagers’ responsibility for / ownership of land: High concerning pastures and fields – low concerning forests.
Level of poverty: 3 life levels: - Rich families: 100 sheep, 22 horses or cows. - Middle families: 10 sheep, 10 horses or cows. - Poor families: no cattle.
Gender issues: position & role of women: - Women are managing the household, milk cows, work on the fields – only during winter they have time for handicrafts (with exception of producing ‘Schirdaks’ (national carpets). - Women support their men whenever possible. Women and men are involved in decision making on the level of Djamats (see ‘social organisations’).
Impact of villagers uses of natural resources: - Everywhere around the village there are almost no forests. - Land in and around the village is intensively used.
Land marks and boundaries: Not visible
102 Meetings & interviews carried out:
Place Present people Impressions Sarka-Ulu ~ 30 men , youngsters. Too many people for discussions. (2 Djamats) Aiyl-okmoto Secretary. Informative. Aiyl-okmoto - 2 Aksakal, ~10 a lot of old women taking part in the Tschati (35 women, 5 men, discussion families) youngsters. a group of active women - they maintain Womens’ 4 women. a café for visitors, teach young women group and produce handicrafts which they would like to purchase. Sarka-Ulu ~ 15 women, 15 men, main speaker is an old veteran (2 Djamats) youngsters Ail Dschek-Ulu 1 Aksakal, 3 men, 4 / (10 houses) women Ail Ak-Tala 2 Aksakal, 7 men, 3 Women leave after some time, people (2 Djamats) women are disputing 50 children (between The kids are well informed about role of School 13-16 years), 4 forests; they see a close relation between teachers humans and forests
Village land use map ( realised and agreed by both forester and villagers) :
103 Forest Management Unit: Nookat Administrative Unit: Papan Village: Kodsche-Kelen
Location/Short Description: the village is surrounded by hills and the houses are spread over a distance of 7-8 km on both sides of a river. The amount of juniper trees on the hills rises deeper down the valley. The village road leads to summer pastures and further on a pass to the rayon of Tschon-Alai, which is sometimes frequented by tourists. A speciality of the village is the existence of 4 carbon mines close by. Altitude: 2,400 masl. Access: Distance from leshoze centre: 120 km; the access road is leading through a remote mountainous area with a high risk of avalanches and falling rocks – though it is maintained and accessible all year. Infrastructure: public transport existing (once a week, a public bus goes to Osh and back); school with 30 teachers; no electricity problems; good water supplies. Date: June 2004.
Population and Social Organisation
Number of people and households: 270 households with an average of 8 people per household. Population grows with an average of 30 persons per year.
Ethnic groups: Kyrgyz.
Main difference within villagers. Definition of social groups: According to the discussion with the villagers and the forester, the social groups in this village can be defined basically in function of the level of wealth: - Poor people: about 10 % of the villagers. Criteria: 2-3 cows, a few sheep, no car or van. - Middle: about 50 % of the village. Criteria: more than 10 cows, 50 sheep, 1 van. - Rich people: Criteria: yak and ordinary cattle breeding, coal business, permanent salary, 1-3 vans.
Social organisation (their aims, membership, roles, location…) and rules: There are no social organisations in the village, not even Djamats, expect the local Aksakal council which gathers rarely (conflicts are reported by the Ailbasche to the Aiyl-okmoto council).
Leadership patterns - do representatives exist? - The Ailbascha is the representative of the Aiyl-okmoto. - Aksakal council. - Rich people definitely rule the village (Ailbasche, mine owners).
104 Main activities carried out by villagers in relation with land access
Hay Potato Firewood Activities* Cattle keeping making cultivation collection Families (men usually Usually Usually men Actors, social All family plough, men and and groups members. women plant youngsters. youngsters. & harvest).
Either close There are five Several places to the summer pastures in a distances village (on Small plots Place where it situated around of 5-10 km leshoze) or around the is carried out the village. There from the far from the houses or (cf village are more pasture village; every village - leased map) grounds available year they close to the leshoze land. than needed by the have to go Papan lake. villagers. further. Plant in May Normally Normally Annual and harvest once a year Beginning June – around schedule, late legally Sept/Oct. August till frequency September/ (otherwise October. October. illegally). In general, Social Each family each family organisation Organisatio Organisation manages their own organizes the (common or n in family. in family. cattle. collection individual) individually. All pastures are Since 1996, managed by the young leshoze families get Each family has 5-7 Sotok per Every family pasture grounds Every persons of is allowed to which they Rules, land family has land, which collect 6 frequent already a allocation. received a is situated m3/year long time. Each Who decides? land patch close to Osch (costs: 166 season (3-4 ** According for (the som/m3) month) they pay to which haymaking Aiylokmato Collection on the leshoze for criteria? from the owns land in summer grazing rights. Aiylokmato. this region pastures: The forester due to former 3 m3/season. decides by visiting general poor families. repartition.
105 Hay Potato Firewood Activities* Cattle keeping making cultivation collection Everybody owns cattle (poor families 1-2 Yes, cows). Yes, everybody Equal access The access is everybody receives his Yes. for everyone? equal for everyone receives his share of (spare pastures are share of land. land. allocated to cattle breeders from outside ). Production: Cattle, meat, Hay in 1-3 tons per Energy for Benefits dairy, wool, kisaki order to family; cooking and drawn from it (dried cattle feed cattle generally for heating. dung). in winter. domestic use. Annual taxes paid to Annual Sheep and goats: Ailokmato: 4 taxes paid 16 som/season; som/Sotok to cows, horses and (families Ailokmato: yaks: 40 with more 6 som/season) than 3 Annual taxes Related costs som/Sotok (→ comment: children to leshoze. Annual compared with don’t have to taxes paid other villages – pay taxes) to the why are goats so Annual taxes leshoze : 10 cheap?). paid to soms/Sotok leshoze : 50 som /Sotok Haymaking: People need Available lands leshoze to go further Low potato and transport lands are and further in prices on the costs. situated in a order to Related market The few available distance of collect difficulties (especially in lands for hay 8-10 km firewood; the 2003: 1 kg = making is a from the access is 1 som). limiting factor for village. difficult in cattle breeding. general.
Additional information on the repartition of lands: - Forest lands: The land around the village belongs to the Gos-Les-Fund and is therefore managed by the leshoze. It is used for haymaking and summer pastures. - Village administration lands: Every patch of land in the village has already been distributed to the families in the village during Soviet times - 25 Sotok per family. 106 - By 1996, the repartition of land was fulfilled (which means that there was no more land left to be distributed).
Additional activities :
Coal mining: - There are 4 currently exploited carbon mines existing in/around the village. - Annual production: 6000-8000 tons (1500-2000 tons/year per mine). - The locale population gets coal for free. - The population can buy coal cheaply and resell it elsewhere (a lot of families own a van or a car). - The owner of a mine pays taxes of 200,700 soms each year to the state. - Every mine employs +/- 13 workers which work irregularly according to the demand for coal (the demand is high especially in winter). - The workers are paid with coal – around 3 tons per month (1 ton can be sold for 1000-1500 soms). - The working security level is very low – every worker takes a big risk while working in the mines. - The currently exploited mines can be used for another 36 years. It is possible to exploit new places.
List of goods and services
Cattle and Goods & services Potatoes Firewood Coal derived goods Almost every Every family has household; Actors. Level of cattle Prime mainly poor Every All preference per importance for and middle family. families. social group all, even for rich people people who who have not have a salary. enough kisaki. Base of In theory, people’s wealth 3m3 / family / Amount purchased / (from nothing - year. Much - collected up to 50 cows, more in 100 sheep and practice. several horses). Domestic Domestic and Domestic/commercial Domestic use and commercial Both. uses only. commerci uses. al uses.
107 Income: First income. important - but Expenditure: Important Rank importance for Expenditure: depending 240 som per for family budget (both important too, on market year (cheapest incomes for income & as they pay per prices. energy in this expenditures) each animal on source). village. summer Expenditure: pastures. not important.
NTFP Teaching Medical (medicinal Wood for in the Goods & services checkpoint, plants, construction village Post honey…) school Medical herbs: 1 nurse, one 30 teachers some Actors. Level of Families who doctor (not (the school people preference per social need to build university provides 11 collect it group a house. level), courses for their (7– 17 years). Postman. own use.
Amount purchased / / / Small. / collected Both, but Domestic / Domestic mainly // commercial uses use. illegally. Not Rank importance for Low / Low payment. significant. family budget payment.
108 Family incomes and expenditures matrix
Rank 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Allocation Permanent Pension for families Sale of salary (30 for old with >4 coal teachers, people Main sources Cattle children (can be Sale of postman, (600- breeding. (100 between potatoes. of incomes medical 800 som/month/ rank point, som/ child). 1-5). Ailbashe). month).
Incomes Mainly All around Every Every Every Summer/ spread over in the year month month month autumn. the year winter
Mainly villagers Social groups All Old Every- Employees Families. working families. people. Body. concerned in the mines.
Flour: around 2 tons = 14’000 soms/year per family Main Transport: the petrol costs for a transport by (10 / van to Osh are 3000 soms. expenditures persons) (1 kg= 10 soms) Tea, sugar, other products. Expenditures All around All around spread over All around the year. the year. the year. the year Social groups Every- Everybody Everybody concerned body
109 Villagers perception of natural resources
Villagers’ dependence on natural resources: • some people mention the next generation –though others mention that we live today and have no time to think too much about the future. • No special knowledge by the interrogated persons about medical plants or the use of Juniper for medical purpose.
Villagers’ understanding of forest ecological role: • The interrogated persons have a good knowledge of the ecological role of forests in terms of erosion protection, microclimate, sustainable resources, influence on water cycle… • The know about the slow growth (1000 years…) of Juniper trees.
Change of natural resources over time (= land use history) In Soviet times, timber for construction (spruce, birch) from Russia was transported to the village.
Villagers’ main concerns
Danger of earth slide Main concerns Hay Unemployment Construction in one part wood of the village Importance for high high high high villagers Importance for low low high low foresters Related expectations none none see below /
More problems: - The existence of a lot of goats in the village disturbs or even renders impossible plantations of young trees like Poplar etc. - Some people in the village are definitely not concerned about the sustainability of forests.
Ideas, improvement of land use practices: - It is very important to ensure plantations where wood has been cut or collected intensively. For plantations, People have to collaborate with the leshoze. - The forester can nor act alone in an area of this size, he needs locals involved in the protection efforts in the forests.
110 - A concrete support from outside would be to provide the forester with plantation material and technical facilities. - The forester and local authority should put more effort into sensitisation work in terms of the risks concerning the forest degradation (especially concerning the juniper cutting for business purposes). - People should get a responsibility feeling for forest lands – for example by allocating the responsibility for the protection of forest patches close to pastures to the pasture tenants (for example, they could get a tax reduction as an incentive). - Tourism: the village has been frequented by tourists in the past years as it is along the route to a beautiful pass. Referring to this, the Ailbasche plans to build an infrastructure including a Turbaza (house) and sets up around 12 yurts in the summer season on pastures on leshoze land. He is looking out for financial support. The combination of tourism and forest protection is an interesting opportunity to be followed. - In every village, there is an Imam who prays with the people and talks to them each week. It would be very helpful, if a man in this position is involved in the sensitisation work for the protection of forests (regarding the fact that trees are considered important in the Koran).
VLUP team perception & observation
Relationships within villagers, with foresters and local authorities (conflicts…): The forester seems to have low power in this village. He is not local, he doesn’t have any means of transport in his area of 4000-5000 ha. He doesn’t dare to get too active against the local timber business network. as he was already threatened in this affair. The opinions among the villagers seem to differ (not like in Kisil-Alai, where everyone seemed to have the same opinion).
Occurrence of conflicts, reasons and possible regulation : Juniper wood cutting (Illegal activity): Juniper timber used in the village - some calculation facts: - Reconstruction of houses: min. 3 houses per year. - People who get married: min. 3-7 houses per year. - Amount of wood needed for one house: min. 17 m3 or approx. 100 medium size Juniper trees.
Juniper timber business: - It is impossible to assess the amount of traded timber. - There seems to be an organised network in the village. - The forester has no power to stop these business activities – he even was threatened for his life. - The income is very high: 7000-8000 som/m3. - The demand of juniper timber in cities like Osh for saunas, banjas, other construction purposes is high. 1 van takes 2-3 m3 Juniper timber.
111 Fines for illegal cutting: - For trees with diameters >32 cm, for every cm 118 soms have to be paid. - For every 1 m3, there have to be paid 1000 soms. Conclusion: in any case, it is lucrative to sell the timber, even if a fine has to paid.
Related difficulties: - On one hand, the forester doesn’t live in the village which means he is not constantly present. On the other hand, he doesn’t even have transport means like a hoarse or a car which would facilitate his control tasks. - People don’t want to pay for timber for construction reasons on village level.
ÎQuestions concerning possible improvements: difficult! - How to implement the existing law (stricter restrictions,...)? - Implementation of control measurements like setting up a barrier with a guard… - Sensitisation policy.
Level of villagers’ responsibility for / ownership of land: No responsibility feeling for forest lands.
Gender issues: position & role of women: - No women organisation existing, forests are no particular topic for the women we talked to – they never go to the forest apart from forest close to summer pastures. - Women have in general no time for reading and learning. Most of them don’t speak - Russian because they haven’t been outside of Kyrgyzstan like most of the men (for their military service or educational reasons).
Villagers involvement in forest management: some villagers are asked by the forester to report by whom illegally cut timber is transported away.
Impact of villagers uses of natural resources: Proofs of felling activities visible between village and summer pastures.
Proportions of firewood and wood for construction: Obviously, the demand of firewood is low whereas the demand of construction wood is high.
Land marks and boundaries: Not visible
112 Meetings & interviews carried out:
Place Present people* impressions Host family Father, mother, half This family is one of the richer families grown up children. in the village. Marsal – holy Aksakal (old man) who In favour of forest protection. place protects birches. House Aksakal at his home. Opinion: role of forests: providing timber for construction. The mine owner talks before the old men Meeting with 25-30 men including: = power of money villagers incl. - Ailbasche - the poor man has a good ecological Ailbasche, - mine owner knowledge and is concerned about the mine owner - poor villager condition of forests. - young teacher - in general, the villagers seem to play - Aksakals. with us concerning questions of the use of forest resources. Pastures 1 family, Ailbasche The present women is emancipated, 1 female teacher interested and ready to talk before the men. - The Aksakals consider the land use Group of 4-5 Aksakals map and suggest plantations in the zones Aksakals where most of the wood is cut. - The forester is not attending. - They don’t have any suggestions to the leshoze. Women 4 women, young girls, Forests are not a discussion topic for 2 men them.
Village land use map ( realised and agreed by both foresters and villagers):
113 Forest Management Unit: Nookat Administrative Unit: Kok-Bel Village: Kainde
Location/Short Description: The village outlines a narrow line of 25 houses spread on about 5 km in a valley. Altitude: 2200 masl. Access: Distance from leshoze: 95 km; the access road is leading through a remote mountainous area with a high risk of avalanches and falling rocks – though it is maintained and accessible all year. Infrastructure: School, electricity existing, good water supplies. Date: June 2004.
Population and Social Organisation
Number of people and households: 25 households, around 200 people. Population grows very fast. There is no more place for young people in the village. They settle in Kok-bel or go to towns (though, they often come back as the possibility to get established there is low).
Ethnic groups: Kyrgyz
Main difference within villagers. Definition of social groups: Like in the villages before, the level of wealth is directly related to the cattle size (and secondly to the land ownership). Else can be added: - Rich people use coal and own a car or truck. They are not under the forester‘s control. - Poor and middle people directly depend on the forester’s goodwill.
Social organisations (their aims, membership, roles, location…)and rules - 17 Djamats: common organisations between voluntary families, normally neighbours, to save each month a small amount of money which can be used to help someone from the group when he needs it, or to fund some public works in the village. - A council of 3 old men who judge small infractions at Ayil-okmoto level. They are chosen by the population. - Women council: helps to solve gender problems and school affairs. - Young people comittee: the most active one. It receives a grant from the Ayil- okmoto for organising sport and culture events for young people in the village. One organiser receives a salary.
Leadership patterns - do representatives exist? The first Ailbache (village chief) was elected 2 years ago after a request from the Ayil-okmoto (village administration). He is in charge of solving problems and 114 reporting everything to the Ayil-okmoto. The old men also have a certain authority, depending on their level of education, wealth and relationships with villagers. The major authority is certainly the forester at local level. The Ailbache and old men may help to solve problems and take solutions, but can never force people to do anything. The old men also have a certain authority, depending on their level of education, wealth and relationships with villagers. The major authority is certainly the forester at local level. The Ailbache and old men may help to solve problems and take solutions, but can never force people to do anything.
Main activities carried out by villagers & access to land
Culture of Firewood Activities: Cattle keeping potatoes collection Every body uses at least a bit of firewood on Actors, social Almost every pastures in summer. Every body. groups body. Main consumers all around the year are poor families who can not afford coal. The closest places around the village are already empty. Place where it is One summer pasture Private plots of Need to go further. carried out with enough space land around There are still (cf village map) for all. houses. sufficient reserves, due to the small village population. Annual Collection all year See other schedule, See other villages. around, a bit more villages. frequency before winter. Social organisation Individual. Individual. Individual. (common or individual) People use to come Rules, land to the same place allocation.* Who every year. They decides? / No effective rules. even built small According to houses on the which criteria? pastures. Yes. all arable Equal access for lands are already OK OK everyone? equally distributed. 115 Culture of Firewood Activities: Cattle keeping potatoes collection Benefits drawn See other villages See other villages See other villages from it Grazing rights on leshoze land: 15 som sheep, 40 som cow, 45 goat, 50 horse) and hay (1500 som for 1 car) Taxes for pastures on Tax for firewood: Related costs Ailokmato land / 300 som/ 2 m3/ y around 45-60 som/ ha / y (this amount is established from the land tax given by the government, which should be maximum 50% of local tax. Still all right as there are few people Sustainability OK, no over-grazing. OK in the village and as coal is available. Change over time (historical See other villages. / / aspect) Related /// difficulties Organise the Possible collection of // improvements firewood in remote places.
Additional information to the land repartition: In 1995, 75% of all administrative lands (except pastures and forests) have been privatised. 25% have been kept as a reserve for new comers. This means that every body has received: - 37 sotok non irregated land, - 12 sotok land for haymaking. - Since 1995, new people born in the Ayil-okmoto or married to someone of the Ayil-okmot (and no one else) have received land patches of the reserve (in Kainde, they receive lands in Kok-bel, since there is no more land available in Kainde). - A new family receives once an amount of 15 sotoks in order to build a house. - These decisions for land privatisation are taken by the Ayil-okmoto.and have to be signed by the rayon administration and Bishkek for irrigated lands (for the question where to build houses) whereas in terms of non-irrigated lands only the rayon administration has to sign. 116 List of goods and services
Cattle and Goods & Hay Coal Timbers all second services goods* Most villagers. Every body Regarding the high Users. Level of potentially, price of hay, they Almost preference per 8 families. mainly those have to manage to everyone. social group who build feed cattle all winter houses with their own hay. 1 car of hay for 1 cow Need of 100 Amount or 1 horse or 5 sheep 1- 3 t/ year Juniper trees purchased / or 5 goats = 1500 / 1000 som/ t to build 1 collected som of hay + 1500 house. som of transport. Domestic Domestic / They can never sell it Domestic Domestic and commercial as it is too expensive. use. use. commercial uses use. Rank importance for Depends on cattle family budget size. May be very /// (both for important. income & expenditures) * potatoes, sunflower oil,...
Family incomes and expenditures matrix
Rank 1st 23 Cattle, Pensions for old Main sources of potatoes, oil, Salary people, for disabled incomes butter… and grant for children Incomes spread over All year around Regularly Regularly the year Social groups Only the 4 9 old people, Everybody concerned teachers 2 disabled Transport (50 Main expenditures som one-way Food, clothes Hay to Kok-bel) Expenditures spread All year around All year around Autumn over the year Social groups Almost Everybody Cattle owners concerned everybody 117 Villagers perception of natural resources
Villagers’ dependence on natural resources: Yes, and there are aware of that.
Villagers’ understanding of forest ecological role: Above the ecological role, Juniper is like a part of their life (especially for old people).
Change of natural resources over time (land use history): - Until 1976, it was allowed to cut trees around the village. - People settled down a long time ago in Kainde and split the few arable land of this village between the 20-30 families. It means that they all had a quite important garden when land repartition occurred in 1995. - After the break of the USSR, some lands devoted to forest but still used for cattle grazing have been reattributed to the leshoze - but people still refuse to recognise it. They do prefer to pay small taxes to the friendly ailukmete than to foresters.
Villagers’ main concerns
Road to village. Bad Medical Problem Not enough Main state, was unusable access in with wolf construction concerns last winter village and lynx material Importance Very important Important Important Very important for villagers The forester Importance Very important doesn’t live in Low Very important for foresters the village… Related //// expectations
Ideas, improvement of land use practices
There might be a possibility to preserve plots of forest where good natural regeneration grows, but it would be necessary to fence them. Local people agree that there is a need to protect these regeneration plots as cattle go everywhere and eventually spoil young trees. Unfortunately, fencing is far much too expensive.
VLUP team perception & observation
Relationships within villagers, with foresters and local authorities (conflicts…): - Great power of the local forester: he knows the number of cattle people have and sometimes agrees to bring down these figures by 30% or 50% to diminish taxes. - Regular problem between leshoze and administration existing! - The village administration is generally supporting villagers against foresters. There are permanent conflicts due to fines and taxes.
118 Occurrence of conflicts, reasons and rules of regulation: - Villagers need juniper wood for building houses. They discuss afterwards the amount of the fine they have to pay as the official fines are far too expensive for them and they have no other possibilities to get timber. - Last year, 3 new houses were built (construction material: around 100 trees/house) - Firewood is another topic, though the availability of coal lessens this issue. Level of poverty: - The availability of coal brings down the poverty level. - poverty is related to the altitude factor. Impact of villagers uses of natural resources: Timber felling visible.
Villagers involvement in forest management: Villagers work 3 days per year with the foresters in plantations (20 ha this year, 18 ha last year). They don’t get any salary; on the other hand they don’t have to pay always for firewood.
Land marks and boundaries: Clearly marked in this village.
Further commentaries: There is a coal mine in another village, 30 km far from here. Coal is still expensive, but 8/25 families use it in winter, which brings down the pressure on forest because of firewood.
Meetings & interviews carried out - 4 woman, 11 man. - group of 7 woman. - group of 14 men. - 7 men, including the Ailbache. - 3 old man, 1 old woman, 6 man,4 young people. (almost all houses in the village as well as pastures have been visited)
Village land use map ( realised and agreed by both foresters and villagers):
119 Forest Management Unit: Uetsch-Korgon Administrative Unit: Maidan Village: Karaul
Location/Short description: The village lays between the villages Maidan and Austam. The slopes on both sides of the valley are middle steep – there are two small rivers running through the village. Characterising are the abundance of poplar and the orchard and cultivation activities (fruit trees, corn, wheat, potatoes) around every house – the village seems to be one big garden. Altitude: 1500 masl. Access: Distance from leshoze center (Pulgon): 90 km; good accessible road. Infrastructure: public transport, schools (primary and secondary), 1 medical centre, post, electricity existing, parabol tv (Russian programms); good water supplies. Date: June 2005.
Population and Social Organisation
Number of people and households: 120 households – actually 89 households. There is a constant migration (though not very high so far) existing due to the lack of lands.
Ethnic groups: Kyrgyz, Uzbeks
Main difference within villagers. Definition of social groups: The level of poverty seems to be quite diverse – there are rich people and people with very good connections to representatives on a higher political level (Oblast).
Social organisations (their aims, membership, roles, location…) and rules: - 1 women organisation for handicraft: they work together in terms of production and sale of woolen handicrafts, carpets etc. - Aksakal Soviet (local court). - 1 group in order to support poor people (supported by GTZ). - 1 group in order to organise the distribution of mini credits for agriculture or cattle breeding activities.
Leadership patterns (leaders at VLUP level); do representatives exist? There is a representative of the Ayil-okmorto (village administration): the Ailbache (he was in hospital at the time of our visit). Else, there seem to be quite a few people who are on good terms with people on a higher political level (Oblast level).
120 Main activities carried out by villagers in relation with land access
Agriculture and fruit plantations (potatoes, Firewood Activities: Cattle breeding Haymaking wheat, corn, collection tobacco, fruit trees, vegetables) Usually men Usually men Actors, social All family All family and and groups members. members. youngsters. youngsters. Private land In the patches around gardens the houses; All seasons (under fruit land patches expect summer: trees), on In a 15-20 km Place where it (ulusch) in a pastures in and leshoze land distance from is carried out distance of 45 around villages; or on the village – (cf village km form the Summer: pastures uluschs deeper in the map) village (where higher up in the (where the valley. the Ayil- mountains). Ayil-okmato okmato. has has land land reserves). reserves). Big loads (by car) once a 2-3 times Annual Spring-autumn 3 month per year year – small harvest per schedule, – according to on the summer amounts (by year, starting frequency cultivation. pastures. donkey) all in June. year around.
Usually each Social family by itself – organisation Each family by (exceptionally on Each family Each family (common or itself. summer pastures by itself. by itself. individual) under the charge of a shepherd). Fuelwood can Haymaking be collected Rules, land on leshoze - where allocation. People own the The summer land: 50% of possible – but Who decides? land patches pastures are the hay has only wood of According to around their situated on to be given bushes is which house. leshoze land: to the allowed to criteria? leshoze. collect (no Juniper)
121 Agriculture and fruit plantations (potatoes, Firewood Activities: Cattle breeding Haymaking wheat, corn, collection tobacco, fruit trees, vegetables) Depending on the Equal access Question of place of the More or less. Yes. for everyone? private lands. summer pastures. Fruits, Cattle, meat, vegetables, dairy products, Hay in order Benefits corn, tabac etc. Energy for wool, kisaki to feed cattle drawn from it Domestic use cooking. (dried cattle in winter. and sale on the dung). market. Annual taxes Taxes paid to Taxes for the use Annual tax for paid to the the leshoze: of summer ulusches paid Ayil-okmato 1 bunddle: pastures: to Ayil-okmato: for ulusch: 143 soms; 1 cow: 25 soms 4,2 see left 1 car (ca. 3 1 sheep or goat: Related costs soms/Sotok; Taxes for the m3): 450 14 som, 1 hoarse: Taxes for the leshoze for soms plus 500 30 soms leshoze for nonirrigated soms for (costs for a irrigated land: land: 11 transport costs shepheard: 70 8 som/Sotok. som/Sotok. (they spend 2- som/cow/season). 3 days time ). Not Sustainability ok ok ok sustainable. Cattle grazing Change over They cultivate pressure has Every year, time more and more drastically they have to See left (historical different dropped with the go further for aspect) species. collapse of the collection. USSR. There is a lot The sale on the The available of dry and market is very grazing land available difficult due to around the village There is not Juniper a lack of is not sufficient. enough land Related firewood in clients, Cattle from other for difficulties the forest transport and villages on the haymaking carried down market prices way to the available. by avalanches at the time of summer pastures or water. their harvest. eat their grass.
122 Agriculture and fruit plantations (potatoes, Firewood Activities: Cattle breeding Haymaking wheat, corn, collection tobacco, fruit trees, vegetables) Creation of Allowance little fruit under survey processing of the Possible factories (in //foresters to improvements order to take dry conserve fresh Juniper fruits) in the wood? village
List of goods and services
Agriculture products (potatoes, Construction Cattle and Goods & services wheat, corn, Firewood wood derived goods tobacco, fruits (Poplar) trees, vegetables) Almost Actors. Level of every preference per Every family. Every family. Every family. family. social group For example 7 tons of apples Amount purchased 3-4 out of one / / / collected m3/year garden.
Domestic / Domestic and Domestic and Domestic. Domestic use. commercial uses commercial. commercial.
Important Important for Rank importance Important for for expen- income and / for family budget income. ditures. expenditures.
123 Services: teachers, Goods & services Handicrafts* NTFP** post, medical point Actors. Level of pre- ference per social Women. Men and women. some families. group 1 big carpet is Amount purchased / produced in / Small. collected 15-20 days. Domestic / Domestic & / Domestic. commercial uses commercial. Rank importance for Can be Regular income. Not significant. family budget important. * in this region, women produce a special kind of carpet (no shirdak)
Family incomes and expenditures matrix
Rank 1st 1st 3rd 4th 5th Cattle and derived Credits given products by Governm Main sources (1 cow Agricult- Permanent organisations ental of incomes produces ure. salary. for agriculture helps. between 7- and 8 l milk per handicrafts. day). Incomes Can be sold Spring- Regularl spread over Regularly. Irregular. any time. autumn. y. the year Teachers, Most Old foresters, Families, Social groups families All people, nurse… not women. concerned (cattle families. families. more than owners). 10%. Tax for Tax for Transport cost firewood Food, hay for selling Main Tax for and coal clothes, making products on the expenditures pastures. (1 bag of transports. and market, coal costs ulusch. firewood, hay). 100 som). At the Expenditures All around beginning Several Several times. spread over / the year. of times. the year summer. Social groups Every All cattle All All families. All families. concerned body. owner. families. 124 Villagers perception of natural resources
Villagers’ dependence on natural resources: The importance of agriculture improves people’s life level and independence from forest resources. Furthermore, forests are located far from the village and all people have enough poplar to replace juniper as a building material. Villagers’ understanding of forest ecological role: People questioned seem to be aware of the unique ecosystem of Juniper forests. The interviewees mentioned that they were grateful for the strict protection carried out by the foresters. Change of natural resources over time: - In general, people have the impression that the forests grew in the last couple of years. - The last “sanitarnaja rubka” (thinning for sanitary reasons) in the Juniper forests around the village took place in 1992. - Before the cheap Chinese plates and dishes entered the markets, all villagers used plates and dishes made out of Juniper wood.
Villagers’ main concerns
More than one interviewees mentioned that all concerns are on an equal level.
Lack of land for Unemploy- Lack of cultivation, ment, Low sale accommodation Main haymaking, general possibilities infrastructure concerns pasture around difficult for harvest on summer the village and economical pastures house building situation Importance High High High High for villagers Importance Low High High High for foresters Villagers as well as the leshoze want to People want to People want People look build up small be allowed to to use more out for fruit- and vegetable build little leshoze investors who Related processing cottages on the lands can give expectations infrastructures in summer pastures without credits for order to be able to or else get paying high processing conserve their support to buy a taxes. infrastructures harvest. tent.
125 More problems: - Keeping horses is expensive: it needs 2 cars of hay in order to feed 1 horse through the winter. Furthermore, there are a lot of wolves which eat the horses. - A lot of villagers have an overproduction of fruits like apples (they are forced to throw away a good part of their harvest or feed the apples to their cattle).
Ideas, improvement of land use practices
- The foresters should not only be allowed to plant juniper, but also other species like spruce as another approach in order to relieve the pressure on Juniper forests. - On the leshoze land, there is a spring of very precious water (they already tested the water in a laboratory). If investment possibilities would exist, the leshoze could build up a mineral water production.
VLUP team perception & observation
Relationships within villagers, with foresters and local authorities: - There are a lot of obvious little conflicts which seem to be tied to the fact that the foresters manage to protect the juniper forests. Though, one Aksakal mentioned that he doesn’t regard any of the existing conflicts as serious ones. - The villagers on the other hand are ready to face the foresters – if necessary by using their relations with a regional authorities on Oblast level. - More than one interviewee mentioned that the foresters are doing a good job and without their rigorous control the forests would certainly be in danger. - They say that in general they get regularly informed by the foresters.
Occurrence of conflicts, reasons and possible regulation: - People started to cultivate potatoes on the Gos- Les-Fond lands. The leshoze decided as a consequence to take 25-30 % of the harvest. People handed over the smallest and least qualitative potatoes which were used among other to pay the foresters. Since a year, they ought to pay 150 soms/Sotok which is, according to the market prices (1 som /kg last year), very expensive. - Cottages on summer pastures of leshoze land: the leshoze tries to get rid of cottages which have been already build in the eighties, when the land was used by Kolhozes/Sovhozes, by urging the concerned people to pay fines. On the other hand, people involve politicians, for example a deputy of the oblast (who is searching for votes) to overcome the rules of the leshoze. - Quite a few people, mainly rich ones, try to avoid paying taxes by not revealing the right number of cattle. - Villagers still don’t want to accept the fact that they have to pay for every animal on the summer pastures as this is not part of the cattle breeding traditions. Additionally, they think it is not fair they ought to pay for baby animals. They suggest to pay only for animals which are older than one year.
126 - The boarder between the village land and the leshoze -land is almost in the village. The people depend on the grass of the land around the village for their cattle. At the same time, the cattle of other villages’ inhabitants are passing by on the way to the summer pastures and eat the grass on the leshoze-land which is needed for the cattle in the village.
Level of villagers’ responsibility for / ownership of land: The villagers feel responsibility for public grounds in the village next to their private lands. Concerning forests, a responsibility feeling is something abstract as they’re not allowed to do anything in the juniper forests.
Level of poverty: Due to rich soils, in general sufficient water supplies and the diverse cultivation possibilities, the level of poverty is lower compared to the villages we have seen so far (except Kosche-Kelen). Houses are of a better quality than we have seen in villages before – for example built on concrete fundaments The poorest families seem to have 1-3 cows at least.
Gender issues: position & role of women: Women seem to be very active in this village. They actively participated in discussions. The director of the school is a woman and women organised themselves in order to produce handicrafts. Furthermore, they take part in all the organisations on village level except the Aksakal council.
Villagers involvement in forest management: The planting activities in the village are very high (Poplar, fruit trees, etc.) – people even plant on public grounds without being asked. Concerning juniper forests, they are not involved in any activities – neither collecting firewood nor cutting trees.
Proportions of firewood and wood for construction: Juniper is not even used for firewood. For construction purposes, only poplar is used.
Land marks and boundaries: Leshoze land starts at the beginning of a side valley to the main valley right in the village.
Further commentaries - It is interesting to compare the different amount of taxes between Rayons and leshozes concerning summer pastures and other leshozes-land use. - The mentioned conflicts between villagers and foresters are probably referring to the fact that foresters here effectively manage to protect the forests.
127 Possibility to develop villagers ownership feeling of forests: long-term use on leshozes -land, concessions, special agreements:
One place on the leshozes -land has recently been given to a tenant who used to work for the leshozes: - the new tenant can use 3 ha of irrigated land for his own purpose, but he is responsible for controlling and replanting another 7 ha of Juniper forest. He doesn’t pay anything or receives anything from the leshozes. - Foresters just control the completion of the Juniper plantation. If everything will be all right after 5 years, the tenant gets the land for 49 years.
This kind of agreement is very interesting as (i) it ensure the protection and development of juniper forest, (ii) brings up villagers’ responsibility feeling for juniper forests, (iii) enables a profitable use of the few irrigated lands of the forest fund and promotes local development. Though, the distribution process of these land patches is not very fair so far. 3 plots have been handed over (it started only recently) to actors related to the leshozes, while the rest of the population was unaware of this kind of agreement. There is a need to find out a fair way to allocate these irrigated leshozes-lands, though there will never be enough for everyone.
Meetings & interviews carried out
Place Present people* Impressions/comments Village 25-30 – mix of women, A lot of different people very talking – meeting point old men, young men. the present Aksakals didn’t say anything. The Aksakals is very respected in the Family home Aksakal and his son. village. He thinks that the leshoze and its representatives are doing a good job – he has no suggestions for them. These two people seem to have some School director (female) influence in the village. They discussed Meeting point Representative of the the map with us and suggested places Imam. concerning potato cultivation on Gos Les Fond land and places in the village where fruit processing could take place.
Forest Tenant family of a land The tenant is a former leshozes and has a patch next to the high knowledge of cultivating trees. Juniper forest.
128 Village land use map ( realised and agreed by both foresters and villagers):
129 Forest Management Unit: Uetsch-Korgon Administrative Unit: Kisik-Bulak Village: Tamascha
Location/Short Description: Tamascha is not like all the visited villages before settled between two slopes – it is situated on one slightly raising slope on an altitude of around 1800 masl. In a distance of 5 km from the village, steep slopes with dense juniper forests in good conditions and natural regeneration are visible. Characterising are a general lack of water and the dense forests visible from the village. Altitude: 1800 masl. Access: Distance from leshoze (Pulgon): 30 km; good accessible road (though in winter, there are troubles with the snow). Infrastructure: Public transport: 3 times a bus per day; electricity existing; bad water supplies; school: 35 teachers and around 500 pupils. Date: June 2005
Population and Social Organisation
Number of people and households : Tamascha is divided into 4 parts, the part which was visited, called Mik, comprises 40 households – with a average of 8 people per household. The migration in the village, mainly to Russia, is high.
Ethnic groups: Kyrgyz, Uzbeks
Main difference within villagers. Definition of social groups: Compare level of poverty below.
Social organisations (aims, membership, roles, location…) and rules: - Ashars: There is a kind of neighbourhood organisation called “Aschar”. A typical example: when one family needs to construct or repair a building, all the neighbours are helping – the owners just have to organise the material and food for the workers. Another example is when somebody dies – everybody helps to carry the funeral expenditures. - The main organisation carried out in common is the distribution of water for irrigation between villagers. As they have no river, they rely on rain and on the few hours of irrigation in summer they are entitled to: 2 hours/family/45 days, during the 4 hottest months. It seems very little, but still enables people to grow potatoes, corn, wheat and different fruits.
130 Leadership patterns (leaders at VLUP level); do representatives exist? - There is a representative of the Ailbashe in the village. - There used to come an active Akim (Rayon administration leader) from the village who achieved a lot for the village’s infrastructure. - 1 Aksakal of the Aksakal court is the most respected one and communicates and represents their decisions.
Main activities carried out by villagers in relation with land access
Agriculture; Activities Cattle breeding Haymaking Firewood collection* orchards All family members – on Usually Actors, social the summer All family Usually men and men and groups pastures members. youngsters. youngsters. usually women and children. All seasons expect summer: Place where it pastures in and Mainly on Around summer is carried out around Around the ulusches pastures – not (cf village villages; houses. around the accessible by car. map) summer: villages. pastures higher up in the mountains. Big loads after the 1 time Annual summer pasture Middle June – Spring- harvest schedule, season, small End Aug. autumn. around frequency amounts on august. summer pasture. Each family by itself: women and children on the summer pastures; Social children are Each organisation Each family Each family by usually leading family by (common or by itself. itself. the cattle every itself. individual) day to higher pasture grounds (around 3 km).
131 Agriculture; Activities Cattle breeding Haymaking Firewood collection* orchards every family Firewood can be The summer Rules, land gets 2 h of Every collected where pastures are allocation. irrigation family gets possible – but only situated on Gos Who decides? once in 45 30 Sotok. wood of bushes is Les Fond land: days. allowed. Depending on Equal access the place of the More or Yes. Yes. for everyone? summer less. pastures. Fruits, potatoes and other products Hay in Cattle, meat, can be sold to order to dairy products, Uzbek traders feed cattle Energy for cooking Benefits wool, kisaki who come to in winter; and heating in drawn from it (dried cattle the village some winter. dung). (the next people can market is at a sell it. distance of 28 km). Taxes for the Annual use of summer taxes paid Taxes paid to the pastures: Purchase of to the leshoze: Related costs 22 som/cow seeds, Ailokmato 143 som/1 m3. 30 som/hoarse plants… for Ulusch: 12 som /sheep 45 som/ha. or goat Sustainability Ok Ok Ok Not sustainable. They start to Change over Less cattle cultivate fruit time Every year, they compared to trees though Non (historical have to go further. soviet times. there is very aspect) few water. There is a gas Reparation of pipeline near by the water (coming from Possible collection Uzbekistan) which Non improvements (little artificial Non could supply the lake) above village with the village. alternative energy.
132 List of goods and services
Agriculture products (potatoes, Construction Goods & Cattle and wheat, corn, Firewood wood services derived goods tobacco, apple, (poplar) cherry, pear, apricot, vegetables) Actors. Level of Almost preference per Every family. Every family. every Every family. social group family. 3-4 m3/offically Amount per year purchased / //(nobody / collected wants to tell the real amount. Domestic / Domestic and Domestic and commercial Domestic. Domestic use. commercial. commercial. uses Rank Important for Important Important for importance for income and for None. income. family budget expenditures. expenditure.
NTFP* Services: teachers, post (medical plants, Goods & services man, medical point bushes, …Juniper branches) Actors. Level of preference per social Men and women. some families. group Amount purchased / / Small. collected Domestic / commercial / Domestic. uses Rank importance for family budget (both for Regular income. Not significant. income & expenditures)
* No honey production because of a lack of time; no tourism.
133 Family incomes and expenditures matrix
Rank 1st 1st 3rd 4th Cattle and derived products Main sources Government Permanent (1 cow Agriculture. of incomes al helps. salary. produces between 7-8 l milk per day). Incomes Can be sold spread over Spring-autumn. Regularly. Regularly. any time. the year Teachers, foresters, Old people, Social groups Most families nurse, All families. families. concerned (cattle owners). midwife… not more than 10%. Taxes to the Festivities leshozes: for (weddings, pastures and Main Food (flower), Transport funerals, child firewood; taxes to expenditures clothes. costs. birth, circumci- the Ayil-okmato sion, house for hay making inaugurations). (on ulusches). If they are able: Expenditures for pastures at the All over the Several All over the spread over beginning of year. times. year. the year summer; else in autumn. Social groups All cattle owners/ Every body. All families. All families. concerned Everybody.
Villagers perception of natural resources
Villagers’ understanding of forest ecological role: - People are sure that the forests are crucial for the water supply. - They also mention several times the importance of forests for clean air. - The villagers seem to have in general a lot of tree planting knowledge and sensibility; they even plant trees in order to get firewood (sustainability!). In spite of the few water, the village has a lot of trees and is very green. - The school kids have ecology lessons and excursions which include the planting of Juniper trees.
134 Change of natural resources over time: - The forests have been growing in the last years and are getting denser. - In 1995, the distribution of land between the villages did not take place in a fair way. The neighbour village took a part of the land which belongs to this village. Though, the people say this is something which can not be changed anymore and in this regard be accepted.
Villagers’ main concerns
Energy: Lack of water: the water Electricity is expensive: Main pipe to the village has the 1 kWh= 0,42 Som, it is often shut concerns low capacity of 12 l/h down in winter; firewood is wearsome to get Importance Very high. High. for villagers Importance High. High. for foresters There is a possibility to There is a gas pipeline near by (12 repair the artificial lake Related km, to Kisil-Bulak, coming from above the village which expectations Uzbekistan) which could supply the would be able to save more village with alternative energy. water. Comment: as the water problem is crucial, people don’t consider anymore problem to be necessary to discuss about
More problems: - There is al lot of snow in the winter which can affect the road access. - There is no more land available in the village for young families.
Ideas, improvement of land use practices See ‘concerns’ above.
VLUP team perception & observation
Relationships within villagers, with foresters and local authorities ( conflicts…): - the relationship between the forester and villagers seems very good – the foresters’ philosophy is to avoid conflicts and talk a lot with people and explain them the rules and goals of the forest management. - the sensitisation regarding equal access to resources and the social control in between the villagers is very high: people on the few summer pasture patches with sufficient water supplies don’t dare to undertake cultivation there because it would be unequal (social pressure!).
135 Occurrence of conflicts, reasons and possible regulation: We didn’t hear any complaining about the leshoze taxes or any measures taken by the leshoze. The forester told us he almost never fines the people. Level of poverty: - Around 30% of the villagers are poor. - Poor families don’t own any cattle. - A middle situated family owns 5-6 cows and 10-12 sheep. - Rich families in the village own around 10-15 cows. - We noticed that the people are dressed quite modern which is not the case everywhere. Gender issues: position & role of women: Women seem to manage the summer pastures on their own. Impact of villagers uses of natural resources: A transect walking through the forest around the pastures made it obvious that at almost every tree branches have been cut in the lower part – though in a sustainable way. Stumps aren’t visible. Villagers involvement in forest management: - School kids are planting juniper trees on forest excursions - The villagers are planting a lot of trees in the village and on summer pastures (poplar, willow, walnut and other fruit trees). - It is an interesting fact that people in this village plant trees (above all willows) in order to get firewood – around the houses as well as o the summer pastures. Proportions of firewood and wood for construction: There is no cutting for construction wood. In terms of firewood, some dry Juniper branches are used (low quantities compared to the firewood taken from shrubs). Land marks and boundaries: see map.
Meetings & interviews carried out
Place Present people* impressions Mik 18 middle aged men, 5 People are interested and ready to old man, 3 women and answer questions. 6 young men. They are very shy in general; asked Road 11 teenagers about their wishes and concerns, they Crossing (aged around 17) don’t answer. Asked about their preferred professions in future, they only mention professions existing in the village like teaching,… Family home 1 old man, 2 young men Informative Summer 1 woman with children The woman was rather reserved ad not pasture very interested
136 Village land use map ( realised and agreed by both foresters and villagers):
137 Forest Management Unit: Batken Administrative Unit: Daryya Village: Kainde
Location/Short Description: The village Kainde is settled between two steep slopes with a river below. The road further into the valley leads up to the summer pastures where dense forests in good conditions with natural regeneration can be found. Altitude: 1600 masl Access: Distance from leshoze centre (Batken): 83 km; dangerous road, though accessible all year. Infrastructure: Public transport existing; electricity existing, good water supplies; canalisation; school; banja. Date: July 2004.
Population and Social Organisation
Number of people and household: 150 households
Ethnic groups: Kyrgyz
Main difference within villagers. Definition of social groups: Like in the other villages, the social groups in this village can be defined basically in function of the level of wealth. The villagers define the percentage of poverty on 40-50 %. On the other hand, every family seems to have a least 1 cow which was not the case in every village before. Due to the income from tobacco and a lot of international support (PROMPT, UNDP, UNESCO, GTZ), the village can not be considered being very poor. There seems to be a high solidarity between the villagers.
Social organisation (their aims, membership, roles, location…)and rules: Kainde is a very active village in terms of social organisations and activities. They have an active Djamat (its leader is the local forester) which for example built a public Banja with the financial help of an NGO. They have two public houses for social activities like training (for example: Aksakals consult young people in organised meetings in general live question), festivities etc… Young people are organised in a group order to organise festivities and sport activities.
Leadership patterns (leaders at VLUP level); do representatives exist? - The Ailbashe is regarded as the most important representative in the village. He is known as an active person. - The Aksakal court has 7 members and is active too; next to their court activities they train and advise young people.
138 Main activities carried out by villagers in relation with land access
Agriculture and Cattle Firewood Activities orchards (tobacco, Haymaking breeding collection* potatoes, …) Usually Usually men Actors, social All family men and All family members. and groups members. youngsters. youngsters. Summer: Around pastures On ulusches Place where it summer Around the houses on higher up in close to is carried out pastures – ulusches and on the Batken or (cf village not Leshoze land. mountains. around the map) accessible village. Winter: by car. stables. Social Each organisation Each family Each family Each family by itself. family by (common or by itself. by itself. itself. individual) Every family has 20 Sotok (given by the The Rules, land Ayil-okmato) The summer forester allocation. There are land pastures are 0,2 ha per decides Who decides? patches (common situated on family. where According to grounds) which are Goslesfond firewood which redistributed every land. can be criteria? year in a kind of collected. lottery system. Equal access Yes Yes Yes Yes for everyone? Tobacco: harvest of Cattle, meat, Energy for 40kg/Sotok; income dairy Hay in order Benefits cooking of 12-45 som/kg products, to feed cattle drawn from it and heating (depending on the wool, kisaki in winter. in winter. time of selling). (fuel energy). Taxes for the use of Annual taxes for the summer Annual taxes 144 Related costs land to village pastures: for the land som/m3. administration. 24 som/cow, patch. 34.som/hoarse, 10 som/sheep or goat Sustainability Yes Yes Yes Not
139 Agriculture and Cattle Firewood Activities orchards (tobacco, Haymaking breeding collection* potatoes, …) In soviet Change over time, they Tobacco cultivation Less cattle time had is already a long compared to See left. (historical alternative tradition. soviet times. aspect) energies to firewood. Not enough hay Every year, Related Not enough land available; they have Non. difficulties available. Hay to go transport is further. expensive. Provide Possible Non. / Non. alternative improvements energies. * additionally to firewood collection, there are timber cutting activities around the village
List of goods and services
Other agri- culture Constructio Goods & products Cattle Tobacco Firewood n wood services (potatoes, breeding (poplar) wheat, corn, apricots…) Users. Level of Almost Every Every Every preference Every family. every family. family. family. per social family. group Every 0,5 t/sotok family harvest, planted Amount families 2-3 1around purchased / // usually m3 /year 100 trees collected cultivate after the 8-10 sotoks. Soviet breakdown. Domestic / Domestic Domestic Domestic and Domestic commercial and and Domestic. commercial. use. uses commercial. commercial Rank + Important. Important. Important. Important. Low. importance 140 Family incomes and expenditures matrix
Rank 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Credits Governmen given by Agricultur tal helps Main Cattle and organisati e (pension, sources derived Permanent ons for Tobacco. (potatoes, money fore of products. salaries. agricultur corn, children incomes e and wheat,…). (20-40 infra- som). structure. Incomes Can be spread Summer- Spring- sold any Regularly. Regularly. Irregular. over the autumn. autumn. time. year Social Most Old people, 20 groups All families All Families Teachers, Families concern- families. (cattle families. with 1 forester, ed owners). children. 1 nurse. Taxes to the Leshoze: Festivities for (weddings, Tax to Food pastures funerals, Main Ailokmato (flower, and childbirth, Transport expendit for hay / oil, …), firewood, circumcisio cost. -ures making clothes. Coal n, house (ulusch). costs: inaugura- 1500 tions; soms/ ton. Expendi If they are able: for t-ures All over pastures at the All over spread / / the year. beginning of summer; the year. over the else in autumn. year Social groups Every All cattle All All / concern- body. owners/everybody. families. families. ed
141 Villagers perception of natural resources
Villagers’ dependence on natural resources: They depend on juniper in terms of firewood, though they also use low-quality carbon and electricity. The main construction material is poplar. Villagers’ understanding of forest ecological role: Villagers mention: - Water regulation function, - Future for their children, - Clean air. Change of natural resources over time: - According to people, forests have been growing in the past few years. - Before the breakdown of the Soviet Union, people hardly planted any poplar. Immediately after, they started to plant a lot foreseeing the future difficulties of timber supply.
Villagers’ main concerns
No work Better possibilities Main concerns supply of Construction material especially for electricity young people
Importance for high high high villagers
Importance for high high high foresters 5 villages together should build up a little timber processing infrastructure Provide a in order to cut their See left Related expectations stronger Poplar timber. (as one transformer. Else, they need poplar example). species which grow faster (available in Uzbekistan).
Ideas, improvement of land use practices
- There is a very positive attitude towards tourism, though nobody knows what could be done in this direction. - See ‘related expectations’ above.
142 VLUP team perception & observation
Relationships within villagers, with foresters and local authorities (conflicts…): Obviously, a group of men didn’t want to talk to the VLUP team. There seems to be a constant conflict between the leshoze and a part of the villagers due to illegal felling activities. Two years ago, the responsible lesnitsh (one level above local forester) managed to send the local school director to court because of illegal felling in order to state an example. This seemed to split the village into two parts concerning the relationship to the leshoze (the other part of the villagers respect and esteems the leshoze its activities and representatives).
Occurrence of conflicts, reasons and possible regulation: See above.
Level of poverty: Though the villagers speak of a poverty percentage of 40-50 %, the level can not be this high. Every family seems to have at least one cow. Due to the tobacco cultivation and the support of several international organisations, the poverty level is not high compared to other villages.
Gender issues: position & role of women: - In Kainde, women usually seem to be well respected. 1 example: The local forester’s wife took part at the meals and discussions and was asked to give a toast. - The analphabetic rate of women is very high as most of them didn’t leave the village to study or do the military service in Russia (which was the case for most of the men)
Impact of villagers uses of natural resources: Around the village, there is almost no forest.
Proportions of firewood and wood for construction: - Due to the access to coal, the need of firewood is not very high. - The frequency of snow avalanches close to the village’s pastures causes a lot of dry wood . - The need of construction wood seems to be a bigger problem here.
Land marks and boundaries: not visible.
Further commentaries: There is a lot of natural regeneration in the forests close to the pastures.
143 Meetings & interviews carried out
Place Present people* impressions 1 Djamat 5 men, 6 youngster. 1 middle aged Afghanistan veteran provided almost all of the answers. On the road 1 old man, 6 middle / aged man. Summer 1 middle aged couple. pasture / Summer 3 Aksakal, 4 old women pasture and 5 man. /
Village land use map ( realised and agreed by both foresters and villagers) :
144 Forest Management Unit: Batken Administrative Unit: Daryya Village: Sari Tala
Location/Short Description: Small village squeezed between 2 mountain ranges in a valley. Altitude: 1550 masl. Access: Distance from Leshoze center (Batken): 70 km. Date: July 2004.
Population and Social Organisation
Number of people and households: 108 households. Ethnic groups: Kyrgyz.
Main difference within villagers. Definition of social groups: The majority of the villagers are old people. Young people are settling and working at a 80 km distance, where young families have been receiving land patches since the agrarian reform.
Social organisations; any activity carried out in common ( aims, membership, roles, location…): there are six Djamats (neighbourhood organisations). Three of them aim at improving irrigation systems for both drinkable and non-drinkable water.
Leadership patterns (leaders at VLUP level); do representatives exist? No forester lives in this village. The Ailbashe lives on the spot and is responsible for 3 villages. The main authority is in the hands of old people.
145 Main activities carried out by villagers & access to land There are no jobs or any source of incomes except husbandry and livestock raising. Firewood Coal Activities Agriculture Livestock raising collection mining Every A few families household uses own a lot of it in Actors, social cattle. Most of combination All people. All. groups them have just a with coal few animals or (firewood is even nothing. necessary to start heating). In private gardens in the Summer pastures In private village itself and private gardens and and lower in gardens + sable in around village. Place where it the valley, at village for people There are only At 12 km is carried out 80 km, where who have just a brushes from (cf village people have few animals. Who around. Forests village. map) been given owns at lot has to are too far land plots go further down (except around during the in order to find pastures). agrarian enough hay. reform. Annual Spring to schedule, / All year. All year. autumn. frequency People owning Social All families only a few organisation work for animals give Nothing. Nothing. (common or themselves. them to shepherds individual) during summer. Private Rules, land Just enough Who needs gardens: all allocation. pastures, although coal in the land plots in Who decides? only about 10 village is the village No rule. According to families go on free to have been which pastures in mine distributed criteria? summer. himself. (ulusch) There have been some conflicts as Scarce and not Equal access foresters gave an Fair. convenient Yes. for everyone? important part of resource. common pastures to one man. 146 Firewood Coal Activities Agriculture Livestock raising collection mining Fruits: mainly apricots, also Idem as usual. apples; The point is that Crops: wheat, because of the corn and Benefits lack of hay and tobacco; // drawn from it pastures, people potatoes, have no horses vegetables. and almost no Hay from cows. private gardens. Tax to leshoze Land tax to (people have to The cost of Related costs Ayil-okmato Mainly hay. pay anyway). transport. and workforce. Nobody really Not knows how Sustainability All right. / sustainable. much coal can still be exploited. When About 70 years people ago, there was felled Change over During USSR, forests forests time / there was much everywhere around the (historical more cattle. around. People village, the aspect) felled them for coal mine firewood. was not opened yet.
Not enough private irrigated land in village. Land Transport plots given expensive Lack of hay. It is Related during the and road too expensive to Hard work. difficulties agrarian reform very bad, buy. are too far even away. dangerous.
147 Firewood Coal Activities Agriculture Livestock raising collection mining Set up a There are still Plant fast kind of lands around growing Possible organisatio village that / species which improvements n for coal could be grow without a mining. irrigated. lot of water.
List of goods and services Fruits, Cattle and Coal & Goods & services vegetables, Timber derived firewood crops, hay products Almost Secondary everyone has activity. poplars Main Though people Users. Level of planted in High, activity and would like to preference per social private people use source of own more group gardens both. incomes cattle, the lack (very big of hay impedes Poplars). it. Depends on private 3 t of coal / Generally a Amount purchased / garden and family / few sheep or 1 Depends. collected working winter cow (+ many force. + firewood. chickens).
Domestic Domestic / Both. Both. use only. Both. commercial uses
Family incomes and expenditures matrix Rank 1st 23 Main sources of Apricots, tobacco Timber. Cattle. incomes (+ apple) Especially in autumn. Irregularly Incomes spread over Apricots from Batken are (poplars here are / the year famous all over the known to be country particularly big). Social groups A minority Almost all Many. concerned of people. Main expenditures Food Transport / Expenditures spread All year, maybe a bit // over the year more in spring Social groups All Almost everyone / concerned
148 Villagers perception of natural resources
Villagers’ dependence on natural resources: The forests are located too far from the village for people to depend on it. They use some firewood from juniper trees, especially on summer pastures, but that’s all. They do not fell Juniper. Moreover, forests are not accessible by car.
Villagers’ understanding of forest ecological role: Quite good. For instance, when cutting brushwood, they are cautious not to spoil roots. They also noticed that juniper forests felling around the village (many decades ago) resulted in a decrease of the water supply.
Villagers’ main concerns
Energy: not enough Pastures: they Not enough firewood have been irrigated lands in available. Coal transferred to the the village. The is difficult to leshoze 2 years land plots given mine and to Road to ago, which forces during agrarian carry to village village: very villagers to pay reform are too (expensive dangerous in higher taxes to Main far from the transport). winter (some foresters on concerns village. Not all Remark: winter villagers pastures they villagers use lasts only 4 already died used for many them: “it’s not months: Dec to on the road). years. (In convenient as March. End of addition, other the transfer costs March, villages around are too villagers kept their expensive”. already begin pastures… why?). to plough. Importance High High Middle High for villagers Importance lower High Low low for foresters Related expectat- / / / / ions
Ideas, improvement of land use practices - Spread irrigation (need of new pumps). - Build a little sawmill in order to for saw boards out of poplar timbers on the spot. - Spread work and attempts of foresters to plant new species.
149 VLUP team perception & observation
Relationships within villagers, with foresters and local authorities (conflicts…): Good relationships within villagers, but not that between villagers and foresters. “They just fine and collect money”, said a villager, “that’s all”. Foresters certainly put a curb on local development. And in this village, forests are too inaccessible for people to spoil it anyway. Level of villagers’ responsibility for / ownership of land: Quite good. Level of poverty: Villagers manage to have different revenues. They also have benefited from numerous development projects. Gender issues: position & role of women: Nothing in particular. Impact of villagers uses of natural resources :As said before, the forests are situated too far from village and not accessible enough to suffer from high human pressure. Villagers’ involvement in forest management: 10 local people help foresters about 2 weeks per year in Juniper plantations. They are paid in kind. Beside this, there is no other involvement in forest management activities.
Further commentaries: Possibility of developing villagers ownership and responsibility in forests: long-term use of forest fund, concessions, special agreements. Such agreements are impossible here due to the lack of the forest resource.
Meetings & interviews carried out: One group of women, group of 16 people (old and young men), the school director and the Ailbashe.
Village land use map ( realised and agreed by both forester and villagers):
150 Forest Management Unit: Lailac Administrative Unit: Sumbula Village: Andarak
Location/Short Description: The village is surrounded by flat hills. The forests start at a distance of 5-6 km from the village. 90 % of the villagers are Tadjik. Altitude: 1800 masl Access: Distance from Leshoze center (Istafan): 55 km; good road access; distance to Tajikistan: 80 km Infrastructure: Public transport by taxis; 3 middle school (around 1500 pupils); electricity existing, little market and several shops, water supplies bad (there is a project running in order to better provide the village with water (will be finished in 4 years); 1 hospital (4 doctors, 10 nurses and additional workers); 12 little mills; 1 post. Date: July 2004.
Population and Social Organisation
Number of people and households: 1500-2000 households.
Ethnic groups: Tajik, Kyrgyz.
Main difference within villagers. Definition of social groups: An important point in this village is the fact that 70 – 90 % of the villagers are Tajik. Due to the size of the village, there is a broad range of wealth/poverty (see ‘level of poverty’). Social groups related to activities and incomes can be defined regarding: - the ownership and size of cattle, - the amount of rented land patches for cultivation (which provides work), - having a little business (the Tajik boarders a re close and easy to pass), - families who have one or more sons working in Russia, - and long-term employment with salary.
Social organisations (their aims, membership, roles, location…) and rules: Though there would be social organisations like the Aksakal court and other structures, they are inactive (the discussions partners didn’t know why). All the same, men are meeting frequently in public places.
Leadership patterns (leaders at VLUP level); do representatives exist? The Ayil-okmoto (village administration) and other rich villagers are leading the village.
151 Main activities carried out by villagers in relation with land access
Agriculture (Cultivation Cattle of potatoes , Fuelwood Activities: Hay making breeding carrots, collection* barley, beans) Usually men Actors, social All family All family Usually men and and groups members. members. youngsters. youngsters. Summer: On ulusches Around the pastures In the forests Place where it around the houses on higher up in around summer is carried out village (8-25 ulusches and the pastures, 8-12 km (cf village km distance), on leshoze mountains; from the village. map) on leshoze land. winter: in land. stables. Summer In general: Annual pastures: Middle July Planting in schedule, middle may – Summer-autumn. and august. may, harvest frequency end in September. September. Social organisation Each family Each family Each family Each family by (common or by itself. by itself. by itself. itself. individual) Beside private Every family land patches Rules, land used to get 22 around the allocation. The summer sotok/ person The foresters houses, the Who decides? pastures are from the Ayil- decide where LESHOZE According to situated on okmato. firewood can be gives irrigated which leshoze land. Nowadays, collected. land patches criteria? they get 8 to in total 150 sotok/person tenants.
Yes, but not Equal access enough Yes. / Yes. for everyone? pasture in total.
152 Agriculture (Cultivation Cattle of potatoes , Fuelwood Activities: Hay making breeding carrots, collection* barley, beans) Cattle, meat, dairy Hay in order Energy for Benefits Domestic use products, to feed cattle cooking and drawn from it and selling wool, kisaki in winter. heating in winter. (fuel energy). Taxes for the use of Leshoze summer lands: 3000- 200 som/1 m3 pastures: Taxes for non 5000 som/ha fuelwood; Related costs 23,35 irrigated land: depending on 150 som/ 1m3 som/cow 300 som/ha. the category brushwood. 33 som/hoarse of land. or goat, 7 som /sheep. Not enough Sustainability Yes Yes Non pastures. In Soviet time, Change over Less cattle they had time compared to See left. - alternative (historical soviet times. energies to aspect) firewood. The leshoze High transport land patches Not enough coasts: Related High transport could not be pasture land 1 car filled with difficulties coasts given to all available firewood costs interested 1,500-2,000 som villagers Supply with alternative Possible ///energies: for improvements example gas or coal.
153 List of goods and services
Agriculture and orchard products (Cultivation of Cattle Construction Goods & services Firewood. potatoes , breeding. wood (Poplar). carrots, corn, barley, beans,…). Users. Level of Almost Every preference per Every family. every Every family. family. social group family. Amount purchased 2-3 m3 / / Every family. / collected /year. Domestic Domestic Domestic / Domestic and and Domestic. (commercial commercial uses commercial. commercial. rarely). Rank importance Important. Important. Important. Low. for family budget
Family incomes and expenditures matrix
Rank 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Governmental Main Agricult Cattle and helps Permanent sources of ure, derived (pension, / salaries. incomes orchard. products. money fore children ). Incomes Summer- Can be sold spread over Irregularly. Regularly. / autumn. any time. the year Teachers, Social Old people, All Cattle foresters, groups Families with / families. owner. medical concerned children. staff,.. Energy Festivities (firewood, Food (weddings, coal) Taxes for Main (flower, funerals, There are land use expendit- oil, …), Hay transport. childbirth, coal mines (pastures, ures clothes. circumcision, in a ulusches). house distance of inaugurations) 60 km. 154 Rank 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Expendit- ures spread All over Mainly Autumn. Summer. Several times. over the the year. winter. year Social All cattle groups All. All. All. All. owners. concerned
Villagers perception of natural resources
Villagers’ dependence on natural resources: People are depending very much on natural resources. They depend on Juniper in terms of firewood, though they also use low-quality carbon and electricity. The main construction material is poplar.
Villagers’ understanding of forest ecological role: People mention all the important functions of forests regarding clean air, erosion protection, water regulation etc.
Change of natural resources over time: Due to the overuse, the forests have been degrading in the past years.
Villagers’ main concerns
Not Not enough enough land patches No work Energy Main concerns pasture for new especially for problem land families young people available available Importance for High High High High importance. villagers importance. importance. importance. Importance for High Important. Important. Important. foresters importance. Supply with Investigations for Related affordable gas creating new // expectations (from businesses and Tajikistan). jobs.
Social problems: - According to the interviewees, this village is among the forgotten corners of the country: for example do they not regularly receive governmental payments (children, pension). - Most of the children are educated in Tajik schools which makes it very difficult to continue a higher education in Kyrgyzstan. - The existing schools are overfilled.
155 Ideas, improvement of land use practices All 150 tenants who cultivate land patches on the irrigated leshoze land should be more involved in the forest management by planting trees etc. (this is already the case for some of them).
VLUP team perception & observation
Relationships within villagers, with foresters and local authorities (conflicts…): 90 % of the villagers are Tajik. The Kyrgyz minority are considered as the poorest villagers. It is important for the leshoze to have at least one Tajik forester in order to have a better access to Tajik people. The Ayil-okmoto (village administration) has a bad reputation among the villagers as well as the foresters for being passive and only working for their private benefits.
Occurrence of conflicts, reasons and possible regulation: - There is a conflict between the Ayil-okmoto and the leshoze as well as the villagers as in some places the boarders between their lands are not clear. It happens that people are made to pay their land taxes two times because of this problem. The leshoze representatives consider the Ayil-okmoto as very passive and inactive. - Though the leshoze has 150 tenants who cultivate irrigated land patches on the leshoze lands, there are still a lot of interested people who didn’t get any land and who complain about the unfair situation.
Level of villagers’ responsibility for / ownership of land: The leshoze gives a lot of their land close to the forests for lease where it is possible to cultivate the soils. On these land patches, people have a certain responsibility.
Level of poverty - Poor: around 20 %: no cattle, small land patches. - Middle: around 50 %: 10 cows, 20-30 sheep, jobs (teachers, …). - Rich: 30 % (20+ cows, 150 sheep; little trading businesses, renting of land patches for agriculture).
Although the people complain a lot about their live conditions, on a superficial glance this village doesn’t seem to be one of the poorest in general.
Gender issues: position & role of women: Nothing special to add.
Villagers involvement in forest management: Villagers are involved on forest lands (cultivating), but not exactly in forest management. All the same, the leshoze has some special deals with people who a re obliged to plant trees (poplar and fruit trees) on their leased land patches.
Proportions of firewood and wood for construction: No information.
156 Land marks and boundaries: Along the road towards the forests, there is a barrier between the leshoze and village administration land. This makes it easy to control any wood transport activities.
Further commentaries: There is a very high labour emigration rate in this village of young men who go to find work in Russia.
Meetings & interviews carried out
Place Present people* impressions Social centre 25-30 men ; middle After a certain time, most of the people aged and Aksakals left expect those who were actively (old men). talking (4-6 old men). Family home 2 foresters. Good situated Tajik family. Nursery Nursery employee, 3 foresters. / Road 2 old men They are interested to talk.
Village land use map ( realised and agreed by both foresters and villagers):
157 158 CHORFI K., co-ordinator, 2004: The social and economic context for sustainable management of Juniper forests in South Kyrgyzstan: the view from the local population. Nancy, Ecole Nationale du Génie Rural, des Eaux et des Forêts, Commission of the European Communities, Artcha JUMP Project. 156 p.
159 160